[00:00.000 --> 00:06.840] The following news flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown. [00:06.840 --> 00:13.200] Markets for Monday the 22nd of July 2019 open with Precious Metals, Gold $1,429 an ounce, [00:13.200 --> 00:21.400] Silver $16.45 an ounce, Copper $2.75 an ounce, Oil, Texas Crew $55.63 a barrel, Brent Crew [00:21.400 --> 00:29.840] $62.47 a barrel, and Cryptos in order of Market Cap, Bitcoin Core $10,566.52, Ethereum $200.00 [00:29.840 --> 00:41.400] $227.26, XRP Ripple $0.33, Litecoin $100.31, and Bitcoin Cash is at $324.10 a crypto coin. [00:41.400 --> 00:52.520] Today in history, the year 1916, the Preparedness Day bombing, a time suitcase bomb, was detonated on [00:52.520 --> 00:58.280] Market Street in San Francisco during the World War I Preparedness Day Parade, killing 10 and [00:58.280 --> 01:07.480] entering 40. Today in history. And recent news, since Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill [01:07.480 --> 01:13.160] 1325 legalizing hemp into taxes law back in June, county prosecutors around the state including [01:13.160 --> 01:17.880] Houston, Austin and San Antonio have been dropping marijuana possession charges and even refusing [01:17.880 --> 01:22.360] to file new ones since they are stipulating that they do not have the time or the laboratory [01:22.360 --> 01:27.240] equipment to test the herb for THC. Margaret Moore, the Travis County District Attorney [01:27.240 --> 01:31.240] announced earlier this month that she was dismissing 32 felony possession and delivery [01:31.240 --> 01:35.920] of marijuana cases because of the law. Mr. Abbott and other state officials, including [01:35.920 --> 01:39.920] the Attorney General stipulated in a letter to county district attorneys back on Thursday [01:39.920 --> 01:44.520] that marijuana has not been decriminalized in Texas and that these actions demonstrate [01:44.520 --> 01:50.440] a misunderstanding of how HB 1325 works, as well as other cities too like the district [01:50.440 --> 01:56.640] attorney in El Paso, Cayma Esparza, a Democrat who also stated earlier this month that the [01:56.640 --> 02:01.720] law, quote, will not have an effect on the prosecution of marijuana cases in El Paso. [02:01.720 --> 02:06.880] However, the issue was succinctly summarized by Mr. Brandon Ball, an assistant public defender [02:06.880 --> 02:11.320] in Harris County who stated that quote, the law is constantly changing on what makes something [02:11.320 --> 02:15.280] illegal based on its chemical makeup. It's important that if someone is charged with [02:15.280 --> 02:24.680] something, the test matches what they're charged with. A paper by Tulane University identified [02:24.680 --> 02:30.200] a five and a half inch American pocket shark. As the first of its kind in the Gulf of Mexico, [02:30.200 --> 02:35.360] the specimen being only the second pocket shark ever captured or recorded with the other [02:35.360 --> 02:40.120] one being found way back in 1979 in the East Pacific Ocean. According to the university [02:40.120 --> 02:46.280] paper, the shark secretes a luminous fluid from a gland near its front fins for the purpose [02:46.280 --> 02:58.720] it is hypothesized to lure and prey who may be drawn into the glow. [02:58.720 --> 03:26.680] Well, I received my remedy today, came in a box just like we say, I accepted the value [03:26.680 --> 03:36.400] right away, it's not true, no time later, we are originators and a pathway seems to get [03:36.400 --> 03:43.160] straighter every day, and I can take anything that belongs to me. [03:43.160 --> 03:50.560] Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, rule of law radio on this Friday, the eighth [03:50.560 --> 04:01.040] day of May, 2020, and we're talking to Olivier in Tennessee. Olivier, can you give us an [04:01.040 --> 04:10.240] example of a statute that you construe as void for vagueness? [04:10.240 --> 04:38.760] I was pretty sure this is what Olivier was talking about, it was prosecuted in Tennessee [04:38.760 --> 04:47.880] for driving on a revoked license. When in fact he had one that was not revoked, but [04:47.880 --> 04:55.880] he had another one that was revoked, and the state in which it was not revoked did not [04:55.880 --> 05:04.920] have reciprocity, so we have new agreements between the states that if your license is [05:04.920 --> 05:12.920] revoked in one state, the other states will honor that revocation. What he's saying [05:12.920 --> 05:23.560] here is there's some Supreme Court cases that say that it is unconstitutional to revoke [05:23.560 --> 05:32.880] a driver's license for non-payment of a fine. There are reasons for which you could revoke [05:32.880 --> 05:39.800] a license, like the third time you run over somebody, it might be construed that you [05:39.800 --> 05:48.560] have demonstrated a lack of ability to safely operate the vehicle, but not paying a fine [05:48.560 --> 05:56.600] has nothing to do with any of that, and they ruled that it was unconstitutional. So this [05:56.600 --> 06:03.880] is what we're trying to get to, and what Olivier is saying is that the statute itself [06:03.880 --> 06:08.280] was insufficient on its face. Did you find it Olivier? [06:08.280 --> 06:27.720] I have taken the words, but I don't have it on because I'm on the road right now. No, [06:27.720 --> 06:28.720] I have the other one. There's different ways, what you understand the arguments and how [06:28.720 --> 06:36.440] it works, there's different ways you can attack it. Right now I'm in Florida, so Florida [06:36.440 --> 06:47.400] has a lot of license suspended for a court case, a court fine, and they also have a license [06:47.400 --> 06:58.400] suspended because of the other states. There's a statute here saying that suspension suspending [06:58.400 --> 07:06.840] a resident's license upon conviction in another state. It says that the department is authorized [07:06.840 --> 07:13.400] to suspend or revoke the license of any resident of the state upon receiving notice of the [07:13.400 --> 07:21.160] conviction of such person in another state or foreign country or an offense therein which [07:21.160 --> 07:29.640] if committed in this state will be grounds for the suspension or revocation of his or [07:29.640 --> 07:38.440] her license. That sounds like double jeopardy. And it sounds like there's a skipping due [07:38.440 --> 07:44.960] process. If they say all that's needed is that they get notice. You don't have to get [07:44.960 --> 07:50.560] notice that they got notice, you don't have any opportunity to rebut. There's no chance [07:50.560 --> 07:55.480] for anything to happen. They just get notice and boom, done. [07:55.480 --> 08:03.000] Exactly, and that's why I was looking at this word for vagueness technique and I realized [08:03.000 --> 08:08.840] that there's a lot of ways that you can rip open the statute which can be. [08:08.840 --> 08:17.480] Okay, hold on. What does get notice mean? [08:17.480 --> 08:28.520] Get notice there through the department of? No, I'm looking. When you read the statute, [08:28.520 --> 08:41.360] well it says get notice. Does it specify specifically what get notice means? [08:41.360 --> 08:47.920] I think we make often in reading legal documents is we read a word and we think we know what [08:47.920 --> 08:56.400] it means. We need to be very careful about our definitions. Notice here is a term of [08:56.400 --> 09:05.600] art. Who can give the state notice? Can I drive in front of the Department of Public [09:05.600 --> 09:11.880] Safety or the License Bureau with a sign on the back of my truck that said, Olivier got [09:11.880 --> 09:24.280] his license revoked in Tennessee. Is that notice? What does notice mean? If it's not [09:24.280 --> 09:32.280] clear on its face, then the statute's insufficient on its face. You see where I'm going Olivier? [09:32.280 --> 09:39.880] Right. If it said, if the department receives notice [09:39.880 --> 09:49.600] from the driver's license authority in another state that the license had been revoked in [09:49.600 --> 09:57.720] that state, then this state can revoke, that would have been more clear. Was it detailed [09:57.720 --> 10:02.280] in that regard? You might win that argument because that's [10:02.280 --> 10:10.960] another thing that I wanted to let out also that I read some of the cases and the people [10:10.960 --> 10:17.480] made an argument and the court was like, no, that argument was no good. Then they'll tell [10:17.480 --> 10:27.880] me what issues there were with the statute. They went out their way to, like, no, that's [10:27.880 --> 10:35.160] not right, but this is an issue. This is an issue. I'm like, wow. That's why I'm like, [10:35.160 --> 10:41.120] this is a real good tool to research and it's another way to get something done without [10:41.120 --> 10:47.640] having to go through this state level and arguing with them because if their language [10:47.640 --> 10:54.520] is their system, we need to go straight to our rules and it looks like this boy for [10:54.520 --> 11:03.120] vagueness is our ball game. Okay. I'm going to say I like this idea because [11:03.120 --> 11:13.600] I talk about this a lot. Everything is political. So when you're picking your issues, you want [11:13.600 --> 11:23.320] to pick issues that the courts are not going to want to address. It's always nice to pick, [11:23.320 --> 11:29.640] you know, we have Tim on, he's the next caller. In his case, they were coming after him over [11:29.640 --> 11:38.400] municipal ordinance and we said, wait a minute, a municipal ordinance is not a law. If you [11:38.400 --> 11:49.960] attempt to apply any municipal ordinance to the public in general, then it has the effect [11:49.960 --> 11:58.120] of a law, but a municipal corporation cannot write law. Only the legislature can write [11:58.120 --> 12:06.560] law. So while the municipal ordinance may be valid on its face and apply to people who [12:06.560 --> 12:16.360] are in contract contractual privity with the municipality, that would be an ordinance that [12:16.360 --> 12:23.240] would effectively be a corporate resolution, but or a corporate rule. But if you try to [12:23.240 --> 12:29.720] apply it outside that, then it's a law and only the legislature can write law. Well, [12:29.720 --> 12:36.680] they are never going to want that question to get before the court because if they get [12:36.680 --> 12:46.000] a ruling against them, all municipal ordinances are pretty well rendered unusable. And even [12:46.000 --> 12:50.360] if you're, you know, if you're right and it should be, the courts are not going to want [12:50.360 --> 12:57.800] that to happen. So you want to find a question that they do not want to have to answer. And [12:57.800 --> 13:07.800] by challenging a statute as vague as void for vagueness, the courts got to do a calculation [13:07.800 --> 13:14.960] or they're the other sides got to do a calculation. Yeah, even the court, do we want to risk getting [13:14.960 --> 13:20.880] this argument before the Supreme and possibly get the statute struck down so we can't use [13:20.880 --> 13:33.080] it? And void for vagueness is a great challenge. So you got this judge here and he's thinking, [13:33.080 --> 13:42.120] ah, if I rule against this and it gets passed me into the Pallet Court, what's the chance [13:42.120 --> 13:50.360] that our ability to do this completely gets struck down? Has nothing to do with law, has [13:50.360 --> 14:03.320] to do with politics? And do I want to be the one that gets this law struck down? Then they [14:03.320 --> 14:10.400] can take, the judge can look at it and over a minor issue he can dismiss the case without [14:10.400 --> 14:18.480] having to address the obnoxious issue. That's the way you get rid of a case that will be [14:18.480 --> 14:24.560] a career damageor. You find another reason to dismiss the case then and all those arguments [14:24.560 --> 14:34.880] become moot. Right. And I was also thinking about, you know, being a responsible American [14:34.880 --> 14:41.240] and once, you know, once you saw understanding things, I want to pass on information and [14:41.240 --> 14:47.280] I figured that also we don't have to be affected by the statute to bring the argument either. [14:47.280 --> 14:51.640] So I'm looking at all these rules. I'm like, wow, they are really, you know... [14:51.640 --> 14:58.400] Whoa, hold on, step back. Go over here. You don't have to be affected by the statute [14:58.400 --> 15:08.160] to bring the argument. Do you have case law to that effect? Yeah, I can go. I'm not near [15:08.160 --> 15:15.360] my computer where I got all my stuff, but yeah. When you get to your computer, will [15:15.360 --> 15:25.480] you email that to me? That is an interesting way to step around the fact that you have [15:25.480 --> 15:35.000] to have standing. Right. Right. The Constitution of Challenge is automatic. Well, no, even [15:35.000 --> 15:41.760] even if a constitutional provision is improper, you can't challenge it unless you've been [15:41.760 --> 15:52.560] harmed by it. They passed the Military Commissions Act and that is horribly unconstitutional. [15:52.560 --> 15:58.120] But they haven't enacted it yet, so no one has been harmed by it, so no one can raise [15:58.120 --> 16:04.280] a constitutional issue. But once they enact it, the legislature is dissolved and we go [16:04.280 --> 16:11.800] to martial law and you can't challenge it. That one's scary. Scary, but the point is [16:11.800 --> 16:17.320] you've got to be harmed by it before you can challenge it. So if you have a way