[00:00.000 --> 00:05.840]  The following news flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing the daily
[00:05.840 --> 00:13.480]  bulletins for the commodities market, today in history, news updates, and the inside scoop
[00:13.480 --> 00:21.360]  into the tides of the alternative.
[00:21.360 --> 00:26.600]  Markets for Wednesday, the 5th of October, 2016, are currently trading with gold at $1,266.60
[00:26.600 --> 00:33.720]  an ounce, silver at $17.72 an ounce, tax is crude, $48.69 a barrel, and bitcoin is
[00:33.720 --> 00:43.320]  currently sitting at about $613 U.S. currency.
[00:43.320 --> 00:48.320]  Today in history, the year 1947, the first televised White House presidential address
[00:48.320 --> 00:56.360]  is given by then U.S. President Harry S. Truman, today in history.
[00:56.360 --> 01:00.620]  In recent news, the Paris Climate Agreement is set to take effect next month, adopted
[01:00.620 --> 01:07.400]  by consensus on December 12, 2015, at the 21st Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC
[01:07.400 --> 01:11.960]  or United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris, and open for signatures
[01:11.960 --> 01:16.760]  on the 22nd of April, 2016, Earth Day, and a ceremony in New York City.
[01:16.760 --> 01:19.040]  It is set to take effect on November 4.
[01:19.040 --> 01:23.000]  It is essentially a global agreement for the redirecting of the world economy away from
[01:23.000 --> 01:26.680]  fossil fuels towards more greenhouse-friendly forms of energy.
[01:26.680 --> 01:31.000]  President Obama, speaking from the Rose Garden, talking about the agreement, said that, quote,
[01:31.000 --> 01:35.760]  this gives us the best possible shot to save the one planet we've got, and that one of
[01:35.760 --> 01:39.880]  the reasons I took this office was to make America the leader in this mission.
[01:39.880 --> 01:44.400]  The agreement already has support from major greenhouse gas emitters like China, the United
[01:44.400 --> 01:49.400]  States, and India, and in total, 72 out of 195 countries have ratified the agreement,
[01:49.400 --> 01:50.960]  according to the UN.
[01:50.960 --> 01:54.600]  American presidential candidate Donald Trump opposes the agreement since it lacks the approval
[01:54.600 --> 02:04.320]  of the U.S. Congress, while Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is a strong supporter.
[02:04.320 --> 02:08.160]  More than 50 correctional officers and inmates inside Maryland's largest state prison were
[02:08.160 --> 02:12.080]  charged by prosecutors Wednesday today with bribery and drug conspiracy.
[02:12.080 --> 02:16.320]  The guards are accused of smuggling cell phones, tobacco, and drugs into the Eastern Shore
[02:16.320 --> 02:21.800]  facility in exchange for money and sex, according to indictments unsealed in a federal investigation.
[02:21.800 --> 02:25.840]  Apparently, prison guards were passing through security with undetected heroin, cocaine,
[02:25.840 --> 02:30.200]  and pornographic videos, which were then handed off to inmates in exchange for hundreds of
[02:30.200 --> 02:31.200]  dollars.
[02:31.200 --> 02:34.480]  They were also being accused of warning inmates when prison officials were preparing to search
[02:34.480 --> 02:39.760]  cells and of using force and intimidation to silence inmates who were reporting the smuggling.
[02:39.760 --> 02:43.280]  According to court records, inmates were using the prison phones and their contraband cell
[02:43.280 --> 02:46.240]  phones to pay off correctional officers through PayPal.
[02:46.240 --> 02:51.120]  They were hustling $500 for each package on average and as much as $3,000 a week, according
[02:51.120 --> 02:52.120]  to investigators.
[02:52.120 --> 03:15.880]  This is Rick Rode with your Lowdown for October 5th, 2016.
[03:22.120 --> 03:45.080]  Okay, howdy, howdy, this is Randy Kelton with the Root of La Radio on this Friday, the seventh
[03:45.080 --> 03:50.880]  day of October, 2016.
[03:50.880 --> 03:56.600]  It's getting frightening how fast the year is passing away from us, October already.
[03:56.600 --> 04:05.120]  Okay, our call-in line is open, they'll be open all night, our call-in number, 512-646-1984.
[04:05.120 --> 04:12.480]  If you have a question or comment, give us a call, we'll keep the lines open all night
[04:12.480 --> 04:23.960]  and we tend to try to give more time for people with the interesting and intelligent subjects
[04:23.960 --> 04:30.120]  that most shows do, so sometimes if you're listening and it seems we spend an inordinate
[04:30.120 --> 04:43.200]  amount of time with someone, I do try to examine subjects so long as there is good information
[04:43.200 --> 04:49.320]  we can all derive from it, so sometimes I seem to take a long time and I've been criticized
[04:49.320 --> 05:02.000]  lately for it, so I'm trying not to overdo things, it's always a balance and it's always
[05:02.000 --> 05:08.800]  good to have callers, I have an interesting caller that just popped up on my board, I
[05:08.800 --> 05:17.200]  was going to start into speaking to the ebook that I'm working on, I just added a large
[05:17.200 --> 05:31.280]  section to it, one that I had not originally intended to include, but the section on flow
[05:31.280 --> 05:42.380]  is becoming probably the most inclusive and from my perspective the most important section
[05:42.380 --> 05:54.760]  of the whole thing and I've added quite a bit to flow, if we can come to understand
[05:54.760 --> 06:03.600]  flow from the perspective of how it affects the mind of our reader or listener, when we're
[06:03.600 --> 06:13.400]  designing a presentation we will wind up with much more powerful documents, we do have a
[06:13.400 --> 06:18.920]  couple of calls on the line, we had Ms. Leslie from Pennsylvania, it looked like she's dropped
[06:18.920 --> 06:24.400]  for a second out, give her just a few seconds to see if she can come back in, it may well
[06:24.400 --> 06:35.360]  be that our call screener is screening them, so until they come back up, if anyone is interested
[06:35.360 --> 06:43.600]  in this section of flow that I'm working on, I would very much appreciate some readers
[06:43.600 --> 06:55.800]  to go over it and give me some constructive feedback, it's a subject that I am knowledgeable
[06:55.800 --> 07:06.800]  about but it's not something that I've presented a number of times, so I'm still having some
[07:06.800 --> 07:20.920]  difficulty in developing a presentation that is in keeping with the items that I talk about,
[07:20.920 --> 07:28.200]  keeping with the characteristics of flow, I know I'm not making sense here and it is
[07:28.200 --> 07:35.840]  in order to communicate something this complex, I have to sometimes go through it a few times
[07:35.840 --> 07:39.960]  and see what works and see what doesn't work, that's why I would like some people to look
[07:39.960 --> 07:47.240]  at this, go over it, tell me why I'm full of crapola and what makes sense so I can separate
[07:47.240 --> 07:56.040]  the trash from what is valuable and maybe we can all gain by the experience, I certainly
[07:56.040 --> 08:06.000]  gained a lot from the telling because when I have to explain it very clearly then it
[08:06.000 --> 08:12.240]  helps to organize it better in my own mind, so on the one hand I'm trying to give you
[08:12.240 --> 08:17.080]  good information and on the other hand I'm cheating and using you to help me develop
[08:17.080 --> 08:25.560]  my topic, okay we're going to go to Rodney in Texas, hello Rodney, good evening, what
[08:25.560 --> 08:29.520]  do you have for us today?
[08:29.520 --> 08:39.000]  Well this is interesting, when I first started talking with you, you instructed me to do
[08:39.000 --> 08:49.280]  a simple mandamus for this hearing officer that refused to adhere to the law and I did
[08:49.280 --> 09:00.400]  that, followed the district court and but the district court judge who I later found
[09:00.400 --> 09:10.200]  out is retired, duty judge, visiting judge, refused to sign the order denying my writ
[09:10.200 --> 09:17.520]  of mandamus so when I followed the appeal, I also followed the motion for reconsideration
[09:17.520 --> 09:26.120]  and the third court of appeals said you must implicate a judge in order for us to have
[09:26.120 --> 09:37.200]  jurisdiction, well that made sense, well to this date this judge, Randy, duty judge still
[09:37.200 --> 09:47.120]  hasn't signed the order and today I was just curious to see what kind of a background this
[09:47.120 --> 09:58.320]  retired duty judge had and did a Google search and interestingly enough not only is he acting
[09:58.320 --> 10:05.960]  as a duty judge for a district court but he's also working part time in the attorney general's
[10:05.960 --> 10:14.560]  office and the day that I filed my writ of mandamus and he denied it, the parties who
[10:14.560 --> 10:21.280]  made an appearance there in his court opposing my writ were from the attorney general's office
[10:21.280 --> 10:25.480]  two assistant attorney generals.
[10:25.480 --> 10:38.280]  Oh wonderful, the attorney general's office is effectively a law firm and the judge if
[10:38.280 --> 10:49.240]  he's an employee of the law firm had a duty to disqualify, but he didn't, that's disqualification
[10:49.240 --> 10:59.720]  ground so you should file a motion to disqualify, well is it too late because now I'm getting
[10:59.720 --> 11:06.680]  the actual hearing officer has notified me that they're going to make a final decision
[11:06.680 --> 11:13.560]  on the hearing even though all of this started because the hearing officer wasn't adhering
[11:13.560 --> 11:20.880]  to the Texas administrative code and so therefore I had to go to the next level district court
[11:20.880 --> 11:31.240]  and unbeknownst to me I didn't know that this retired judge was conflicted and working part
[11:31.240 --> 11:37.640]  time at the attorney general's office and you know he didn't disclose any of that to
[11:37.640 --> 11:44.920]  me and the attorney general's when they appeared I sensed that he was kind of bending over
[11:44.920 --> 11:52.520]  backwards with them because we had scheduled the hearing for that morning like 930 in the
[11:52.520 --> 12:02.320]  morning but the judge sent his law clerk out there and informed me that I needed to wait
[12:02.320 --> 12:06.680]  for the attorney general to send their people over there so they could make an appearance
[12:06.680 --> 12:13.120]  and argue for or against this mandamus so they made me wait until like four o'clock
[12:13.120 --> 12:19.520]  in the afternoon until these people from the attorney general's office came over there
[12:19.520 --> 12:28.400]  and it took all the 15 minutes for him to deny my motion or deny my written mandamus
[12:28.400 --> 12:33.880]  but like I said I was just curious and did a Google search.
[12:33.880 --> 12:37.920]  Okay hold on, hold on.
[12:37.920 --> 12:44.720]  For most anything that occurs there is remedy, the law is old, it's very well structured
[12:44.720 --> 12:54.240]  and most any problem you can have has been had probably more than once and they've developed
[12:54.240 --> 12:56.640]  remedy.
[12:56.640 --> 13:00.400]  Okay so here we have remedy.
[13:00.400 --> 13:14.680]  In this case you should petition for a restraining order and file a motion to disqualify the
[13:14.680 --> 13:15.680]  judge.
[13:15.680 --> 13:20.520]  This is grounds for disqualification as opposed to simply grounds for recusal.
[13:20.520 --> 13:28.080]  When you file a motion for disqualification then the court must forward your motion to
[13:28.080 --> 13:33.600]  the head administrative judge of the district and head administrative judge of the district
[13:33.600 --> 13:34.840]  must hold a hearing.
[13:34.840 --> 13:40.840]  I think the head administrative judge the last I heard was in Seguin.
[13:40.840 --> 13:46.760]  So you file a motion to disqualify and at the same time ask petition for a restraining
[13:46.760 --> 13:54.320]  order essentially in the form of a plea and abatement where you ask the court to restrain
[13:54.320 --> 14:04.260]  this hearing officer until you can have this hearing on the qualifications of this judge.
[14:04.260 --> 14:11.840]  If you disqualify the judge all his rulings are nullity so your original petition for
[14:11.840 --> 14:16.200]  Rita Mandamus comes back on for re-hearing.
[14:16.200 --> 14:24.440]  Well by the way this judge who's retired is from Seguin.
[14:24.440 --> 14:30.960]  He was a judge down in Seguin up until he retired so I don't know if that's going to
[14:30.960 --> 14:37.120]  have an effect on whatever decision this other person in Seguin that you just mentioned it's
[14:37.120 --> 14:43.120]  going to have if that's going to affect whatever decision they make.
[14:43.120 --> 14:48.600]  But I do know from this from Googling this judge that he.
[14:48.600 --> 14:51.760]  Wait a minute he's from Seguin?
[14:51.760 --> 14:54.760]  What is his name?
[14:54.760 --> 15:00.160]  Judge, Judge, Judge Gus Strauss Jr.
[15:00.160 --> 15:06.720]  Okay he's I'm trying to remember who the previous head administrative judge was because
[15:06.720 --> 15:09.600]  he was from Seguin.
[15:09.600 --> 15:15.520]  Gus Strauss that is familiar I think I've been in front of him not on my case but I've
[15:15.520 --> 15:20.480]  been there at another case and that's where I asked the bailiff to tell him to speak up
[15:20.480 --> 15:27.680]  and they ignored me I had a little trouble with the bailiff after that anyway.
