[00:00.000 --> 00:07.000]  The following news flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdowns, providing the jelly
[00:08.000 --> 00:15.000]  bulletins for the commodities market, today's history, news updates, and the inside scoop
[00:16.000 --> 00:19.000]  into the tides of the alternative.
[00:19.000 --> 00:29.000]  Markets for the 11th of April 2018, closed with gold $1,353.22
[00:30.000 --> 00:31.000]  Silver, $16.68
[00:32.000 --> 00:34.000]  Texas Crude, $65.51
[00:35.000 --> 00:37.000]  Bitcoins at $6,902.19
[00:38.000 --> 00:40.000]  Ethereum at $420.80
[00:41.000 --> 00:43.000]  Bitcoin Cash at $652.90
[00:43.000 --> 00:48.000]  And finally light coins at $114.34, a crypto coin.
[00:55.000 --> 01:02.000]  Today in history, the year 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1968,
[01:03.000 --> 01:08.000]  which prohibited private businesses from discriminating based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
[01:08.000 --> 01:14.000]  It also prohibited unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in public schools,
[01:15.000 --> 01:19.000]  in employment, and public accommodations for places of business, today in history.
[01:24.000 --> 01:29.000]  In recent news, tensions in Syria seem to have reached new levels after a chemical attack on civilians in the city of Duma,
[01:30.000 --> 01:36.000]  which left 40 dead and many injured, an attack which is being blamed on the democratically elected president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad,
[01:36.000 --> 01:42.000]  by the United States, and on Israel by Russia, either accusatory narrative without any verified evidence as of yet.
[01:43.000 --> 01:48.000]  President Trump tweeted today, Wednesday that if, quote, Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria,
[01:49.000 --> 01:52.000]  get ready, Russia, because they will be coming in nice and new and smart.
[01:53.000 --> 01:58.000]  Going on to warn Russia that you shouldn't be partners with a gas-killing animal who kills his people and enjoys it.
[01:59.000 --> 02:03.000]  Many in the West, including President Trump, have been quick to conclude that this chemical attack
[02:03.000 --> 02:06.000]  must have been conducted by Assad and his forces.
[02:07.000 --> 02:12.000]  Syria and Russia, on the other hand, have given approval since yesterday for the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons
[02:13.000 --> 02:15.000]  to investigate the sign of the chemical slaughter.
[02:16.000 --> 02:19.000]  Assad has been successful in maintaining rule and support during Syria's seven-year civil war,
[02:20.000 --> 02:24.000]  a civil war that is being fought by the government of Syria and anti-Assad Syrian rebels
[02:25.000 --> 02:31.000]  that are openly being funded by Western governments, with ISIS being one of the more notorious swinner groups of the American-backed Syrian rebels.
[02:31.000 --> 02:37.000]  Now, surprise then why Russian Foreign Minister Spokeswoman Maria Zakhova posted on Facebook
[02:38.000 --> 02:43.000]  that smart missiles should be fired at terrorists and not at a legitimate government, which has been fighting terrorists,
[02:44.000 --> 02:47.000]  or is this a trick to destroy all traces with a smart missile strike,
[02:48.000 --> 02:51.000]  and then there will be no evidence for international inspectors to look at.
[02:51.000 --> 03:00.000]  This was quick roadie with your lowdown for April 11, 2018.
[03:21.000 --> 03:32.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelkin, RealVlo Radio, and we're talking to John in New York,
[03:33.000 --> 03:40.000]  and John, these techniques, these ways of handling these people,
[03:41.000 --> 03:45.000]  this is stuff I've worked out over 30 years at dealing with them.
[03:45.000 --> 03:53.000]  And I do it this way in order to keep people from getting agitated.
[03:54.000 --> 04:02.000]  When you try to deal with these public officials, they're very good at doing a pattern interruption.
[04:03.000 --> 04:07.000]  They interrupt all your expectations of civil behavior.
[04:07.000 --> 04:14.000]  And then if you respond to them with the slightest voice inflection,
[04:15.000 --> 04:19.000]  they're going to call you agitated, and once they accuse you of being agitated,
[04:20.000 --> 04:22.000]  then you're totally discredited.
[04:23.000 --> 04:31.000]  So, return the table soda, and suggest these techniques,
[04:31.000 --> 04:37.000]  the things you do, set them up, get them to do something so you can call on them.
[04:38.000 --> 04:42.000]  And then when you do, call them on what they do, and they don't do what they're supposed to.
[04:43.000 --> 04:45.000]  Oh, wonderful, wonderful. We get this thing for that.
[04:46.000 --> 04:54.000]  It keeps you from being feeling betrayed and mistreated, and it keeps them off balance.
[04:55.000 --> 04:58.000]  They do what they do to keep you off balance.
[04:58.000 --> 05:01.000]  So, we're trying to turn the tables on them.
[05:02.000 --> 05:06.000]  So, when they realize you're deliberately setting them up,
[05:07.000 --> 05:11.000]  now you become somebody they do not want to deal with.
[05:12.000 --> 05:18.000]  I had a friend that got a job at the Wise County Sheriff's Department.
[05:19.000 --> 05:24.000]  But before she could start, this was in the jail, before she could start working in the jail,
[05:24.000 --> 05:32.000]  she had to go to Denton, Texas, another county over, to take a course on how to deal with difficult people.
[05:33.000 --> 05:40.000]  And when they used someone as an example, she said, I know that guy.
[05:41.000 --> 05:51.000]  I had sued them 10 years before, and they still used me as an example of how to deal with difficult people.
[05:51.000 --> 05:58.000]  I was the most difficult of all of the people they dealt with.
[05:59.000 --> 06:05.000]  The reason? They never got me upset. They never distracted me.
[06:06.000 --> 06:09.000]  I set them up and hammered them every time they moved.
[06:10.000 --> 06:13.000]  I sued 24 litigants in an $11 million lawsuit.
[06:13.000 --> 06:20.000]  I sued my worst nightmare, 13th litigant.
[06:21.000 --> 06:28.000]  At the hearing where the county commissioner's court judge appointed the district attorney to represent this case,
[06:29.000 --> 06:33.000]  he said, who is this my worst nightmare?
[06:33.000 --> 06:43.000]  And the prosecutor said, well, apparently someone introduced himself to Mr. Kelton as his worst nightmare.
[06:44.000 --> 06:50.000]  And the judge said, yes, and I have a bone to pick with him.
[06:51.000 --> 06:55.000]  Well, the next time I went down there, that guy was gone.
[06:55.000 --> 07:01.000]  But I used these techniques.
[07:02.000 --> 07:06.000]  And because I used these techniques, they couldn't get to me.
[07:07.000 --> 07:13.000]  What got that guy to say that to me is I was at the jail and I had asked to see some records.
[07:14.000 --> 07:17.000]  And when they refused to give me the records, I called 911.
[07:18.000 --> 07:23.000]  I wound up with a major and a captain and a couple of sergeants.
[07:23.000 --> 07:27.000]  All out here in the lobby and I'm sitting down there all standing around me.
[07:28.000 --> 07:30.000]  I'm not going to stand up because I don't want to look aggressive.
[07:31.000 --> 07:33.000]  And I am working over the major.
[07:34.000 --> 07:37.000]  And I guess this one cop didn't like me working over the major.
[07:38.000 --> 07:41.000]  And he stepped up and demanded something of me.
[07:42.000 --> 07:44.000]  And I said, who the heck are you?
[07:45.000 --> 07:50.000]  He looked down at me and said, I'm your worst nightmare.
[07:50.000 --> 07:53.000]  You're my worst nightmare.
[07:54.000 --> 07:56.000]  And you know what my nightmares are.
[07:57.000 --> 07:59.000]  I said, I'll tell you what, bubba.
[08:00.000 --> 08:01.000]  That didn't come off too good.
[08:02.000 --> 08:07.000]  You need to get you a rag and tie it around your head and kind of drop your lip down and say,
[08:12.000 --> 08:15.000]  The other guys grabbed this guy and drug him off.
[08:15.000 --> 08:21.000]  Well, I asked the major what's his name and the major wouldn't tell me.
[08:22.000 --> 08:23.000]  I asked the captain.
[08:24.000 --> 08:27.000]  I asked all the sergeants and when nobody would tell me their name.
[08:28.000 --> 08:29.000]  I said, guys, look at you.
[08:30.000 --> 08:32.000]  Bunch of big strapping officers.
[08:33.000 --> 08:38.000]  I need you boys to take your chicken suits off and paddle on that guy.
[08:39.000 --> 08:41.000]  Nobody would tell me who he was.
[08:41.000 --> 08:45.000]  So when I, when I sued, I sued my worst nightmare.
[08:46.000 --> 08:49.000]  You take what they do and turn it back on.
[08:50.000 --> 08:51.000]  Okay.
[08:52.000 --> 08:54.000]  That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
[08:55.000 --> 08:56.000]  Okay.
[08:57.000 --> 09:02.000]  What I write though about the way they've convoluted the court, the top gets to make an accusation and they,
[09:03.000 --> 09:07.000]  they elevate it to evidence, which it isn't.
[09:07.000 --> 09:10.000]  And then you're expected to prove it negative.
[09:11.000 --> 09:16.000]  Like when the company supervisor comes over and says, you've got to excuse me for saying this.
[09:17.000 --> 09:20.000]  You've got to pee in a cup to prove you don't have drugs in your system.
[09:21.000 --> 09:22.000]  Excuse me.
[09:23.000 --> 09:24.000]  It doesn't work that way.
[09:25.000 --> 09:28.000]  If you think I got drugs in my system, you, you prosecute me for that.
[09:29.000 --> 09:33.000]  But I don't have to prove that I didn't do something that's proving it negative.
[09:34.000 --> 09:35.000]  Exactly.
[09:35.000 --> 09:43.000]  You ask, you ask him, if you test my urine and find there are drugs in it, what are you going to do?
[09:45.000 --> 09:51.000]  Well, if he's going to call the police and charge you, then okay, you're in a special situation.
[09:52.000 --> 09:53.000]  You have to understand.
[09:54.000 --> 09:56.000]  If he's your employee, you're under contract with him.
[09:57.000 --> 10:01.000]  If the contract requires you to pee in the cup, you don't have an objection.
[10:01.000 --> 10:12.000]  But if a, if I'm saying I'm arrested and they want me to pee in a cup, not going to happen because they can't be required to incriminate myself.
[10:13.000 --> 10:14.000]  Right.
[10:15.000 --> 10:21.000]  An employer can if you're under contract where you have agreed as a condition of employment to do that.
[10:22.000 --> 10:23.000]  Oh, I see.
[10:23.000 --> 10:30.000]  It's probably, it's probably just an unfortunate example there are lots of, lots of others.
[10:31.000 --> 10:32.000]  You don't have to incriminate yourself.
[10:33.000 --> 10:34.000]  You don't have to disprove anything.
[10:35.000 --> 10:41.000]  Once they've established probable cause, then we'll talk about what, what I was doing or, you know, my proof.
[10:42.000 --> 10:47.000]  But we're not going to do anything until you've proved up a probable cause case or a prima facie case.
[10:48.000 --> 10:50.000]  Prima facie means on the face of it.
[10:50.000 --> 10:59.000]  Sufficient to give a reasonable person of ordinary prudence cause to believe that a crime had been committed and that you had committed that crime.
[11:00.000 --> 11:10.000]  Once they come up with that much information, then I can either respond or I can stipulate, which are not required to in any case.
[11:11.000 --> 11:13.000]  Am I, am I right about the cop?
[11:13.000 --> 11:19.000]  He comes into court, he says all the way the radar showed that you were doing 72 and a 55.
[11:20.000 --> 11:21.000]  That's an accusation.
[11:22.000 --> 11:23.000]  That's no proof.
[11:24.000 --> 11:33.000]  And even if he has a printout that they, that the, the radar printed out and said 72 and a 55, then it doesn't make.
[11:34.000 --> 11:35.000]  Okay, okay, hold on.
[11:36.000 --> 11:41.000]  Did your radar clock my car when you got this printout?
[11:41.000 --> 11:45.000]  And he's going to say, yes, objection hearsay.
[11:46.000 --> 11:49.000]  I need him to bring in the radar.
[11:50.000 --> 11:51.000]  Yeah.
[11:52.000 --> 11:59.000]  Did the radar take a photograph of my automobile at the exact same time it clocked my automobile?
[12:00.000 --> 12:01.000]  No.
[12:02.000 --> 12:04.000]  Then how do you know you didn't clock a bird?
[12:05.000 --> 12:09.000]  But my problem with that you're going back to the merits.
[12:09.000 --> 12:14.000]  Everybody wants to argue that there is innocent and that's where the court gets you.
[12:15.000 --> 12:16.000]  That's right.
[12:17.000 --> 12:18.000]  That's right.
[12:19.000 --> 12:27.000]  I do not ever want to talk about the merits because that goes through the discretion of the court and they're always going to exercise their discretion to your detriment.
[12:27.000 --> 12:38.000]  So even because there was a girl that called me because she knows I love traffic court and I told her exactly what to say.