to get [16:17.320 --> 16:23.640] to a statute so that you can argue against it before you've been harmed, definitely want [16:23.640 --> 16:29.800] to hear about that. Yes, exactly. Yes, exactly. Wait, wait, wait. Hold on. We're about to [16:29.800 --> 16:36.160] go to our sponsors. This is Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Real Law Radio, and now would [16:36.160 --> 16:44.480] be a good time to go to our sponsors. Check out the 80s traffic seminar, Jurisdiction [16:44.480 --> 16:52.840] Mary, and my legal 101. We hope that using those tools they'll help you find the remedy [16:52.840 --> 17:00.320] that we're trying to bring you here. Hang on, we'll be right back. [17:00.320 --> 17:05.600] Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits? [17:05.600 --> 17:09.840] Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mearris Proven Method. Michael Mearris has [17:09.840 --> 17:14.800] won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win two. You'll [17:14.800 --> 17:19.600] get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil [17:19.600 --> 17:24.680] rights statutes, what to do when contacted by phones, mail, or court summons, how to [17:24.680 --> 17:29.200] answer letters and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit reports, [17:29.200 --> 17:34.240] how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away. The Michael [17:34.240 --> 17:39.720] Mearris Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation [17:39.720 --> 17:44.760] is available as well. For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click [17:44.760 --> 17:51.840] on the blue Michael Mearris banner, or email MichaelMearris at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com [17:51.840 --> 18:00.040] or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now. [18:00.040 --> 18:05.880] Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law Traffic Seminar. In today's America, [18:05.880 --> 18:08.840] we live in an us against them society, and if we, the people, are ever going to have [18:08.840 --> 18:12.880] a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights. Among those [18:12.880 --> 18:16.120] rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own [18:16.120 --> 18:20.080] private capacity, and most importantly, the right to due process of law. Traffic courts [18:20.080 --> 18:24.040] afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights [18:24.040 --> 18:27.880] through due process. Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law [18:27.880 --> 18:31.360] Radio, has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you [18:31.360 --> 18:35.400] understand what due process is and how to hold courts to the rule of law. You can get [18:35.400 --> 18:39.440] your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering [18:39.440 --> 18:43.400] your copy today. By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation [18:43.400 --> 18:47.880] Code, The Law vs. the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of [18:47.880 --> 18:51.560] research documents, and other useful resource material. Learn how to fight for your rights [18:51.560 --> 18:56.200] with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. Order your copy today, and together we can [18:56.200 --> 19:24.200] have free society we all want and deserve. [19:24.200 --> 19:48.560] Okay, we're back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio. I was doing assonance and [19:48.560 --> 19:57.720] alliteration with Brett before we came in, and I didn't say a dirty word. What kind of [19:57.720 --> 20:06.840] alliteration did you say? Assonance and alliteration. As opposed to constant alliteration, we won't [20:06.840 --> 20:15.840] even go there. Alliteration is where you wind a portion of the word other than the last [20:15.840 --> 20:23.880] syllable. You end up with a consonant ringing in your ears. Yeah. Okay, anyway, let's go [20:23.880 --> 20:34.680] back to Olivier in Florida. Okay, we were looking at this on the break. Generally, in [20:34.680 --> 20:43.000] order to be able and in order to have standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the court, you [20:43.000 --> 20:52.200] must have a controversy. So Olivier, do you have a way of getting us into the court without [20:52.200 --> 20:53.200] a controversy? [20:53.200 --> 21:11.720] I think this is the way, as long as you are challenging a constitutional violation. Okay, [21:11.720 --> 21:22.040] a constitutional violation constitutes controversy. But you have to have your rights unconstitutionally [21:22.040 --> 21:27.040] denied before you would have standing to bring this claim. [21:27.040 --> 21:28.040] Yes. [21:28.040 --> 21:37.000] You can do what you're saying. Let me see if I'm understanding correctly here. You're [21:37.000 --> 21:46.720] saying that he can bring this constitutional challenge, because he was harmed by it, but [21:46.720 --> 21:53.720] you can't bring it knowing about his situation. You can't bring that challenge, because you [21:53.720 --> 21:56.520] weren't the one harmed. Is that what you're saying? [21:56.520 --> 21:57.520] Exactly what I'm saying. [21:57.520 --> 22:10.520] Well, it is a thing. You are harmed. You just didn't know. I mean, you just didn't agree. [22:10.520 --> 22:17.440] Okay, the courts have said you cannot address a hypothetical harm. You can't say that they [22:17.440 --> 22:24.200] passed this law, the Military Commissions Act, and if they try to enforce that in any [22:24.200 --> 22:31.400] manner, it will be horribly unconstitutional. And the courts will say maybe, but you don't [22:31.400 --> 22:37.680] have standing to bring that issue, because you have not been harmed by the application [22:37.680 --> 22:40.680] of this law. [22:40.680 --> 22:48.000] Right. I'm going to find what they wrote all in again, but from my research, that's [22:48.000 --> 22:55.200] how I remember. They tried to say that, that the person did not get a harm by the law, [22:55.200 --> 23:02.440] and the court says that even though they didn't get harmed by the law, the possibility was [23:02.440 --> 23:03.440] there. [23:03.440 --> 23:09.800] That I definitely want to see. That sounds really interesting. Yes. Thanks for finding [23:09.800 --> 23:12.120] that nugget. We'll look forward to it. [23:12.120 --> 23:19.120] And, yeah, and they were doing it for underneath the Void for Vacance Doctrine. Doctrine. So [23:19.120 --> 23:23.760] they, from the existence, from what I remember was saying that it was different. The Void [23:23.760 --> 23:30.560] for Vacance Doctrine was different, and if the Void for Vacance Doctrine is an oversight [23:30.560 --> 23:38.720] of the way the statute is written and applied, so they should not, they should not have to [23:38.720 --> 23:45.640] wait for a violation to occur as long as it's out. [23:45.640 --> 23:50.400] And that sounds like a reasonable accommodation. [23:50.400 --> 23:51.400] Right. [23:51.400 --> 23:57.440] But I haven't actually seen it. I would very much like to see that, because there's a lot [23:57.440 --> 24:06.360] of situations I could craft that way, and where I read a statute and I say to the court, [24:06.360 --> 24:15.560] I could be subject to this statute, and when I read it, I don't know how to be in compliance [24:15.560 --> 24:20.200] with this statute, because it's vague and unclear. [24:20.200 --> 24:27.640] Right. Because some people, because of their knowledge, they, they, they file the challenges [24:27.640 --> 24:32.000] as soon as they come out. They don't wait until they get violated. [24:32.000 --> 24:36.560] And that's what I need to see the case law on, because all of the case law I have seen [24:36.560 --> 24:42.280] said you have to wait until you've been damaged by it in order to give you standing to invoke [24:42.280 --> 24:44.280] the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. [24:44.280 --> 24:49.440] You're trying to sue, right? You're trying to sue. You're trying to claim some damage. [24:49.440 --> 24:50.440] You're trying to... [24:50.440 --> 24:57.000] Yeah, you either sue or you file a petition with declaratory judgment. Any methodology [24:57.000 --> 25:05.240] you use to invoke the jurisdiction of the court, you have to have standing, the standing [25:05.240 --> 25:14.360] in order to invoke that. The only thing that I know of we can do without being harmed ourselves [25:14.360 --> 25:19.880] is file criminal complaints. And this judge in Dallas that had this woman arrested, I [25:19.880 --> 25:26.960] intend to file criminal charges against him with the state attorney general. And I haven't [25:26.960 --> 25:29.480] been harmed. [25:29.480 --> 25:30.480] And I was in... [25:30.480 --> 25:36.840] If I am, if I am correct with the way that is, I was thinking that this tool, with this [25:36.840 --> 25:42.720] knowledge, like people who are very serious about being Americans, we can do a lot of [25:42.720 --> 25:52.960] damage and not have to deal with all the fuss because this oversight system, it runs itself. [25:52.960 --> 26:00.040] You can just go ahead and say what if a vagus on both sides and mission and get the information [26:00.040 --> 26:05.680] that they have to say about it. And now what they've written down in the federal court, [26:05.680 --> 26:16.880] we can use as the same concrete cases to go along and deal with other things. And I [26:16.880 --> 26:21.880] was thinking of the, you know, the suspended, I mean, that is the child support, getting [26:21.880 --> 26:26.760] arrested for child support. I was reading the suspended license case and they said it [26:26.760 --> 26:33.920] is unconstitutional. It doesn't, it deprives the right to work, the right to use the automobile, [26:33.920 --> 26:38.320] the right to all this other stuff. And I was thinking like, wait a minute, the suspended, [26:38.320 --> 26:43.920] I mean, the going to jail for not being able to pay the child support, that's the same thing. [26:43.920 --> 26:47.840] Yes, it has nothing to do with driving. [26:47.840 --> 26:56.240] But nobody challenges, but nobody challenges the statute. The child support, they're putting [26:56.240 --> 27:06.000] you in jail for fines and fees. And there's a lot of ways that the due process is applied, [27:06.000 --> 27:12.720] which they do not follow the incorporation of the due process. [27:12.720 --> 27:21.120] Okay, when they put you in jail for non-payment of child support, that's done as contempt [27:21.120 --> 27:29.560] of court. That's how they got around that one. The judge ordered you to pay child support [27:29.560 --> 27:35.720] and you failed to do what the judge ordered you to. And under his plenary power to keep [27:35.720 --> 27:43.280] the peace and maintain the dignity of the court, he can find you in contempt. That's [27:43.280 --> 27:46.560] how they do that one. [27:46.560 --> 27:55.920] But they can find you in contempt. And then they can put you in jail and they... [27:55.920 --> 28:00.640] I understand what they do, what they do and everything, but we're playing a different [28:00.640 --> 28:07.200] ball game. We're taking the statute that they use to do what they do and put it before the [28:07.200 --> 28:14.720] federal court and say, explain this to me. Please tell me what's wrong in here and can [28:14.720 --> 28:18.880] they do this? [28:18.880 --> 28:25.880] That sounds like it would be a good subject for a petition for declaratory judgment. [28:25.880 --> 28:26.880] It does. [28:26.880 --> 28:27.880] All right. [28:27.880 --> 28:33.960] But how do you get around the part that says that you have to be harmed? I'm really looking [28:33.960 --> 28:36.200] forward to seeing what this other is that... [28:36.200 --> 28:37.200] Okay. [28:37.200 --> 28:43.200] If this one doesn't go to that, Olivier was speaking to child support. If I'm being ordered [28:43.200 --> 28:52.160] to pay child support by a court and threatened with the imprisonment, if I don't, I know [28:52.160 --> 28:53.160] I'm... [28:53.160 --> 28:56.280] Well, if you are, sure. But he's not saying that's what's happening to him. He's saying [28:56.280 --> 29:01.560] he noticed that in the law and he wants to be able to challenge it because he's an upstanding [29:01.560 --> 29:04.960] member of society and he wants the law to be right. [29:04.960 --> 29:07.080] That's not constitutional. [29:07.080 --> 29:14.280] Olivier, that I can assure you has been addressed over and over and the courts have consistently [29:14.280 --> 29:23.720] said you can't bring a hypothetical. You can't bring an issue that you think may harm you. [29:23.720 --> 29:27.520] You have to wait until you've actually been harmed before you have standing. [29:27.520 --> 29:35.520] But here's the thing. If that is true, we have a network. We have a local radio. There's [29:35.520 --> 29:42.520] somebody who's on the radio listening right now. So it's easy to make a formula to write [29:42.520 --> 29:47.520] these federal lawsuits about full voice and vagueness and then whoever has an issue, if [29:47.520 --> 29:51.160] we do need somebody to fight it with an issue, I'm sure that we can... [29:51.160 --> 29:52.160] There you go. [29:52.160 --> 29:53.160] Here. [29:53.160 --> 29:58.600] Okay, hang on. About to go to our sponsors, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, we'll be right [29:58.600 --> 29:59.600] back. [29:59.600 --> 30:05.760] Everyone knows that walking is great exercise, but you might not know that the way you walk [30:05.760 --> 30:10.000] could predict how long you're going to