[15:27.680 --> 15:32.680]  Yeah he's the same he's the same guy the deal that me and the court told me to be quiet
[15:32.680 --> 15:42.320]  I simply wanted to know if I could get use my digital recorder to record and I didn't
[15:42.320 --> 15:50.840]  know that the judge was preoccupied with something up there and he abruptly told me to be quiet
[15:50.840 --> 15:55.240]  I'm busy up here can't you see I'm busy.
[15:55.240 --> 16:05.800]  And the law clerk apologized to me but long story short that it just this passage.
[16:05.800 --> 16:12.960]  Yeah okay you should file a judicial conduct complaint against him for that.
[16:12.960 --> 16:18.800]  Right you don't come there to be verbally abused by the judge you don't you don't work
[16:18.800 --> 16:22.520]  for him he works for you.
[16:22.520 --> 16:29.600]  But move to disqualify him for conflict of interest.
[16:29.600 --> 16:37.680]  Let me also ask you the clerks are telling me that because this case was put on a non-contested
[16:37.680 --> 16:44.880]  docket that there's no record what in the world does that mean non-contested?
[16:44.880 --> 16:49.920]  Well it shouldn't be on the non-contested document that means there's no hearing on
[16:49.920 --> 17:00.320]  any issues so there's no need to have okay hang on we'll be right back.
[17:00.320 --> 17:04.960]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls letters or even losses?
[17:04.960 --> 17:10.040]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method Michael Mears has won
[17:10.040 --> 17:14.760]  six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win too.
[17:14.760 --> 17:19.400]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal
[17:19.400 --> 17:25.120]  civil rights statutes what to do when contacted by phones mail or court summons how to answer
[17:25.120 --> 17:29.680]  letters and phone calls how to get debt collectors out of your credit report how to turn the
[17:29.680 --> 17:33.880]  financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[17:33.880 --> 17:39.720]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors personal consultation
[17:39.720 --> 17:44.800]  is available as well for more information please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click
[17:44.800 --> 17:51.800]  on the blue Michael Mears banner or email michaelmears at yahoo.com that's ruleoflawradio.com
[17:51.800 --> 18:01.040]  or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors next.
[18:01.040 --> 18:06.760]  Through advances in technology our lives have greatly improved except in the area of nutrition
[18:06.760 --> 18:11.600]  people feed their pets better than they feed themselves and it's time we changed all that
[18:11.600 --> 18:17.480]  our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition
[18:17.480 --> 18:23.840]  in a world where natural foods have been irradiated adulterated and mutilated young Jevity can
[18:23.840 --> 18:28.920]  provide the nutrients you need Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all
[18:28.920 --> 18:34.760]  sorts of products most of which we reject we have come to trust Young Jevity so much
[18:34.760 --> 18:40.480]  we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones Ben Fuchs and many others when
[18:40.480 --> 18:46.920]  you order from logosradionetwork.com your health will improve as you help support quality
[18:46.920 --> 18:53.400]  radio as you realize the benefits of Young Jevity you may want to join us as a distributor
[18:53.400 --> 18:59.280]  you can experience improved health help your friends and family and increase your income
[18:59.280 --> 19:10.840]  order now you are listening to the Logos Radio Network Logosradionetwork.com
[19:29.280 --> 19:43.840]  the world is spinning like it's out of control on the edge of a hole inside a deep dark bone
[19:43.840 --> 19:52.240]  I'm always going to look out for something to soothe my soul and so I sit back and I
[19:52.240 --> 20:08.240]  watch the evidence unfold and I see justice is the goal, yeah, justice is the goal
[20:08.240 --> 20:15.240]  we've got to sail a little too far at sea and then we've got to get back on course
[20:15.240 --> 20:23.240]  before we go on a heavy visor from the man that came all the way from Galilee
[20:23.240 --> 20:29.240]  I'm looking for a safe and warm place to be where I don't have to work so hard to be free
[20:29.240 --> 20:35.240]  some guys are trying to rewrite history but they got caught now them guys got to bleed
[20:35.240 --> 20:48.240]  looks like justice okay we are back Randy Kelton Google Radio and we do have a guest today
[20:48.240 --> 20:57.240]  we're a little late getting on he should be on next segment it's Ron Avery and he is
[20:57.240 --> 21:06.240]  in pursuit of harsh communications for slander and libel he's went through the court of appeals
[21:06.240 --> 21:15.240]  and now he's preparing associatory to the supreme so he's going to be interesting to see where
[21:15.240 --> 21:25.240]  he's at at this point hello hello Ron hey are we on the air yes we are and hang on just a
[21:25.240 --> 21:33.240]  second Rodney will you hang on we'll come back to you we had a little trouble bringing up
[21:33.240 --> 21:38.240]  Ron so as soon as we get done with Ron we'll come back to you that be all right Rodney
[21:38.240 --> 21:50.240]  sure sure okay okay Ron so now you're now you're your have you filed your search cert
[21:50.240 --> 21:57.240]  or you working on it for the Supreme Court filed my what now you search your each of
[21:57.240 --> 22:07.240]  the supreme what I did was filed a petition for review at the Supreme Court and to reverse
[22:07.240 --> 22:18.240]  the fourth court of appeals ruling and and so what I'm waiting on the other side are
[22:18.240 --> 22:25.240]  the first communications incorporated in the reporter that I sued they will respond to
[22:25.240 --> 22:32.240]  my petition for review as respondents and if the Supreme Court finds that I have that
[22:32.240 --> 22:43.240]  my issues are worthy to be heard they will ask both of us to submit a brief on the merits
[22:43.240 --> 22:57.240]  so the petition is not the full document it's just a request that they hear the full story
[22:57.240 --> 23:05.240]  on what happened and and to see if there's really any bad law being created which I think
[23:05.240 --> 23:14.240]  there is and so they have an opportunity to reverse that but they like to have they like
[23:14.240 --> 23:20.240]  to hear more about it they want it fully briefed with cases and case law and all that stuff
[23:20.240 --> 23:27.240]  so I'm actually feeling pretty good that they're going to reverse this fourth at least they're
[23:27.240 --> 23:33.240]  going to grant the petition and actually I think they'll end up reversing the fourth
[23:33.240 --> 23:40.240]  court opinion because it's pretty flimsy what they actually wrote so anyway that's where
[23:40.240 --> 23:54.240]  I am right now yes yeah I was going to read you a little something that the fourth court
[23:54.240 --> 24:04.240]  found that at the end and they wrote 13 pages which I've been to the fourth court of appeals
[24:04.240 --> 24:09.240]  about five times on different things and I've never seen it usually they write two or three
[24:09.240 --> 24:16.240]  pages on some of the most involved things and on this they wrote 13 pages I was pretty
[24:16.240 --> 24:23.240]  amazed and they pretty much rambled on I used to think I rambled with the fourth court of
[24:23.240 --> 24:32.240]  appeals was pretty rambling they basically rewrote the articles that Dylan Baddow or
[24:32.240 --> 24:41.240]  the defendant and respondent wrote and published and they found that it wasn't defamatory
[24:41.240 --> 24:49.240]  and actually they didn't even find that they talked about it not being defamatory but at
[24:49.240 --> 24:55.240]  the very end of all this stuff they talked about they summarized it by saying because
[24:55.240 --> 25:02.240]  Avery did not satisfy his burden of showing that the gist of the two articles was not
[25:02.240 --> 25:10.240]  substantially true the act requires that his action be dismissed therefore the trial court
[25:10.240 --> 25:18.240]  did not err in granting appellees motion to dismiss Avery's defamation claim so they're
[25:18.240 --> 25:28.240]  actually saying that the articles that Baddow and Hurst published are substantially true
[25:28.240 --> 25:38.240]  and that's absurd they're actually changing the nature of who I am and what I am with
[25:38.240 --> 25:50.240]  something called the substantial truth doctrine and all that does is kind of lump things that
[25:50.240 --> 26:00.240]  are of the same quantity by the degree of something like if you had a thief and you
[26:00.240 --> 26:08.240]  reported that a thief stole $200 and the facts show though later that he only stole $150
[26:08.240 --> 26:15.240]  it's a substantially true that the guy's a petty thief but what they did with me is they
[26:15.240 --> 26:21.240]  reported I was a member of the Republic of Texas and that I was a secessionist well neither
[26:21.240 --> 26:29.240]  I'm an avid opponent of secession and so is the Republic of Texas and I'm not a member
[26:29.240 --> 26:35.240]  of it so I don't know how you can take the substantial truth doctrine and make lies into
[26:35.240 --> 26:45.240]  the truth and that's what they're doing with this particular issue the reason this case
[26:45.240 --> 26:55.240]  is important is because this is defending the fourth court of appeals the trial court
[26:55.240 --> 27:05.240]  and the fourth court of appeals are defending a newspaper with the Texas citizens participation
[27:05.240 --> 27:16.240]  act pretending that the newspaper was in the act of expressing their constitutional right
[27:16.240 --> 27:23.240]  of free speech a petition and association that's what the act was passed for and what
[27:23.240 --> 27:31.240]  this act really does is it allows suits to be dismissed without going through the usual
[27:31.240 --> 27:40.240]  judicial process and but they have to prove that they were actually exercising their constitutional
[27:40.240 --> 27:46.240]  rights well they were doing none of that and in fact news reporters are forbidden to do
[27:46.240 --> 27:52.240]  that by their ethical standards they're not supposed to become involved in the stories
[27:52.240 --> 28:00.240]  that they're writing about and reporting facts about so that's a that's a problem that's
[28:00.240 --> 28:08.240]  a flaw in the act which I pointed out to the Supreme Court and then what this act is allowing
[28:08.240 --> 28:14.240]  this newspaper to do is to create false enemies of the state and get away with it does just
[28:14.240 --> 28:21.240]  tell lies about people and if you can't correct that with the judicial system I mean what
[28:21.240 --> 28:29.240]  can you do I mean it's not like I own a newspaper I can't correct the readers in Houston about
[28:29.240 --> 28:37.240]  myself I mean they're probably 50 million people have seen that article by now and they
[28:37.240 --> 28:42.240]  think I'm a member of the Republic of Texas and a potential terrorist because that's what
[28:42.240 --> 28:48.240]  that's what they were actually claiming in this thing that I've become part of the growing
[28:48.240 --> 28:57.240]  right-wing terror threat in America and it's just you know that newspapers shouldn't be
[28:57.240 --> 29:04.240]  able to get away with this and one of the one of the things they bring up is this case
[29:04.240 --> 29:13.240]  law rule is the hypothetical average reasonable reader doctrine and that's where a judge
[29:13.240 --> 29:21.240]  gets to determine whether or not any article can be defamatory or not and it's regardless
[29:21.240 --> 29:26.240]  of what anybody says about you know after they read the article they could call you
[29:26.240 --> 29:33.240]  every nasty thing in the world but only the judge can find whether or not it was truly
[29:33.240 --> 29:44.240]  defamatory okay you the hypothetical average reasonable reader correct is there anything
[29:44.240 --> 29:54.240]  in law at the moment that defines what a hypothetical average ordinary reasonable reader is not
[29:54.240 --> 30:00.240]  at all not at all it's just in judges fight against a fight about it all
[30:00.240 --> 30:07.240]  do you have looks to die for according to a new study killer contaminants are lurking
[30:07.240 --> 30:11.240]  in many popular cosmetic products I'm dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be back to tell
[30:11.240 --> 30:17.240]  you how you or someone you love can dodge a shocking beauty bullet privacy is under
[30:17.240 --> 30:22.240]  attack when you give up data about yourself you'll never get it back again and once your
[30:22.240 --> 30:27.240]  privacy is gone you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too so protect your rights
[30:27.240 --> 30:33.240]  say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself privacy it's worth hanging on
[30:33.240 --> 30:38.240]  to this public service announcement is brought to you by startpage.com the private search
[30:38.240 --> 30:46.240]  engine alternative to Google Yahoo and Bing start over with startpage environmental group
[30:46.240 --> 30:51.240]  Canadian defense is warning consumers that many popular cosmetics contain heavy metals
[30:51.240 --> 30:56.240]  your organization sent name brand makeup like mascara eyeshadow and lipstick to an accredited
[30:56.240 --> 31:04.240]  lab out of 49 products 96% tested positive for lead 20% contained arsenic and 51% contained
[31:04.240 --> 31:09.240]  cadmium none of these dangerous items was listed on the label heavy metals can build
[31:09.240 --> 31:14.240]  up in the body and lead to health problems like cancer memory loss mood swings and hair
[31:14.240 --> 31:19.240]  loss researchers say your best defense is to wear less makeup and buy products that
[31:19.240 --> 31:24.240]  guarantee they do not contain heavy metals I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht more news and
[31:24.240 --> 31:27.240]  information at CatherineAlbrecht.com
[31:54.240 --> 32:01.240]  and see what our powder seeds and oil can do for you only at FUSA.org
[32:01.240 --> 32:06.240]  rule of law radio is proud to offer the rule of law traffic seminar in today's America