[12:39.000 --> 12:48.000]  They got her doing 72 and a 55 and she goes, yeah, but, but John, I really was doing 72 and I says, I don't care if you were doing 92 and a 55.
[12:49.000 --> 12:50.000]  I said, this is going to work.
[12:50.000 --> 12:56.000]  Well, she gets into court and I said, one of the first things to do is to cross-examine the cop.
[12:57.000 --> 12:58.000]  Do you have a picture of me?
[12:59.000 --> 13:00.000]  No.
[13:01.000 --> 13:02.000]  Do you have a video?
[13:03.000 --> 13:04.000]  No.
[13:05.000 --> 13:06.000]  Do you have any audio over the conversation?
[13:07.000 --> 13:08.000]  No.
[13:09.000 --> 13:13.000]  Do you have any witnesses prepared to come forward live to testify against me as a defendant?
[13:14.000 --> 13:15.000]  No.
[13:15.000 --> 13:19.000]  No, they couldn't come, but they swore a statement and notarized it.
[13:20.000 --> 13:21.000]  No.
[13:22.000 --> 13:25.000]  Well, Your Honor, I respectfully submit that the officer has no evidence.
[13:26.000 --> 13:35.000]  And according to the rules of evidence, you can't say that, well, I saw you, Your Honor, you were on the grassy knoll in, I love to use this as an example.
[13:36.000 --> 13:39.000]  You were on the grassy knoll in November 63, you shot John F. Kennedy.
[13:40.000 --> 13:41.000]  I saw you.
[13:42.000 --> 13:43.000]  Well, it doesn't work that way.
[13:43.000 --> 13:44.000]  You're going to have something.
[13:45.000 --> 13:47.000]  And the cops, you never have proof when they take you to court.
[13:48.000 --> 13:49.000]  It's always an accusation.
[13:50.000 --> 13:56.000]  The problem here was a first-hand witness is not hearsay testimony.
[13:57.000 --> 13:58.000]  It is acceptable.
[13:59.000 --> 14:11.000]  The problem here is, is when it's the matter of the word of one citizen against the word of another citizen, with no corroborating evidence, the court is required to accept the word of the accused.
[14:11.000 --> 14:12.000]  That's right.
[14:13.000 --> 14:17.000]  The benefit is supposed to be for the defendant, not the plaintiff.
[14:18.000 --> 14:20.000]  But that's not how it actually works.
[14:21.000 --> 14:22.000]  No.
[14:23.000 --> 14:24.000]  The judges do not care.
[14:25.000 --> 14:26.000]  That's why I never want to get there.
[14:27.000 --> 14:28.000]  Yeah.
[14:29.000 --> 14:32.000]  Let's go back to due process.
[14:33.000 --> 14:34.000]  Yep.
[14:34.000 --> 14:44.000]  If you ever let them get to the merits, they'll almost always rule against you, no matter what, because the judges are to make money.
[14:45.000 --> 14:46.000]  Yeah, you're dead in the water.
[14:47.000 --> 14:48.000]  You're dead in the water.
[14:49.000 --> 14:50.000]  Yeah, nothing's always the case.
[14:51.000 --> 14:58.000]  But the vast majority of the cases, you should expect that if you get to the merits, the court will rule against you at every opportunity.
[14:58.000 --> 15:04.000]  Maybe they won't, but if you're prepared for them to do that, then you're better prepared for the case.
[15:05.000 --> 15:07.000]  So, spend your time on the front end.
[15:08.000 --> 15:16.000]  Spend your time on due process, then establishing their ability and authority to litigate against you.
[15:17.000 --> 15:19.000]  That's where you can win on point of the law.
[15:20.000 --> 15:23.000]  Well, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
[15:23.000 --> 15:29.000]  I do need to move along, John, we've got all the colors and we're going to another break.
[15:30.000 --> 15:34.000]  So, when we come back on the other, okay, I've got about a minute or so.
[15:35.000 --> 15:37.000]  Do you have anything else, John?
[15:38.000 --> 15:44.000]  Well, she said when she told the judge about the rules of evidence, weren't being followed.
[15:45.000 --> 15:51.000]  The cop and the judge looked at each other and she said they literally turned white as a sheet.
[15:51.000 --> 15:53.000]  Because they knew she was onto something.
[15:54.000 --> 15:57.000]  And they hoped that nobody else figured it out.
[15:59.000 --> 16:02.000]  So, anyway, I guess that's about it.
[16:03.000 --> 16:04.000]  Thank you very kindly.
[16:05.000 --> 16:08.000]  I'm still trying to learn as much as I can with all this legal stuff.
[16:09.000 --> 16:15.000]  And just remember, when you're feeding the brain, you give the brain its component parts.
[16:15.000 --> 16:23.000]  You give it omega-3s, you give it what it means, a whole free vitamin B complex,
[16:24.000 --> 16:25.000]  and a host of other things.
[16:26.000 --> 16:28.000]  But if you give it those two things, you're doing good.
[16:29.000 --> 16:30.000]  Okay, thank you.
[16:31.000 --> 16:32.000]  Now, we're going to break.
[16:33.000 --> 16:34.000]  Randy Kelton, real live radio.
[16:35.000 --> 16:36.000]  Mark, I see you there.
[16:37.000 --> 16:38.000]  We'll pick you up on the other side.
[16:39.000 --> 16:40.000]  A call in number 512-646-1984.
[16:40.000 --> 16:45.000]  If you have a question or comment, give us a call and we have our fundraiser on.
[16:46.000 --> 16:51.000]  So, on the break, you go to Logos Radio Network and check out our gun giveaway.
[16:51.000 --> 17:20.000]  We'll be right back.
[17:21.000 --> 17:25.000]  The one prize up for grabs is the Spikes Tactical AR-15.
[17:26.000 --> 17:28.000]  More prizes and sponsors to be announced.
[17:29.000 --> 17:34.000]  When you purchase Randy Kelton's e-book, Legal 101, you get four chances to win.
[17:35.000 --> 17:38.000]  Purchase Eddie Craig's Traffic Seminar and get 10 chances to win.
[17:39.000 --> 17:42.000]  And remember, every $25 donation is a chance to win.
[17:43.000 --> 17:47.000]  If you've enjoyed the shows on Logos Radio Network, support our fundraiser
[17:47.000 --> 17:51.000]  so we can keep bringing you the best quality programming on talk radio today.
[17:52.000 --> 17:54.000]  We also accept Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
[17:55.000 --> 17:59.000]  Go to LogosRadioNetwork.com for details and donate today.
[18:00.000 --> 18:05.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[18:06.000 --> 18:09.000]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method.
[18:10.000 --> 18:14.000]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win too.
[18:14.000 --> 18:20.000]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statute.
[18:21.000 --> 18:24.000]  What to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons?
[18:25.000 --> 18:26.000]  How to answer letters and phone calls?
[18:27.000 --> 18:29.000]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit report?
[18:30.000 --> 18:33.000]  How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away?
[18:34.000 --> 18:38.000]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:39.000 --> 18:41.000]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[18:41.000 --> 18:46.000]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner
[18:47.000 --> 18:49.000]  or email MichaelMears at yahoo.com.
[18:50.000 --> 18:57.000]  That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com
[18:58.000 --> 19:00.000]  to learn how to stop debt collectors next.
[19:01.000 --> 19:05.000]  You are listening to the LogosRadio Network.
[19:05.000 --> 19:11.000]  LogosRadioNetwork.com
[19:12.000 --> 19:14.000]  Well, don't let nothing get to you.
[19:15.000 --> 19:17.000]  Only the father can do it by you.
[19:18.000 --> 19:20.000]  And don't let bad-mine people hurt you.
[19:21.000 --> 19:23.000]  Until they can get behind you.
[19:24.000 --> 19:25.000]  Know what I mean?
[19:26.000 --> 19:28.000]  My friend and all our judges.
[19:28.000 --> 19:32.000]  Okay, we are back.
[19:33.000 --> 19:36.000]  Randy Kelton of Rule of Law Radio and we're going to Mark in Wisconsin.
[19:37.000 --> 19:39.000]  Mark, what have you been up to?
[19:40.000 --> 19:43.000]  Well, I've been busy losing my keys.
[19:44.000 --> 19:47.000]  Well, at least, you know, at the small claims court level.
[19:48.000 --> 19:54.000]  As you have spoken with the previous caller, going to merits, you're not going to do real well.
[19:54.000 --> 19:59.000]  The court explicitly was stopping me from...
[20:00.000 --> 20:02.000]  Actually, I had a...
[20:03.000 --> 20:08.000]  To short-circuit the merits, there was a failure on the plaintiff's side.
[20:09.000 --> 20:14.000]  People were doing plaintiffs' sides to answer, admit or deny.
[20:15.000 --> 20:17.000]  So they had default admissions that there was no contract.
[20:18.000 --> 20:21.000]  And that would have torpedoed their case right away.
[20:21.000 --> 20:27.000]  And the first judge said, we're not hearing that today.
[20:28.000 --> 20:32.000]  And then the next part was, we're running out, we're out of time.
[20:33.000 --> 20:34.000]  Is there anything else?
[20:35.000 --> 20:39.000]  The second judge who took over didn't re-hear any of that.
[20:40.000 --> 20:47.000]  And bringing that up at the hearing, the attorney would normally have objected and he didn't.
[20:47.000 --> 20:54.000]  And the judge just rolled right over, the only thing we had to see, hearing or the trial.
[20:55.000 --> 20:59.000]  No discussion of the law at all was allowed, just the evidence.
[21:00.000 --> 21:05.000]  Which I thought was a little odd, but okay, you're the judge, it's your show, however you want to roll it.
[21:08.000 --> 21:11.000]  So did you file a criminal against the judge?
[21:11.000 --> 21:17.000]  Not at this point, I don't have the insurance transcript yet.
[21:18.000 --> 21:33.000]  I filed a criminal against the first one for the violation of Wisconsin's class I felony that you can't use your position to give somebody a pecuniary advantage.
[21:34.000 --> 21:39.000]  And that particular judge, when the attorney said it involves our insurance,
[21:39.000 --> 21:52.000]  and he then made a decision, I'm making the claim that he was done for the pecuniary advantage of the attorney.
[21:53.000 --> 22:02.000]  With the appeal, if you remember, and maybe the listeners remember, but well, repeat it for the new ones.
[22:02.000 --> 22:12.000]  There was an incident with myself and one of the top ten law firms in the state where there was misconduct by that law firm,
[22:13.000 --> 22:18.000]  ultimately the CEO functions as a judge for the county.
[22:18.000 --> 22:33.000]  In addition to members who are both shareholders and otherwise are on the grievance or the disciplinary board for the bar, so they're well connected.
[22:34.000 --> 22:44.000]  And one of the judges on the appellate court is an ex-employee and the CEO was his treasurer when he was running for office.
[22:44.000 --> 22:51.000]  So I'm making the claim that the Supreme Court needs to hear the appeal because the appellate court has a bias,
[22:52.000 --> 23:02.000]  and I'm going to be throwing in the documentation I have showing the violations of the codiconda of some of their attorneys.
[23:03.000 --> 23:04.000]  So that would be fun.
[23:05.000 --> 23:06.000]  It sounds like it.
[23:07.000 --> 23:10.000]  Are you getting lots of Christmas cards from these guys?
[23:10.000 --> 23:19.000]  Not yet, not yet. Although I suspect by the time I wrote a one-page letter to the Supreme Court saying,
[23:20.000 --> 23:27.000]  hey, you need to look at this, and they wrote back and said there's no appeal in front of us at this time, so we're never going to take no action.
[23:28.000 --> 23:30.000]  And I made reference to this issue.
[23:31.000 --> 23:36.000]  Now I get to put it actually in documents in the record.
[23:36.000 --> 23:39.000]  And so this will be fun. This will be fun.
[23:40.000 --> 23:48.000]  But the reason I was calling this evening was to get your opinion and your input on the following.
[23:49.000 --> 23:55.000]  Now in Wisconsin, there was a case involving $10 million that somebody apparently was very mad at,
[23:55.000 --> 24:06.000]  and a local bank that the local bank opened an account for a non-existent corporation.
[24:07.000 --> 24:15.000]  The $10 million was put into that account, and the purpose of it was there was going to be some kind of arbitrage,
[24:15.000 --> 24:25.000]  daily arbitrage of cash differences between U.S. dollars and various African country currencies.
[24:26.000 --> 24:29.000]  Amazingly, all the money left the country.
[24:30.000 --> 24:36.000]  And the gentleman said, well, the bank had a duty to follow the banking regulations,
[24:37.000 --> 24:41.000]  and this guy is out of $10 million and wanted to hit the bank.
[24:41.000 --> 24:47.000]  The dissenting judge single-stepped through all of the federal code in his dissent,
[24:48.000 --> 24:53.000]  and all of these things the bank did wrong, and then kind of threw up the tans at the end and said,
[24:54.000 --> 25:01.000]  but there's no civil cause of action when the bank makes a mistake or does failures to follow.
[25:02.000 --> 25:05.000]  It's all the secretary of the treasurer's job.