live. I'm Dr. Katherine Albrecht and I'll be back [30:10.000 --> 30:14.800] to tell you more about walking prognostication in just a moment. [30:14.800 --> 30:19.160] Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back [30:19.160 --> 30:24.760] again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. [30:24.760 --> 30:30.920] So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy, [30:30.920 --> 30:36.080] it's worth hanging on to. This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, [30:36.080 --> 30:43.640] the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with StartPage. [30:43.640 --> 30:48.080] New research shows how fast you walk could predict how long you're going to live. The [30:48.080 --> 30:52.640] Journal of the American Medical Association reports that older adults who walk one meter [30:52.640 --> 30:57.880] per second or faster live longer than expected. In case you're wondering, one meter per second [30:57.880 --> 31:02.760] is about two and a quarter miles per hour. A senior's age, gender, and walking speed [31:02.760 --> 31:07.320] were as good at predicting life expectancy as more traditional statistical measures. [31:07.320 --> 31:13.120] Generally speaking, faster walkers live longer. Measuring walking speed is quick and inexpensive. [31:13.120 --> 31:17.480] It only takes a stopwatch, some space to walk, and a few minutes. Researchers say it could [31:17.480 --> 31:21.040] help doctors identify older patients who need special care. [31:21.040 --> 31:25.800] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com. [31:51.040 --> 32:05.720] Logos Radio Network welcomes a new show to our lineup for the new year. [32:05.720 --> 32:12.120] Scripture Talk with Nana will begin Wednesday, January 8th, from 8 to 10 p.m. Central Time. [32:12.120 --> 32:17.600] Our goal is in accord with Matthew 516. Let your light so shine before men that they may [32:17.600 --> 32:23.120] see your good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven. We wish to reflect God's [32:23.120 --> 32:28.400] light and be a blessing to all those with a hearing ear. Join Nana and guests for both [32:28.400 --> 32:33.960] verse-by-verse Bible studies and topical Bible studies designed to provoke unto love and good [32:33.960 --> 32:39.160] works. Our verse-by-verse Bible studies will begin in the book of Matthew where we will [32:39.160 --> 32:44.320] discuss one chapter per week. Our topical Bible studies will vary each week and will [32:44.320 --> 32:49.800] explore sound doctrine as well as Christian character development. So mark your calendar [32:49.800 --> 32:57.080] and join us live on LogosRadioNetwork.com Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. starting January 8th for [32:57.080 --> 33:02.440] an inspiring and motivating discussion of the Scriptures. [33:02.440 --> 33:18.920] Live free speech radio, LogosRadioNetwork.com. [33:18.920 --> 33:48.760] Yeah, yeah, oh, yeah, I won't, oh, I won't, I won't let you put the world over my eyes. [33:48.760 --> 34:08.560] Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, rule of law radio, and we're talking to Olivier [34:08.560 --> 34:17.040] in Tennessee. Okay, I would very much like it if you can find something that lets us [34:17.040 --> 34:24.920] get to the court without being harmed, but I'm afraid we're not going to find it because [34:24.920 --> 34:31.680] I've looked at this issue before, and the courts have been very adamant that you don't [34:31.680 --> 34:39.760] have standing to challenge the law because you think the law may be improper or could [34:39.760 --> 34:46.560] be improperly used, you could be harmed by it. They say you have to have been harmed [34:46.560 --> 34:55.160] by it before you can challenge. That's my story, Olivier, and I'm sticking to it. [34:55.160 --> 35:03.040] Well, I'll find it for you. Good, I would be very pleased if you could find that for [35:03.040 --> 35:21.400] us. Is it, yeah, and is it the child support or civil debt? Is it child support or what? [35:21.400 --> 35:29.880] No, yes, did you say trial support or traffic court? Child support. Child support, that's [35:29.880 --> 35:36.000] a civil debt, yes. Right, because I was reading the license [35:36.000 --> 35:47.520] case, it listed civil debt. It was saying that it was against the Constitution for civil [35:47.520 --> 35:56.920] debt, for people to be incarcerated for civil debt or penifying, and it was saying that when [35:56.920 --> 36:03.280] they suspend the person's license, that's what it eventually leads to because that person [36:03.280 --> 36:10.880] will be caught with a suspended license, and something that should not be a crime is turned [36:10.880 --> 36:20.520] into a crime because the application was improper. And then now they're being locked up for [36:20.520 --> 36:31.480] civil debt. And the application goes directly to the constitutional prohibition against [36:31.480 --> 36:40.520] debtor's prisons. I think that's the way it's stated in the Constitution. So, yeah, I would [36:40.520 --> 36:50.400] agree with that. On the other hand, I'm a parent and I understand that children, [36:50.400 --> 36:57.480] did not ask to be brought into this world, that the parents, they chose to do something [36:57.480 --> 37:03.720] that brought the children into the world, so the children have a right to be supported. [37:03.720 --> 37:11.880] Okay, well, I got that, and then I'm grandpa, and I appreciate all that. However, we have [37:11.880 --> 37:20.960] to find a different way of collecting this other than trash in our Constitution. [37:20.960 --> 37:27.400] Right. And when you put them in jail, they lose what they had. They lose what they had [37:27.400 --> 37:34.640] going for them. You put them in problem with transportation, and you know what I'm saying? [37:34.640 --> 37:40.720] All societies now, you have to move, so you want to make some money to support your family. [37:40.720 --> 37:44.760] You've got to give it some time, it's just basic. It makes everything more difficult [37:44.760 --> 37:50.160] on the individual who you already want to be a more productive citizen. [37:50.160 --> 37:54.360] So what's the remedy? You have an alternative. [37:54.360 --> 37:58.760] In jail, it's not. Not yet. [37:58.760 --> 38:10.200] That is a problem. The non-paying spouse is harming the child, but it's not criminal. [38:10.200 --> 38:18.280] And it's non-payment, so that's debt. And we can't imprison for debt, so how do we fix [38:18.280 --> 38:21.280] this? Where is there a fix? [38:21.280 --> 38:27.480] And we need to put all this energy there where you were going to fight and recover for your [38:27.480 --> 38:30.480] family identity issue. [38:30.480 --> 38:39.800] Well, I'm looking for an alternative to jailing someone for not supporting his children. Do [38:39.800 --> 38:43.680] you have another methodology for handling this problem? [38:43.680 --> 38:55.920] The only thing I would see is a better human state of mind. Because the people who didn't [38:55.920 --> 39:00.840] cause the problem would have to assist the people who caused the problem to get some [39:00.840 --> 39:09.600] kind of economical base in a way that can make some good standards of living where they [39:09.600 --> 39:19.760] can afford to pay for that and what they're doing at the current time. Because I've been [39:19.760 --> 39:25.480] incarcerated with some of these people, and there's no way that they're going to have [39:25.480 --> 39:35.080] the ability to even when they try. So if this was that, I mean, and if it wasn't trying, [39:35.080 --> 39:41.080] now I understand. But if they're trying... Yeah, but no, that's different. Whether they're [39:41.080 --> 39:46.560] trying or not has nothing to do with the constitutional application of the law. [39:46.560 --> 39:48.560] Okay, fine. [39:48.560 --> 39:57.360] Yeah, we're forbidden to imprison people for debt. And yes, it's reprehensible for an adult [39:57.360 --> 40:03.800] to sire a child and then not support that child. Okay, we got that part. But we're not [40:03.800 --> 40:11.080] talking about morality here. We're talking about law. Under law, is there anything we [40:11.080 --> 40:21.560] can do? Other than imprison, that's why they did that because they didn't have any other [40:21.560 --> 40:33.760] way to give the person who was otherwise unwilling to support their own children. We didn't have [40:33.760 --> 40:35.760] another way to motivate them. [40:35.760 --> 40:41.200] This could be taken over to the penal side, just like we were talking about earlier with [40:41.200 --> 40:47.720] the transportation code. And why don't they just go back to the penal code and stick with [40:47.720 --> 40:52.120] that? This seems like it might be a similar situation. Child support could go to child [40:52.120 --> 40:58.040] abandonment. If they don't provide for the welfare of the child, child abuse could be [40:58.040 --> 41:08.440] a crime in the line with the abandonment. Yeah, I see. That might be a good way to do [41:08.440 --> 41:09.440] it. [41:09.440 --> 41:15.280] But isn't there a problem with that? I mean, not what you just said, but what Randy just [41:15.280 --> 41:23.400] said, because if that's acceptable, then that means that they vote and say that everybody [41:23.400 --> 41:31.040] needs to get vaccinated. And if you don't, well, we're going to change it. We don't [41:31.040 --> 41:33.840] know what else to do with it. [41:33.840 --> 41:42.840] Yeah, and I don't see the connection. How does vaccines sit with that? I don't get it. [41:42.840 --> 41:50.080] No, no, no. What he was saying was as far as people not paying child support, not wanting [41:50.080 --> 41:57.920] to pay child support or doing what they need to do. So, I mean, to jail them, that was [41:57.920 --> 42:06.440] their only other choice. But I'm like, well, if their only other choice is to violate the [42:06.440 --> 42:12.120] Constitution, does that make it still right? [42:12.120 --> 42:21.160] And that was exactly our point. We can't do something that would violate Constitution [42:21.160 --> 42:27.600] in order to get somebody to do something that we believe he should do. So, we can don't [42:27.600 --> 42:33.160] have debtors' prisons, so we can't arrest them. I mean, we can't imprison them for not [42:33.160 --> 42:41.000] paying the debt. So, what else could we imprison them for? Could we write a law that states [42:41.000 --> 42:54.000] that the failure of a biological parent to support their own child is an act of child [42:54.000 --> 42:55.000] abandonment? [42:55.000 --> 43:00.120] You have to make it so intentional. [43:00.120 --> 43:03.120] Would that be constitutional? [43:03.120 --> 43:12.960] Yes, it's just property. You've got to take care of your property. I mean, you had intent [43:12.960 --> 43:13.960] to create it. [43:13.960 --> 43:24.400] I would think it would be more solid footing if you would treat the child as a person and [43:24.400 --> 43:32.200] say you're violating their civil rights to life or something rather than he's supposed [43:32.200 --> 43:35.720] to take care of his own property. When somebody has property, they can dispose of it as they [43:35.720 --> 43:43.200] wish. If their neighbor thinks they're wasting it or it's not a whole great way to spend [43:43.200 --> 43:44.200] it. [43:44.200 --> 43:45.200] And a child... [43:45.200 --> 43:46.200] He's a property, he can. [43:46.200 --> 43:48.720] Yeah, a child is absolutely not property. [43:48.720 --> 43:51.320] Child is a person. [43:51.320 --> 43:57.840] Once the child is in some states conceived and others born, they become a separate entity [43:57.840 --> 43:59.880] with individual rights there. [43:59.880 --> 44:06.640] Through advances in technology our lives have greatly improved except in the area of nutrition. [44:06.640 --> 44:11.400] People feed their pets better than they feed themselves and it's time we changed all that. [44:11.400 --> 44:17.640] Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition. [44:17.640 --> 44:22.440] In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, young [44:22.440 --> 44:27.960] Jevity can provide the nutrients you need. Logos Radio Network gets many requests to [44:27.960 --> 44:31.600] endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject. [44:31.600 --> 44:36.880] We have come to trust young Jevity so much we became a marketing distributor along with [44:36.880 --> 44:43.400] Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others. When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com your [44:43.400 --> 44:49.320] health will improve as you help support quality radio. As you realize the benefits of young [44:49.320 --> 44:55.560] Jevity, you may want to join us. As a distributor you can experience improved health, help your [44:55.560 --> 45:00.560] friends and family, and increase your income. Order now. [45:00.560 --> 45:07.560] Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary. [45:07.560 --> 45:13.560] The affordable, easy to understand four CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, [45:13.560 --> 45:19.800] step by step. If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't [45:19.800 --> 45:24.720] have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step [45:24.720 --> 45:31.840] by step course, and now you can too. Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 [45:31.840 --> 45:37.640] years of case winning experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone [45:37.640 --> 45:43.600] should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts. [45:43.600 --> 45:49.760] You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, [45:49.760 --> 45:56.760] pro se tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner. [45:56.760 --> 46:22.760] Call toll-free 866-LAW-E-Z. [46:22.760 --> 46:45.760] Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, rule of law radio, and Olivia, we were talking [46:45.760 --> 46:55.000] about that over the break, and this is a conundrum. It is a problem. And I think if we passed [46:55.000 --> 47:06.320] a law that called failure to support a child with child abandonment, and is that not a [47:06.320 --> 47:11.320] felony, Brett? It's a class A misdemeanor. [47:11.320 --> 47:19.360] Well, it's in different states, but I know with Texas, they call it a felony. That would [47:19.360 --> 47:26.120] be an intent. It could be different degrees of felony. It could be very severe, or it [47:26.120 --> 47:34.920] could be down to the lowest level of felony. And actually, that may be something that the [47:34.920 --> 47:45.080] system can do without changing the law. If you just, if someone doesn't take care of [47:45.080 --> 47:51.920] the child, and you could, you know, if you have a child and you don't let the child go [47:51.920 --> 48:00.960] out without proper dress and cold weather, that's just child endangerment. We already [48:00.960 --> 48:08.200] have laws for that. If you sire a child and you don't support the child and cause the [48:08.200 --> 48:21.480] child to have to go hungry, or not get what they need to stay healthy, that's child endangerment. [48:21.480 --> 48:28.600] Or abandonment. But I think we could do that, and that would serve our purpose and still [48:28.600 --> 48:34.600] be constitutional. What do you think, Olivier? [48:34.600 --> 48:41.160] Yeah, I think anything will work better than what it is now. [48:41.160 --> 48:48.520] Yeah. I knew a guy in my sister-in-law's boyfriend. He worked with a guy in a machine [48:48.520 --> 48:55.000] shop here in Texas. The guy had never been in Texas in his life. He married someone [48:55.000 --> 49:02.080] in Mississippi. He divorced her in Mississippi, and she moved to Texas. She got the children, [49:02.080 --> 49:10.480] she got the custody, moved to Texas, and transferred child support to Texas. The Texas Attorney [49:10.480 --> 49:17.640] General came to Mississippi, drug him to Texas, threw him in jail, and told him he's either [49:17.640 --> 49:25.000] going to sit in jail, or he can get out and go to work in Texas, but he can't leave the [49:25.000 --> 49:35.440] state until his child support's paid. I thought, well, that's got to be unconstitutional. [49:35.440 --> 49:42.600] You can't go to another state and drag a citizen of that state into your state. But [49:42.600 --> 49:49.080] that's what they're doing, and they think it's all right. Well, you know, I'm being [49:49.080 --> 49:55.600] a parent and a grandparent. I'm really strongly feel we owe it to our children to take care [49:55.600 --> 50:02.880] of them, but even so, we don't get to viscerate our Constitution because somebody's doing [50:02.880 --> 50:10.600] something reprehensible. Okay, we do kind of need to move along. We've got two more [50:10.600 --> 50:15.600] callers and one more hour. Do you have anything else, Olivier? [50:15.600 --> 50:25.080] This is quick. This is the three states, but I'm figuring how to apply. I'm in Florida, [50:25.080 --> 50:30.800] and I could travel to all the stations, but I don't want to give them a chance to talk [50:30.800 --> 50:36.640] too much and hold things up because, you know, if you've got different states, they might [50:36.640 --> 50:45.600] act for different things. So, you know, I've got delays or whatever, but I was thinking [50:45.600 --> 50:54.080] I'll just do Florida, and Florida is keeping me from getting the license, and I'm in Florida [50:54.080 --> 50:58.960] right now. So, Florida's keeping me from getting the license because of these other states [50:58.960 --> 51:04.800] having things on their record, which is that statue that I just read you. I'm going to [51:04.800 --> 51:14.120] challenge that one and the driver license statue and act that, you know, to refrain [51:14.120 --> 51:23.080] the officers from arresting me for this statue while I'm in the use of my automobile. So, [51:23.080 --> 51:29.560] you know, that whole conversation could be isolated to just one state and not give them [51:29.560 --> 51:38.120] a chance to, I'm not going to give them a chance to stray off to other topics, but just [51:38.120 --> 51:47.360] good, and I think it's a good idea. You're in Florida, as I understand, your license [51:47.360 --> 51:55.320] was revoked in a different state, and now Florida is denying you your right to locomotion [51:55.320 --> 52:06.440] because of an allegation of a violation in another state. How does Florida get any jurisdiction [52:06.440 --> 52:14.160] to punish you after you've already been punished once? But even if you hadn't been punished, [52:14.160 --> 52:24.640] how does one state get the power to punish you for something you did in another state? [52:24.640 --> 52:34.280] If you were accused of robbing a jewelry store in Georgia, Florida can't imprison you for [52:34.280 --> 52:35.280] that. [52:35.280 --> 52:43.320] No, but this is looking at it the other way around. They're trying to say it's a privilege. [52:43.320 --> 52:48.920] He has a privilege to have this license, and we can decide what the terms are going to [52:48.920 --> 52:54.680] be that we might give him that privilege as opposed to punishment. They're not looking [52:54.680 --> 53:00.640] at it like this is a punishment. They're looking at it like, well, we may or may not want to [53:00.640 --> 53:03.000] grant him this privilege. [53:03.000 --> 53:12.400] But the problem they have is the eco-protection clause. If you grant the public a privilege, [53:12.400 --> 53:23.440] you cannot single any one group out and deny them arbitrarily or capriciously in that privilege. [53:23.440 --> 53:33.120] How would we get past that? [53:33.120 --> 53:41.440] I think the claim is well-founded that, and I knew one of the guys who was instrumental [53:41.440 --> 53:48.880] in getting these kinds of laws passed. He was a traffic manager for Hager Slacks, and [53:48.880 --> 53:56.800] he was spearheading this commercial license. Because he said, you know, I'm a traffic [53:56.800 --> 54:04.960] manager. I hire truck drivers all the time. But at the time, he said, all I can do is [54:04.960 --> 54:09.800] run their license here in Texas. They could have got a hundred tickets in Oklahoma, and [54:09.800 --> 54:16.480] I don't know anything about it. They could have run somebody over in Louisiana. I don't [54:16.480 --> 54:23.800] know anything about it because there was no reciprocity. And he pushed for this commercial [54:23.800 --> 54:30.360] license and finally got it. Now, along with the personal license, came the driver's license [54:30.360 --> 54:40.360] compact, where the states entered into an agreement that if you get your license revoked [54:40.360 --> 54:52.200] in one state, then the other state will honor that revocation. Whoa! Hold on here. Now you're [54:52.200 --> 55:00.600] being punished twice. You're being punished to stay the original state, and now you're [55:00.600 --> 55:09.360] being punished by another state by being denied a privilege that other people are granted [55:09.360 --> 55:27.440] for no wrongdoing in this state. How does that work? Brett, how can they do that? Yeah. [55:27.440 --> 55:36.000] When that passed, I understood why these people lobbying for it thought it was important [55:36.000 --> 55:40.280] because they got drivers out here who were killing people. They needed to get them off [55:40.280 --> 55:49.320] the road. So that is a laudable reason for taking some action. But you don't. [55:49.320 --> 55:55.360] Is it a safety issue or is it a dollars issue? Yeah. For the traffic manager, it was a safety [55:55.360 --> 56:02.120] issue because he's going to hire these truck drivers. And if he hires a truck driver and [56:02.120 --> 56:08.520] the guy goes out the first day and wrecks one of Hager's trucks, Joe Hager is going [56:08.520 --> 56:14.560] to come out there. He is not going to be a happy camper. He's going to want this traffic [56:14.560 --> 56:22.240] manager to explain to him, why did I just lose a truck to a driver you hired? But worse [56:22.240 --> 56:28.200] than that, if they get out there and they kill somebody, the traffic manager hired him [56:28.200 --> 56:33.680] and he's the one that put him out there on the road, he don't want to put drivers out [56:33.680 --> 56:40.360] there who will kill people. It's okay. I get that. That's a real good reason for wanting [56:40.360 --> 56:47.640] to be able to get access to other information. Now, I don't see that it would be unconstitutional [56:47.640 --> 56:59.240] for the states to share information of violations. But for one state to initiate an action against [56:59.240 --> 57:08.800] you for a law you violated in another state, hold on. Allegedly. Allegedly. Well, even if [57:08.800 --> 57:16.040] notice, whatever notice was. Yeah. If the notice shows a actual conviction in the courts, [57:16.040 --> 57:25.600] then that's no longer alleged. Well, I'll tell you for absolute certainty what got reported [57:25.600 --> 57:34.920] about me to the DPS in Texas was a final conviction of guilt in a court that did not exist. And [57:34.920 --> 57:44.440] I got that. But the other state who receives that, they can reasonably treat that as if [57:44.440 --> 57:57.200] it is fact until it's challenged. So they would not, the other state would not be acting under [57:57.200 --> 58:03.480] the laws again, improperly against you. It was the first state that did that. However, [58:03.480 --> 58:12.000] if that second state takes an action against you, regardless, even if you were absolutely [58:12.000 --> 58:19.840] completely guilty in the other stage, now you're being punished a second time. And that's [58:19.840 --> 58:25.600] forbidden by a constitution double debt, double jeopardy. There's a whole lot of problems [58:25.600 --> 58:32.640] with this. Hang on. About to go to our sponsors. We do need to we need to finish this up on [58:32.640 --> 58:38.320] the other side because we've got one hour and two more callers. Hang on. We'll be right [58:38.320 --> 58:54.760] back. Would you like to make more definite progress in your walk with God? Bibles for [58:54.760 --> 59:00.200] America is offering a free study Bible and a set of free Christian books that can really [59:00.200 --> 59:04.760] help. The New Testament recovery version is one of the most comprehensive study Bibles [59:04.760 --> 59:09.800] available today. It's an accurate translation and it contains thousands of footnotes that [59:09.800 --> 59:14.640] will help you to know God and to know the meaning of life. The free books are a three [59:14.640 --> 59:20.440] volume set called basic elements of the Christian life. Chapter by chapter, basic elements of [59:20.440 --> 59:26.000] the Christian life clearly presents God's plan of salvation, growing in Christ and how [59:26.000 --> 59:32.240] to build up the church to order your free New Testament recovery version and basic elements [59:32.240 --> 59:45.240] of the Christian life. Call Bibles for America toll free at 888-551-0102. That's 888-551-0102 [59:45.240 --> 01:00:06.760] or visit us online at bfa.org. You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at www.logosradionetwork.com. [01:00:06.760 --> 01:00:24.160] For more information on Bibles, visit our website at www.logosradionetwork.com. [01:00:24.160 --> 01:00:47.440] Thank you very much for joining us today on Bibles for America toll free at 888-551-0102. [01:00:47.440 --> 01:00:53.640] In 1916, the Preparedness Day Bombing, a time suitcase bomb, was detonated on Market Street [01:00:53.640 --> 01:00:59.720] in San Francisco during the World War I Preparedness Day Parade, killing 10 and entering 40 today [01:00:59.720 --> 01:01:08.960] in history. In recent news, since Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 1325, legalizing [01:01:08.960 --> 01:01:13.680] heaven attacks his law back in June, county prosecutors around the state, including Houston, [01:01:13.680 --> 01:01:17.720] Austin and San Antonio, have been dropping marijuana possession charges and even refusing [01:01:17.720 --> 01:01:22.240] to file new ones since they are stipulating that they do not have the time or the laboratory [01:01:22.240 --> 01:01:27.080] equipment to test the herb for THC. Margaret Moore, the Travis County District Attorney [01:01:27.080 --> 01:01:31.120] announced earlier this month that she was dismissing 32 felony possession and delivery [01:01:31.120 --> 01:01:35.800] of marijuana cases because of the law. Mr. Abbott and other state officials, including [01:01:35.800 --> 01:01:39.800] the Attorney General stipulated in a letter that county district attorneys back on Thursday [01:01:39.800 --> 01:01:44.400] that marijuana has not been decriminalized in Texas and that these actions demonstrate [01:01:44.400 --> 01:01:50.320] a misunderstanding of how HB 1325 works, as well as other cities, too, like the District [01:01:50.320 --> 01:01:56.520] Attorney in El Paso, Caima Esparza, a Democrat who also stated earlier this month that the [01:01:56.520 --> 01:02:01.680] law, quote, will not have an effect on the prosecution of marijuana cases in El Paso. [01:02:01.680 --> 01:02:06.760] However, the