[32:06.240 --> 32:09.240]  we live in an us against them society and if we the people are ever going to have a
[32:09.240 --> 32:13.240]  free society then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights among those rights
[32:13.240 --> 32:16.240]  are the right to travel freely from place to place the right to act in our own private
[32:16.240 --> 32:20.240]  capacity and most importantly the right to due process of law traffic courts afford us
[32:20.240 --> 32:24.240]  the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through
[32:24.240 --> 32:28.240]  due process former sheriff's deputy Eddie Craig in conjunction with rule of law radio
[32:28.240 --> 32:31.240]  has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you
[32:31.240 --> 32:35.240]  understand what due process is and how to hold courts to the rule of law you can get
[32:35.240 --> 32:39.240]  your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering
[32:39.240 --> 32:43.240]  your copy today by ordering now you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book the Texas transportation
[32:43.240 --> 32:47.240]  code the law versus the lie video and audio of the original 2009 seminar hundreds of
[32:47.240 --> 32:51.240]  research documents and other useful resource material learn how to fight for your rights
[32:51.240 --> 32:55.240]  with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com ordering your copy today and together
[32:55.240 --> 32:59.240]  we can have the free society we all want and deserve
[33:03.240 --> 33:09.240]  you're listening to the logos radio network at logosradionetwork.com
[33:09.240 --> 33:26.240]  yeah I got a warrant and I'm gonna solve them to the government them prosecute them okay
[33:26.240 --> 33:43.240]  okay we are back Randy Kelton rule of law radio here with our special guest Ron Avery
[33:43.240 --> 33:55.240]  and in the last segment you mentioned the this whole idea of a ordinary reasonable reader
[33:55.240 --> 34:06.240]  yes and this seems absolutely capricious and arbitrary and we spoke a little on the break
[34:06.240 --> 34:13.240]  to this issue can you address what has how the courts have ruled on this issue up to
[34:13.240 --> 34:25.240]  this point yes the fourth court of appeals cited a case I don't have it right in front
[34:25.240 --> 34:39.240]  of me but it was a supreme court ruling and it backed up the idea that a judge quote as
[34:39.240 --> 34:49.240]  a matter of law unquote has the power to determine whether or not a an article is defamatory
[34:49.240 --> 34:59.240]  or not regardless of what anybody else thinks about it and the judge becomes that hypothetical
[34:59.240 --> 35:09.240]  average reasonable reader and which is absurd on its face really but anyway six supreme
[35:09.240 --> 35:19.240]  court justices agreed that that's that's how you determine defamation in in a written in
[35:19.240 --> 35:27.240]  in libel and it doesn't matter what the people that read the article say or how they review
[35:27.240 --> 35:37.240]  responded to it or whatever so but the court was split on that there were three justices
[35:37.240 --> 35:49.240]  that that disagreed with it and they said that it's ridiculous that that and they didn't
[35:49.240 --> 35:56.240]  have the authority they said the court didn't even have the authority to overturn the ruling
[35:56.240 --> 36:08.240]  of the rulings of 12 jurors in the trial court judge finding that the material was defamatory
[36:08.240 --> 36:12.240]  now and then we're of course we're not talking about my case we're talking about this other
[36:12.240 --> 36:21.240]  case that they ruled on and they're just applying it to my case and they said that they don't
[36:21.240 --> 36:27.240]  they don't have the authority to overturn because the jury heard the facts they submitted
[36:27.240 --> 36:32.240]  the issue of whether or not it was defamatory and they came back all 12 jurors said it was
[36:32.240 --> 36:39.240]  defamatory and the judge said it was found it to be defamatory and then the fourth court
[36:39.240 --> 36:47.240]  of appeals two of the three reversed it and said no that's not defamatory and then they
[36:47.240 --> 36:53.240]  took to the Supreme Court six of the justices at the Supreme Court said it's not defamatory
[36:53.240 --> 36:57.240]  the other three said wait a minute we're not buying that where did you get the authority
[36:57.240 --> 37:02.240]  to overturn 12 jurors and the findings of facts you're not supposed to mess with the
[37:02.240 --> 37:10.240]  findings of fact you don't have authority to do that and what makes you what makes six
[37:10.240 --> 37:19.240]  the Supreme Court justices and two appellate justices more average reasonable readers than
[37:19.240 --> 37:27.240]  the trial court judge 12 jurors and three Supreme Court justices one I mean it was ludicrous
[37:27.240 --> 37:35.240]  I mean it's a it's none of those people are average reasonable readers the first thing
[37:35.240 --> 37:42.240]  how can a judge that's familiar with libel cases be your average reader of something
[37:42.240 --> 37:50.240]  that might be libelous I mean that just it's ridiculous first of all and that's just one
[37:50.240 --> 37:58.240]  of the things that I'm challenging on appeal the other is related to that and that is that
[37:58.240 --> 38:07.240]  that's the common law case law view of defamation but you see in Texas we have another definition
[38:07.240 --> 38:15.240]  of defamation and it's in statute it's it's in the civil practice and remedy code and
[38:15.240 --> 38:26.240]  statutory law has superiority over case law and the statutory law of defamation in Texas
[38:26.240 --> 38:41.240]  says that if if words and and graphics are used in such a way to injure a person's reputation
[38:41.240 --> 38:52.240]  and expose and intends not even does tends to injure his reputation exposing him to public
[38:52.240 --> 39:04.240]  ridicule contempt and hatred that is defamation and so here's what has happened in my case
[39:04.240 --> 39:11.240]  I actually have evidence that people read the article and express defamation after reading
[39:11.240 --> 39:18.240]  it they said I ought to be sent to Gitmo and be waterboarded two of them said that now
[39:18.240 --> 39:24.240]  that's not at terms of endearment that's that's terms of hatred and those things are written
[39:24.240 --> 39:34.240]  they were unsolicited views written on a blog right under the Chronicles article and then
[39:34.240 --> 39:40.240]  comes along the judge and overrules all of that stuff there was about nine people that
[39:40.240 --> 39:47.240]  were just you know they said all kinds of terrible things about me and us as a member
[39:47.240 --> 39:53.240]  of the Republic of Texas and secessionist and all that and then but the judge just turned
[39:53.240 --> 40:00.240]  around and said no that no you couldn't find defamation in there those people are unreasonable
[40:00.240 --> 40:06.240]  so here you can actually have the death the statutory defamation and see that that gives
[40:06.240 --> 40:15.240]  you confidence to file a libel suit and then it's a trap it actually forms a trap because
[40:15.240 --> 40:22.240]  you you have the statutory requirement to file a suit for libel and then they trick
[40:22.240 --> 40:27.240]  you and they turn around no no some judge gets to find that later on well nobody could
[40:27.240 --> 40:38.240]  ever file a libel suit with any any confidence that he will not be punished for filing a
[40:38.240 --> 40:45.240]  slap suit because some judge later on finds that it's not defamatory so it's a it's a
[40:45.240 --> 40:53.240]  it's a trap wait a minute there seems to be a contradiction here absolutely contradiction
[40:53.240 --> 41:03.240]  of law when you read the statute of death it statutory definition of defamatory it said
[41:03.240 --> 41:10.240]  nothing about truth or falsity it only okay we're getting to falsehood that's that's
[41:10.240 --> 41:21.240]  another falsehood is a well no truth is a defense in a libel case if if if the author
[41:21.240 --> 41:27.240]  of the article and publishers of the article can show that it's true well regardless of
[41:27.240 --> 41:33.240]  whether it was defamatory or not if it's true you don't have a libel suit i mean if
[41:33.240 --> 41:38.240]  everything they said is true what do you have you know i'm going back to the statute the
[41:38.240 --> 41:44.240]  way you read it it didn't say anything about truth it said if you printed something that
[41:44.240 --> 41:49.240]  tended to defame someone that's defamatory well they didn't say anything whether it was
[41:49.240 --> 41:53.240]  true or not let's back up though you're getting too different no no the reason i went there
[41:53.240 --> 42:01.240]  is because you said the court said that you failed to prove that what they said was untrue
[42:01.240 --> 42:08.240]  the way you read the statute that did not seem to be an element no no well let me let
[42:08.240 --> 42:17.240]  me say this there's several elements in a libel suit truth falsity is an element i have
[42:17.240 --> 42:26.240]  to prove that it was false and number two i have to prove that it was defamatory and
[42:26.240 --> 42:35.240]  so i had i actually showed statutory defamation and then they overturned it with lesser case
[42:35.240 --> 42:41.240]  law of the hypothetical reasonable reader doctrine which makes sense if there's been
[42:41.240 --> 42:51.240]  no evidence that anyone expressed any contempt or hatred or ridicule or anything but in my
[42:51.240 --> 42:58.240]  case there's plenty of it i have evidence of people expressing all that so the the finding
[42:58.240 --> 43:05.240]  that it was substantially true only took down one of the elements which which is okay i
[43:05.240 --> 43:11.240]  mean if they were correct i would still not have a libel suit but so we're actually talking
[43:11.240 --> 43:18.240]  about two different elements the substantial truth or the the falsity element is different
[43:18.240 --> 43:26.240]  from the hypothetical reader and defamation defamation and truth are two separate elements
[43:26.240 --> 43:34.240]  of libel and you have to approach them differently okay yeah now that makes sense in defamation
[43:34.240 --> 43:45.240]  in the definite defamation statute truth wasn't included but in order to use that in libel
[43:45.240 --> 43:53.240]  then the libel aspect brings in the truth the issue of the truth the truth or falsity
[43:53.240 --> 44:03.240]  of the statement okay yeah truth and falsity have nothing to do with whether hello my name
[44:03.240 --> 44:08.240]  is steward smith from naturespureorganics.com and i would like to invite you to come by
[44:08.240 --> 44:13.240]  our store at 1904 guadalupe street sweet d here in austin texas buying brave new books
[44:13.240 --> 44:17.240]  and chase a to see all our fantastic health and wellness products with your very own eyes
[44:17.240 --> 44:22.240]  have a look at our miracle healing clay that started our adventure in alternative medicine
[44:22.240 --> 44:26.240]  take a peek at some of our other wonderful products including our australian emu oil
[44:26.240 --> 44:34.240]  lotion candles olive oil soaps and colloidal silver and gold call 512-264-4043 or find
[44:34.240 --> 44:43.240]  us online at naturespureorganics.com that's 512-264-4043 naturespureorganics.com don't
[44:43.240 --> 45:01.240]  forget to like us on facebook for information on events and our products naturespureorganics.com
[45:01.240 --> 45:07.240]  are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit win your case without an attorney with jurisdictionary
[45:07.240 --> 45:14.240]  the affordable easy to understand 4 cd course that will show you how in 24 hours step by
[45:14.240 --> 45:20.240]  step if you have a lawyer know what your lawyer should be doing if you don't have a lawyer
[45:20.240 --> 45:26.240]  know what you should do for yourself thousands have won with our step by step course and
[45:26.240 --> 45:32.240]  now you can too jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case
[45:32.240 --> 45:37.240]  winning experience even if you're not in a lawsuit you can learn what everyone should
[45:37.240 --> 45:43.240]  understand about the principles and practices that control our american court you'll receive
[45:43.240 --> 45:51.240]  our audio classroom video seminar tutorials forms for civil cases pro se tactics and much
[45:51.240 --> 45:58.240]  more please visit rule of law radio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866
[45:58.240 --> 46:26.240]  LAW EASY
[46:26.240 --> 46:33.240]  okay we are back randy kelton rule of law radio here with our special guest mr ron
[46:33.240 --> 46:40.240]  avery and ron you have a website with information on the case on it you give that to everybody
[46:40.240 --> 46:51.240]  yes that is post p o s t w t c dot com it stands for world trade center post world trade
[46:51.240 --> 47:00.240]  center dot com and then you will see on there if you scroll down a little bit it has a link
[47:00.240 --> 47:10.240]  to let's get to it yeah it has a it says at the bottom and you scroll down it says avery
[47:10.240 --> 47:19.240]  versus the houston chronicle and you just click on that and it takes you to a separate
[47:19.240 --> 47:25.240]  section and it's it's got all the cases it's got all the things that have been filed in
[47:25.240 --> 47:32.240]  court it's got summaries it's got it's got everything that's been filed it's got some
[47:32.240 --> 47:40.240]  photographs of and it has several videos of me explaining the case on there too as well
[47:40.240 --> 47:46.240]  plus links to our radio show so that's cool oh in that case you've got to tell the name
[47:46.240 --> 47:52.240]  of the site again you got to do what it tells you since it has links to our radio show
[47:52.240 --> 47:59.240]  then you have to tell the name of the site again oh the net okay yeah it's post w t c
[47:59.240 --> 48:12.240]  dot com and then it's forward slash a v c dot h t m l okay yeah i'm looking at the site
[48:12.240 --> 48:18.240]  now and it's right at the bottom of the middle of the first page is the link to houston chronicle
[48:18.240 --> 48:24.240]  oh yeah yeah uh-huh then it has a picture of me after it opens up you just click on