[25:05.000 --> 25:14.000]  So where I'm going with that is anytime I've looked at federal regulations when a business is regulated
[25:15.000 --> 25:20.000]  or the powerful are regulated, they make all this scooped up, that's all we have this stuff.
[25:21.000 --> 25:27.000]  But then there's other federal regulations that say, if you find an error and you report it to us as soon as you find it,
[25:28.000 --> 25:33.000]  and we're not going to worry about the fines, we're just interested in, you know,
[25:33.000 --> 25:35.000]  letting us know if there's the fines.
[25:36.000 --> 25:40.000]  And so I'm wondering with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
[25:41.000 --> 25:49.000]  when these companies go ahead and make these violations, if that's also a feature that they have this reporting,
[25:50.000 --> 25:54.000]  and if they do, why are they reporting?
[25:54.000 --> 26:02.000]  Wait a minute, if they have this reporting, I missed what that word was.
[26:03.000 --> 26:10.000]  So if they make a mistake, if they make a mistake where they would get fined by the secretary of the treasury for not following the rules,
[26:11.000 --> 26:18.000]  anytime I've dealt with federal regulations where there are fines and other things or looked into it,
[26:18.000 --> 26:23.000]  there always seems to be this escape hatch for the companies to go,
[26:24.000 --> 26:31.000]  if you come to us first and confess your sins, you know, we're cool.
[26:32.000 --> 26:37.000]  If this stuff gets reported that we investigate and we find out your sins is where you can find.
[26:38.000 --> 26:44.000]  So what I'm looking for is whether or not my particular problem has already been reported.
[26:44.000 --> 26:51.000]  And if so, how do I get the FOIA on this self-reporting that they've got?
[26:52.000 --> 26:54.000]  Where would you report this to?
[26:55.000 --> 26:59.000]  Well, the secretary of the treasury is the one who creates the fines.
[27:00.000 --> 27:05.000]  So I'm guessing it's going to be the secretary of the treasury, the respondent superior.
[27:06.000 --> 27:08.000]  So that's where I'm going to send the FOIA to.
[27:08.000 --> 27:16.000]  But I was just curious if you knew if, yeah, it turns out that that's the case that in the particulars of the banking regs,
[27:17.000 --> 27:19.000]  the self-reporting is an escape hatch.
[27:20.000 --> 27:29.000]  No, this is not an area in which these are securities and finance.
[27:30.000 --> 27:32.000]  It's not an area in which I am knowledgeable.
[27:32.000 --> 27:37.000]  But whatever the regulating agency is, if it's a treasury,
[27:38.000 --> 27:45.000]  I would certainly look at, call the treasury and say you want to file a complaint
[27:46.000 --> 27:57.000]  and give them a basic nature of the kind of complaint and ask them who is the agency or person with whom I would file these complaints.
[27:57.000 --> 28:04.000]  And they've actually done that. They've said the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
[28:05.000 --> 28:10.000]  the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has already taken a complaint in my case about this whole deal
[28:11.000 --> 28:17.000]  that the bank responded and they went, well, there's a response where the case is closed.
[28:17.000 --> 28:33.000]  But this is slightly different with the banking regs since this is ultimately goes to the post 9-11 Know Your Customer rules
[28:34.000 --> 28:37.000]  as part of the anti-money laundering rules.
[28:38.000 --> 28:40.000]  So it may be a different group.
[28:41.000 --> 28:42.000]  But again, I...
[28:42.000 --> 28:54.000]  Wait a minute. This is generally the kind of thing that the treasury would be all over because they don't want cash leaving the United States.
[28:55.000 --> 28:56.000]  Correct.
[28:56.000 --> 29:16.000]  In fact, Capital One was fined 140 million for the way in which they closed accounts and they were fined another 100,000 or something for another mistake in 2012.
[29:17.000 --> 29:24.000]  The other little interesting tip that in this whole set of paperwork that I was finally able to get.
[29:24.000 --> 29:32.000]  In 2013, they have paired up when they said, oh, they have frequently asked questions section associated with the bill.
[29:33.000 --> 29:40.000]  And in that frequently asked questions section, they said, oh, if you want to close the account, contact us.
[29:41.000 --> 29:45.000]  We'll close the account, but we reserve the right to reopen the account after you've closed it.
[29:45.000 --> 29:56.000]  In 2016, the same frequently asked question thing said, hey, how do I close the account? They just had one sentence. Contact us and we'll close it.
[29:57.000 --> 29:59.000]  Well, something happened between 2013.
[29:59.000 --> 30:15.000]  Stinks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me. Whoever came up with that was sure wrong. I'm Dr. Katherine Albrecht and I'll be back in a moment to explain how your first middle and last names can actually affect your mortality.
[30:16.000 --> 30:25.000]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:25.000 --> 30:33.000]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[30:34.000 --> 30:43.000]  This public service announcement is brought to you by startpage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing. Start over with Start Page.
[30:44.000 --> 30:48.000]  The initials of your name could significantly impact how long you live.
[30:48.000 --> 30:56.000]  According to a University of California study, positive initials like VIP or ACE could add more than four years to a man's life.
[30:57.000 --> 31:02.000]  Negative initials like PIG or DIE could shorten a man's life by two years.
[31:03.000 --> 31:08.000]  While women are less impacted by negative initials than men, positive initials can add three years to their lives.
[31:09.000 --> 31:16.000]  Researchers believe initials are powerful symbols that affect how people are treated and how they feel about themselves, and research supports it.
[31:16.000 --> 31:23.000]  Those with negative initials were more likely to commit suicide and die in accidents than those with positive initials, so name your kids well.
[31:23.000 --> 31:46.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[31:53.000 --> 32:12.000]  Rural Law Radio is proud to offer the Rural Law Traffic Seminar. In today's America, we live in an us against them society, and if we, the people, are ever going to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[32:13.000 --> 32:19.000]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity, and most importantly, the right to due process of law.
[32:19.000 --> 32:25.000]  Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process.
[32:26.000 --> 32:35.000]  Former Sheriff's Deputy, Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rural Law Radio, has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is and how to hold your courts to the rule of law.
[32:36.000 --> 32:40.000]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to RuralLawRadio.com and ordering your copy today.
[32:40.000 --> 32:50.000]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law vs. the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar. Hundreds of research documents and other useful resource material.
[32:51.000 --> 32:54.000]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from RuralLawRadio.com.
[32:54.000 --> 33:10.000]  Order your copy today and together we can have free society we all want and deserve.
[33:25.000 --> 33:33.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton of RuralLawRadio and we're talking to Mark in Wisconsin.
[33:34.000 --> 33:38.000]  Okay, go ahead, Mark. I was so transfixed. I forgot to watch the clock.
[33:38.000 --> 33:57.000]  We both fell right off the cliff. I didn't even hear it. Anyway, in 2013, their FAQ for associated with the Billings said, if you want to cancel your account, contact us, but we reserve the right to reopen the account.
[33:57.000 --> 34:14.000]  In 2016, the same FAQ said, if you want to cancel your account, contact us, and that was it. So at some point, they must have had a lawsuit somewhere that said, hey, this whole thing is a problem.
[34:15.000 --> 34:25.000]  Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo got hammered big time for opening accounts for people that they didn't know about.
[34:25.000 --> 34:28.000]  So that may be why they took it off of there.
[34:29.000 --> 34:39.000]  Okay, okay. Well, there's a whole series of issues that I'll try to have the appellate court deal with.
[34:39.000 --> 35:01.000]  And ultimately, I'll be taking it through the Fed and I won't be able to get the Wisconsin judicial determination removed in the Fed, but I should be able to get enough fines that they'll be paying me some money.
[35:01.000 --> 35:19.000]  But again, my main reason for calling today was to find out if you knew whether or not there was something with the self-reporting to mitigate fines in these classifications.
[35:19.000 --> 35:32.000]  And, you know, I can understand that this is not your area of expertise, but perhaps one of the listeners will drop you an e-mail and there'll be another rabbit trail for me to run down.
[35:33.000 --> 35:33.000]  Good.
[35:34.000 --> 35:40.000]  I also, yes, go ahead. Go ahead, Randy.
[35:41.000 --> 35:45.000]  No, no, no, no, go ahead. I was waiting. Are you also something?
[35:45.000 --> 36:06.000]  I also, in finding and going through the various incendiary laws, I did find a federal seventh circuit in the Fed where the explicitly the actions of the underling accrue to the employer.
[36:06.000 --> 36:27.000]  And so I'm thinking the, where the attorney explicitly referred to me as a fraudster in open court, since fraudster is tied to press announcements by both the Middle Wisconsin Attorney General and the SEC of people who have been convicted of fraud.
[36:27.000 --> 36:45.000]  I believe that falls under the defamation per se or slander per se rules. And I was thinking of just filing straight up against the capital one and then have to.
[36:46.000 --> 36:52.000]  There's the one doing the suing and this attorney was under their employ.
[36:52.000 --> 37:02.000]  So you could, what, are you thinking of filing a separate action or a counter suit in the instant action?
[37:03.000 --> 37:10.000]  A separate action. I don't, you know, there's, it's a separate, it's technically a separate action.
[37:11.000 --> 37:14.000]  Good, because that's better. You don't tie the two together.
[37:15.000 --> 37:16.000]  Correct.
[37:16.000 --> 37:24.000]  Correct. Then they have to hire lawyers for the second case and just dig a hole deeper for them.
[37:25.000 --> 37:29.000]  And that'll be tough if they hire lawyers for your suing a lawyer.
[37:30.000 --> 37:41.000]  This is going to take lawyers who knows that they've got a litigant who's prepared to hammer them. Their costs are going to really rock it up.
[37:41.000 --> 37:53.000]  Well, the other little tidbit there is the attorney twice filed affidavits saying, I've looked at these records and these records are too accurate and complete.
[37:54.000 --> 38:03.000]  The number of records submitted to the court the first time was about 50 pages. The second time was 385 pages.
[38:03.000 --> 38:12.000]  And then on the day of the trial, he came up with an additional 65 pages. I did motion for spoilage. That was shot down.
[38:13.000 --> 38:18.000]  And I did move to have the attorney testify. That was shot down.
[38:19.000 --> 38:29.000]  But explicitly in Wisconsin's SCR 20, it says that attorneys should not go ahead and write affidavits because, you know, you can be called on the stand.
[38:29.000 --> 38:36.000]  I did bar grievance for that and the bar grievance came back as we're not going to do anything.
[38:37.000 --> 38:42.000]  So that's going to get fun.
[38:43.000 --> 38:53.000]  Well, the bar grievance, they may not do something, but we can be confident in the knowledge that their insurance carrier will.
[38:53.000 --> 39:04.000]  Well, what I'm going to do is take these things that have happened in this case and bar grieve each and every shareholder of the law firm.
[39:05.000 --> 39:10.000]  Apparently the law firm is the top, is the 20th largest law firm in Minnesota.
[39:11.000 --> 39:16.000]  So I guess I know how to pick fights with the, you know, one of the top 10 and one of the top 20.
[39:16.000 --> 39:22.000]  You know, I've got 48 more states to go, I guess.
[39:23.000 --> 39:25.000]  You're just getting warmed up.
[39:26.000 --> 39:28.000]  I guess.
[39:29.000 --> 39:35.000]  I don't know what else to, you know, father's ideas to try here.
[39:35.000 --> 39:51.000]  Other than the attorney or the judge, you know, hitting him in the county with a suit, a civil suit and, of course, trying to shop around getting the judge criminally, the first judge criminally charged.
[39:51.000 --> 40:15.000]  And I don't know when I should throw in that I believe that the judge who made the particular ruling in my case, she's just upset that I own the domain that she used to run for office because I don't necessarily know that she knows that I have that domain.
[40:15.000 --> 40:26.000]  Do I see, in your advice, do I just throw that in casually or do I wait for it to be an issue?
[40:27.000 --> 40:29.000]  I would wait for it to be an issue.
[40:30.000 --> 40:31.000]  Okay.
[40:32.000 --> 40:37.000]  If you register that domain and then use it against her, it's going to look like you set her up.
[40:37.000 --> 40:47.000]  But if you register the domain and don't use it against her and then she brings it up, now you're not, you're not contaminated with it yourself.
[40:48.000 --> 40:49.000]  Okay.
[40:50.000 --> 40:58.000]  She's just, you know, the fact that she was careless and didn't register their name, her problem, not your problem.
[40:58.000 --> 41:11.000]  Yep. Yep. Well, the person who ran against her also didn't register his domain and he was the court commissioner at the start of the case.
[41:12.000 --> 41:14.000]  So, you know, I got both of them.
[41:15.000 --> 41:16.000]  Okay.
[41:17.000 --> 41:18.000]  It works.
[41:19.000 --> 41:20.000]  You're going to have way too much fun.
[41:21.000 --> 41:23.000]  Okay. Do you have anything else for us?
[41:23.000 --> 41:33.000]  No, no, I was really, you know, looking for, you know, ideas on the Fed, the Fed level with trying to get it with FOIA.
[41:34.000 --> 41:39.000]  And, you know, I guess I'll try it for HAHAs and see if I can shake anything loose.
[41:40.000 --> 41:46.000]  I did send off letters to my representatives asking for their assistance.