issue was succinctly summarized by Mr. Brandon Ball, an assistant public defender [01:02:06.760 --> 01:02:10.720] in Harris County, who stated that, quote, the law is constantly changing on what makes [01:02:10.720 --> 01:02:15.040] something illegal based on its chemical makeup. It's important that if someone is charged [01:02:15.040 --> 01:02:22.560] with something, the test matches what they're charged with. [01:02:22.560 --> 01:02:27.440] A paper by Tulane University identified a five and a half inch American pocket shark. As [01:02:27.440 --> 01:02:32.320] the first of its kind in the Gulf of Mexico, the specimen being only the second pocket [01:02:32.320 --> 01:02:37.960] shark ever captured or recorded with the other one being found way back in 1979 in the East [01:02:37.960 --> 01:02:42.960] Pacific Ocean. According to the university paper, the shark secretes a lumus fluid from [01:02:42.960 --> 01:02:49.120] a gland near its front fins. For the purpose, it is hypothesized to lure and prey who may [01:02:49.120 --> 01:02:50.120] be drawn into the glow. [01:02:50.120 --> 01:03:01.120] This is Ruff Rodeo to lowdown for July 22, 2019. [01:03:01.120 --> 01:03:08.120] This is Ruff Rodeo to lowdown for July 22, 2019. [01:03:31.120 --> 01:03:38.120] Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Ruff Rodeo, and we're talking to Olivier, [01:04:01.120 --> 01:04:10.680] in Tennessee. Olivier, can you, before the next show, find us the law that lets us raise [01:04:10.680 --> 01:04:19.520] a constitutional or otherwise claim without actually being harmed? [01:04:19.520 --> 01:04:25.600] Okay. That would be great. We can get a lot of things fixed that way. [01:04:25.600 --> 01:04:29.840] Okay. Do you have anything else for us, Olivier? [01:04:29.840 --> 01:04:32.640] No, no. I'll save it for later. [01:04:32.640 --> 01:04:40.560] Okay. Thank you, Olivier. Okay. Now, we're going to go to Tim in Texas as soon as my [01:04:40.560 --> 01:04:49.480] clock resets. Okay, there we go. Okay. Go ahead, Tim. What do you have for us today? [01:04:49.480 --> 01:05:01.760] Hello, Tim. Oh, wait a minute. We can't hear you, Tim, because this unmuted Olivier instead [01:05:01.760 --> 01:05:07.600] of Tim. Okay. Now, say something meaningful and insightful. [01:05:07.600 --> 01:05:15.560] Well, I don't know if it's going to be meaningful or insightful, but I have a lot of questions. [01:05:15.560 --> 01:05:23.000] When the city came after me, after the administrative hearing and civil suit, one of the things [01:05:23.000 --> 01:05:29.400] that they brought up, they said the discovery control plan was to be according to Texas [01:05:29.400 --> 01:05:40.520] Rules Civil Procedure 194.2. That basically outlines any witnesses that I have or any [01:05:40.520 --> 01:05:46.000] questions, anything like that and how I'm supposed to answer everything that they brought [01:05:46.000 --> 01:05:56.720] up as causes of action. We never did address that. We never answered anything, any cause [01:05:56.720 --> 01:06:07.840] of action. We just simply challenged subject manager jurisdiction. That was it. Really, [01:06:07.840 --> 01:06:12.520] when they came up with the summary judgment, and of course, we were late for that, so we [01:06:12.520 --> 01:06:18.720] didn't get that in either. They just basically issued a summary judgment against me. I had [01:06:18.720 --> 01:06:29.800] nothing to really appeal. You're stating facts that are different than [01:06:29.800 --> 01:06:34.160] what I remember. I don't remember us being late on anything. [01:06:34.160 --> 01:06:47.520] Yeah. The day we were supposed to file the papers, trying to get ahold of you, and you [01:06:47.520 --> 01:06:54.080] had a friend of yours made it five minutes before the courthouse closed. [01:06:54.080 --> 01:06:56.960] Oh, that was when I was out of state. [01:06:56.960 --> 01:07:01.000] Well, you were out of state for most of the time. [01:07:01.000 --> 01:07:08.480] Yeah. Johnny, you get to print the papers and run down there and file them. [01:07:08.480 --> 01:07:14.520] Yeah, but there was really no answer to anything. We didn't answer anything. When I was going [01:07:14.520 --> 01:07:24.880] over the Jurisdictionary course, it says that you try to avoid answering is what they said. [01:07:24.880 --> 01:07:31.360] But to do that, you have to file like a motion to strike or I think there was two other motions [01:07:31.360 --> 01:07:38.640] that you could try to get around that so you could get the case thrown out before it ever [01:07:38.640 --> 01:07:44.880] goes to trial or anything and get a summary judgment of your own. [01:07:44.880 --> 01:07:51.480] And instead, it worked against us because we never answered anything. I've looked through [01:07:51.480 --> 01:07:57.440] all the documents. There was nothing. There was a bunch of controversy that we raised, [01:07:57.440 --> 01:08:04.600] but nothing that answered any causes of action. And if you don't answer those, because there [01:08:04.600 --> 01:08:07.400] was only one claim. [01:08:07.400 --> 01:08:16.760] No. No. If you look at the causes of action, there were several. I can read it to you. [01:08:16.760 --> 01:08:23.960] I've got right here in front of me. Okay. Are you saying one claim that there was no [01:08:23.960 --> 01:08:28.920] jurisdiction? What's the claim from the city side? [01:08:28.920 --> 01:08:40.040] The city claim that they could, once they gave notice of violation, they could charge [01:08:40.040 --> 01:08:47.680] $100,000 a day for every day it was in violation. And they claimed 80 days and they filed this [01:08:47.680 --> 01:08:57.400] action not as a civil suit, but as an action to collect a claim. [01:08:57.400 --> 01:09:00.120] So now you're saying they had causes of action. [01:09:00.120 --> 01:09:01.120] Yeah. [01:09:01.120 --> 01:09:05.880] Well, you're seeing, okay, read that because I'm not sure what you're talking about. [01:09:05.880 --> 01:09:14.840] Causes of action. Sub-Chapter B of Chapter 54, Chapter 211 of the text, the quote applies [01:09:14.840 --> 01:09:21.960] to the ordinances referenced herein. So instead of reading through it all, it says, if a building [01:09:21.960 --> 01:09:26.280] or structure or land used in violation of a zoning ordinance, the appropriate municipal [01:09:26.280 --> 01:09:32.080] authority may institute appropriate action to prevent the unlawful use, restrain correct [01:09:32.080 --> 01:09:37.160] or abate the violation, or prevent any illegal act, conduct, business, or use on or about [01:09:37.160 --> 01:09:45.600] the premises. And then a city is entitled to injunctive relief if it proves the violation [01:09:45.600 --> 01:09:50.520] of a zoning ordinance and that a plaintiff does not have to show a substantial danger [01:09:50.520 --> 01:09:56.760] of injury or an adverse health impact for injunctive relief in the case law here. And [01:09:56.760 --> 01:10:02.040] it says, moreover, a city that seeks to enjoin a violation of its ordinance does not need [01:10:02.040 --> 01:10:06.920] to prove that the violation of the ordinance would damage it or its residents. Instead, [01:10:06.920 --> 01:10:11.520] proof of the violation of the ordinance makes out a sufficient injury for injunctive relief. [01:10:11.520 --> 01:10:15.680] Okay. Hold on, Tim. None of those are causes of action. [01:10:15.680 --> 01:10:17.920] They're underneath the heading of causes of action. [01:10:17.920 --> 01:10:27.480] I don't care. I don't care what they are. The heading is, those are arguments in support. [01:10:27.480 --> 01:10:39.960] The cause of action is similar to a criminal statute. Fraud is a cause of action. Fraud [01:10:39.960 --> 01:10:46.440] by nondisclosures is a cause of action. All of these causes of actions are defined by [01:10:46.440 --> 01:10:56.200] the court and each one has a set of elements. And you must claim and prove each element [01:10:56.200 --> 01:11:03.680] of the cause of action. They had one claim, which is that they had the right to assess [01:11:03.680 --> 01:11:09.120] the civil penalty. And here they're arguing how they have this right. That's not cause [01:11:09.120 --> 01:11:17.440] of action. Wait a minute. Where are you seeing that at? Because I don't see that anywhere. [01:11:17.440 --> 01:11:26.120] You didn't read that part. Read the introduction, the initial claim in the action they filed. [01:11:26.120 --> 01:11:35.320] They claimed that they had an $80,000 assessment against you and they filed this action to [01:11:35.320 --> 01:11:40.160] collect that assessment. And then they argued how they got that assessment. [01:11:40.160 --> 01:11:45.960] That's not what happened. What happened? But you just read it. Tim, you just read it. [01:11:45.960 --> 01:11:51.040] Because it said cause of action does not make an argument a cause of action. [01:11:51.040 --> 01:11:57.640] It was an $8,000 administrative judgment against me in the Minnesota court. [01:11:57.640 --> 01:12:06.440] Yes. This was an action to collect a judgment. It wasn't a civil complaint against you. [01:12:06.440 --> 01:12:10.640] A civil complaint will have causes of action. This one doesn't. [01:12:10.640 --> 01:12:22.120] This was a... So you're saying that the paperwork that they filed did not deserve an answer. [01:12:22.120 --> 01:12:37.040] No. I didn't say that at all. We argued that they didn't have the right to make the assessment. [01:12:37.040 --> 01:12:44.120] That was the only claim against you was the assessment. What else is there to argue? [01:12:44.120 --> 01:12:52.160] There was temporary restraining order, request for temporary and permanent injunction. [01:12:52.160 --> 01:13:00.800] We argued, we challenged the temporary restraining order and we had three hours to do it. [01:13:00.800 --> 01:13:07.440] Didn't we have three hours to argue the restraining order? It was just to prove up here. [01:13:07.440 --> 01:13:14.320] The only thing before the court was this assessment, a civil assessment. [01:13:14.320 --> 01:13:17.120] No, no, sir. That was it. [01:13:17.120 --> 01:13:22.000] No, it wasn't. It says, percent to rule 194, the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, [01:13:22.000 --> 01:13:27.040] defendant is requested to disclose within 50 days a service of this request. [01:13:27.040 --> 01:13:38.640] The information or material described in rule 194.2. And it's not. [01:13:38.640 --> 01:13:44.400] Wait a minute. I don't even know what that's about. Say that again. [01:13:44.400 --> 01:13:46.440] Discovery control plan. [01:13:46.440 --> 01:13:49.760] Okay, discovery. That's a whole different issue. [01:13:49.760 --> 01:13:54.240] It's the... That's discovery. It's the part of the entire case. [01:13:54.240 --> 01:13:58.720] So what? Your name and address is part of the case. We're not arguing that. [01:13:58.720 --> 01:13:59.840] Jurisdiction. [01:13:59.840 --> 01:14:04.720] This is discovery. They're asking for discovery and you're talking about cause of action. [01:14:04.720 --> 01:14:06.480] What is going on here, Tim? [01:14:06.480 --> 01:14:09.360] Okay, what about under the facts? [01:14:09.360 --> 01:14:12.320] What about the fact that you could stand on your head and squawk like a chicken? [01:14:12.320 --> 01:14:15.920] What about the fact that you got to use a... You're asking all this different stuff that [01:14:15.920 --> 01:14:20.880] doesn't have anything to do with anything. I have no idea what your issue is. [01:14:20.880 --> 01:14:23.520] It's not what was before the court, Randy. [01:14:23.520 --> 01:14:26.400] Are you just calling to complain? [01:14:26.400 --> 01:14:26.800] I'm... [01:14:26.800 --> 01:14:29.040] You're not asking anything to make any sense. [01:14:29.040 --> 01:14:30.800] Apparently, you don't want to. [01:14:34.160 --> 01:14:38.000] Okay. I don't do this show to argue with people. [01:14:40.560 --> 01:14:43.760] So we're going to go to Tina in California. [01:14:43.760 --> 01:14:53.920] Hello, Tina. [01:14:53.920 --> 01:14:55.920] You're there, Tina? [01:15:05.920 --> 01:15:09.120] Okay. Shane in New York. [01:15:11.360 --> 01:15:12.000] Hi, Randy. [01:15:12.000 --> 01:15:13.600] Hi, Shane. [01:15:15.520 --> 01:15:16.080] How are you doing? [01:15:16.080 --> 01:15:17.280] I just want to... [01:15:17.280 --> 01:15:20.560] You're doing better. That last call kind of sucked. [01:15:22.000 --> 01:15:26.080] Well, I don't want to get involved in any crazy entanglements, but we're here to get... [01:15:27.200 --> 01:15:29.440] Everybody's here to get solutions, not problems. [01:15:29.440 --> 01:15:34.000] And to hear somebody's dirty toilet on the radio show is absolutely ridiculous. [01:15:34.000 --> 01:15:38.720] I just don't want to cross up the line or get involved, but that's all. [01:15:38.720 --> 01:15:42.320] We want people... We want to hear success stories. We want us to have some solutions, [01:15:42.320 --> 01:15:44.880] like arbitration we talked about a few weeks ago. [01:15:45.680 --> 01:15:53.040] But if your toilet bowl is dirty and you're blaming Randy for it, that's not Randy's problem. [01:15:53.680 --> 01:15:57.360] But I feel like I have to say something, but that was absolutely outrageous. [01:15:59.200 --> 01:16:05.680] Randy, I just wanted to let you know that I go for a real small hearing Monday afternoon [01:16:05.680 --> 01:16:08.960] through the bankruptcy court that gets the TRO granted. [01:16:09.840 --> 01:16:14.480] And it's going to be done by telephone conference, but the federal courts here in New York are [01:16:14.480 --> 01:16:19.120] moving forward. District courts