[48:24.240 --> 48:37.240]  the picture and it takes you to the the whole layout okay so you got there with the yellow
[48:37.240 --> 48:48.240]  ticker tape running across the top yeah your pictures taking a little time to load up you
[48:48.240 --> 48:54.240]  wanted to there was another issue you wanted you wanted to address besides the defamatory
[48:54.240 --> 49:00.240]  law that we were discussing when we went out yes right and that is see i actually went
[49:00.240 --> 49:06.240]  up to the supreme court you can't just complain about anything in the supreme court they uh
[49:06.240 --> 49:13.240]  they have authority to review certain types of things and they can tell you they tell
[49:13.240 --> 49:21.240]  you what that is so i had four issues that complied with the things that they can alter
[49:21.240 --> 49:28.240]  at the fourth court of appeal i mean at the supreme court level and so that's it boiled
[49:28.240 --> 49:37.240]  down everything i had to four separate issues two of them are related the hypothetical average
[49:37.240 --> 49:47.240]  reasonable reader doctrine is really part of the that was the first issue the substantial
[49:47.240 --> 49:54.240]  truth doctrine was the second issue the third third issue was the conflict between common
[49:54.240 --> 50:03.240]  law which is that hypothetical average reader and the statutory law on defamation i said
[50:03.240 --> 50:11.240]  that they have authority to straighten that out and bring the case law into conformity
[50:11.240 --> 50:18.240]  with the statutory law on defamation which they should do if they don't do it it remains
[50:18.240 --> 50:25.240]  a trap for innocent people that have been defamed and when they sue that they later
[50:25.240 --> 50:30.240]  turn out they've just filed a slap suit and they end up having to pay the newspaper and
[50:30.240 --> 50:38.240]  the reporters hundreds of thousands of dollars for filing a slap suit which is a strategic
[50:38.240 --> 50:47.240]  lawsuit against public participation and that's what this act they use to throw my case out
[50:47.240 --> 50:57.240]  prematurely that's that's the act they use so then the fourth issue i bring up is that
[50:57.240 --> 51:08.240]  the excuse me the texas citizen participation act has an internal flaw that allows news
[51:08.240 --> 51:14.240]  reporters to violate their own professional ethics and implement the said act which should
[51:14.240 --> 51:23.240]  not apply to them at all and it's a simple they have one definition in there in the act
[51:23.240 --> 51:28.240]  that allows all these newspapers and reporters to use the act which they should not be able
[51:28.240 --> 51:35.240]  to use at all because they're simply not participants this act is to protect people that
[51:35.240 --> 51:41.240]  are using their constitutional rights not news reporters who go watch somebody else
[51:41.240 --> 51:47.240]  do that and then write false articles about them and then seek protection under this act
[51:47.240 --> 51:53.240]  like they were expressing their well you don't have constitutional rights to tell lies about
[51:53.240 --> 51:59.240]  somebody that are exercising their constitutional right so they shouldn't even be able to use
[51:59.240 --> 52:04.240]  this because they're not in the process of using constitutional rights they're simply
[52:04.240 --> 52:12.240]  in the process of reporting on others doing that and in fact when you go to many of the
[52:12.240 --> 52:21.240]  associates the websites for the associated press and the public broadcasting network
[52:21.240 --> 52:30.240]  and all these different and agencies and groups of professionals they all say that no reporter
[52:30.240 --> 52:39.240]  should even express their political views much less become involved in associating with
[52:39.240 --> 52:47.240]  the stories they cover expressing their freedom of speech and petitioning they should be doing
[52:47.240 --> 52:55.240]  none of that because it violates their objectivity standard for reporting news
[52:55.240 --> 53:00.240]  if this is a news report as opposed to an editorial
[53:00.240 --> 53:10.240]  yes now somebody that just writes an editorial he is expressing their constitutional rights
[53:10.240 --> 53:16.240]  and they should be able to use this act like anybody else because they are indeed doing
[53:16.240 --> 53:23.240]  that but a news reporter that puts on a front page news story he is not doing any of that
[53:23.240 --> 53:31.240]  he is simply reporting facts about others doing that and there's no evidence in fact
[53:31.240 --> 53:40.240]  in the record in my case of the reporter even being a citizen much less he said nothing
[53:40.240 --> 53:49.240]  about saying what he thought about anything or any issue and there's no evidence whatsoever
[53:49.240 --> 53:57.240]  all he said was to use this act all he had to do was say I wrote an article about a public
[53:57.240 --> 54:04.240]  concern and he could use the act and that's the definition of the expression of freedom
[54:04.240 --> 54:15.240]  of speech is a communication about a public concern well that's just too grossly broad
[54:15.240 --> 54:23.240]  to cover and it lets in too many people that aren't expressing their constitutional rights
[54:23.240 --> 54:32.240]  like news reporters so that needs to be corrected the news agencies should not ever be able
[54:32.240 --> 54:40.240]  to use the Texas citizen participation act at all because that's not what they're doing
[54:40.240 --> 54:52.240]  this sounds like a great case to get to the US supreme yeah I'd love to do that because
[54:52.240 --> 54:59.240]  but the problem with that is I'd have to still be losing and I can't afford to be losing
[54:59.240 --> 55:07.240]  if I lose this thing at the Supreme Court I could potentially owe $150,000 or more to
[55:07.240 --> 55:14.240]  the the attorneys at Hearst communications Hearst corporation in New York these guys
[55:14.240 --> 55:22.240]  are on the 40th floor of the Hearst communication tower brand new building built since 9 11
[55:22.240 --> 55:32.240]  and they're on the 40 I think it's a 55 story brand new skyscraper and they flew down here
[55:32.240 --> 55:40.240]  in jets I flew three three of their lawyers down here to go to my little case hearings
[55:40.240 --> 55:50.240]  in in Seguin and and they that's the attorneys they use they're all in house attorney and
[55:50.240 --> 55:57.240]  no telling how much these guys charge an hour you know and I'm I'm not only libel now if
[55:57.240 --> 56:03.240]  they've proved that this is a slap suit instead of a libel suit that's filed to protect my
[56:03.240 --> 56:11.240]  reputation from defamation not only do I have to pay attorneys fees and expenses in court
[56:11.240 --> 56:21.240]  costs but I have to pay the sanctions to prevent me from ever doing filing any such suit again
[56:21.240 --> 56:29.240]  anything like it so it's punishment and they want to stop slap suits and and I've become
[56:29.240 --> 56:37.240]  an evil person if this is a slap suit and they they punish me and and you can see what
[56:37.240 --> 56:47.240]  kind of trap this is because you read the statute on defamation and you see that you
[56:47.240 --> 56:53.240]  have it and you have all the other elements it's only natural you got to file a lawsuit
[56:53.240 --> 56:59.240]  and then later on you find out some judge gets to determine whether or not you have
[56:59.240 --> 57:07.240]  if they'd have told me that in the in the statute if the statute said defamation is
[57:07.240 --> 57:13.240]  only determined by a judge at some level and can be overturned by another judge at another
[57:13.240 --> 57:18.240]  judge at another level well who would file a defamation claim nobody in their right mind
[57:18.240 --> 57:23.240]  would find one because they've never had the they could never have the the element prior
[57:23.240 --> 57:29.240]  to filing the suit and then running the risk of filing a slap suit in which he's going
[57:29.240 --> 57:38.240]  to be punished I mean this is this is just this this law is so bad I I can't believe
[57:38.240 --> 57:48.240]  that it's been written like this this is this is unbelievable it does seem to create an
[57:48.240 --> 57:54.240]  impossible position because I've never wanted to be subject to the caprice of a judge and
[57:54.240 --> 58:00.240]  that sounds exactly like what this is because these guys have the money to buy our judges
[58:00.240 --> 58:10.240]  yeah and to think our judges are not bought and paid for is naive it just just this stuff
[58:10.240 --> 58:20.240]  just shouldn't be this this sloppy before filing a suit you ought to be able to determine
[58:20.240 --> 58:27.240]  if you have the elements of it well that's impossible under the current understanding
[58:27.240 --> 58:31.240]  of the law at least the way they're applying it in my way wait hang on we're about to
[58:31.240 --> 58:37.240]  go to break okay actually actually we're not going to fall off the cliff this time good
[58:37.240 --> 58:50.240]  this is Randy Kelton with our radio we'll be right back
[58:50.240 --> 58:55.240]  would you like to make more definite progress in your walk with God Bibles for America is
[58:55.240 --> 59:00.240]  offering a free study Bible and a set of free Christian books that can really help the New
[59:00.240 --> 59:05.240]  Testament recovery version is one of the most comprehensive study Bibles available today
[59:05.240 --> 59:10.240]  it's an accurate translation and it contains thousands of footnotes that will help you
[59:10.240 --> 59:15.240]  to know God and to know the meaning of life the free books are a three volume set called
[59:15.240 --> 59:20.240]  basic elements of the Christian life chapter by chapter basic elements of the Christian
[59:20.240 --> 59:26.240]  life clearly presents God's plan of salvation growing in Christ and how to build up the
[59:26.240 --> 59:32.240]  church to order your free New Testament recovery version and basic elements of the Christian
[59:32.240 --> 59:45.240]  life call Bibles for America toll free at 888-551-0102 that's 888-551-0102 or visit
[59:45.240 --> 59:50.240]  us online at bfa.org
[59:50.240 --> 01:00:00.240]  live free speech radio logosradionetwork.com
[01:00:00.240 --> 01:00:05.240]  the following newsflash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown providing the daily
[01:00:05.240 --> 01:00:13.240]  bulletins for the commodity market today in history news updates and the inside scoop
[01:00:13.240 --> 01:00:21.240]  into the tides of the alternative
[01:00:21.240 --> 01:00:27.240]  markets for Wednesday the 5th of October 2016 are currently trending with gold at $1266.60
[01:00:27.240 --> 01:00:34.240]  an ounce silver $17.72 an ounce Texas crude $48.69 a barrel and bitcoin is currently sitting
[01:00:34.240 --> 01:00:43.240]  on about $613 U.S. currency
[01:00:43.240 --> 01:00:48.240]  today in history the year 1947 the first televised White House presidential address is given
[01:00:48.240 --> 01:00:56.240]  by then U.S. President Harry S. Truman today in history
[01:00:56.240 --> 01:01:00.240]  in recent news the parish climate agreement is set to take effect next month adopted by
[01:01:00.240 --> 01:01:07.240]  consensus on December 12, 2015 at the 21st conference of the parties of the UNFCCC or
[01:01:07.240 --> 01:01:11.240]  United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris and open for signatures on
[01:01:11.240 --> 01:01:17.240]  the 22nd of April 2016 Earth Day and a ceremony in New York City it is set to take effect
[01:01:17.240 --> 01:01:21.240]  on November 4th it is essentially a global agreement for the redirecting of the world
[01:01:21.240 --> 01:01:26.240]  economy away from fossil fuels towards more greenhouse friendly forms of energy President
[01:01:26.240 --> 01:01:31.240]  Obama speaking from the Rose Garden talking about the agreement said that quote this gives
[01:01:31.240 --> 01:01:35.240]  us the best possible shot to save the one planet we've got and that one of the reasons
[01:01:35.240 --> 01:01:40.240]  I took this office was to make America the leader in this mission the agreement already
[01:01:40.240 --> 01:01:45.240]  has support from major greenhouse gas emitters like China the United States and India and
[01:01:45.240 --> 01:01:50.240]  in total 72 out of 195 countries have ratified the agreement according to the UN Republican
[01:01:50.240 --> 01:01:54.240]  presidential candidate Donald Trump opposes the agreement since it lacks the approval
[01:01:54.240 --> 01:02:04.240]  of the US Congress while Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is a strong supporter.
[01:02:04.240 --> 01:02:08.240]  More than 50 correctional officers and inmates inside Maryland's largest state prison were
[01:02:08.240 --> 01:02:12.240]  charged by prosecutors Wednesday today with bribery and drug conspiracy the guards are
[01:02:12.240 --> 01:02:17.240]  accused of smuggling cell phones tobacco and drugs into the eastern shore facility in exchange
[01:02:17.240 --> 01:02:22.240]  for money and sex according to indictments unsealed in a federal investigation apparently
[01:02:22.240 --> 01:02:26.240]  prison guards were passing through security with undetected heroin cocaine and pornographic
[01:02:26.240 --> 01:02:30.240]  videos which were then handed off to inmates in exchange for hundreds of dollars they were
[01:02:30.240 --> 01:02:34.240]  also being accused of warning inmates when prison officials were preparing to search
[01:02:34.240 --> 01:02:39.240]  cells and abusing force and intimidation to silence inmates who were reporting the smuggling
[01:02:39.240 --> 01:02:43.240]  according to court records inmates were using the prison phones and their contraband cell
[01:02:43.240 --> 01:02:48.240]  phones to pay off correctional officers through PayPal they were hustling $500 for each package
[01:02:48.240 --> 01:02:54.240]  on average and as much as $3,000 a week according to investigators.
[01:02:54.240 --> 01:03:22.240]  This is Brook Road with your lowdown for October 5th 2016.
[01:03:25.240 --> 01:03:31.240]  Okay we are back Randy Kelton, Rue of La Radio here with our special guest Mr. Ron Avery
[01:03:31.240 --> 01:03:43.240]  and Ron you wanted to read a section out of this ruling that I think everybody will be unhappy with.