[41:47.000 --> 41:48.000]  Oh, I know, I know.
[41:49.000 --> 41:51.000]  I do have a secondary question on the federal end.
[41:51.000 --> 42:03.000]  Now, on the state end, if you have a problem with state employees are not doing their job, you could file a writ of mandamus and move the court to order the employees to do their job.
[42:04.000 --> 42:06.000]  Is there a federal equivalent?
[42:08.000 --> 42:10.000]  The mandamus and Fed, yes.
[42:11.000 --> 42:12.000]  Oh, okay.
[42:13.000 --> 42:14.000]  Great.
[42:14.000 --> 42:26.000]  Well, I mean, okay, let me back up, mandamus is certainly available in the Fed, but depends on who you're asking the Fed to issue an order to.
[42:27.000 --> 42:40.000]  The Fed cannot necessarily issue an order to a state actor unless the state actor is violating a federal due process law statute.
[42:41.000 --> 42:42.000]  Right.
[42:42.000 --> 43:08.000]  I was more looking that because of this guard versus associated with the 10 million and whether the appellate judge walked through the code and said there's no cause of action for civil cause of action against the bank not following the rules, the fines, et cetera, are the responsibility of the Secretary of the Treasury.
[43:08.000 --> 43:22.000]  What I was looking for is a writ demanding the Secretary of the Treasury fully investigate this and come up with a rude part.
[43:24.000 --> 43:31.000]  Didn't the aggrieved party have a claim against the bank for loss of funds?
[43:31.000 --> 43:43.000]  He, in the Wisconsin case, he did and apparently in Wisconsin it is a Palisades versus Long Island railroad.
[43:44.000 --> 43:46.000]  Okay, okay, hang on, about to go to break.
[43:47.000 --> 43:52.000]  Randy Kelton, rule of law radio or call in number 512-646-1984.
[43:52.000 --> 44:01.000]  We'll be right back.
[44:23.000 --> 44:26.000]  If we don't have what you're looking for, we can find it.
[44:27.000 --> 44:31.000]  In addition, we carry popular young Jebedee products such as Beyond Tangy Tangerine and Pollen Burst.
[44:32.000 --> 44:38.000]  We also offer One World Way, Mountain House storeable foods, Berkey Water products, ammunition at 10% above wholesale and more.
[44:39.000 --> 44:42.000]  We broker metals IRA accounts and we also accept big coins as payment.
[44:43.000 --> 44:45.000]  Call us at 512-646-644-0.
[44:46.000 --> 44:50.000]  We're located at 7304 Burnett Road, sweet A, about a half mile south of Anderson.
[44:50.000 --> 44:53.000]  We're open Monday through Friday, 10 to 6, Saturdays, 10 to 2.
[44:54.000 --> 44:59.000]  Visit us at CapitalCoinandBullion.com or call 512-646-644-0.
[45:00.000 --> 45:03.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[45:04.000 --> 45:14.000]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand four CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step.
[45:15.000 --> 45:18.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[45:18.000 --> 45:22.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[45:23.000 --> 45:27.000]  Thousands have won with our step by step course and now you can too.
[45:28.000 --> 45:33.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience.
[45:34.000 --> 45:42.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[45:42.000 --> 45:51.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, prosa tactics, and much more.
[45:51.000 --> 46:14.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[46:14.000 --> 46:43.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, rule of law radio on this Friday the 15th day of June 2018 and we're talking to Mark.
[46:44.000 --> 46:45.000]  You have anything else for us?
[46:46.000 --> 46:59.000]  Yes, yes. Again, you were discussing or asking questions about this or trying to get clarification on what I'd like to do with the writ of mandamus.
[47:00.000 --> 47:10.000]  The $10 million Wisconsin case pointed out that not following the rules is the issue with the Secretary of the Treasury.
[47:10.000 --> 47:23.000]  And what I was looking for in my particular case is to see if I can get the federal judge to order the Secretary of the Treasury to investigate my matter and report back.
[47:27.000 --> 47:36.000]  Would the federal judge have the power to direct the behavior of a federal agency in this way?
[47:36.000 --> 47:40.000]  And if so, where does it get that power?
[47:44.000 --> 48:03.000]  Well, in the particular case, since the Truth and Lending Act and the Truth and Lending Act has some of the, cover some of the violations, the rest of the violations are policies that were not, let me rephrase that.
[48:03.000 --> 48:08.000]  The policies that were not followed, some of them fall under Truth and Lending Act.
[48:09.000 --> 48:16.000]  The rest of them seem to fall under the Know Your Customer set of rules tied to anti-money laundering.
[48:17.000 --> 48:28.000]  Okay, what duty does the Treasury Department have to investigate violations of their rules and regulations?
[48:29.000 --> 48:30.000]  And here's where I'm going.
[48:30.000 --> 48:43.000]  I understand that they would have authority to do this, but what gives them a specific duty to do this so that it doesn't fall within their discretion?
[48:46.000 --> 48:47.000]  Good question.
[48:48.000 --> 48:49.000]  I don't know.
[48:50.000 --> 48:51.000]  I'm going to have to research that.
[48:51.000 --> 49:03.000]  It was otherwise, if they did not have a specific duty, then the court will have no power to order this agency to do anything.
[49:04.000 --> 49:05.000]  Okay.
[49:06.000 --> 49:12.000]  Well, I guess my first step is to ask them to do it and have them report back.
[49:12.000 --> 49:20.000]  And I guess the question is, how long do I have to wait because I don't even know if there is...
[49:21.000 --> 49:27.000]  Yeah, I'm going to have to see what triggers them to do an investigation and how long that's supposed to take.
[49:27.000 --> 49:41.000]  What you might do is afford you for their rules and regulations on investigating accusations filed with the Department.
[49:43.000 --> 49:44.000]  Yeah, okay.
[49:45.000 --> 49:46.000]  That's a good start there, too.
[49:47.000 --> 49:48.000]  All right.
[49:49.000 --> 49:51.000]  I knew that, you know, you'd have a couple of good ideas.
[49:51.000 --> 49:56.000]  I want to thank you for your time and let you get on to your other callers this evening.
[49:57.000 --> 50:00.000]  Appreciate your input, sir, your gentleman and scholar.
[50:01.000 --> 50:02.000]  Okay, thank you.
[50:03.000 --> 50:05.000]  Now we're going to Danny in Illinois.
[50:06.000 --> 50:07.000]  Hello, Danny.
[50:08.000 --> 50:09.000]  Hello.
[50:10.000 --> 50:12.000]  What do you have for us today?
[50:13.000 --> 50:17.000]  This is an issue I'm calling in from my wife here.
[50:17.000 --> 50:21.000]  Okay, are you on a hands-free phone?
[50:22.000 --> 50:24.000]  You sound like you have your head in the toilet.
[50:26.000 --> 50:28.000]  Do you have your head in the toilet?
[50:29.000 --> 50:30.000]  Just kidding.
[50:31.000 --> 50:34.000]  Oh, yeah, that's much better.
[50:35.000 --> 50:36.000]  Okay, great.
[50:36.000 --> 51:05.000]  So my wife and her partner started a business years ago, and they had a falling out, and he ended up leaving the business, and that's been almost eight years ago now since he left, and now she's getting tired of the business and is wanting to sell it.
[51:06.000 --> 51:12.000]  So she's checking her options on how she can go about doing that without having to deal with him.
[51:13.000 --> 51:24.000]  Does he have residual ownership by some type of contract or something?
[51:25.000 --> 51:30.000]  Yes, he's half owner in the building.
[51:30.000 --> 51:41.000]  She has since changed the name of the actual business that she's working under, but they still have the loan on the building together.
[51:44.000 --> 51:47.000]  Oh, so he doesn't have a claim against the business at this point?
[51:48.000 --> 51:54.000]  Against the business itself, no, but he's still half owner of the loan on the building.
[51:54.000 --> 52:02.000]  So what is her issue with him? Does he have an objection to her selling the building?
[52:02.000 --> 52:23.000]  Well, from what I understand, a couple of months after they had their falling out and he just like walked out, he tried to sell the building out from underneath her, and he found out that that wasn't going to do, but he wasn't going to be able to do that.
[52:23.000 --> 52:42.000]  And my wife had gotten in touch with a lawyer and talked with them, and I guess the lawyer actually talked to her partner, and the lawyer asked him what he wanted out of the business, and he says, I just want out of it.
[52:44.000 --> 52:46.000]  Didn't ask him for a quick claim.
[52:47.000 --> 52:48.000]  A quick claim?
[52:48.000 --> 52:57.000]  Yeah, if he just wants out from under, like I take it he's paying his portion of the obligation on the building.
[52:58.000 --> 53:05.000]  Oh, no, he hasn't done anything since he walked out. She's made everything.
[53:05.000 --> 53:26.000]  Oh, okay. If he just wants out of it, then have your wife ask him for a quick claim. That's not quick. It's quit. He quit any claim he has on the building and transfers that claim to her.
[53:26.000 --> 53:38.000]  Now, she could liquidate the property and she could do anything she wanted to at this time. It probably wouldn't be terribly smart for him to do that.
[53:40.000 --> 53:48.000]  If there's a loan against it, he's still on the loan. Does your wife intend to liquidate the property?
[53:48.000 --> 53:55.000]  Yes, she would. She's interested in getting and selling the property and getting it.
[53:56.000 --> 54:03.000]  The quick claim is the root. The quick claim takes him out of a position to have to come down there and sign documents.
[54:04.000 --> 54:14.000]  As long as they're liquidating the property, then he gets out from under any obligation that he would have to the lender.
[54:14.000 --> 54:27.000]  If he gives her a quick claim, then he doesn't have to participate in any of the closing or the selling or any of these practices and leaves it all in her hands.
[54:28.000 --> 54:41.000]  She just believes that he's not going to be that easy going about it. I think he's going to try to cause a problem, so she's trying to avoid dealing with him.
[54:41.000 --> 54:51.000]  If he's on the loan, if his name is on the deed, you can't get around dealing with him.
[54:51.000 --> 55:13.000]  It depends on her situation if he needs reason to sign this and say, look, I'm getting out of this business and if I have to, I'll just stop paying this thing and let him foreclose on the building.
[55:13.000 --> 55:26.000]  If they do that, it's going to wreck your credit. If you give me a quick claim where I can turn this thing over, then you get out from under the obligation and you don't have any problems.
[55:27.000 --> 55:37.000]  I can see where it would be in his best interest if he's not intending to take any equity from the property.
[55:37.000 --> 55:51.000]  It's been almost seven years. I guess there's really not something that would be as far as that length of time.
[55:52.000 --> 55:59.000]  No. He technically will still own a portion of the building. It doesn't matter who's been paying the premium.
[55:59.000 --> 56:06.000]  The other avenue is he's in a position where if he messes with her and she quits paying for the building, he gets his credit whacked.
[56:06.000 --> 56:29.000]  If he's been paying for it all this time and the issue is he's been paying for it all this time, he's been paying for it all this time.
[56:29.000 --> 56:38.000]  If he's been paying for it all this time and the issue is he may want part of the equity of the building.
[56:39.000 --> 56:50.000]  So you need to get him in a position to where he can't negotiate for the equity or he'll wind up having to either pay for the whole building himself or wind up with a foreclosure on his credit.
[56:50.000 --> 56:57.000]  He needs a reason to sign the quick claim.
[56:58.000 --> 57:06.000]  We don't even know where he lives anymore because we've had no contact with him in like seven years.
[57:07.000 --> 57:11.000]  You wouldn't have to find him in order to be able to sell the property.
[57:11.000 --> 57:30.000]  Now, what she could do is lease the property and if you lease it for an amount sufficient to pay the mortgage and if you can't get a hold of him, he's stuck on the lien.
[57:30.000 --> 57:38.000]  I say in order for him to sign a quick claim deed, what would we have to do for that?
[57:39.000 --> 57:49.000]  It's a simple document. It's one page. I quit any claim I have on this property to you as essentially it.
[57:50.000 --> 57:52.000]  Any lawyer can write you up a quick claim.
[57:53.000 --> 57:55.000]  And that would have to be signed in front of somebody?
[57:56.000 --> 57:58.000]  Yeah, it would have to be signed and known to us.
[57:58.000 --> 58:00.000]  Signed in front of an artery, huh?
[58:01.000 --> 58:02.000]  Yeah.
[58:03.000 --> 58:09.000]  But that's the simple way if he wants out from under the property and he doesn't want to try to take the equity.
[58:12.000 --> 58:15.000]  If he wants to take half the equity, he probably can.
[58:17.000 --> 58:18.000]  Right.
[58:18.000 --> 58:28.000]  So the way to avoid that is you could give somebody a 50-year lease.
[58:29.000 --> 58:30.000]  Okay.
[58:31.000 --> 58:36.000]  Then you don't care. By that time, you won't care about the property anyway.
[58:37.000 --> 58:40.000]  Yeah. As long as you get a good tenant there.
[58:40.000 --> 58:49.000]  Yeah, if you can get a tenant that, you know, like a permanent business in there, she can probably make some decent money on the building.
[58:50.000 --> 58:53.000]  Would you like to make more definite progress in your walk with God?