and bankruptcy courts are moving forward. [01:16:19.760 --> 01:16:22.720] The state courts are completely shut down until further notice. [01:16:23.760 --> 01:16:28.480] And so I'm taking this time to move forward on the TRO, which is a temporary restraining order, [01:16:28.480 --> 01:16:30.480] so they don't sell the property once they open up. [01:16:30.480 --> 01:16:37.360] But as of right now, it's not till June 20th, but I heard it was just a mandate, [01:16:37.360 --> 01:16:40.480] and now they can't do any foreclosures until August in New York. [01:16:40.480 --> 01:16:42.880] I'm not sure the exact date, but it just happened, I think, today. [01:16:42.880 --> 01:16:48.560] One more to sign a bill extending the foreclosures of not selling anything until then. [01:16:48.560 --> 01:16:49.840] I heard of music in the background. [01:16:52.160 --> 01:16:53.120] Okay, hang on. [01:16:53.920 --> 01:16:55.280] Ruth, we'll be right back. [01:16:55.280 --> 01:17:04.640] Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits? [01:17:05.200 --> 01:17:08.880] Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mirris proven method. [01:17:08.880 --> 01:17:14.480] Michael Mirris has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win two. [01:17:14.480 --> 01:17:18.480] You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court [01:17:18.480 --> 01:17:20.640] using federal civil rights statute. [01:17:20.640 --> 01:17:24.320] What to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons? [01:17:24.320 --> 01:17:26.320] How to answer letters and phone calls? [01:17:26.320 --> 01:17:28.960] How to get debt collectors out of your credit report? [01:17:28.960 --> 01:17:33.600] How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away? [01:17:33.600 --> 01:17:38.480] The Michael Mirris proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. [01:17:38.480 --> 01:17:40.880] Personal consultation is available as well. [01:17:40.880 --> 01:17:46.480] For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mirris banner, [01:17:46.480 --> 01:17:49.280] or email michaelmirris at yahoo.com. [01:17:49.280 --> 01:17:57.120] That's ruleoflawradio.com, or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com. [01:17:57.120 --> 01:18:00.960] To learn how to stop debt collectors now, I love Logos. [01:18:00.960 --> 01:18:04.640] Without the shows on this network, I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends. [01:18:04.640 --> 01:18:07.280] I'm so addicted to the truth now that there's no going back. [01:18:07.280 --> 01:18:08.480] I need my truth pick. [01:18:08.480 --> 01:18:13.200] I'd be lost without Logos, and I really want to help keep this network on the air. [01:18:13.200 --> 01:18:16.000] I'd love to volunteer as a show producer, but I'm a bit of a Luddite, [01:18:16.000 --> 01:18:20.240] and I really don't have any money to give because I spent it all on supplement. [01:18:20.240 --> 01:18:22.000] How can I help Logos? [01:18:22.000 --> 01:18:23.760] Well, I'm glad you asked. [01:18:23.760 --> 01:18:28.240] Whenever you order anything from Amazon, you can help Logos with ordering your supplies [01:18:28.240 --> 01:18:29.200] or holiday gifts. [01:18:29.200 --> 01:18:31.280] First thing you do is clear your cookies. [01:18:31.280 --> 01:18:34.640] Now, go to LogosRegulatework.com. [01:18:34.640 --> 01:18:37.680] Click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it. [01:18:37.680 --> 01:18:43.280] Now, when you order anything from Amazon, you use that link and Logos gets a few pesos. [01:18:43.280 --> 01:18:44.320] Do I pay extra? [01:18:44.320 --> 01:18:44.800] No. [01:18:44.800 --> 01:18:47.040] Do I have to do anything different when I order? [01:18:47.040 --> 01:18:47.600] No. [01:18:47.600 --> 01:18:49.200] Can I use my Amazon Prime? [01:18:49.200 --> 01:18:49.920] No. [01:18:49.920 --> 01:18:50.800] I mean, yes. [01:18:50.800 --> 01:18:51.440] Wow. [01:18:51.440 --> 01:18:54.080] Giving without doing anything or spending any money. [01:18:54.080 --> 01:18:55.680] This is perfect. [01:18:55.680 --> 01:18:56.800] Thank you so much. [01:18:56.800 --> 01:18:58.320] We are Logos. [01:18:58.320 --> 01:19:00.000] Happy holidays, Logos. [01:19:00.000 --> 01:19:02.000] Logos? [01:19:02.000 --> 01:19:10.000] This is the Logos Logos Radio Network. [01:19:10.000 --> 01:19:36.000] Oh, come on. [01:19:36.000 --> 01:19:46.000] Oh, come on. [01:20:06.000 --> 01:20:16.000] Yeah. [01:20:36.000 --> 01:20:46.000] Yeah. [01:21:06.000 --> 01:21:16.000] Yeah. [01:21:36.000 --> 01:21:46.000] Okay. [01:21:46.000 --> 01:21:48.000] We are back. [01:21:48.000 --> 01:21:54.000] Randy Kelston, Brett Fountain, Rue LaRidio, and we're talking to Shane in New York. [01:21:54.000 --> 01:21:56.000] Okay, Shane. [01:21:56.000 --> 01:22:02.000] We are really glad that Shane in New York heard that music coming up because neither one [01:22:02.000 --> 01:22:04.000] of us were looking at the clock right at that moment. [01:22:04.000 --> 01:22:06.000] And we can't hear the music. [01:22:06.000 --> 01:22:08.000] Yeah, you guys can hear the music. [01:22:08.000 --> 01:22:10.000] We can't. [01:22:10.000 --> 01:22:14.000] There's some equipment Debra needs to be able to purchase, but we just hadn't had enough [01:22:14.000 --> 01:22:16.000] extra funds to purchase it yet. [01:22:16.000 --> 01:22:24.000] So I'm glad you told me the music was there because I was so, so enthralled with your elegant oratory [01:22:24.000 --> 01:22:26.000] that I missed it. [01:22:26.000 --> 01:22:28.000] And hang on. [01:22:28.000 --> 01:22:30.000] Let me see if I can get Tina. [01:22:30.000 --> 01:22:32.000] Tina, are you there? [01:22:32.000 --> 01:22:34.000] Yes, I am. [01:22:34.000 --> 01:22:36.000] There we go. [01:22:36.000 --> 01:22:38.000] Okay, I tried you earlier and I got a lot of background noise. [01:22:38.000 --> 01:22:40.000] Okay. [01:22:40.000 --> 01:22:46.000] I have Shane on the line talking about his bankruptcy. [01:22:46.000 --> 01:22:54.000] And you had a question about bankruptcy earlier and I thought maybe Shane could answer that question. [01:22:54.000 --> 01:23:00.000] Shane, you are on the dime. [01:23:00.000 --> 01:23:04.000] Well, yes, let's put the pressure on Shane. [01:23:04.000 --> 01:23:10.000] I filed an adversary proceeding in someone's bankruptcy. [01:23:10.000 --> 01:23:14.000] This person had stolen property. [01:23:14.000 --> 01:23:22.000] She had a consignment store and told us all she was moving and that our property would be [01:23:22.000 --> 01:23:30.000] safe and blah, blah, blah, she was actually in addiction for over six months. [01:23:30.000 --> 01:23:36.000] And she just shut up shop, auctioned off some of what she had left. [01:23:36.000 --> 01:23:40.000] And we think she's hidden the rest because not all of it went to auction. [01:23:40.000 --> 01:23:44.000] And she filed bankruptcy to try to get rid of us all. [01:23:44.000 --> 01:23:54.000] And because of all of the teachings on this show, the last minute filed an adversary proceeding, [01:23:54.000 --> 01:23:56.000] which has kept the claim alive. [01:23:56.000 --> 01:24:02.000] And when I went to my first status contents hearing, I hadn't done everything right obviously [01:24:02.000 --> 01:24:04.000] because I didn't know enough. [01:24:04.000 --> 01:24:10.000] But I preserved the right and the judge said, well, you know, you haven't properly served her, [01:24:10.000 --> 01:24:14.000] even though she answered, she didn't file it with the court. [01:24:14.000 --> 01:24:16.000] So I had to redo it. [01:24:16.000 --> 01:24:18.000] And the judge, I said, well, could I add other people? [01:24:18.000 --> 01:24:22.000] And the judge said, and she, why not? [01:24:22.000 --> 01:24:24.000] And it didn't give me any direction. [01:24:24.000 --> 01:24:30.000] So I added three other people who wanted to be part of it and who one of them didn't get noticed [01:24:30.000 --> 01:24:34.000] and the others did, but they didn't know what to do. [01:24:34.000 --> 01:24:36.000] Then, you know, we go along, we go along. [01:24:36.000 --> 01:24:38.000] She answered this. [01:24:38.000 --> 01:24:44.000] I'm going to the next proceeding and I've responded. [01:24:44.000 --> 01:24:49.000] But the judge said, well, there are still some procedural issues. [01:24:49.000 --> 01:24:56.000] Number one, when she filed to dismiss my, you know, my amended complaint, [01:24:56.000 --> 01:25:05.000] and you get the first amended complaint for free usually, she did not calendar a motion to have it heard. [01:25:05.000 --> 01:25:11.000] But the judge also said, well, there are some procedural issues with the way you added people. [01:25:11.000 --> 01:25:16.000] I can't give you little advice so you need to get an attorney, which none of us can afford. [01:25:16.000 --> 01:25:21.000] We have no idea what is wrong with how we added them. [01:25:21.000 --> 01:25:28.000] She said, you know, you'll find in the bankruptcy rules, well, none of us can understand what they're meaning [01:25:28.000 --> 01:25:32.000] and why, what we have done wrong and how to correct it. [01:25:32.000 --> 01:25:41.000] So that we have to, I think, June or something, June 30th to do it right. [01:25:41.000 --> 01:25:48.000] Now, Shane, Shane is really smart and he knows how to read and understand all these laws. [01:25:48.000 --> 01:25:49.000] Isn't that right, Shane? [01:25:49.000 --> 01:25:52.000] I need someone really smart. [01:25:52.000 --> 01:25:55.000] Yeah, Shane, don't feel pressured. [01:25:55.000 --> 01:25:59.000] Okay, I'll just give you my opinion. [01:25:59.000 --> 01:26:05.000] I think that maybe he's trying to give you a hint that you need to file a motion for leave to amend the complaint. [01:26:05.000 --> 01:26:10.000] But if it's only being served for the first time, then I'm going to be honest with you, I'm a little lost too, [01:26:10.000 --> 01:26:14.000] but maybe just for the hell of it, maybe just file a motion for leave to amend the complaint. [01:26:14.000 --> 01:26:18.000] Randy, do you agree with that? [01:26:18.000 --> 01:26:33.000] Well, what I'm thinking and what I believe the judge is trying to tell her is that you're trying to file a claim for other people, [01:26:33.000 --> 01:26:42.000] that each of these people need to file their own adversarial procedure in the court. [01:26:42.000 --> 01:26:47.000] They can't. They're too late. [01:26:47.000 --> 01:26:50.000] That'll take some research, Stan. [01:26:50.000 --> 01:26:55.000] Well, and when I first approached it, she said it was... [01:26:55.000 --> 01:27:06.000] Well, I had the first conference here and she said I had to re-do this and serve the person using the forms that the court would send, [01:27:06.000 --> 01:27:10.000] which I had no idea, but I had to add those. [01:27:10.000 --> 01:27:14.000] I was just shooting in the dark trying to preserve my interest. [01:27:14.000 --> 01:27:21.000] And so I said, well, could I add these other parties, some of whom she's not getting notifications. [01:27:21.000 --> 01:27:23.000] And she said, I don't see why not. [01:27:23.000 --> 01:27:36.000] So I have some help writing the next part of it and I can send that to you so you can see what we did and see if from there you can see what we did wrong. [01:27:36.000 --> 01:27:38.000] I don't know. [01:27:38.000 --> 01:27:42.000] Are we going off the cliff again? [01:27:42.000 --> 01:27:45.000] I think we went off the cliff. [01:27:45.000 --> 01:27:46.000] Okay. [01:27:46.000 --> 01:27:48.000] We've got a couple more minutes. [01:27:48.000 --> 01:27:50.000] Oh, we do. Okay. [01:27:50.000 --> 01:28:04.000] So I just don't know. I don't know what it is we absolutely did wrong in adding these. [01:28:04.000 --> 01:28:08.000] Maybe we don't have a couple of minutes. [01:28:08.000 --> 01:28:20.000] Okay, I'm trying to look up how to add parties to an adversarial procedure in a bankruptcy. [01:28:20.000 --> 01:28:27.000] See if I can find something while we're talking about this. [01:28:27.000 --> 01:28:39.000] No, you lose them. I'm not finding it quickly. I was thinking in terms of a petition and intervention. [01:28:39.000 --> 01:28:42.000] But if there are rules that. [01:28:42.000 --> 01:28:43.000] Oh, wait a minute. [01:28:43.000 --> 01:29:01.000] Were these people who had a claim should have been served the notice of the bankruptcy where these people served? [01:29:01.000 --> 01:29:18.000] Two of them. It gets a little complex. One of them was served and one of them had filed already in a small claims court for partial and got a judgment in a small claims court for part of his claim. [01:29:18.000 --> 01:29:33.000] The other two parties, one she said that this person had, you know, had no claim because he was not a party. He was just a friend of the consigner. [01:29:33.000 --> 01:29:44.000] Well, he's actually the husband of the person who signed the contract and it was their joint property and she just signed it because they thought, you know, it's joint property. [01:29:44.000 --> 01:29:46.000] You know, hey, go ahead and do it. [01:29:46.000 --> 01:29:57.000] The communication all went through the husband and she's trying to claim that he's just a friend when she actually knows he's the husband. [01:29:57.000 --> 01:30:01.000] And the other party, she. [01:30:01.000 --> 01:30:16.000] A top cybersecurity expert has a warning for America. If you build an electrical smart grid, the hackers will come and they could cause a catastrophic blackout. [01:30:16.000 --> 01:30:21.000] Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. [01:30:21.000 --> 