[01:03:43.240 --> 01:03:50.240]  I also think they will find this humorous Randy the fourth court of appeals wrote this
[01:03:50.240 --> 01:04:00.240]  it's part of the 13 pages they wrote about and about my case over you know agreeing with
[01:04:00.240 --> 01:04:07.240]  the trial court that it should have been thrown out and they're talking about the substantial
[01:04:07.240 --> 01:04:14.240]  truth doctrine so I'm going to read this and here it goes quote even if the captions
[01:04:14.240 --> 01:04:23.240]  incorrectly identified Avery as a secessionist falsely implied Avery renounces US citizenship
[01:04:23.240 --> 01:04:31.240]  incorrectly identified the Texians as secessionists and falsely implied Avery was a member of a
[01:04:31.240 --> 01:04:39.240]  secessionist organization the gist of the articles is substantially true the Republic of Texas
[01:04:39.240 --> 01:04:46.240]  is a volunteer nonviolent organization premised on the belief that Texas is a sovereign nation
[01:04:46.240 --> 01:04:53.240]  in whose goal it is to legally extricate itself from the United States no reasonable reader
[01:04:53.240 --> 01:05:01.240]  would conclude as argued by Avery that either he or the Republic of Texas is a far right
[01:05:01.240 --> 01:05:10.240]  fascist neo-nazi part of the growing right wing terrorist threat only the only evidence
[01:05:10.240 --> 01:05:20.240]  of such a conclusion is Avery's own allegations however bare baseless opinions are not a sufficient
[01:05:20.240 --> 01:05:28.240]  substitute for clear and specific evidence required to establish a prima facie case under
[01:05:28.240 --> 01:05:44.240]  act in Lipski 460 southwest third at 592 unquote now to me first of all that is incorrect I
[01:05:44.240 --> 01:05:50.240]  am not the only one making that allegation that is a falsehood they said right there
[01:05:50.240 --> 01:05:59.240]  because I also had the blog the unsolicited comments under the article as that was issued
[01:05:59.240 --> 01:06:10.240]  into evidence and they also came up with the same thing the finding that our whole group
[01:06:10.240 --> 01:06:17.240]  needed to be sent to Gitmo and be water boarded and that we were worse than Muslim terrorists
[01:06:17.240 --> 01:06:26.240]  or just like them and you see when they said that the Republic of Texas is a far right
[01:06:26.240 --> 01:06:35.240]  fascist that's because the reporter actually put hyperlinks in his online article to other
[01:06:35.240 --> 01:06:42.240]  secessionists who did in fact go to Russia and meet with fascists and neo-nazis and so
[01:06:42.240 --> 01:06:49.240]  we got included in that because they falsely said we were secessionists and then they attached
[01:06:49.240 --> 01:06:55.240]  another article about the growing right wing terrorist threat in America being worse than
[01:06:55.240 --> 01:07:01.240]  the Muslim threat presently they attached that by showing that we were we were right
[01:07:01.240 --> 01:07:07.240]  wing so it started with the falsehood that were secessionists then they made a further
[01:07:07.240 --> 01:07:14.240]  falsehood that were that we met with other were fascist and neo-nazis so that establishes
[01:07:14.240 --> 01:07:21.240]  our far right wing stuff and then they pop on the next article about the right wing terrorist
[01:07:21.240 --> 01:07:28.240]  threat so they built this out of building blocks one falsehood after the other and the
[01:07:28.240 --> 01:07:35.240]  fourth court of appeals just turned around and said that because it's true that the Republic
[01:07:35.240 --> 01:07:43.240]  of Texas is a volunteer and nonviolent organization that everything in the article was was true
[01:07:43.240 --> 01:07:55.240]  well that that's ludicrous I mean so if I were to to read a case where the supreme court
[01:07:55.240 --> 01:08:03.240]  ruled in favor of an issue concerning a child molester and that this person is a convicted
[01:08:03.240 --> 01:08:09.240]  and known child molester and the supreme court ruled in his favor therefore the supreme
[01:08:09.240 --> 01:08:17.240]  court justices are all child molesters that's okay they're all what I'm sorry that's that's
[01:08:17.240 --> 01:08:24.240]  perfectly all right for me to do that because the facts in my statement are substantially
[01:08:24.240 --> 01:08:28.240]  correct the only facts are that the court ruled in favor of a child molester and the
[01:08:28.240 --> 01:08:36.240]  guy was a child molester oh yeah let's say that let's say it's true that we were secessionist
[01:08:36.240 --> 01:08:43.240]  and that I really was a member of the Republic of Texas and that the Republic of Texas was
[01:08:43.240 --> 01:08:48.240]  a secessionist group and what if it was true even that we were we went over there yeah
[01:08:48.240 --> 01:08:54.240]  if everything they say is true you don't you don't have a libel case no matter how defamatory
[01:08:54.240 --> 01:08:59.240]  it is it would be extremely defamatory where everybody in the country hates you but if
[01:08:59.240 --> 01:09:04.240]  it's true you've got no you don't have a libel case you don't have anything to stand on they
[01:09:04.240 --> 01:09:10.240]  just simply told the truth yeah I'm projecting their ruling their ruling says if anything
[01:09:10.240 --> 01:09:18.240]  in the article is true everything in the article article is protected well that is extremely
[01:09:18.240 --> 01:09:27.240]  dangerous that's totally ludicrous you can't say the Republic of Texas wears blue jackets
[01:09:27.240 --> 01:09:33.240]  and because they wear blue jacket that's true but they are murderers and they are scoundrel
[01:09:33.240 --> 01:09:39.240]  and they are communists and they are well there was a murderer who wore a blue jacket
[01:09:39.240 --> 01:09:46.240]  I mean yeah just just because they wear the blue jacket is true doesn't mean the entire
[01:09:46.240 --> 01:09:51.240]  article and the gist of it is true this is totally ludicrous I can't believe that the
[01:09:51.240 --> 01:09:57.240]  Supreme Court is going to look at that and and say oh yeah that's that's solid material
[01:09:57.240 --> 01:10:03.240]  if it is we're in deep trouble in this country because it means the newspapers and televisions
[01:10:03.240 --> 01:10:10.240]  can say anything they want to to get any part of it right you're screwed and they and you
[01:10:10.240 --> 01:10:17.240]  can't do anything about it you certainly don't have media to argue with them and prove otherwise
[01:10:17.240 --> 01:10:22.240]  and all you have is the courts the courts are going to protect them with all these ludicrous
[01:10:22.240 --> 01:10:29.240]  rules and many of the rules are incorrectly applied they just and and then they punish
[01:10:29.240 --> 01:10:36.240]  punish people that are trying to protect their name how's that it just means that we've got
[01:10:36.240 --> 01:10:43.240]  them the most powerful weapon in this country against the citizens of this country is the
[01:10:43.240 --> 01:10:50.240]  news media and if they let this kind of stuff stand we have had it because the people are
[01:10:50.240 --> 01:10:56.240]  just going to be turned into nothing but trash that needs to be eradicated and they can select
[01:10:56.240 --> 01:11:02.240]  anyone anywhere and turn them into anything they want to and go after them and there's
[01:11:02.240 --> 01:11:11.240]  nothing to do about it that is a scary precedent and i can't see the supreme court you know
[01:11:11.240 --> 01:11:15.240]  if if i were on the supreme and i have to look at what are the consequences of this
[01:11:15.240 --> 01:11:23.240]  ruling yeah they're going to create a horrible mess i think so it's already a horrible mess
[01:11:23.240 --> 01:11:28.240]  and they they need to fix some of this stuff that this act number one needs to be corrected
[01:11:28.240 --> 01:11:37.240]  because this act is being used now all the time because the the definition of using a
[01:11:37.240 --> 01:11:44.240]  constitutional right is so broad that every newspaper article everybody that prints anything
[01:11:44.240 --> 01:11:50.240]  or any television station immediately gets to use this and none of them most of the time
[01:11:50.240 --> 01:11:56.240]  are not using constitutional rights that's not happening and in fact they're forbidden
[01:11:56.240 --> 01:12:07.240]  to do it under their code of ethics okay so i sure hope you win this particular argument
[01:12:07.240 --> 01:12:13.240]  because well i sure i sure do want to randy i tell you i and i feel sorry for the whole
[01:12:13.240 --> 01:12:18.240]  state if i lose this because this that it's just going to people are people are going
[01:12:18.240 --> 01:12:24.240]  to be just ground up by the news media there's nothing that they'll be able to turn anybody
[01:12:24.240 --> 01:12:31.240]  anywhere into a demon or a terrorist or anybody that needs to be dealt with and there's no
[01:12:31.240 --> 01:12:39.240]  there's no you got no recourse to fix it okay let's think about social media social media
[01:12:39.240 --> 01:12:49.240]  is getting really powerful so now i can go on social media and pretty well spread any
[01:12:49.240 --> 01:12:58.240]  kind of story about anyone that i want to with absolute impunity as long as within my
[01:12:58.240 --> 01:13:08.240]  story there is a fact perhaps that i've i posted this at this day at this time that
[01:13:08.240 --> 01:13:15.240]  is potentially true right right and right and but here here's the other problem with
[01:13:15.240 --> 01:13:21.240]  the other problem with this stuff what if they don't do it that way i mean this this
[01:13:21.240 --> 01:13:28.240]  kind of stuff needs to be straightened out where it really says you know they're going
[01:13:28.240 --> 01:13:33.240]  to have to really stay just because something is true in the article doesn't mean that's
[01:13:33.240 --> 01:13:38.240]  the gist of the entire article see and that's what they've done here they said that the
[01:13:38.240 --> 01:13:44.240]  gist of the article is substantially true and they just arbitrarily picked out a portion
[01:13:44.240 --> 01:13:50.240]  of it and said well that's true but they they just leave out the other part i mean how can
[01:13:50.240 --> 01:13:58.240]  you overlook the fact that they falsely implied avery renounces us citizenship hell let them
[01:13:58.240 --> 01:14:05.240]  try to prove i did that incorrectly identified texans as secessionists and here's the gist
[01:14:05.240 --> 01:14:11.240]  the gist of the article is all about secessionist even that was the title of the article at
[01:14:11.240 --> 01:14:20.240]  the texas secessionist have worked with hope great hope against great odds that kind of
[01:14:20.240 --> 01:14:25.240]  thing and then falsely implied that he was a member of the secessionist or i think on
[01:14:25.240 --> 01:14:31.240]  and on about all these falsehoods and then turn around and say well but it was all substantially
[01:14:31.240 --> 01:14:39.240]  true i mean they're just converting lies into truth with a with this substantial truth doctrine
[01:14:39.240 --> 01:14:52.240]  well if if they rule in favor of this in texas they will unleash social media on everybody
[01:14:52.240 --> 01:14:58.240]  social media social media is much worse than the printed media because printed media they
[01:14:58.240 --> 01:15:06.240]  have to play to their advertisers social media won't be bound in any way you'll be able to
[01:15:06.240 --> 01:15:14.240]  make up stories say anything about social media is it doesn't have the coverage see
[01:15:14.240 --> 01:15:21.240]  the houston chronicle is read by a million and a half people a day they so i was on the
[01:15:21.240 --> 01:15:29.240]  front page and and on and on the website the website is read by 35 million people a month
[01:15:29.240 --> 01:15:34.240]  and that's been up now for over a year i don't know how many people how many millions of
[01:15:34.240 --> 01:15:42.240]  people see in social media you get a facebook page and you get a little blog you might get
[01:15:42.240 --> 01:15:48.240]  a hundred a hundred and fifty five hundred viewers but how can you compete with with
[01:15:48.240 --> 01:15:54.240]  that stuff i mean ron social media is becoming a real problem and it's becoming more pervasive
[01:15:54.240 --> 01:16:01.240]  we have a caller in the show that videotape to police officer knocking his windows out
[01:16:01.240 --> 01:16:07.240]  window out dragging him out of the car he put it on youtube it's up to some something
[01:16:07.240 --> 01:16:14.240]  over two million hits well that that is possible and it usually takes something like that some
[01:16:14.240 --> 01:16:22.240]  kind of real outrageous so yeah so the more outrageous my accusation the more it's going
[01:16:22.240 --> 01:16:28.240]  to go viral on the internet yeah that's right that's right this could they could open up
[01:16:28.240 --> 01:16:37.240]  a can of worms a pandora's box if they can't call it easily close yeah hang on about to
[01:16:37.240 --> 01:16:45.240]  go to break randy kelton we have a radio a call in number 512-646-1984 right now the
[01:16:45.240 --> 01:16:50.240]  call boards are full as soon as the ron avery is done we'll go back to the caller so hang
[01:16:50.240 --> 01:17:03.240]  on everybody we'll be right back at capital coin and bullion our mission is to be your
[01:17:03.240 --> 01:17:07.240]  preferred shopping destination by delivering excellent customer service and outstanding
[01:17:07.240 --> 01:17:11.240]  value at an affordable price we provide a wide assortment of favorite products featuring
[01:17:11.240 --> 01:17:15.240]  a great selection of high quality coins and precious metals we cater to beginners in coin
[01:17:15.240 --> 01:17:20.240]  collecting as well as large transactions for investors we believe in educating our customers
[01:17:20.240 --> 01:17:24.240]  with resources from top accredited metal dealers and journalists if we don't have