[58:54.000 --> 59:00.000]  Bibles for America is offering a free study Bible and a set of free Christian books that can really help.
[59:01.000 --> 59:05.000]  The New Testament recovery version is one of the most comprehensive study Bibles available today.
[59:05.000 --> 59:12.000]  It's an accurate translation and it contains thousands of footnotes that will help you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[59:13.000 --> 59:17.000]  The free books are a three-volume set called Basic Elements of the Christian Life.
[59:18.000 --> 59:27.000]  Chapter by chapter, Basic Elements of the Christian Life clearly presents God's plan of salvation, growing in Christ, and how to build up the church.
[59:27.000 --> 59:40.000]  To order your free New Testament recovery version and Basic Elements of the Christian Life, call Bibles for America toll free at 888-551-0102.
[59:41.000 --> 59:49.000]  That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[59:49.000 --> 59:59.000]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at www.logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:20.000 --> 01:00:34.000]  Markets for the 11th of April 2018 close with gold $1,353.22 an ounce, silver $16.68 an ounce, Texas crude $65.51 a barrel,
[01:00:34.000 --> 01:00:48.000]  bitcoins at $6,902.19, ethereums at $420.80, bitcoin cash at $652.90, and finally light coins at $114.34 a crypto coin.
[01:00:48.000 --> 01:01:07.000]  Today in history, the year 1968, President Lyndon M. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which prohibited private businesses from discriminating based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
[01:01:07.000 --> 01:01:17.000]  It also prohibited unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in public schools, in employment, and public accommodations for places of business.
[01:01:18.000 --> 01:01:19.000]  Today in history.
[01:01:19.000 --> 01:01:34.000]  In recent news, tensions in Syria seem to reach new levels after a chemical attack on civilians in the city of Douma, which left 40 dead and many injured.
[01:01:35.000 --> 01:01:42.000]  An attack which is being blamed on the democratically elected president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, by the United States and on Israel by Russia, either accusatory narrative without any verified evidence as of yet.
[01:01:42.000 --> 01:01:51.000]  President Trump tweeted today, Wednesday, that if, quote, Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria, get ready, Russia, because they will be coming in nice and new and smart.
[01:01:52.000 --> 01:01:57.000]  Going on to warn Russia that you shouldn't be partners with a gas-killing animal who kills his people and enjoys it.
[01:01:58.000 --> 01:02:05.000]  Many in the West, including President Trump, have been quick to conclude that this chemical attack must have been conducted by Assad and his forces.
[01:02:05.000 --> 01:02:14.000]  Syria and Russia, on the other hand, have given approval since yesterday for the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons to investigate the sign of the chemical slaughter.
[01:02:15.000 --> 01:02:26.000]  Assad has been successful in maintaining rule and support during Syria's seven-year civil war, a civil war that is being fought by the government of Syria and anti-Assad Syrian rebels that are openly being funded by Western governments,
[01:02:27.000 --> 01:02:31.000]  with ISIS being one of the more notorious splinter groups of the American-backed Syrian rebels.
[01:02:31.000 --> 01:02:43.000]  No surprise, then, why Russian Foreign Minister Spokeswoman Maria Zakhova posted on Facebook that smart missiles should be fired at terrorists and not at a legitimate government, which has been fighting terrorists.
[01:02:44.000 --> 01:02:50.000]  Or is this a trick to destroy all traces with a smart missile strike, and then there will be no evidence for international inspectors to look at?
[01:02:50.000 --> 01:03:00.000]  This was Kirk Rody with your lowdown for April 11, 2018.
[01:03:21.000 --> 01:03:24.000]  Okay, we are back. We didn't kill someone.
[01:03:25.000 --> 01:03:30.000]  We were on the radio, and we're talking to Danny in Illinois. Danny, did that pre-well answer your questions?
[01:03:31.000 --> 01:03:38.000]  I think so. That's the only avenue you think we have. I'll pass that information on to you.
[01:03:38.000 --> 01:03:57.000]  Yeah, he's stuck on the lean, and you can't get him off, because that's an asset that he, it's a liability he has, but it's also an asset that you can't just take the asset without some kind of agreement with him.
[01:03:57.000 --> 01:04:09.000]  So, in my opinion, that's the two options, depending on what kind of relationship she has with this guy, and maybe she didn't get him to, if he just wants to walk away and doesn't want any hassle, he may just sign a quick claim.
[01:04:11.000 --> 01:04:25.000]  I guess in order to convince him that that's the best way to go, I guess she could actually file, kind of, draw up some sort of equity claim on the building with all the issues she's had to deal with in the past eight years.
[01:04:25.000 --> 01:04:36.000]  Yeah, well, first thing she'd probably do is just ask him if he wants out of it, that, you know, she's shutting down the business, and she wants to do something to get rid of this property.
[01:04:36.000 --> 01:04:52.000]  If he wants, you know, since she's been paying all of it for this time, if he may just sign the quick claim, if he doesn't just sign it and he wants some equity, it should be simple enough to come up with that.
[01:04:52.000 --> 01:05:06.000]  But if that's the case, if that's what she wants to do, it might be best to get an offer on the property first, then you have a number to work from.
[01:05:07.000 --> 01:05:15.000]  Yeah, I think she's one to not have to try to deal with them on the sale of the property, just try to get everything straightened out worse.
[01:05:15.000 --> 01:05:32.000]  Yeah, if she had a quick claim from him, she doesn't have to deal with him on the sale. If she has to make some kind of equity deal with him to get the quick claim, then the equity deal could be included in the quick claim, or he could just give her a power of attorney to make the sale.
[01:05:33.000 --> 01:05:35.000]  Okay.
[01:05:36.000 --> 01:05:37.000]  Okay.
[01:05:37.000 --> 01:05:44.000]  Okay. Thank you for calling. Now we're going to go to Tim in Texas. Hello, Tim.
[01:05:45.000 --> 01:05:46.000]  Hello, sir.
[01:05:47.000 --> 01:05:49.000]  Okay. What do you have for us today?
[01:05:50.000 --> 01:05:56.000]  Well, I guess it's okay to discuss our little case.
[01:05:56.000 --> 01:06:11.000]  We finally got, I guess, an hour and a half before the time limit. The person, what's it, the people in real party of interest, yeah, which was the city.
[01:06:12.000 --> 01:06:22.000]  And they came back with an answer and Laura and I have been talking about it and trying to figure out what is exactly that they're trying to say.
[01:06:22.000 --> 01:06:44.000]  And, you know, from what we can see, one of the things that sticks out to us is that they said that we never brought up the issues before the district judge in order for the district judge to rule properly.
[01:06:44.000 --> 01:06:53.000]  Well, they were all in the challenged subject matter jurisdiction that we filed with the district court.
[01:06:54.000 --> 01:06:55.000]  Right.
[01:06:55.000 --> 01:07:23.000]  So, okay, the court of appeals is not stupid and they know idiot pleadings when they see them. The primary issues that we brought were subject matter jurisdiction and in the response we got from these people, they never addressed subject matter jurisdiction.
[01:07:23.000 --> 01:07:41.000]  They avoided that issue. So, their answer comes up essentially a non-answer because they didn't demure to the issue or they didn't oppose the issue and therefore they waived it.
[01:07:41.000 --> 01:07:55.000]  And, you know, they're saying, well, collateral estoppel didn't apply. I read that in their answer. They told the judge that we claimed collateral estoppel and that it didn't apply.
[01:07:55.000 --> 01:08:10.000]  So, well, collateral estoppel was something that we argued as concerns the amounts or the fees they were trying to charge.
[01:08:10.000 --> 01:08:35.000]  But they did our primary, and we didn't care about that because that's not the issue we brought before the trial court. I mean, the court of appeals, what we brought before the court of appeals was the fact that the city never had subject matter jurisdiction in the first place.
[01:08:36.000 --> 01:08:37.000]  Right.
[01:08:37.000 --> 01:08:55.000]  Because of the way they adjudicated the case, well, they actually kind of addressed that, and I'm trying to pull it up here, but they addressed it really dumb.
[01:08:56.000 --> 01:09:00.000]  They, no, for those who've been listening, the...
[01:09:01.000 --> 01:09:03.000]  Wait, go ahead, Tim.
[01:09:03.000 --> 01:09:13.000]  I said they left out the part about the administrative hearing because they're saying that it was all adjudicated criminally through the municipality.
[01:09:13.000 --> 01:09:36.000]  Well, actually, they were saying it was adjudicated civilly, that this was a civil assessment. Well, we don't have an order of a civil assessment by the governing board of the city, which is the city council.
[01:09:36.000 --> 01:09:48.000]  But our argument was, you know, they argued that they had a black letter law gave them the right to issue a civil assessment.
[01:09:49.000 --> 01:09:56.000]  We say, sure, we agree. We're not arguing. We don't challenge that, so they certainly do.
[01:09:56.000 --> 01:10:11.000]  What we challenged was that they didn't, because they could have initiated a civil proceeding, and a civil proceeding would have been initiated by the governing board.
[01:10:12.000 --> 01:10:18.000]  But they didn't elect that option. They elected the option of a criminal proceeding.
[01:10:18.000 --> 01:10:38.000]  And when Tim got into court and he did not lay down and roll over and say, please don't hurt me, please don't hurt me, I'll do anything you want, then the mayor decided to use Tim as an example and make an example of him.
[01:10:38.000 --> 01:10:57.000]  Well, see how that works out for you. So then they tried to attempt to change the criminal proceeding into a civil assessment because the civil assessment could charge a much higher fee.
[01:10:57.000 --> 01:11:18.000]  And they argued that a criminal prosecution was between the state and the defendant, and a civil assessment was between the city and the defendant.
[01:11:18.000 --> 01:11:45.000]  Well, okay, well by that. Problem is, is they initiated a criminal prosecution and I can find nothing in the code of criminal procedure that allows for a municipality to convert a state prosecution into a municipal civil assessment.
[01:11:45.000 --> 01:12:03.000]  And in as much as a public official may only do what they are specifically authorized to do, it would be who's the city to show that they have authority to make this conversion.
[01:12:03.000 --> 01:12:19.000]  Because we would expect to see in the record a dismissal of the criminal prosecution and then a document initiating a civil assessment. It's not in the record.
[01:12:19.000 --> 01:12:36.000]  There is a document initiating a criminal prosecution and there is no civil assessment by the governing board. There's a civil assessment by a citizen panel.
[01:12:36.000 --> 01:12:55.000]  Yes, citizen panel and one employee. And the employee is the one who's got her signature on the bottom of the paper assessing $1,000 fine per vehicle. But she doesn't have any authority. She didn't even live in the city.
[01:12:56.000 --> 01:13:01.000]  Okay, well that's not even an issue that we don't even get that for.
[01:13:01.000 --> 01:13:14.000]  Okay. Because I can't find anything that would authorize the city to co-opt a state prosecution.
[01:13:14.000 --> 01:13:32.000]  Because that's what they purported to do. So the guys and they only address the issues that they could give the appearance of turning to their advantage.
[01:13:33.000 --> 01:13:38.000]  Those that they couldn't give the appearance of turning to their advantage they didn't address at all.
[01:13:38.000 --> 01:13:51.000]  So on their issues, even if the court agreed with them on the issues they brought, so what doesn't help you?
[01:13:52.000 --> 01:14:00.000]  The matter of subject matter jurisdiction is still the primary issue. It is a threshold issue.
[01:14:00.000 --> 01:14:23.000]  It has to be addressed for to get to anything else. And what they claimed was is that when Tim filed a counter complaint in the proceeding that we stipulated that the court has jurisdiction.
[01:14:23.000 --> 01:14:40.000]  Now how stupid is that? The case law very clearly says that jurisdiction is statutory. It may not be conferred by agreement and that case law is in our pletics.
[01:14:41.000 --> 01:14:45.000]  So they can't say they're unaware of it. They just didn't go there.
[01:14:45.000 --> 01:14:52.000]  And this is what happens to them when they start pulling shenanigans and somebody calls them on it.
[01:14:53.000 --> 01:15:02.000]  They went to all the trouble to create these documents. I'm sure they build the city big time for it and they're frivolous.
[01:15:02.000 --> 01:15:15.000]  The court said that they had till the 15th to file an answer and we had five days after that to file a response but they may rule in the interim.
[01:15:16.000 --> 01:15:25.000]  Well they won't get a chance to because they filed their answer on Friday and Monday they will always already have a response before the court.
[01:15:25.000 --> 01:15:42.000]  Right. Oh boy. This is business. I'm looking at these and I read this instead. Jimmy Cricket's guys. That's all you got?
[01:15:43.000 --> 01:15:48.000]  Yeah they worked hard too as you could tell. I'm surprised how short it is.
[01:15:48.000 --> 01:15:58.000]  It's an hour and a half before the deadline and then the Texas Municipal League attorneys filed one minute before the deadline.
[01:15:59.000 --> 01:16:04.000]  They filed 459 p.m. and they had till 5 p.m.
[01:16:05.000 --> 01:16:08.000]  They just barely snuck it in there.