01:30:32.000] And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. [01:30:32.000 --> 01:30:41.000] Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. This message is brought to you by startpage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing. [01:30:41.000 --> 01:30:45.000] Start over with Start Page. [01:30:45.000 --> 01:30:52.000] Governments love power, so it's only natural they'd want to control the power going into your home too with a smart grid. [01:30:52.000 --> 01:30:59.000] So they're installing a national network of smart meters to remotely monitor electric use for efficiency and avoid grid failure. [01:30:59.000 --> 01:31:08.000] But cybersecurity expert David Chox says not so fast if we make the national power grid controllable through the web, hackers will have a field day. [01:31:08.000 --> 01:31:15.000] Working remotely, they could tap in and black out the entire nation, leaving us vulnerable to our enemies. [01:31:15.000 --> 01:31:24.000] I'd want to pose smart meters for privacy and health reasons. The catastrophic failures caused by hackers? There's nothing smart about that. [01:31:24.000 --> 01:31:31.000] Like Dr. Catherine Albrecht for startpage.com, the world's most private search engine. [01:31:31.000 --> 01:31:38.000] This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11. The government says that fire brought it down. [01:31:38.000 --> 01:31:43.000] However, 1,500 architects and engineers have concluded it was a controlled demolition. [01:31:43.000 --> 01:31:46.000] Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives. [01:31:46.000 --> 01:31:49.000] And thousands of my fellow force responders have died. [01:31:49.000 --> 01:31:50.000] I'm not a conspiracy theorist. [01:31:50.000 --> 01:31:51.000] I'm a structural engineer. [01:31:51.000 --> 01:31:53.000] I'm a New York City correction officer. [01:31:53.000 --> 01:31:54.000] I'm an Air Force pilot. [01:31:54.000 --> 01:31:55.000] I'm a father who lost his son. [01:31:55.000 --> 01:31:58.000] We're Americans, and we deserve the truth. [01:31:58.000 --> 01:32:01.000] Go to RememberBuilding7.org today. [01:32:28.000 --> 01:32:36.000] In conjunction with Rule of Law Radio has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is and how to hold reports to the rule of law. [01:32:36.000 --> 01:32:41.000] You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today. [01:32:41.000 --> 01:32:48.000] 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. [01:32:48.000 --> 01:32:51.000] Hundreds of research documents and other useful resource material. [01:32:51.000 --> 01:32:55.000] Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. [01:32:55.000 --> 01:33:00.000] Order your copy today, and together we can have free society we all want and deserve. [01:33:25.000 --> 01:33:27.000] The rules of engineering. [01:33:27.000 --> 01:33:31.000] The use against the workers of iniquity. [01:33:31.000 --> 01:33:33.000] The tools of massacacability. [01:33:33.000 --> 01:33:36.000] The labor for all eternity. [01:33:36.000 --> 01:33:39.000] They come from natural infinity. [01:33:39.000 --> 01:33:43.000] We're set by this rules and authenticity. [01:33:43.000 --> 01:33:45.000] The tools to regain dignity. [01:33:45.000 --> 01:33:49.000] Rebuild the credibility. [01:33:49.000 --> 01:33:56.000] And I say truth in nature must be just decidedly. [01:33:56.000 --> 01:34:02.000] Truth in nature must be justice. [01:34:02.000 --> 01:34:04.000] Okay, we are back. [01:34:04.000 --> 01:34:10.000] We survived falling off the cliff. [01:34:10.000 --> 01:34:13.000] Okay, on the break, I looked it up. [01:34:13.000 --> 01:34:19.000] And it's 7042 in the rules, the bankruptcy rules. [01:34:19.000 --> 01:34:29.000] And that referred us to rule 42 of the rules of civil procedure, consolidation, separate trials, consolidation. [01:34:29.000 --> 01:34:42.000] If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions. [01:34:42.000 --> 01:34:45.000] There it is. [01:34:45.000 --> 01:34:50.000] File a motion for consolidation of claims. [01:34:50.000 --> 01:34:53.000] A motion for consolidation of claims. [01:34:53.000 --> 01:34:55.000] Oh gosh. [01:34:55.000 --> 01:35:03.000] And ask the court to consolidate all of these people's claims into one at a serial proceeding. [01:35:03.000 --> 01:35:05.000] Okay. [01:35:05.000 --> 01:35:10.000] Try to look that up and see how to do that. [01:35:10.000 --> 01:35:12.000] Okay, now you know what to look for. [01:35:12.000 --> 01:35:15.000] Just do a search for consolidation of claims. [01:35:15.000 --> 01:35:23.000] And you can probably find a treatise on it and do consolidation of claims in bankruptcy. [01:35:23.000 --> 01:35:29.000] I didn't have time to get to that, but that should put you on the right track. [01:35:29.000 --> 01:35:36.000] Yeah, it was interesting that the judge kept saying, well, do you really, do you guys really want to go forward with this? [01:35:36.000 --> 01:35:39.000] Do you think this is worth it? [01:35:39.000 --> 01:35:44.000] Well, this woman has done this more than once before. [01:35:44.000 --> 01:35:51.000] She just goes into places and sets up a shop and steals this property and then disappears. [01:35:51.000 --> 01:35:58.000] And so we all now want to stop her from being able to do it to someone else because she takes thousands of dollars worth of property. [01:35:58.000 --> 01:36:09.000] And she absolutely refused to give her phone number so that we could call her to do the meet and confer. And she said, I'm not giving these people my phone number. [01:36:09.000 --> 01:36:18.000] And the judge, how do you expect them to, you know, communicate with you? They can write to me. [01:36:18.000 --> 01:36:22.000] Sounds like she's not making the judge happy. [01:36:22.000 --> 01:36:26.000] Oh, no, I don't think she did with what she said there. Yeah. [01:36:26.000 --> 01:36:35.000] That bad idea and that may be one of the judges is trying to give you hints. [01:36:35.000 --> 01:36:46.000] So we don't want to stop this because the only way to stop her from doing this to someone else is to stop this bankruptcy from going forward. [01:36:46.000 --> 01:36:47.000] Yeah. [01:36:47.000 --> 01:37:03.000] So on the break, Brett mentioned a jointer, but a jointer is not appropriate here because a jointer is only for someone who's a necessary party. [01:37:03.000 --> 01:37:11.000] And but this, this one was dead on. I thought about jointer, but it's there was some peculiarities about jointer that wasn't quite right. [01:37:11.000 --> 01:37:16.000] So consolidation is effectively the same thing. [01:37:16.000 --> 01:37:26.000] The way I read this is you have common people all with the same essential claim based on the same facts. [01:37:26.000 --> 01:37:34.000] So they appear to be right for consolidation to sort of fix that problem. What do you think, Shane? [01:37:34.000 --> 01:37:37.000] I like it, Randy. [01:37:37.000 --> 01:37:41.000] Okay, so now I've got to figure out how to do one of those. [01:37:41.000 --> 01:37:45.000] Yeah, that's if you can't find it, let me know and I'll do some digging. [01:37:45.000 --> 01:37:47.000] So that would be good. [01:37:47.000 --> 01:37:54.000] One of the reasons I did call you back is you've been talking to the different people about what's going on. [01:37:54.000 --> 01:37:58.000] You know that notice to public officials I sent you? [01:37:58.000 --> 01:38:06.000] I was wondering if that is something with all these people thinking about doing their officials or shutting them down. [01:38:06.000 --> 01:38:11.000] Would that notice the public official help in any way or someone? [01:38:11.000 --> 01:38:13.000] Yes. [01:38:13.000 --> 01:38:31.000] What that notice was was essentially a brief or at worst just a treatise on the power of a public official to act within the scope of law [01:38:31.000 --> 01:38:37.000] and what the ramifications to them would be if they acted outside of law. [01:38:37.000 --> 01:38:45.000] So, you know, I have this rule, never give fair warning. So I wouldn't want to give it to them as a notice. [01:38:45.000 --> 01:38:59.000] Once they step across the legal line, you use that as an argument in support of your criminal complaint against them or your tort claim against them. [01:38:59.000 --> 01:39:08.000] Would that go? Could you, in my case, could you file that against the Supreme Court justices or not? [01:39:08.000 --> 01:39:12.000] Absolutely. [01:39:12.000 --> 01:39:19.000] If you feel that the Supreme Court justice, justices fail to properly apply that. [01:39:19.000 --> 01:39:21.000] I have to go back and read that. [01:39:21.000 --> 01:39:30.000] I've seen it. I remember reading it, but I don't have the exact context in my head, so I can't speak to it directly. [01:39:30.000 --> 01:39:42.000] I've got two or three similar type of arguments and one was a really good one from Michigan. [01:39:42.000 --> 01:39:57.000] It would be really interesting if you thought that they were worthwhile that you could address this on one of you next week's show and say, I've got, you know, two or three examples of things that you could potentially use against the [01:39:57.000 --> 01:40:12.000] court officials that have shut your businesses down, have shut you down, have not applied the law perhaps. This is, you know, a way to perhaps notify them and give people these examples. [01:40:12.000 --> 01:40:20.000] I mean, it was sent to me and by another site I'm on and I just was not sure how to use it except for against police. [01:40:20.000 --> 01:40:31.000] I mean, I can see absolutely how you can use it against court officials. I wasn't sure how well to use it. [01:40:31.000 --> 01:40:35.000] Oh, here it is, legal notice for public officers. [01:40:35.000 --> 01:40:53.000] This letter constitutes formal notification to you that if as an agent of state government, you subject any person of the, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any [01:40:53.000 --> 01:41:10.000] rights, privileges or immunity secured with the Constitution and laws while acting under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, customer usage of any state, you can be held personally liable for damages in federal court pursuant to [01:41:10.000 --> 01:41:35.000] 42 U.S. Code 1983. And it goes on addressing this primarily, this one goes to 42 U.S. Code 1983, but a violation that would be actionable under 42 U.S. Code 1983 would almost necessarily be criminally actionable under [01:41:35.000 --> 01:41:46.000] 18 U.S. Code 242, because those are both, those are the two sides of the Ku Klux Klan Act. [01:41:46.000 --> 01:41:56.000] 18 U.S. Code 242 makes it a crime, 42 U.S. Code 1983 allows you to sue them for that crime. [01:41:56.000 --> 01:42:10.000] So this is a dissertation or a treat, treat us on how to sue a public official into 42 U.S. Code 1983. [01:42:10.000 --> 01:42:18.000] I have another document from someone in Michigan. I'll have to go dig it out. I give 100 emails a day so it gets buried real fast. [01:42:18.000 --> 01:42:27.000] And he's talking about how the right to work is a property right. [01:42:27.000 --> 01:42:38.000] And while in an emergency, there are certain, there's certain leeway that public officials have to issue orders. [01:42:38.000 --> 01:42:53.000] And however, if they issue an order that has the effect of denying you in a right, specifically your right to work and harm you thereby, they must make you whole. [01:42:53.000 --> 01:43:03.000] So the governor can issue this order ordering us to stay in, but he has to pay us. [01:43:03.000 --> 01:43:06.000] That's interesting. [01:43:06.000 --> 01:43:21.000] So we have a right to recompense if the governor did not want to subject the state to that kind of cost, he should have tried something else. [01:43:21.000 --> 01:43:29.000] And if anybody wants those, if you'll send me a request for it, I'll dig them out and send them to you. [01:43:29.000 --> 01:43:38.000] If you have questions on different issues or things you're trying to research and you'd like more information about. [01:43:38.000 --> 01:43:47.000] If you send me the question, I've got a research folder that's about 16 gig right now. [01:43:47.000 --> 01:43:58.000] I think it may be 50 gig. It's big. And I've got everything in headings. I can send you what information I've got. [01:43:58.000 --> 01:44:00.000] So if you... [01:44:00.000 --> 01:44:06.000] Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area of nutrition. [01:44:06.000 --> 01:44:11.000] People feed their pets better than they feed themselves, and it's time we changed all that. [01:44:11.000 --> 01:44:17.000] Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition. [01:44:17.000 --> 01:44:25.000] In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need. [01:44:25.000 --> 01:44:31.000] Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject. [01:44:31.000 --> 01:44:39.000] We have come to trust young Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others. [01:44:39.000 --> 01:44:47.000] When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio. [01:44:47.000 --> 01:44:51.000] As you realize the benefits of young Jevity, you may want to join us. [01:44:51.000 --> 01:45:02.000] As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and increase your income. Order now. [01:45:02.000 --> 01:45:06.000] Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? [01:45:06.000 --> 01:45:09.000] Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary. [01:45:09.000 --> 01:45:17.000] The affordable, easy-to-understand four-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step. [01:45:17.000 --> 01:45:21.000] If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. [01:45:21.000 --> 01:45:25.000] If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. [01:45:25.000 --> 01:45:30.000] Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too. [01:45:30.000 --> 01:45:36.000] Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience. [01:45:36.000 --> 01:45:45.000] 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. [01:45:45.000 --> 01:45:54.000] You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, prosa tactics, and much more. [01:45:54.000 --> 01:45:58.000] Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner. [01:45:58.000 --> 01:46:16.000] Our call toll-free 866-LAW-E-Z. [01:46:29.000 --> 01:46:34.000] Okay, we are back. [01:46:34.000 --> 01:46:41.000] Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, rule of law radio, and there's something I should address here. [01:46:41.000 --> 01:46:44.000] Brett touched on it on the break. [01:46:44.000 --> 01:46:57.000] The call was Tim about causes of action, and perhaps some people listening didn't understand what my objection to what he was reading was. [01:46:57.000 --> 01:47:05.000] And the fact that the lawyers put a title on there doesn't control the substance. [01:47:05.000 --> 01:47:16.000] What he was reading were the lawyers establishing the facts and law that gave them this particular claim. [01:47:16.000 --> 01:47:19.000] But that wasn't a cause of action. That was an argument in support. [01:47:19.000 --> 01:47:27.000] I have here O'Connor's Texas causes of action, and in the front of it it lists them. [01:47:27.000 --> 01:47:36.000] They list causes of action just like the penal code lists statutes, penal statutes. [01:47:36.000 --> 01:47:38.000] You have causes of action. [01:47:38.000 --> 01:47:47.000] It starts out with negligent under section animals, negligent handling of animals, dangerous domesticated animals, wild animals. [01:47:47.000 --> 01:47:55.000] You can make a claim under each one of these, and it's defined how you make these claims. [01:47:55.000 --> 01:48:05.000] See, fraud, common law fraud, fraud by non-disclosure, statutory fraud, infliction of emotional distress. [01:48:05.000 --> 01:48:09.000] If you go to that, it tells you all of the things. [01:48:09.000 --> 01:48:19.000] See, this is 371. I'll look it up. All of the things you must allege in order to allege infliction of emotional distress. [01:48:19.000 --> 01:48:24.000] And if you don't allege every one of those elements, then you haven't allaged it. [01:48:24.000 --> 01:48:31.000] Elements, the outline of elements, plaintiff is an infliction of emotional distress. [01:48:31.000 --> 01:48:38.000] Plaintiff is a person. The defendant acted intentionally or recklessly. [01:48:38.000 --> 01:48:43.000] The emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff was severe. [01:48:43.000 --> 01:48:47.000] The defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous. [01:48:47.000 --> 01:48:53.000] The defendant's conduct approximately caused the plaintiff's emotional distress. [01:48:53.000 --> 01:49:02.000] No alternative cause of action would provide a remedy for the severe emotional distress caused by the defendant's conduct. [01:49:02.000 --> 01:49:14.000] That is a cause of action. Each one of those elements must be pled and proven in order for you to make this claim. [01:49:14.000 --> 01:49:27.000] So, Brett, Tina, Shane, does it make sense the difference between an argument and support and a cause of action? [01:49:27.000 --> 01:49:39.000] Yes. What Tim was reading looked like it was leading up to something or maybe nothing, but it was just rambling about city authority, blah, blah, blah. [01:49:39.000 --> 01:49:55.000] And with no actual cause, didn't say that he did – there was an assault or fraud or negligence or slander or anything that would have some elements behind it. [01:49:55.000 --> 01:50:01.000] And I believe – it's been a long time since I've looked at that document. [01:50:01.000 --> 01:50:15.000] But it starts out by saying that the city had a claim against Tim that he had an automobile that was not in compliance. [01:50:15.000 --> 01:50:23.000] He was given notice that it was not in compliance. And it stayed in compliance for 80 days. [01:50:23.000 --> 01:50:38.000] That effectively establishes that cause of action. And then they went on to do an argument in support of that claim by saying that this statute authorized us to do this. [01:50:38.000 --> 01:50:48.000] This is what we did under the requirements of this statute. And they went through the facts of how they established the cause of action. [01:50:48.000 --> 01:51:00.000] I'm hoping that's clarified. Okay. I'm not going to talk about that anymore. [01:51:00.000 --> 01:51:04.000] Shane, say something insightful. [01:51:04.000 --> 01:51:15.000] Well, Randy, I just want to let you know that I had this response around five o'clock this afternoon from the attorney representing Key Bank on his TRO and a very hostile – [01:51:15.000 --> 01:51:28.000] Okay, wait, wait. Before you go there, if there is a injunction, a prohibition on foreclosure already in place, why do you need emergency restraining order? [01:51:28.000 --> 01:51:30.000] But why do you need emergency restraining order? [01:51:30.000 --> 01:51:39.000] New York was supposed to open up as of last month on May 15. But obviously, stuff happened within today. You've got a point. [01:51:39.000 --> 01:51:47.000] But we're still going to have the telephone hearing. But I just wanted to read one thing to you, if we have – just barely enough time here. [01:51:47.000 --> 01:51:56.000] He was stating that the prongs we made – I'm not going to read all the prongs here. There's four prongs to get it granted, which we already have. [01:51:56.000 --> 01:52:12.000] But he comes back and states that the TRO should not be granted. Based on Key Bank has already proven in the filing of judgment for closure of sale and previous filings, it should not be required to consistently repeat the arguments over and over again. [01:52:12.000 --> 01:52:21.000] Now, remember, I've never been served. And I've owned the property for going on close to four years now. And they have completely, absolutely refused to serve me. [01:52:21.000 --> 01:52:29.000] Then he attached the administrative order from the Chief Judge stating that there's a stay until at least June 20 of the 2020. [01:52:29.000 --> 01:52:36.000] I do want to let you know the brief is due in the middle of June next month, by the way, the brief for the Green State to State for Bankruptcy Court. [01:52:36.000 --> 01:52:52.000] And then he dabbles with the whole idea of my arbitration award that the debtor's allegations of the arbitration order are misleading at best and may be fraudulent and subject to investigation by the Office of the U.S. United States Trustees Office. [01:52:52.000 --> 01:53:00.000] And he goes on and explains why it's fraudulent, stating that I don't have a contract with Key Bank and I can't arbitrate with them. [01:53:00.000 --> 01:53:09.000] And so what I did is I'm in the process of responding back to this filing Monday morning because the hearing is going to be telephonic at 1130. [01:53:09.000 --> 01:53:15.000] But he did bring up the idea that the IP address has been taken down, which it hasn't. [01:53:15.000 --> 01:53:19.000] And he brought up a lot of statements that were not sign of the penalties of surgery. [01:53:19.000 --> 01:53:28.000] And he's claiming that the arbitration award is invalid and that there should be some kind of intervention. [01:53:28.000 --> 01:53:31.000] Hold on, hold on, a quick question. [01:53:31.000 --> 01:53:40.000] Is the facts that the lawyer is stating have they been presented in affidavit form? [01:53:40.000 --> 01:53:42.000] Nothing. [01:53:42.000 --> 01:53:56.000] You should raise an objection to the lawyer introducing facts that the lawyers can't be a witness. [01:53:56.000 --> 01:54:13.000] That the lawyer stating things as facts asks the court to require that he get those facts stated in an affidavit form by a proper witness. [01:54:13.000 --> 01:54:16.000] Sounds like the lawyer is making garbage up. [01:54:16.000 --> 01:54:24.000] If he goes to the bank and asks them to make a statement under oath, you're more likely to get something truthful. [01:54:24.000 --> 01:54:28.000] I did get it from Keybank stating that I have no contract with them. [01:54:28.000 --> 01:54:30.000] Do I have one more minute? [01:54:30.000 --> 01:54:32.000] Yes, go ahead. [01:54:32.000 --> 01:54:34.000] You have four minutes. [01:54:34.000 --> 01:54:35.000] Okay. [01:54:35.000 --> 01:54:38.000] It's a three-page document, but here this is interesting. [01:54:38.000 --> 01:54:48.000] Even if the arbitration was legitimate, which it's not, he says, even if the arbitration was legitimate, which it's not, the arbitration award, this is not me, it's him speaking. [01:54:48.000 --> 01:54:58.000] The arbitration award is not the debtors to enforce. Any post-petition arbitration award belongs to the bankruptcy trustee, not the debtor. [01:54:58.000 --> 01:55:15.000] And the very last thing he says, which is really interesting, Randy, is that although the debtor's bankruptcy petition was filed in July 19, 2019, the alleged abstract of the award stated in the arbitration occurred on November 4, 2019. [01:55:15.000 --> 01:55:28.000] While the debtor's bankruptcy was active accordingly, the only part who have a right to enforce the alleged arbitration award would be the bankruptcy trustee period. [01:55:28.000 --> 01:55:38.000] I just wanted to get that out and tell you about that. I thought that was interesting that they're not ignoring this, they're just talking about it as fraudulent, which is kind of neat because it's not. [01:55:38.000 --> 01:55:44.000] Did he offer any law in support of his assertion? [01:55:44.000 --> 01:55:51.000] Nothing. It's just a brief statement, objection to debtor's TRO, pending appeal. [01:55:51.000 --> 01:56:09.000] Okay. You should rebut that by stating that the lawyer is making proactive statements of law out of his own mouth. He's offered no statutory or case law support for his assertions. [01:56:09.000 --> 01:56:16.000] And therefore the judge can't hear it. [01:56:16.000 --> 01:56:24.000] If he's just made assertions out of his own mouth, he hasn't put anything before the court that the court can hear and rule on. [01:56:24.000 --> 01:56:32.000] Even if the judge knows what the underlying law is, it has to be presented to him. [01:56:32.000 --> 01:56:35.000] Right. [01:56:35.000 --> 01:56:44.000] The judge must apply the law as it comes to him to the facts in the case. [01:56:44.000 --> 01:56:51.000] He can't go outside the court and pull in law of his own knowledge. [01:56:51.000 --> 01:57:03.000] You have to bring it to him and ask the court to strike the squealing as insufficient. [01:57:03.000 --> 01:57:07.000] And then Bargreaves the lawyer for filing a trash motion. [01:57:07.000 --> 01:57:11.000] That'll jerk a knot in his behind. [01:57:11.000 --> 01:57:17.000] Yeah, I just barred him. I just barred him. This is actually before this even happened. [01:57:17.000 --> 01:57:25.000] That will hurt his feelings because he won't expect that coming from a procé. [01:57:25.000 --> 01:57:28.000] He don't expect you to know that. [01:57:28.000 --> 01:57:33.000] Right. Does the Bargreaves even affect these guys if you file two or three reports? [01:57:33.000 --> 01:57:36.000] In New York, you betcha. [01:57:36.000 --> 01:57:37.000] Yeah. [01:57:37.000 --> 01:57:41.000] It's your insurance company that hammers them, not the bar. [01:57:41.000 --> 01:57:49.000] My Bargreaves, actually my mom did in 2016. I did in 2018. I just sent another one out on Monday. [01:57:49.000 --> 01:57:56.000] Yeah, it goes against their insurance and that stings them good. [01:57:56.000 --> 01:58:01.000] That may be why he's so unhappy. [01:58:01.000 --> 01:58:04.000] Yeah, we'll get down to a few seconds here. [01:58:04.000 --> 01:58:10.000] He also brings us up that if I follow a path in sovereign citizen's field conspiracy theories, [01:58:10.000 --> 01:58:13.000] provided absolutely nothing of substance. [01:58:13.000 --> 01:58:16.000] Okay, you're a sovereign citizen. [01:58:16.000 --> 01:58:26.000] He's a petty fogger, shyster, grubbing for a filthy lucre. [01:58:26.000 --> 01:58:28.000] Okay. [01:58:28.000 --> 01:58:33.000] He wants to call your names. You can do the same thing. That's from Robert Fox. [01:58:33.000 --> 01:58:34.000] Yeah. [01:58:34.000 --> 01:58:39.000] God rest his soul. We are out of time. Thank you all for listening. [01:58:39.000 --> 01:58:43.000] Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Real Love Radio. We'll be back next week. [01:58:43.000 --> 01:58:50.000] Same time, same station. Good night. [01:58:50.000 --> 01:58:58.000] Bibles for America is offering absolutely free, a unique study Bible called the New Testament Recovery Version. [01:58:58.000 --> 01:59:05.000] The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain what the Bible says verse by verse, [01:59:05.000 --> 01:59:09.000] helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life. [01:59:09.000 --> 01:59:21.000] This is a free copy today from Bibles for America. Call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org. [01:59:21.000 --> 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 --> 01:59:33.000] This is truly a Bible you can understand. [01:59:33.000 --> 01:59:41.000] 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.