[01:17:24.240 --> 01:17:29.240]  what you're looking for we can find it in addition we carry popular longevity products
[01:17:29.240 --> 01:17:34.240]  such as beyond tangy tangerine and pollen bursts we also offer one world way mountain
[01:17:34.240 --> 01:17:38.240]  house storable foods burkey water products ammunition at 10 percent above wholesale and
[01:17:38.240 --> 01:17:43.240]  more we broke her metals ira accounts and we also accept bitcoins as payment call us
[01:17:43.240 --> 01:17:50.240]  at 512-646-6440 we're located at 7304 burnet road suite a about a half mile south of
[01:17:50.240 --> 01:17:55.240]  anderson we're open monday through friday 10 to 6 saturdays 10 to 2 visit us at capital
[01:17:55.240 --> 01:18:02.240]  coin and bullion dot com or call 512-646-6440 are you being harassed by debt collectors
[01:18:02.240 --> 01:18:07.240]  with phone calls letters or even lawsuits stop debt collectors now with the michael
[01:18:07.240 --> 01:18:12.240]  mirrors proven method michael mirrors has won six cases in federal court against debt
[01:18:12.240 --> 01:18:17.240]  collectors and now you can win too you'll get step-by-step instructions in plain english
[01:18:17.240 --> 01:18:22.240]  on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes what to do when contacted
[01:18:22.240 --> 01:18:27.240]  by phone mail or court summons how to answer letters and phone calls how to get debt
[01:18:27.240 --> 01:18:31.240]  collectors out of your credit report how to turn the financial tables on them and make
[01:18:31.240 --> 01:18:37.240]  them pay you to go away the michael mirrors proven method is the solution for how to
[01:18:37.240 --> 01:18:42.240]  stop debt collectors personal consultation is available as well for more information
[01:18:42.240 --> 01:18:47.240]  please visit rule of law radio dot com and click on the blue michael mirrors banner or
[01:18:47.240 --> 01:18:53.240]  email michael mirrors at yahoo dot com that's rule of law radio dot com or email m i c
[01:18:53.240 --> 01:19:00.240]  h a e l m i r r a s at yahoo dot com to learn how to stop debt collectors now
[01:19:00.240 --> 01:19:07.240]  this is the logos logos radio net radio
[01:19:07.240 --> 01:19:26.240]  ain't gonna blame me don't blame me
[01:19:26.240 --> 01:19:31.240]  okay we are back randy kelton's rule of law radio here with our special guest mr ron
[01:19:31.240 --> 01:19:38.240]  avery okay ron we're about to the end of this you want to sum this up and i'll give out
[01:19:38.240 --> 01:19:44.240]  your website again oh yes okay well thank you randy for having me on your show again
[01:19:44.240 --> 01:19:51.240]  and helping me get the word out about this and the importance of this case to all texas
[01:19:51.240 --> 01:19:58.240]  really and the and the problems we're having with the media i think everybody can agree
[01:19:58.240 --> 01:20:04.240]  the media in this country is totally out of control and does whatever it wants it's unchecked
[01:20:04.240 --> 01:20:15.240]  it's unverified and it's hard to reverse anything they say so with that too my website is post
[01:20:15.240 --> 01:20:28.240]  t c dot com uh and my lawsuit is at forward slash a v c dot h t m l uh and with that uh
[01:20:28.240 --> 01:20:35.240]  that's it uh for me we want to take all that'd be super well we're our call boards are filled
[01:20:35.240 --> 01:20:41.240]  up so we can't take calls tonight on okay okay unless you want to hang around uh some
[01:20:41.240 --> 01:20:45.240]  of our colleagues may have a question for you you're certainly welcome to hang around
[01:20:45.240 --> 01:20:54.240]  okay okay because you're the reason we do this show well thank you guys just like you
[01:20:54.240 --> 01:21:02.240]  there's so few people who are willing to take on the government and our whole show is about
[01:21:02.240 --> 01:21:08.240]  getting people over this fear of taking them on and then you take them on and now you're
[01:21:08.240 --> 01:21:13.240]  put under this horrible threat yeah and and believe me i know what that threat is because
[01:21:13.240 --> 01:21:20.240]  i stood in a jail cell with a sentence of one year and ten thousand dollar fine for
[01:21:20.240 --> 01:21:28.240]  for doing this fight oh and yeah i remember standing there looking in the mirror and thinking
[01:21:28.240 --> 01:21:33.240]  i said well you told the jury to do their worst that no matter what they did when they
[01:21:33.240 --> 01:21:42.240]  were done you would still be here and i said to myself self did you mean it and i thought
[01:21:42.240 --> 01:21:49.240]  you're darn right i did right so that was the only value i got out of that but it can
[01:21:49.240 --> 01:21:55.240]  be very very difficult yeah thank you and the few that have the courage to take it on
[01:21:55.240 --> 01:22:02.240]  you have all of my respect and i sure appreciate it randy thanks for having me on you are welcome
[01:22:02.240 --> 01:22:07.240]  anytime you want to come on thank you much and here's another guy i'm about to bring
[01:22:07.240 --> 01:22:16.240]  on a guest or a caller that called into the show and wanting to fight back to what they
[01:22:16.240 --> 01:22:23.240]  were doing to him he's a black guy in tennessee he's about 60 miles from where i'm from and
[01:22:23.240 --> 01:22:29.240]  he called in and asked what to do and i told him go out and read with all go out and find
[01:22:29.240 --> 01:22:39.240]  uh litigation guides read the codes darned if he didn't do it and oliver in tennessee
[01:22:39.240 --> 01:22:50.240]  is kicking behind hello i'm sorry oliver hello olivier how you doing i'm doing good okay
[01:22:50.240 --> 01:22:54.240]  there's something going on there's something going on with the computer as far as uh i
[01:22:54.240 --> 01:23:04.240]  can't listen to the station oh uh well our producer should be listening he will go check
[01:23:04.240 --> 01:23:13.240]  that out uh he can tell okay okay robert you want to make sure we're going out but sometimes
[01:23:13.240 --> 01:23:20.240]  uh if you're listening on the internet sometimes we'll get a drop somewhere between you and
[01:23:20.240 --> 01:23:26.240]  us like maybe olympus if they've got a server problem there you can certain areas drop
[01:23:26.240 --> 01:23:32.240]  out i know for a while we had a problem in dallas where people in dallas couldn't listen
[01:23:32.240 --> 01:23:41.240]  okay got it um okay what are you up to today today well i wanted to talk about he denied
[01:23:41.240 --> 01:23:48.240]  you told me to put in a restraining order on that police officer uh he did deny it without
[01:23:48.240 --> 01:23:57.240]  we didn't even allow it to go through a hearing so what what's my next move on this case like
[01:23:57.240 --> 01:24:04.240]  that okay julie the the next thing to do is file a notice for reconsideration and then
[01:24:04.240 --> 01:24:14.240]  since it's a restraining order and okay let me take a step back a restraining order is
[01:24:14.240 --> 01:24:25.240]  do you have a case filed against the officer at the moment civil yes civil or yes that's
[01:24:25.240 --> 01:24:35.240]  the only thing you can it is okay it's really hard to get a restraining order against a
[01:24:35.240 --> 01:24:43.120]  police officer unless the restraining order is extremely specific and in your case where
[01:24:43.120 --> 01:24:51.440]  they keep stopping you for the the exact same offense which is not a violent accusations
[01:24:51.440 --> 01:24:58.520]  driving an invalid driver's license uh for those of you who don't know he's been cited
[01:24:58.520 --> 01:25:06.240]  eight times five of them have been to court and he beat those five so they keep arresting
[01:25:06.240 --> 01:25:14.080]  him for the exact same offense he keeps beating it in court so to ask for a restraining order
[01:25:14.080 --> 01:25:19.120]  to prevent them from arresting him for that offense that you might get if you file it
[01:25:19.120 --> 01:25:23.780]  with the judge a judge is almost always going to rule against you then you petition for
[01:25:23.780 --> 01:25:36.720]  interlocutory appeal you know what interlocutory appeal is it's a formal appeal it no it's
[01:25:36.720 --> 01:25:45.120]  an appeal that you file while the case is still ongoing normally you can't appeal something
[01:25:45.120 --> 01:25:53.200]  until the case is completely adjudicated but you've asking asked for a restraining order
[01:25:53.200 --> 01:26:01.720]  you filed a case accusing these officers of retaliating against you for suing public officials
[01:26:01.720 --> 01:26:09.560]  for violating your rights and they retaliate against you by violating your rights and you
[01:26:09.560 --> 01:26:16.640]  ask the court for restraining order until you can get a ruling on your case and they
[01:26:16.640 --> 01:26:21.160]  deny the restraining order well that puts you in a position to where the police can
[01:26:21.160 --> 01:26:29.320]  still continue to commit this harm against you so that's right for interlocutory appeal
[01:26:29.320 --> 01:26:41.400]  you can appeal that issue appeal it to the court of appeals okay that process will take
[01:26:41.400 --> 01:26:46.320]  a very long time i talked to the ladies today but you told me to no no no no no hey you
[01:26:46.320 --> 01:26:52.160]  you appeal to the court of appeals and ask the court of appeals to grant a restraining
[01:26:52.160 --> 01:26:59.120]  order until they rule on your appeal that you asked for a temporary you asked for a
[01:26:59.120 --> 01:27:07.680]  temporary restraining order and for a restraining order temporary restraining order is something
[01:27:07.680 --> 01:27:14.240]  they can sign right now and say stop doing this until we have time to hold an evidence
[01:27:14.240 --> 01:27:21.360]  hearing and at the evidence hearing we'll define decide if there's enough grounds to
[01:27:21.360 --> 01:27:30.760]  keep the restraining order in place and that's generally 15 days and then you're asking the
[01:27:30.760 --> 01:27:38.320]  court of appeals to restrain them from this one particular act of citing you for driving
[01:27:38.320 --> 01:27:44.480]  on an invalid driver's license because you have filed an action in the court claiming
[01:27:44.480 --> 01:27:53.320]  that this is official oppression because you've beaten it five times so now it becomes retaliation
[01:27:53.320 --> 01:27:57.680]  on their part to keep citing you for what you keep beating beating the courts have already
[01:27:57.680 --> 01:28:06.960]  ruled in your favor so you have court rulings to that you can rely on so this is the kind
[01:28:06.960 --> 01:28:12.480]  of thing that court of appeals is likely to rule in your favor on remember what we keep
[01:28:12.480 --> 01:28:20.240]  telling you never expect to win in the trial court expect the trial court to rule against
[01:28:20.240 --> 01:28:28.400]  you out of hand at every turn the whole purpose is set in the record for appeal but i don't
[01:28:28.400 --> 01:28:33.840]  think it's fair that you take six to three three years for you to get an answer on the
[01:28:33.840 --> 01:28:42.960]  court no no appeals don't take that long as a rule but this does this is separate you
[01:28:42.960 --> 01:28:48.920]  don't have to wait three years to get it get the court of appeals to issue a restraining
[01:28:48.920 --> 01:29:00.000]  order they can issue a restraining order while they're considering your appeal um i don't
[01:29:00.000 --> 01:29:04.040]  i'm hearing what you're saying well when i call the appeal force it doesn't seem like
[01:29:04.040 --> 01:29:09.560]  they operate the way that you're talking about they only come in once a month to hear whatever
[01:29:09.560 --> 01:29:15.160]  cases on certain days and every from what she's saying then everything that they register
[01:29:15.160 --> 01:29:25.200]  or hear are cases that are peeled from the district courts she said that um hey don't
[01:29:25.200 --> 01:29:33.480]  listen to clerks okay yeah they're not they don't know about a lot of this stuff that
[01:29:33.480 --> 01:29:40.640]  doesn't happen all the time if you file a petition for an emergency restraining order
[01:29:40.640 --> 01:29:44.000]  with the court of appeals they'll contact one of the judges and the judges come in and
[01:29:44.000 --> 01:29:51.880]  look at it because it is in a petition for an emergency restraining order i don't find
[01:29:51.880 --> 01:29:57.420]  that petition for emergency shame i don't get the music on the road okay i'm glad somebody
[01:29:57.420 --> 01:30:05.000]  pays attention we'll be right back are you cautious online a new breed of criminal is
[01:30:05.000 --> 01:30:09.520]  hoping you're careful about sites you visit and avoid downloading spyware that makes you
[01:30:09.520 --> 01:30:13.720]  the perfect mark i'm dr kathryn albrecht and i'll be back in a moment with a frightening
[01:30:13.720 --> 01:30:19.600]  twist in cybercrime privacy is under attack when you give up data about yourself you'll
[01:30:19.600 --> 01:30:24.760]  never get it back again and once your privacy is gone you'll find your freedoms will start
[01:30:24.760 --> 01:30:30.080]  to vanish too so protect your rights say no to surveillance and keep your information
[01:30:30.080 --> 01:30:35.400]  to yourself privacy it's worth hanging on to this public service announcement is brought
[01:30:35.400 --> 01:30:41.240]  to you by startpage.com the private search engine alternative to google yahoo and bing
[01:30:41.240 --> 01:30:48.000]  start over with startpage you're surfing the internet and you think you're safe after all
[01:30:48.000 --> 01:30:52.880]  you take precautions then out of the blue a window pops up it warns you that your computer
[01:30:52.880 --> 01:30:58.360]  has been infected and provides a link for anti-virus software oh no don't be fooled
[01:30:58.360 --> 01:31:04.000]  you're the target of cyber criminals peddling scareware scareware is scam software it might
[01:31:04.000 --> 01:31:08.840]  cost 50 bucks or it could be free but you'll pay a steep price if you fall for it just