[01:16:08.000 --> 01:16:30.000]  You were going to send me his. I haven't seen his yet but you said that the Municipal League complained that we cut and pasted arguments from the pleadings in the case and included them in the mandamus.
[01:16:30.000 --> 01:16:37.000]  No that was the other one. That was the attorney.
[01:16:38.000 --> 01:16:45.000]  Okay I've been going through that one. I haven't got to that part yet but I would say absolutely. That's exactly what we did.
[01:16:45.000 --> 01:16:59.000]  We certainly didn't want to misrepresent any issues. The arguments that we brought in the mandamus were precisely the arguments that we brought in the court.
[01:16:59.000 --> 01:17:15.000]  Yes we did.
[01:17:29.000 --> 01:17:36.000]  So that's it for this week's episode of the Texas R&D Kelton's e-book, Legal 101. You get four chances to win.
[01:17:37.000 --> 01:17:44.000]  Purchase Eddie Craig's traffic seminar and get ten chances to win. And remember every $25 donation is a chance to win.
[01:17:45.000 --> 01:17:53.000]  If you've enjoyed the shows on Logos Radio Network, support our fundraiser so we can keep bringing you the best quality programming on talk radio today.
[01:17:53.000 --> 01:17:59.000]  For more information on Logos Radio Network, go to LogosRadioNetwork.com for details and donate today.
[01:18:00.000 --> 01:18:07.000]  I love Logos. Without the shows on this network, I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends. I'm so addicted to the truth now that there's no going back.
[01:18:08.000 --> 01:18:13.000]  I need my truth fit. I'd be lost without Logos and I really want to help keep this network on the air.
[01:18:14.000 --> 01:18:20.000]  I'd love to volunteer as a show producer but I'm a bit of a Luddite and I really don't have any money to give because I spent it all on supplements.
[01:18:20.000 --> 01:18:22.000]  How can I help Logos?
[01:18:23.000 --> 01:18:29.000]  Well, I'm glad you asked. Whenever you order anything from Amazon, you can help Logos with ordering your supplies or holiday gifts.
[01:18:30.000 --> 01:18:35.000]  First thing you do is clear your cookies. Now, go to LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:18:36.000 --> 01:18:43.000]  Click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it. Now, when you order anything from Amazon, you use that link and Logos gets a few pesos.
[01:18:44.000 --> 01:18:44.000]  Do I pay extra?
[01:18:45.000 --> 01:18:45.000]  No.
[01:18:46.000 --> 01:18:47.000]  Do you have to do anything different when I order?
[01:18:48.000 --> 01:18:48.000]  No.
[01:18:48.000 --> 01:18:49.000]  Can I use my Amazon Prime?
[01:18:50.000 --> 01:18:50.000]  No.
[01:18:51.000 --> 01:18:51.000]  I mean yes.
[01:18:52.000 --> 01:18:56.000]  Wow. Giving without doing anything or spending any money. This is perfect. Thank you so much.
[01:18:57.000 --> 01:18:58.000]  We are Logos.
[01:18:59.000 --> 01:19:00.000]  Happy Holidays Logos.
[01:19:02.000 --> 01:19:07.000]  This is the Logos Radio Network.
[01:19:07.000 --> 01:19:12.000]  Logos.
[01:19:13.000 --> 01:19:14.000]  Oh, come on.
[01:19:14.000 --> 01:19:19.000]  Wow.
[01:19:32.000 --> 01:19:38.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking to Tim in Texas.
[01:19:38.000 --> 01:19:44.000]  And yeah, I'm glad they made that remark about us cutting and pasting.
[01:19:45.000 --> 01:19:50.000]  And my producer on the break said, yeah, I've been cutting and pasting since kindergarten.
[01:19:51.000 --> 01:19:53.000]  I am going to have to include that in the answer.
[01:19:54.000 --> 01:20:00.000]  He put here on this the one sent from the TML.
[01:20:01.000 --> 01:20:04.000]  He puts TML.
[01:20:05.000 --> 01:20:06.000]  Yeah, Texas Municipal League.
[01:20:06.000 --> 01:20:07.000]  Oh, TML.
[01:20:08.000 --> 01:20:09.000]  Okay, Texas Municipal League.
[01:20:10.000 --> 01:20:11.000]  I hate acronyms.
[01:20:12.000 --> 01:20:13.000]  I'm sorry.
[01:20:14.000 --> 01:20:15.000]  Issue presented for review.
[01:20:16.000 --> 01:20:25.000]  Number one, is mandamus an appropriate remedy for Pixler's dismissed counterclaims against the counter defendants?
[01:20:26.000 --> 01:20:31.000]  And so he has replied, argument A, Pixler has a remedy on appeal.
[01:20:31.000 --> 01:20:45.000]  So basically what he's saying, go ahead and let district judge get a final relief here for the city, and then Pixler can argue this on appeal.
[01:20:46.000 --> 01:20:54.000]  But obviously, to me, this is my thinking, the appeals court saw something because they said they had a tentative opinion.
[01:20:55.000 --> 01:20:59.000]  That issue was addressed in the mandamus.
[01:20:59.000 --> 01:21:15.000]  That the no remedy and supported by case law, you notice they're just saying this, and they're not saying it in terms of the verbiage of the court.
[01:21:15.000 --> 01:21:35.000]  In the matter of a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction special case, that has no remedy in appeal because the litigant will be forced to endure the entire case.
[01:21:35.000 --> 01:21:50.000]  When a subject matter jurisdiction challenge would be dispositive of the entire case and stop it in the beginning and save the litigant all the cost of litigating the entire case.
[01:21:51.000 --> 01:22:00.000]  So I have the case law that says we don't have a remedy on appeal in the matter of a subject matter jurisdiction challenge.
[01:22:00.000 --> 01:22:19.000]  That's like saying, I get to file suit against you and you have to fight me in court for the next five years before we can determine that I never had authority to file the suit in the first place.
[01:22:19.000 --> 01:22:29.000]  Yeah, it is silly.
[01:22:29.000 --> 01:22:57.000]  It is silly.
[01:22:57.000 --> 01:23:01.000]  Be assessed to be paid to the city and the city take nothing.
[01:23:02.000 --> 01:23:10.000]  Huh? The pleading, asserting these counterclaims did not address the counter-defendants immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act.
[01:23:11.000 --> 01:23:19.000]  Oh, they're saying the city is immune under this. They're bringing that back up.
[01:23:19.000 --> 01:23:26.000]  Okay, well, this suit was written for this purpose.
[01:23:27.000 --> 01:23:45.000]  What he's not telling the court is the only claim against the city is a constitutional challenge to the authority of the city to enact city ordinances applicable to someone not in contractual privity with the city,
[01:23:45.000 --> 01:23:49.000]  not in a contractual relationship with the city.
[01:23:50.000 --> 01:23:51.000]  Yeah, they didn't even answer it.
[01:23:52.000 --> 01:23:55.000]  No, they didn't address that at all and that's where I claimed collateral stop-all.
[01:23:56.000 --> 01:23:57.000]  Right.
[01:23:57.000 --> 01:24:16.000]  So they're trying to argue issues that suit their purpose and all of the other issues were they accuse you of making ad hominem attacks on individuals.
[01:24:17.000 --> 01:24:24.000]  Well, those were specific claims against individuals in their personal capacity.
[01:24:24.000 --> 01:24:41.000]  There was a constitutional claim against the city and then claims against individuals alleging they acted outside the scope of their authority and therefore in their individual capacities.
[01:24:41.000 --> 01:24:54.000]  And then the city argued as if they were sued in their official capacity. So they're misconstruing the case and failing to speak with Candard to the court.
[01:24:54.000 --> 01:25:10.000]  And that's the argument that we'll make. We're spending a lot of time on this on the air, but we really got these guys on the ropes.
[01:25:10.000 --> 01:25:27.000]  And as long as Tim and Lois have been fighting this thing and the courts are just ruling against them out of hand without any consideration, they even complained about him asking for findings of fact.
[01:25:28.000 --> 01:25:37.000]  And we asked for findings of fact in exact accordance with the statute and they complained that even that was improper.
[01:25:37.000 --> 01:25:39.000]  So...
[01:25:40.000 --> 01:25:51.000]  Improper as the counterclaims were dismissed as a matter of law rather than after a trial on the merits without a jury. That's the findings of fact and conclusions of law.
[01:25:51.000 --> 01:26:12.000]  That's when the findings of fact and conclusions of law are relevant. When they're dismissed without a trial on the merits, then that's exactly what 397 was for.
[01:26:12.000 --> 01:26:30.000]  So they're taking on, twisting it backwards. Now that might work with a corrupt trial judge, but in order for the court of appeals to rule in their favor, they would have to change standing law.
[01:26:31.000 --> 01:26:37.000]  They would have to essentially negate standing law and I can't see them doing that.
[01:26:37.000 --> 01:26:44.000]  But at the end of the day, they're still all corrupt.
[01:26:45.000 --> 01:26:46.000]  Yep.
[01:26:47.000 --> 01:27:02.000]  So it ain't over till it's over, but from the gist of what we got from the court in the beginning, I would have expected these guys to come up with something a little more substantial than what they did.
[01:27:02.000 --> 01:27:11.000]  Yeah, and he says in his conclusion, mandamus is improper in this case because Fixler has an adequate remedy on appeal.
[01:27:14.000 --> 01:27:18.000]  So from this case, so he can take this other one on appeal. It's the same case.
[01:27:20.000 --> 01:27:26.000]  Okay, I haven't seen that document yet. Does he include case law in support of his assertions?
[01:27:28.000 --> 01:27:29.000]  Not on the conclusion.
[01:27:29.000 --> 01:27:43.000]  Well, in the argument for it, does he state that we don't have, or he states that we have an adequate remedy on appeal the first time, does he have case law supporting that?
[01:27:44.000 --> 01:27:48.000]  And does the case law go to subject manageristic?
[01:27:48.000 --> 01:28:04.000]  No, not that I can see. It just says, it says mandamus is an extraordinary writ that should be issued only when the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and there's no adequate remedy by appeal.
[01:28:04.000 --> 01:28:19.000]  In RE Prudential Insurance Company, Texas 2004, in this case, Fixler's counterclaims have been dismissed with prejudice in an order which is not yet final and appealable, but which will eventually be.
[01:28:20.000 --> 01:28:27.000]  Whether the severance is granted or denied, Fixler will have the opportunity to appeal his counterclaims to retain the full range of remedies on appeal.
[01:28:27.000 --> 01:28:47.000]  So what they're saying is that, like I said, go ahead and dismiss this so that the district court can go ahead and rule against him and then we can proceed on our bullying tactic and then he can take it and appeal it in the appeal court.
[01:28:47.000 --> 01:29:07.000]  Well, what they've done is ignored the subject matter jurisdiction challenge. And what they argued was, is that since you filed an appeal, filed a counterclaim, you stipulated to the jurisdiction of the court and that's how they handled the jurisdiction issue.
[01:29:07.000 --> 01:29:19.000]  But you can't get there from here. Just because the court has jurisdiction over our claim has nothing to do with jurisdiction over their claim.
[01:29:19.000 --> 01:29:37.000]  Hang on about the order break. Our call in number is 512-646-1984. We've still got a couple more segments and we'll probably have time at the end of this next segment if you have a question or comment, give us a call.
[01:29:37.000 --> 01:29:49.000]  Did I say our call in number? I'm losing track. 512-646-1984. We'll be right back.
[01:29:49.000 --> 01:30:15.000]  Stroke. It's the third leading cause of death in the U.S. behind heart disease and cancer. Do you know the telltale signs? I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be back with information that could save your life or the life of someone you love.
[01:30:15.000 --> 01:30:25.000]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:30:26.000 --> 01:30:33.000]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy. It's worth hanging on to.
[01:30:34.000 --> 01:30:43.000]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing. Start over with StartPage.
[01:30:43.000 --> 01:30:56.000]  A stroke occurs when part of your brain is deprived of oxygen because of a blocked or broken blood vessel. The brain will start to die unless you get fast emergency medical treatment, so it's important to know these warning signs.
[01:30:56.000 --> 01:31:15.000]  Sudden numbness or weakness of the face, arm or leg, especially on one side of the body, sudden confusion or trouble speaking and understanding, sudden trouble seeing out of one or both eyes, sudden trouble walking, dizziness or loss of balance and coordination, and sudden severe headache with no known cause.
[01:31:15.000 --> 01:31:26.000]  If you or a loved one experiences any of these symptoms, call 9-1-1. Fast treatment saves lives.
[01:31:45.000 --> 01:32:10.000]  Hey, it's Danny here for Hill Country Home Improvements. Did your home receive hail or wind damage from the recent storms? Come on, we all know the government caused it with their chemtrails, but good luck getting them to pay for it.
[01:32:10.000 --> 01:32:20.000]  Okay, I might be kidding about the chemtrails, but I'm serious about your roof. That's why you have insurance and Hill Country Home Improvements can handle the claim for you with little to no out-of-pocket expense.
[01:32:20.000 --> 01:32:38.000]  And we accept Bitcoin as a multi-year A-plus member of the Better Business Bureau with zero complaints. You can trust Hill Country Home Improvements to handle your claim and your roof right the first time. Just call 512-992-8745 or go to hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[01:32:38.000 --> 01:32:50.000]  Mention the crypto show and get $100 off, and we'll donate another $100 to the Logos Radio Network to help continue this programming. So if those out-of-town roofers come knocking, your door should be locked in.
[01:32:50.000 --> 01:33:01.000]  That's 512-992-8745 or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com. Discounts are based on full roof replacement. I mean, I actually be kidding about chemtrails.
[01:33:01.000 --> 01:33:08.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network. Logosradionetwork.com.
[01:33:32.000 --> 01:33:45.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, rule of law radio, and we're talking to Tim in Texas. Let me unmute Tim in Texas.
[01:33:45.000 --> 01:34:05.000]  I'm probably not going to have time. One of the things I would like to have done is go over this document that they filed quickly, but it's a little too long for that. I may want to do that next week after I have crafted the arguments against it.
[01:34:05.000 --> 01:34:21.000]  I want to kind of demonstrate how to think about this kind of stuff, and there are some things to do inside these pleadings when you're reading them, and one of the primary things to do is look at the case law.
[01:34:21.000 --> 01:34:45.000]  Some of the best arguments I come across, I get out of their case law, and you mentioned earlier, and I see it here in the Pleading In-Ray Prudential Insurance Company of America, I included that statute.
[01:34:45.000 --> 01:35:06.000]  So, where they're trying to use this statute in their favor, I'll go in and pull this statute and pull the section out that lands in our favor, and show where they cited this statute, and then allege where they cited it improperly,
[01:35:06.000 --> 01:35:30.000]  and then show where we pull out of the statute, out of the case law, what the case law really went to. One of the techniques I use in crafting pleadings is when I cite a case, I quote the citation I'm referring to.
[01:35:30.000 --> 01:35:47.000]  Here they say, In-Ray Phillips 496, Southwest 3D 769, at 774. Well, I really don't know what they're referring to on page 774.
[01:35:47.000 --> 01:36:04.000]  When I cite one of these, underneath it, what I do is put the In-Ray Phillips 496, Southwest 3D 769, at 774, which reads as follows, and then I quote it right underneath it.
[01:36:04.000 --> 01:36:23.000]  So, there's no question as to what I'm referring to in the case. I find these cases where they just give a general cite to the case in page, that when I go in them and actually read the case, it doesn't mean what they said it did at all.
[01:36:23.000 --> 01:36:35.000]  And this, I think, is a lot of the problems we have with case law, how it gets misused. So, the way I do it, it can't be misused.
[01:36:35.000 --> 01:36:55.000]  I think that Laura was saying something out to me. She said, he simply wants his court to dismiss the suit or direct the district court to dismiss the suit for want of subject matter jurisdiction. Well, duh. Yeah. Pixler never brought his vague and incorrect assertions about subject matter jurisdiction to the attention of the district court.
[01:36:55.000 --> 01:36:58.000]  That is a direct lie.
[01:36:58.000 --> 01:37:12.000]  And they'll read the first pleading we filed. The first thing we filed was a subject matter jurisdiction challenge. Yeah. And then after that, we filed a counterclaim. But the first thing was a subject matter jurisdiction.
[01:37:12.000 --> 01:37:13.000]  Yeah.
[01:37:13.000 --> 01:37:22.000]  So, we did everything right, everything in the right order. You see, the problem is if they can't challenge the subject matter jurisdiction issue. Right.
[01:37:22.000 --> 01:37:36.000]  They don't have any argument. What the one argument they said was is that Pixler filed a counterclaim and stipulated to the jurisdiction of the court.
[01:37:36.000 --> 01:37:39.000]  Well, duh, so what?
[01:37:39.000 --> 01:37:54.000]  Yeah. So, Pixler was to include with his petition any evidence that he ever requested or set a hearing on anything, much less on a request for dismissal based on subject matter jurisdiction.
[01:37:54.000 --> 01:37:56.000]  Okay, so what?
[01:37:56.000 --> 01:38:10.000]  The hearing or can I just go to the hearing that I'm subject to go to in district court? Because that was the one. We didn't set the hearing date. Only the court did.
[01:38:10.000 --> 01:38:20.000]  The court did. And so, while we were there, we handed the challenge to subject matter jurisdiction and the judge looked at it and he said, it's too late.
[01:38:20.000 --> 01:38:27.000]  That's why we're going to go, I guess, do we need to go ahead and get the recordings or can we just?
[01:38:27.000 --> 01:38:31.000]  No, no, the documents filed in the record.
[01:38:31.000 --> 01:38:32.000]  Yeah.
[01:38:32.000 --> 01:38:39.000]  The challenge to subject matter jurisdiction may be filed at any time.
[01:38:39.000 --> 01:38:40.000]  Right.
[01:38:40.000 --> 01:38:43.000]  No matter how remote in history.
[01:38:43.000 --> 01:38:44.000]  Yeah.
[01:38:44.000 --> 01:38:58.000]  The argument is frivolous. The fact that it was filed the first document in the case was sufficient. It was before the court and that technically wasn't before this judge.
[01:38:58.000 --> 01:39:04.000]  That was before a, that was before this judge actually became a judge.
[01:39:04.000 --> 01:39:10.000]  It was a visiting judge that ruled on this and that refused to hear the subject matter jurisdiction challenge.
[01:39:10.000 --> 01:39:18.000]  This picture does not even cite which of the district court's orders he wishes to have this court overturn.
[01:39:18.000 --> 01:39:26.000]  Instead, he simply wants his court to dismiss the suit or direct his court to dismiss the suit for want of subject matter jurisdiction.
[01:39:26.000 --> 01:39:34.000]  And we'll put it in there. Apparently, counsel doesn't understand the nature of the subject matter jurisdiction challenge.
[01:39:34.000 --> 01:39:41.000]  It's not that way or they were just really, they had to, they had to come up with something.
[01:39:41.000 --> 01:39:48.000]  And so they waited until, like I said, an hour and a half before the deadline and said, well, we got to do something.
[01:39:48.000 --> 01:39:53.000]  I know, I bet they didn't. I bet they've been working on this the whole time.
[01:39:53.000 --> 01:39:55.000]  Oh boy.
[01:39:55.000 --> 01:40:02.000]  They've been digging and scratching trying to find something to get around this thing and they can't find it.
[01:40:02.000 --> 01:40:09.000]  So this is good. I'm reading these with great glee and pleasure.
[01:40:09.000 --> 01:40:17.000]  Well, like I said, I'm ready to work on this thing. I'm ready to submit Monday morning.
[01:40:17.000 --> 01:40:19.000]  Oh, I will have it. Monday night.
[01:40:19.000 --> 01:40:27.000]  Monday morning. And just for anybody who does this kind of stuff, you know, you get one of these pleadings and you read through it.
[01:40:27.000 --> 01:40:38.000]  And you see all this stuff. And then when you're done with it and you look back at the pleading and say, what was all that?
[01:40:38.000 --> 01:40:54.000]  Well, you need, if you're doing much of this kind of stuff, you need the acrobat or another program that will allow you to manipulate PDF documents.
[01:40:54.000 --> 01:41:07.000]  In acrobat, I can add notes to it. So I go down the PDF document and I read their arguments and everywhere I come across the argument that needs responding to.
[01:41:07.000 --> 01:41:16.000]  I go up and grab the little note icon, drag it down, drop it at that location, and then I insert my argument in it.
[01:41:16.000 --> 01:41:34.000]  And I move on down the mode to pleading and everywhere I'm going to argue something, I drop a note in it. That way, when you come back to it, to write your pleading in response to it, you've got all these arguments that you've already developed.
[01:41:34.000 --> 01:41:39.000]  You always develop these arguments when you're reading their pleading.
[01:41:39.000 --> 01:41:49.000]  And so it's best you put a little note in there and drop it in there. And then when you come back and read it again, you have those original notes and it saves you a tremendous amount of time.
[01:41:49.000 --> 01:41:53.000]  But I am reading this with great belief.
[01:41:53.000 --> 01:41:59.000]  I have a question. I thought just crossed my brain. Of course, you'll probably shoot me down on it.
[01:41:59.000 --> 01:42:14.000]  I wanted three people on the administrative board. If someone random was to pull one of them aside somehow and say, do you guys realize what the city has done to y'all?
[01:42:14.000 --> 01:42:28.000]  Has made y'all liable for? Because of what you did, you were advised by an attorney to find him guilty on charges that he was not guilty of because I wasn't.
[01:42:28.000 --> 01:42:34.000]  I don't see that as being effective.
[01:42:34.000 --> 01:42:49.000]  What may be effective is someone other than you, of course, to tell them that, look, these lawyers have put you in the line of fire, you're likely to be thrown under the bus.
[01:42:49.000 --> 01:42:59.000]  And what you need to know and understand is that you actually have an affirmative defense, but you'll have to raise it.
[01:42:59.000 --> 01:43:05.000]  And that affirmative defense is good faith, reliance on competent authority.
[01:43:05.000 --> 01:43:12.000]  I don't know what you're thinking, Tim. Why would we tell these three people that they have an affirmative defense?
[01:43:12.000 --> 01:43:21.000]  We'll tell them they have an affirmative defense to get them to show the lawyer under the bus for us.
[01:43:21.000 --> 01:43:24.000]  Exactly, no. That's what I was getting at.
[01:43:24.000 --> 01:43:31.000]  So your only way out of this mess is to show the lawyer under the bus?
[01:43:31.000 --> 01:43:32.000]  Exactly.
[01:43:32.000 --> 01:43:36.000]  I just did what the lawyer told me to do.
[01:43:36.000 --> 01:43:42.000]  I'm sorry, I'm laughing, man, but this is funny. Oh, my Lord.
[01:43:42.000 --> 01:43:47.000]  This is what happens when we hang in there and we don't knock a lunder.
[01:43:47.000 --> 01:43:52.000]  Okay, I have one more segment, Tim, and I got Jeff and Miss Sippy.
[01:43:52.000 --> 01:43:53.000]  Go ahead.
[01:43:53.000 --> 01:43:56.000]  So I'm going to dump you like a hot rock.
[01:43:56.000 --> 01:43:57.000]  That's fine.
[01:43:57.000 --> 01:44:00.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:44:00.000 --> 01:44:09.000]  Nutritious food is real body armor. It builds muscle, burns fat, improves digestion, and feeds the entire body the nutrients it needs.
[01:44:09.000 --> 01:44:17.000]  Did you know the U.S. government banned the hemp plant from growing in the United States and classified it as a schedule one drug to hide it behind the marijuana plant?
[01:44:17.000 --> 01:44:23.000]  People have been confused about this plant for over 80 years, and many still don't know what hemp is.
[01:44:23.000 --> 01:44:27.000]  So now you know hemp is not marijuana, and marijuana is not hemp.
[01:44:27.000 --> 01:44:30.000]  They are different varieties of the same species.
[01:44:30.000 --> 01:44:39.000]  HempUSA.org wants the world to know these basic facts and to help people understand that hemp protein powder is the best kept health secret you need to know about.
[01:44:39.000 --> 01:44:48.000]  Remember, hemp protein powder contains 53% protein, is gluten-free, anti-inflammatory, non-GMO, and is loaded with nutrients.
[01:44:48.000 --> 01:45:00.000]  Call 888-910-4367, 888-910-4367, and see what our powder seeds and oil can do for you only at hempUSA.org.
[01:45:19.000 --> 01:45:23.000]  First place up for grabs is Spike's Tactical AR-15.
[01:45:23.000 --> 01:45:27.000]  Second place, Taurus PT-111 G2 9mm Pistol.
[01:45:27.000 --> 01:45:31.000]  From Defense Distributed, third place, the AR-308 80% lower.
[01:45:31.000 --> 01:45:34.000]  Fourth place, the AR-15 80% lower.
[01:45:34.000 --> 01:45:39.000]  From Fat Sal's Deli, fifth place, $100 gift card for Fat Sal's Deli.
[01:45:39.000 --> 01:45:43.000]  Every $25 donation is a chance to win. That's the Logos Radio Network dot com.
[01:45:43.000 --> 01:45:48.000]  Also, if you purchase Randy Kelton's e-book, Legal101, you get 4 chances to win.
[01:45:48.000 --> 01:45:52.000]  Purchase Eddie Craig's traffic seminar, get 10 chances to win.
[01:45:52.000 --> 01:45:55.000]  And remember, every $25 donation is a chance to win.
[01:45:55.000 --> 01:46:24.000]  Go to LogosRadioNetwork.com for details and donate today.
[01:46:25.000 --> 01:46:30.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton with Legal101 Radio.
[01:46:30.000 --> 01:46:34.000]  And we're going to Jeff in Mississippi. Hello, Jeff.
[01:46:34.000 --> 01:46:37.000]  Hey, Randy. Thanks for having me on the show.
[01:46:37.000 --> 01:46:43.000]  Glad to have you. Did you hear us talking about you earlier today?
[01:46:43.000 --> 01:46:45.000]  Oh! No, I...
[01:46:45.000 --> 01:46:50.000]  Oh, man. We talked about you and we laughed and we laughed.