[01:31:08.840 --> 01:31:13.800]  visiting a scareware site could infect your computer and if you buy their worthless software
[01:31:13.800 --> 01:31:18.760]  it often comes loaded with malware that siphons your personal information if you download
[01:31:18.760 --> 01:31:24.160]  it you'll really have something to worry about i'm dr katherine albrecht more news and information
[01:31:24.160 --> 01:31:30.520]  at katherinealbrecht.com
[01:31:30.520 --> 01:31:35.880]  this is building seven a 47 story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of september 11
[01:31:35.880 --> 01:31:41.320]  the government says that fire brought it down however 1500 architects and engineers concluded
[01:31:41.320 --> 01:31:45.280]  it was a controlled demolition over 6 000 of my fellow service members have given their
[01:31:45.280 --> 01:31:49.960]  lives thousands of my fellow first responders are dying i'm not a conspiracy theorist i'm
[01:31:49.960 --> 01:31:53.240]  a structural engineer i'm a new york city correction officer i'm an air force pilot
[01:31:53.240 --> 01:31:58.760]  i'm a father who lost his son we're americans and we deserve the truth go to remember building
[01:31:58.760 --> 01:32:03.480]  seven dot org today hey it's danny here for hill country home improvements did your home
[01:32:03.480 --> 01:32:07.400]  receive hail or wind damage from the recent storms come on we all know the government
[01:32:07.400 --> 01:32:11.360]  caused it with their kim trails but good luck getting them to pay for it okay i might be
[01:32:11.360 --> 01:32:15.720]  kidding about the kim trails but i'm serious about your roof that's why you have insurance
[01:32:15.720 --> 01:32:19.720]  and hill country home improvements can handle the claim for you with little to no out of
[01:32:19.720 --> 01:32:24.560]  pocket expense and we accept bitcoin as a multi-year a plus member of the better business
[01:32:24.560 --> 01:32:29.000]  bureau with zero complaints you can trust hill country home improvements to handle your
[01:32:29.000 --> 01:32:37.000]  claim and your roof right the first time just call 512-992-8745 or go to hill country home
[01:32:37.000 --> 01:32:41.080]  improvements dot com mention the crypto show and get a hundred dollars off and we'll donate
[01:32:41.080 --> 01:32:45.080]  another hundred dollars to the logos radio network to help continue this programming
[01:32:45.080 --> 01:32:54.120]  so if those out of town roofers come knocking your door should be locking that's 512-992-8745
[01:32:54.120 --> 01:32:58.520]  or hill country home improvements dot com discounts are based on full roof replacement
[01:32:58.520 --> 01:33:07.080]  may not actually be kidding about kim trails looking for some truth you found it logos
[01:33:07.080 --> 01:33:32.760]  dot com okay we are back randy kelton rudyblah radio and we're talking to olivier in texas
[01:33:32.760 --> 01:33:39.560]  go ahead olivier oh and rodney i see you down there uh you had dropped off that's why i
[01:33:39.560 --> 01:33:47.240]  went to olivier but i'll pick you up i'll go to you next okay go ahead olivier um all right
[01:33:47.880 --> 01:33:51.960]  okay so all right i'm all right so i'm understanding you go for emergency petitions
[01:33:51.960 --> 01:33:58.360]  and uh no or normal uh restraining order okay yeah this is how it works
[01:33:58.360 --> 01:34:05.160]  uh if you say you know i have people with foreclosure issues if the you're going to
[01:34:05.160 --> 01:34:13.560]  file it for a wrongful foreclosure and they the other side has filed for an eviction if
[01:34:13.560 --> 01:34:22.040]  you have 15 days between now and the eviction then you have time to file for a restraining order
[01:34:22.040 --> 01:34:28.680]  restraining order because you've got seven days to get the other side noticed and set a hearing
[01:34:29.320 --> 01:34:36.680]  and hold a evidentiary hearing on your restraining order but if you don't have 15 days like in your
[01:34:36.680 --> 01:34:43.480]  case you could be pulled over tomorrow then you file for an emergency restraining order
[01:34:43.480 --> 01:34:52.360]  and a restraining order the you take it to the judge and he can look at your cause and sign an
[01:34:52.360 --> 01:35:01.000]  emergency restraining order immediately with no hearing and that restrains them just long enough
[01:35:01.960 --> 01:35:09.560]  to set a hearing for the an evidentiary hearing for the restraining order and that's generally
[01:35:09.560 --> 01:35:17.160]  that's generally 15 days so the emergency is only a 15 day and then you hold the evidentiary hearing
[01:35:17.800 --> 01:35:24.120]  on your final restraining order and ask the court to keep the emergency restraining order in place
[01:35:25.560 --> 01:35:31.960]  does that make sense right it does but when i on the emergency restraining order i bring
[01:35:31.960 --> 01:35:38.280]  all the information as far as my dismissals and case numbers and all that yes absolutely
[01:35:38.280 --> 01:35:46.120]  what what you need to show in a restraining order and send me an email asking for some of mine i've
[01:35:46.120 --> 01:35:54.040]  got some you have to show that there is a substantial likelihood that you will win the case in the end
[01:35:57.800 --> 01:36:02.520]  you have to show the court that there's good grounds for filing this restraining order
[01:36:02.520 --> 01:36:12.760]  and you absolutely have that okay well i thought i had grounds when i found it in the district court
[01:36:12.760 --> 01:36:18.920]  and obviously he didn't even look at it okay that's the one thing we have keep hammering to people
[01:36:19.960 --> 01:36:27.400]  never expect to win in the trial court okay especially you know they all these guys got
[01:36:27.400 --> 01:36:33.880]  their schnapps in the same trough and the district court deals with these policemen all the time
[01:36:34.840 --> 01:36:41.400]  so he's not going to rule against one of them but then they're going to be unhappy with him
[01:36:41.400 --> 01:36:47.400]  you know we think that the law applies well what really applies is the politics
[01:36:48.760 --> 01:36:53.480]  and this judge has political pressures on him that have nothing to do with law
[01:36:53.480 --> 01:36:58.200]  the court of appeals are not in that position they don't care they never see these police officers
[01:36:58.200 --> 01:37:04.520]  they never deal with them and they have a duty to maintain the corpus juris
[01:37:05.640 --> 01:37:12.440]  they have a duty to keep the structure of law in place so they come at the case from a whole
[01:37:12.440 --> 01:37:19.240]  different perspective so don't worry about trial court ruling against you you're just there to set
[01:37:19.240 --> 01:37:27.640]  the record for appeal anyway and when the trial court realizes you don't care what they do
[01:37:28.200 --> 01:37:34.200]  that you're going to you're just setting up so you can get past them they tend to get more careful
[01:37:35.720 --> 01:37:42.920]  because they don't want you taking their stupid maneuvers to the court of appeals and then they
[01:37:42.920 --> 01:37:50.920]  have to answer to the court of appeals that's a judicial complaint for him denying my restraining
[01:37:50.920 --> 01:38:00.120]  order is that going to be effective judicial conduct complaint is always effective that's one
[01:38:00.120 --> 01:38:07.560]  of the things that the pro se can do that lawyers can't do yeah i wrote one up but i was just trying
[01:38:07.560 --> 01:38:13.160]  to figure out like on a situation like this would it be effective as you know
[01:38:14.360 --> 01:38:20.440]  okay would it be effective as putting a point on his record oh that'll definitely he'll always put
[01:38:20.440 --> 01:38:29.560]  a point on his record valid invalid makes no difference okay you file what goes on his record
[01:38:29.560 --> 01:38:38.680]  what goes on his record was not how it's adjudicated but rather one was filed every
[01:38:38.680 --> 01:38:43.160]  time one gets filed it goes on his record just like you check your record they can see how many
[01:38:43.160 --> 01:38:50.280]  times you were ticketed they if they look deep enough they can see how many times you won your
[01:38:50.280 --> 01:38:57.400]  case but the fact that you got cited is always going to be there the fact that the judge got
[01:38:57.400 --> 01:39:04.280]  a judicial conduct complaint is always going to be there puts a mark on his charge another quick
[01:39:05.960 --> 01:39:10.520]  but like you said it's always going to be there they arrest me and they tell me well
[01:39:10.520 --> 01:39:16.280]  this is your uh your sixth offense and your your bond is five thousand dollars
[01:39:16.840 --> 01:39:22.040]  uh are you allowed to do that i have never been found guilty how is it my sixth offense and you're
[01:39:22.040 --> 01:39:30.920]  charging me five thousand dollars a bond bond okay hold on let's talk about bond but bond for the
[01:39:30.920 --> 01:39:43.160]  most part is at the discretion of the court but bond is a option not a right bail is a right
[01:39:43.160 --> 01:39:52.280]  right and you know what bail is as opposed to bond bail is when you pay the whole amount
[01:39:53.080 --> 01:39:59.800]  no i'm not sure no bail is a written undertaking between you and the court
[01:40:00.520 --> 01:40:09.080]  does not involve money it involves collateral do you own anything a property
[01:40:09.080 --> 01:40:17.400]  a car yeah property well the one that they demolish
[01:40:18.760 --> 01:40:24.920]  okay is its overall value in excess of the amount of the bond they're asking for
[01:40:26.600 --> 01:40:33.480]  yes yeah that's that's bail the constitutional right is a right to bail
[01:40:33.480 --> 01:40:43.320]  bail now if you're arrested and they set a bail bond amount if you if if your net worth
[01:40:44.040 --> 01:40:49.880]  exclusives of all encumbrances is not greater than the amount of bail
[01:40:51.160 --> 01:40:57.880]  then you can post a bond in lieu of bail but the right is to bail
[01:40:57.880 --> 01:41:05.800]  bail so you next time you if you get arrested again you need to look you need to file a
[01:41:06.440 --> 01:41:16.040]  bail bond instead of posting a bond and look that up in tennessee law in texas law it when you look
[01:41:16.040 --> 01:41:24.920]  up bail it says bail is a written undertaking between the state and the accused it even has
[01:41:24.920 --> 01:41:33.960]  the form in the statute tennessee is likely to be the same way because bail is a is a federal
[01:41:33.960 --> 01:41:43.560]  constitutional right so the state has to provide that same constitutional right the judges don't
[01:41:43.560 --> 01:41:49.400]  know that i bet you they don't they don't they don't read this how do they oh wait a minute they
[01:41:49.400 --> 01:41:56.840]  know that be sure they know oh yes what the bondsman does the bondsman doesn't put up any money
[01:41:58.440 --> 01:42:02.120]  he puts up his collateral he puts up bail
[01:42:04.280 --> 01:42:13.160]  okay they set a bond and the bondsman says okay i in order to get my bondsman's license i have
[01:42:13.160 --> 01:42:20.840]  put up all this property here or i put these funds in a bank account and this is my collateral
[01:42:21.960 --> 01:42:29.880]  and i will write bail bonds against that collateral so he enters into a bail agreement with the court
[01:42:30.760 --> 01:42:37.880]  so they know exactly what bail is oh okay they don't want you to know what bail is
[01:42:37.880 --> 01:42:43.720]  this wow so this is another another whole section of law okay thank you bail all right let me go
[01:42:43.720 --> 01:42:50.200]  back let me go back to it right quick only the same judge that denied my emergency i meant my
[01:42:50.200 --> 01:42:55.880]  restraining order was the same judge who denied the happiest courses and when he denied the happiest
[01:42:55.880 --> 01:43:04.680]  courses he said number one i was not incarcerated and i told him well uh this is double jeopardy also
[01:43:04.680 --> 01:43:10.840]  he was like well uh no it's not double jeopardy because uh they're not charging you for the same
[01:43:11.480 --> 01:43:17.800]  they're not charging you for the same incident it's a it's a different incident so it's not
[01:43:17.800 --> 01:43:25.000]  double jeopardy what what does that sound like you're being charged for for doing essentially
[01:43:25.000 --> 01:43:31.720]  the same thing and the courts have already adjudicated five times that you weren't doing
[01:43:31.720 --> 01:43:41.880]  anything criminal so he technically that's not double jeopardy technically this is a due process
[01:43:41.880 --> 01:43:55.240]  violation they're denying you in your right to exercising rights so due process you got music
[01:43:55.240 --> 01:44:05.880]  coming out okay nutritious food is real body armor it builds muscle burns fat improves digestion
[01:44:05.880 --> 01:44:11.080]  and feeds the entire body the nutrients it needs did you know the u.s government banned the hemp
[01:44:11.080 --> 01:44:15.720]  plant from growing in the united states and classified it as a schedule one drug to hide it
[01:44:15.720 --> 01:44:20.520]  behind the marijuana plant people have been confused about this plant for over 80 years
[01:44:20.520 --> 01:44:26.760]  and many still don't know what hemp is so now you know hemp is not marijuana and marijuana is not
[01:44:26.760 --> 01:44:32.520]  hemp they are different varieties of the same species hempusa.org wants the world to know these
[01:44:32.520 --> 01:44:37.640]  basic facts and to help people understand that hemp protein powder is the best kept health secret
[01:44:37.640 --> 01:44:44.120]  you need to know about remember hemp protein powder contains 53 protein is gluten-free
[01:44:44.120 --> 01:44:53.720]  anti-inflammatory non-gmo and is loaded with nutrients call 888-910-4367 888-910-4367
[01:44:53.720 --> 01:45:02.760]  and see what our powder seeds and oil can do for you only at hempusa.org are you the plaintiff or