[01:46:50.000 --> 01:47:02.000]  Actually, I had Ken from New York and he had had issues similar to yours.
[01:47:02.000 --> 01:47:03.000]  Oh!
[01:47:03.000 --> 01:47:14.000]  And about unemployment and Medicare.
[01:47:14.000 --> 01:47:22.000]  And he was saying that if you get non-employment insurance, you can't get Medicare.
[01:47:22.000 --> 01:47:29.000]  That's your double dipping and you'll find you have 500 bucks a day or something like that.
[01:47:29.000 --> 01:47:38.000]  But as I understand, you weren't collecting unemployment when you had your operation. Is that correct?
[01:47:38.000 --> 01:47:40.000]  Yeah, that's right.
[01:47:40.000 --> 01:47:45.000]  If you were collecting unemployment, then you couldn't collect the Medicare.
[01:47:45.000 --> 01:47:47.000]  If you got them both, then they'd come back and hammer you.
[01:47:47.000 --> 01:47:53.000]  But I was pretty sure that wasn't the case with your issue.
[01:47:53.000 --> 01:47:55.000]  So anyway, that's what we were talking about.
[01:47:55.000 --> 01:47:57.000]  Okay. What do you have for us today?
[01:47:57.000 --> 01:47:59.000]  We'll find out.
[01:47:59.000 --> 01:48:05.000]  Yeah, last night I called and was talking about a declaratory judgment suit.
[01:48:05.000 --> 01:48:10.000]  I want to write one up and so I emailed you.
[01:48:10.000 --> 01:48:15.000]  You were going to send me an example of a declaratory judgment suit.
[01:48:15.000 --> 01:48:23.000]  Now, you sent me a petition for judicial review of a document reporting to create a judgment lane and temporary restraining order.
[01:48:23.000 --> 01:48:25.000]  Was that the correct one?
[01:48:25.000 --> 01:48:29.000]  That was, but I probably shouldn't have sent that one.
[01:48:29.000 --> 01:48:37.000]  That form is in the Texas government code under 51903.
[01:48:37.000 --> 01:48:41.000]  I'm sorry, 903. 51903.
[01:48:41.000 --> 01:48:43.000]  Okay, I'll say that.
[01:48:43.000 --> 01:48:49.000]  I actually took that out of the code for that's a Texas code.
[01:48:49.000 --> 01:48:52.000]  But that is a petition for declaratory judgment.
[01:48:52.000 --> 01:49:07.000]  It'd probably be better if we did a search just for petition for declaratory judgment and do a just a federal search for a federal declaratory judgment suit.
[01:49:07.000 --> 01:49:17.000]  Declareatory judgment.
[01:49:17.000 --> 01:49:24.000]  This computer doesn't spell very well. Do you have that problem?
[01:49:24.000 --> 01:49:28.000]  Yeah, you actually do much.
[01:49:28.000 --> 01:49:32.000]  My Spanglish went down the tube.
[01:49:32.000 --> 01:49:38.000]  Okay, declaratory judgment suit.
[01:49:38.000 --> 01:49:46.000]  I'm going down to see if I can find an actual suit name.
[01:49:46.000 --> 01:49:53.000]  I'm not finding one quickly. I'm finding a lot of talk about them, but we'll be able to find one.
[01:49:53.000 --> 01:50:00.000]  Okay, I'm looking at an argument about it and here's one right here.
[01:50:00.000 --> 01:50:18.000]  The American Wholesale Products, Inc. The Evans Manufacturing, blah, blah, blah, control C, control V, control. There it is.
[01:50:18.000 --> 01:50:25.000]  That's the court's order.
[01:50:25.000 --> 01:50:27.000]  Let's find a suit here.
[01:50:27.000 --> 01:50:29.000]  It's an order for opinion.
[01:50:29.000 --> 01:50:36.000]  Yeah, that was the opinion on it. It didn't give me the heading form.
[01:50:36.000 --> 01:50:47.000]  Well, now I found original petition for declaratory judgment for Tarpley, Lewis B. Carlson, Farmers Branch.
[01:50:47.000 --> 01:50:55.000]  Okay, did it give you a... Did it have the actual suit with the original heading on it?
[01:50:55.000 --> 01:51:05.000]  Yeah, but unfortunately, it states opposite of what you were saying because it lists both of the parties as opponents.
[01:51:05.000 --> 01:51:12.000]  Hey, hey, hey, I could be wrong. I was once.
[01:51:12.000 --> 01:51:16.000]  Yeah, I thought I screwed up, but I was mistaken.
[01:51:16.000 --> 01:51:21.000]  So this says Shirley Dennis Tarpley versus Carleton Farmers Branch.
[01:51:21.000 --> 01:51:27.000]  Yeah, the first one I filed was that way because it took it out of the Texas form.
[01:51:27.000 --> 01:51:35.000]  But then I pulled one up online and it started out in Ray, whoever the father was.
[01:51:35.000 --> 01:51:37.000]  Okay.
[01:51:37.000 --> 01:51:41.000]  And that's why I went to that other form because I pulled one as a federal.
[01:51:41.000 --> 01:51:48.000]  The one I filed was his state, but I pulled one as federal and it was in Ray.
[01:51:48.000 --> 01:51:53.000]  And I used the form, but it may have been something inside the document that caused it to be in Ray.
[01:51:53.000 --> 01:51:57.000]  I could be wrong. And I am on occasion.
[01:51:57.000 --> 01:52:03.000]  I'm not a lawyer. I do a lot of this, but there's... We don't know everything.
[01:52:03.000 --> 01:52:09.000]  And declaratory judgment, that don't happen a lot.
[01:52:09.000 --> 01:52:10.000]  Okay.
[01:52:10.000 --> 01:52:11.000]  So I'm new to it.
[01:52:11.000 --> 01:52:13.000]  So declaratory judgment.
[01:52:13.000 --> 01:52:18.000]  So send that to me. I'd like to see it.
[01:52:18.000 --> 01:52:22.000]  Okay. It says original petition for declaratory judgment.
[01:52:22.000 --> 01:52:24.000]  So that is what we're talking about.
[01:52:24.000 --> 01:52:27.000]  That is exactly what we're talking about.
[01:52:27.000 --> 01:52:31.000]  Okay. Well, I will download that and send that to you.
[01:52:31.000 --> 01:52:37.000]  And if I can, you know, if I can make that into a template, then I can scribble mine out real quick.
[01:52:37.000 --> 01:52:41.000]  Yeah. Okay. There's a few things you need to know about.
[01:52:41.000 --> 01:52:46.000]  I'm sorry. I'm thinking mandamus.
[01:52:46.000 --> 01:52:49.000]  Mandamus is really difficult.
[01:52:49.000 --> 01:52:58.000]  Declaratory judgment is just, it's not very difficult in that it's just kind of a standard pleading.
[01:52:58.000 --> 01:53:01.000]  The same format you'd use in any other pleading.
[01:53:01.000 --> 01:53:10.000]  And if it has both parties on the top and the heading, then there's really no difference in how the suit is constructed from a regular lawsuit.
[01:53:10.000 --> 01:53:14.000]  Except you don't have a cause of action.
[01:53:14.000 --> 01:53:23.000]  You have your statement of the case, statement of facts, argument in support, conclusion.
[01:53:23.000 --> 01:53:27.000]  You know, you'd have argument in support or points in authorities.
[01:53:27.000 --> 01:53:32.000]  Then you'd have causes of action, but this one has no causes of action.
[01:53:32.000 --> 01:53:36.000]  It just has conclusion than prayer.
[01:53:36.000 --> 01:53:39.000]  That part's simple enough.
[01:53:39.000 --> 01:53:42.000]  So I'll jump on the heading.
[01:53:42.000 --> 01:53:47.000]  I'll check a couple more to make sure I'm right, but it may not matter in any case.
[01:53:47.000 --> 01:54:01.000]  And if the one I looked at was, say, about a juvenile, it might have been why it was to initiate, in Ray, somebody's name, because they do that in the interest of...
[01:54:01.000 --> 01:54:03.000]  We're naming a trial.
[01:54:03.000 --> 01:54:05.000]  Wait to say that again?
[01:54:05.000 --> 01:54:08.000]  Because we're naming a trial.
[01:54:08.000 --> 01:54:11.000]  Yeah. Yeah, in that case, it would be in Ray.
[01:54:11.000 --> 01:54:15.000]  If it was about a piece of property, it'd be in Ray.
[01:54:15.000 --> 01:54:19.000]  So there might have been another reason that that came up.
[01:54:19.000 --> 01:54:21.000]  Now, this is a state case.
[01:54:21.000 --> 01:54:25.000]  If I want to do a federal case, I can still style it the same.
[01:54:25.000 --> 01:54:26.000]  Yeah.
[01:54:26.000 --> 01:54:34.000]  The federal and state, for most states, most states, the headings for federal and state are the same.
[01:54:34.000 --> 01:54:35.000]  Tennessee is different.
[01:54:35.000 --> 01:54:43.000]  There's a few states, about eight or 10 states, that have a different and somewhat peculiar heading style.
[01:54:43.000 --> 01:54:49.000]  But most states use the standard federal heading style.
[01:54:49.000 --> 01:54:50.000]  Okay.
[01:54:50.000 --> 01:54:58.000]  And so far, I have never had that be an issue.
[01:54:58.000 --> 01:55:09.000]  California was somewhat different, and I filed using Texas's format on something, and I never got an issue with it.
[01:55:09.000 --> 01:55:10.000]  Okay.
[01:55:10.000 --> 01:55:16.000]  California was a little different in where they put the court's name and where they put the cause number and stuff.
[01:55:16.000 --> 01:55:20.000]  I never had any blowback on the heading.
[01:55:20.000 --> 01:55:21.000]  Okay.
[01:55:21.000 --> 01:55:25.000]  So it may not be critical in any case.
[01:55:25.000 --> 01:55:30.000]  I will write mine up, and I will send you this example, and I'll get work on it.
[01:55:30.000 --> 01:55:34.000]  I'll shoot you a message by Monday.
[01:55:34.000 --> 01:55:35.000]  Okay.
[01:55:35.000 --> 01:55:47.000]  You sent me a, and I'm going to want to talk where I want to get you busy helping me build the traffic site up.
[01:55:47.000 --> 01:55:48.000]  Got it.
[01:55:48.000 --> 01:55:56.000]  But we're going to go ahead and launch the traffic site, and things should start to get real interesting.
[01:55:56.000 --> 01:55:57.000]  Okay.
[01:55:57.000 --> 01:55:59.000]  Is that all you have?
[01:55:59.000 --> 01:56:00.000]  That's all I got.
[01:56:00.000 --> 01:56:02.000]  I'll let you move on.
[01:56:02.000 --> 01:56:04.000]  Okay.
[01:56:04.000 --> 01:56:07.000]  Well, we've got, we've got two minutes left.
[01:56:07.000 --> 01:56:21.000]  What I'm going to do in, for the shows from now on, I'm going to start trying to produce some about 10 or 15 minute videos or audios.
[01:56:21.000 --> 01:56:39.000]  So in the next few shows, the first segment of every show, I'm going to devote to some of these issues that I've got primarily that are structured into the ebook 101.
[01:56:39.000 --> 01:56:54.000]  I want, want to build a set of audios that people can pull down and get a general idea of how to deal with the courts.
[01:56:54.000 --> 01:57:01.000]  I would like it to be simpler than what it is.
[01:57:01.000 --> 01:57:09.000]  But the courts are complex and there are a lot of pieces here, so I can't do this in one sitting.
[01:57:09.000 --> 01:57:15.000]  You know, I could, but it'd be so long that I'd put everybody to sleep.
[01:57:15.000 --> 01:57:25.000]  So beginning next Thursday, I'm going to start the first segment with just walking down this ebook.
[01:57:25.000 --> 01:57:33.000]  And I'm not too concerned that I'm going to put most of the ebook on these audios.
[01:57:33.000 --> 01:57:43.000]  There's not going to be a problem because the ebook is something you really need to study to get the understanding of it.
[01:57:43.000 --> 01:57:54.000]  If we can get a couple of people in every county to understand these basic principles, we will really start changing things.
[01:57:54.000 --> 01:57:59.000]  And I've been doing it long enough that I've got the technology down.
[01:57:59.000 --> 01:58:15.000]  And I'm going to use these 10 minute videos or audios in order to start, give people a place to go and experience one section at a time.
[01:58:15.000 --> 01:58:28.000]  And I'll try to present them so that each previous section builds on the next, so we start building a real profound understanding of these techniques and start taking these guys on.
[01:58:28.000 --> 01:58:40.000]  Okay, thank you all for listening. We'll be back next Thursday on our four hour show and Eddie will be on Monday at 8 central on his traffic show.
[01:58:40.000 --> 01:58:46.000]  Make sure you check him out. Thank you all for listening and good night.
[01:59:11.000 --> 01:59:20.000]  Call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:20.000 --> 01:59:30.000]  This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross references, plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:59:30.000 --> 01:59:41.000]  This is truly a Bible you can understand. To get your free copy of the New Testament recovery version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:59:41.000 --> 02:00:00.000]  That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.