[01:45:02.760 --> 01:45:08.920]  defendant in a lawsuit win your case without an attorney with jurisdictionary the affordable
[01:45:08.920 --> 01:45:16.600]  easy to understand four cd course that will show you how in 24 hours step by step if you have a
[01:45:16.600 --> 01:45:22.120]  lawyer know what your lawyer should be doing if you don't have a lawyer know what you should do
[01:45:22.120 --> 01:45:29.320]  for yourself thousands have won with our step by step course and now you can too jurisdictionary
[01:45:29.320 --> 01:45:35.960]  was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience even if you're not in
[01:45:35.960 --> 01:45:41.480]  a lawsuit you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices
[01:45:41.480 --> 01:45:48.360]  that control our american courts you'll receive our audio classroom video seminar tutorials
[01:45:48.360 --> 01:45:55.560]  forms for civil cases pro se tactics and much more please visit ruleoflawradio.com
[01:45:55.560 --> 01:46:06.760]  and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ
[01:46:25.560 --> 01:46:41.800]  okay we are back branda kelton rule of law radio and we're talking to livie in tennessee
[01:46:43.160 --> 01:46:50.680]  and livie you let me run off the cliff devorah's gonna skin my hide i tried i tried
[01:46:50.680 --> 01:46:59.000]  i've been running off the cliff all day okay what else do we have for you today
[01:46:59.880 --> 01:47:05.800]  um you said procedural due process um which angle should i use that in am i trying to sue
[01:47:05.800 --> 01:47:13.800]  someone or am i trying to point that out to authority okay you are you're building toward
[01:47:13.800 --> 01:47:23.080]  a very good federal lawsuit you can sue for procedural due process in the state or in the fed
[01:47:25.880 --> 01:47:30.680]  it's hard to sue in this the state in the state because the state's going to want to protect
[01:47:30.680 --> 01:47:39.480]  itself and you know i'd suggested earlier that we you build up all the claims in the state before
[01:47:39.480 --> 01:47:46.360]  you go to the fed but if they keep they keep risking you for these this the same thing and
[01:47:46.360 --> 01:47:53.080]  you keep getting thrown out of court well five is enough then you might want to take a complaint to
[01:47:53.080 --> 01:48:03.640]  the feds okay and ask the fed to issue the restraining order when you sue the police
[01:48:03.640 --> 01:48:10.760]  officers and i suggest you sue the chief of police because as far as you're concerned
[01:48:11.320 --> 01:48:20.360]  whatever a police officer does the chief did it but because he is responding at superior or
[01:48:20.360 --> 01:48:26.040]  even the mayor mayor is probably even better no i'm putting them on there but his judge has
[01:48:26.040 --> 01:48:33.080]  been taking people off he'll he's the right orders and instructions to take off the towing company
[01:48:33.080 --> 01:48:41.480]  or to don't send them uh subpoena only carcasses or don't serve the towing company only it'll
[01:48:41.480 --> 01:48:47.800]  exclude uh defendants that i put in my in my lawsuit that's another thing i want to talk
[01:48:47.800 --> 01:48:54.840]  about i'm like what the hell is he doing i mean what okay that's a little too complex i would
[01:48:54.840 --> 01:49:01.720]  need to see uh the defendant would have to raise an objection is he doing this suespante
[01:49:01.720 --> 01:49:08.920]  yes he does the suespante the defendant's never he's doing all this suespante then that needs to
[01:49:08.920 --> 01:49:18.520]  get a now you're probably in a much better place for a federal lawsuit because the judge by uh
[01:49:19.160 --> 01:49:28.680]  capriciously and arbitrarily dismissing a defendant okay then i need another question first
[01:49:28.680 --> 01:49:36.440]  had the defendant that was removed from the case moved the court to remove him from the case
[01:49:37.400 --> 01:49:45.080]  no then he had no power to remove the person from the case so he's exerting or purporting
[01:49:45.080 --> 01:49:49.960]  to exert an authority he does not expressly have that should get a criminal charge
[01:49:49.960 --> 01:49:57.560]  so and that will take you to the fed for a procedure he's denying you and your right
[01:49:57.560 --> 01:50:06.120]  to petition the court for redressal grievance under procedural due process under procedural due
[01:50:06.120 --> 01:50:11.960]  process okay so so that means i'm gonna have two feds so someone need to be contemplating how to
[01:50:11.960 --> 01:50:18.120]  write two feds to one for a civil judge a civil court judge which is a civil court that he's doing
[01:50:18.120 --> 01:50:23.960]  a civil court that he's doing all this in and the other ones for the criminal side for the criminal
[01:50:25.240 --> 01:50:30.520]  yes you'd want to write a criminal complaint against the judge and then move to disqualify this
[01:50:30.520 --> 01:50:42.200]  judge the acts of removing a defendant suespante that's criminal that's outside scope
[01:50:42.200 --> 01:50:49.560]  i mean i was just reading a case today where it said in a reading in about
[01:50:51.400 --> 01:50:58.760]  texas rules civil procedure that in order for the court to rule in your favor you must
[01:50:58.760 --> 01:51:07.560]  ask the court to rule in your favor so if one litigant files a motion with the court and asks
[01:51:07.560 --> 01:51:15.800]  for remedy and another litigant situated exactly the same way did not file with the court and ask
[01:51:15.800 --> 01:51:24.200]  for remedy the court can grant the one that asked for remedy his remedy but he cannot grant the
[01:51:24.200 --> 01:51:31.560]  other one because the other one did not ask for it you file suit against a litigant and the litigant
[01:51:31.560 --> 01:51:41.640]  if he wanted to be removed had to move the court in order for the court to have authority to remove it
[01:51:44.440 --> 01:51:48.840]  you sued a party the party didn't object but the judge just said well
[01:51:49.560 --> 01:51:55.000]  i don't want you suing this guy so you can't sue him yep exactly this basically
[01:51:55.000 --> 01:52:02.280]  that's uh the judge doesn't get to make that determination the other guy could have said
[01:52:03.000 --> 01:52:12.200]  oh my goodness you're absolutely right i shouldn't have done that even if you had no grounds if the
[01:52:12.200 --> 01:52:20.680]  other side doesn't object to it then the court has a duty to rule in your favor we just had a ruling
[01:52:20.680 --> 01:52:28.200]  where the court granted the other sides of we filed a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction
[01:52:28.200 --> 01:52:32.280]  the other side did not respond the judge ruled in the other side's favor
[01:52:34.680 --> 01:52:39.960]  absolutely cannot do that and that's the judge i'm filing criminal charges against
[01:52:41.960 --> 01:52:48.600]  he has a problem this guy is not the sharpest knife in the drawer but clearly this judge cannot
[01:52:48.600 --> 01:52:55.960]  make that a ruling on the merits of the case unless he's been asked to rule on the merits of
[01:52:55.960 --> 01:53:03.240]  the case so you need to check your look under no answer default
[01:53:06.680 --> 01:53:12.120]  and summary judgments no answer default and summary judgment addresses this issue
[01:53:12.120 --> 01:53:22.440]  where you file an action the other side doesn't uh object to it they don't file an answer and in
[01:53:22.440 --> 01:53:31.000]  some cases uh you know they don't have to answer say the plaintiff files an action the defendant
[01:53:31.000 --> 01:53:38.680]  files an answer and a counterclaim well the plaintiff doesn't have to answer that counterclaim
[01:53:38.680 --> 01:53:46.360]  they're not required to but if they don't you make claims and they don't rebut the claims
[01:53:46.360 --> 01:53:51.960]  and the judge has to grant you your claim and we're filing a motion to that effect right now
[01:53:54.120 --> 01:54:00.280]  we filed a suit against the trustee the trustee we actually we filed a
[01:54:00.280 --> 01:54:06.840]  a quiet title action claiming that the trustee's deed was invalid and the trustee came back and
[01:54:06.840 --> 01:54:16.280]  said oh i'm a good guy and and i followed all the procedures and uh he was failed to make a claim on
[01:54:16.280 --> 01:54:23.560]  which recovery can be had and you can't sue me for recovery because i'm a trustee acting in good faith
[01:54:23.560 --> 01:54:34.280]  and blah blah blah we said okay nowhere in his answer did he state that the trustee's deed was
[01:54:34.280 --> 01:54:41.400]  valid he didn't address address the issue before the court we claimed that an assignment assigning
[01:54:41.400 --> 01:54:47.800]  that i'm sorry an appointment appointing him as trustee wasn't valid he never objected to it
[01:54:47.800 --> 01:54:54.600]  i'm sorry an appointment appointing him as trustee was invalid he never objected to the invalidity of
[01:54:54.600 --> 01:55:05.320]  the appointment okay so the judge has no option but to rule that the appointment was invalid
[01:55:07.960 --> 01:55:11.240]  he answered everything else except the only thing that was before the court
[01:55:11.800 --> 01:55:15.400]  and since he didn't answer it you have a right to default judgment
[01:55:15.400 --> 01:55:22.200]  okay the judge cannot rule in this guy's favor because this guy didn't ask him to rule in his
[01:55:22.200 --> 01:55:31.880]  favor period and that's where you're most likely to find uh the consequences of not answering
[01:55:33.640 --> 01:55:41.480]  um can i now i understand that concept can i use the same concept he dismissed another case where
[01:55:41.480 --> 01:55:46.200]  two officers pulled me and my friend out of my car while we were sleeping in front of my house
[01:55:46.200 --> 01:55:51.000]  it was a long night we fell asleep in front of my house they pulled out the house out of the car
[01:55:51.000 --> 01:55:59.400]  harassed us searched him voices to give us our name i wrote a suit on him that included me and
[01:55:59.400 --> 01:56:06.520]  my friend he denied the suit claiming that i was trying to represent my friend in the suit and
[01:56:06.520 --> 01:56:13.800]  that's not allowed by law and i'm making false claims saying that a false imprisonment or
[01:56:13.800 --> 01:56:20.200]  an arrest that the cops arrested me but they that the cops never took me to jail
[01:56:20.200 --> 01:56:28.040]  and he's dismissing this claim okay this this guy is exercising authority he doesn't have
[01:56:28.040 --> 01:56:39.240]  exercising authority he doesn't have if there if you made a what what remedy did you request
[01:56:42.520 --> 01:56:50.120]  what remedy did i request yeah where i'm getting at did you did you ask for remedy did you ask
[01:56:50.120 --> 01:57:01.240]  for damages for the other party for both of us okay what he can do is deny the remedy to the
[01:57:01.240 --> 01:57:07.480]  other party because the other party didn't ask for it now all that all would have needed to be done
[01:57:07.480 --> 01:57:15.720]  if the judge raised the if the defendants raised an issue then all you have to do is
[01:57:15.720 --> 01:57:24.040]  is refile the suit with your name and his name as as who were who was the plaintiff was it just
[01:57:24.040 --> 01:57:29.560]  you or was it both of you it was both of us but i didn't okay right i didn't want to wait this
[01:57:29.560 --> 01:57:34.680]  time with like two different suits when the other side is going to ask the no no you you don't have
[01:57:34.680 --> 01:57:40.520]  to i have to put his name on the top add him as a plaintiff and have him sign it at the bottom
[01:57:40.520 --> 01:57:48.600]  i did that i did that did he did he sign the suit as well as you yes he did
[01:57:50.600 --> 01:57:55.960]  this the judge had no power to do that yes he did i was saying he should at least at least he
[01:57:55.960 --> 01:58:01.000]  should have communicated and said hey if y'all want to do this uh you know i think you should
[01:58:01.000 --> 01:58:07.240]  separate it's in your own suit so yeah but i read the instructions where we both it happened in the
[01:58:07.240 --> 01:58:12.840]  same situation i'm going pro say he's he's part of the party i thought we were able to represent
[01:58:12.840 --> 01:58:19.720]  ourselves if both of you signed the suit then both of you are parties so he denied the other part
[01:58:20.360 --> 01:58:25.720]  access to the court okay hang on we're about to go to break uh we do need to move along
[01:58:25.720 --> 01:58:33.640]  oliver we've got a whole stack of callers today call back call back okay look into what we've
[01:58:33.640 --> 01:58:37.960]  talked about and call us back next next thursday we'll be right back
[01:58:43.880 --> 01:58:53.400]  say randy yes uh are we off yet the bible remains the most popular book in the world
[01:58:53.960 --> 01:58:59.560]  yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it some new translations
[01:58:59.560 --> 01:59:05.400]  try to help by simplifying the text but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of
[01:59:05.400 --> 01:59:12.680]  the scripture enter the recovery version first this new translation is extremely faithful and
[01:59:12.680 --> 01:59:19.560]  accurate but the real story is the more than 9 000 explanatory footnotes difficult and profound
[01:59:19.560 --> 01:59:25.480]  passages are opened up in a marvelous way providing an entrance into the riches of the word beyond
[01:59:25.480 --> 01:59:31.240]  which you've ever experienced before bibles for america would like to give you a free recovery
[01:59:31.240 --> 01:59:37.720]  version simply for the asking this comprehensive yet compact study bible is yours just by calling
[01:59:37.720 --> 01:59:45.720]  us toll free at one eight eight eight five five one zero one zero two or by ordering online at
[01:59:45.720 --> 01:59:52.920]  free study bible dot com that's free study bible dot com you are listening to the logos radio
[01:59:52.920 --> 02:00:00.040]  network logos radio network dot com