[00:00.000 --> 00:02.000] Back in the 90's [00:30.000 --> 00:32.000] Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? [00:32.000 --> 00:34.000] Bad boys, bad boys [00:34.000 --> 00:35.000] Whatcha gonna do? [00:35.000 --> 00:37.000] Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? [00:37.000 --> 00:40.000] When you were eight and you had bad traits [00:40.000 --> 00:43.000] You go to school and learn the golden rule [00:43.000 --> 00:46.000] So why are you acting like a bloody fool? [00:46.000 --> 00:48.000] If you get hot then you must get cool [00:48.000 --> 00:50.000] Bad boys, bad boys [00:50.000 --> 00:51.000] Whatcha gonna do? [00:51.000 --> 00:53.000] Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? [00:53.000 --> 00:55.000] Bad boys, bad boys [00:55.000 --> 00:56.000] Whatcha gonna do? [00:56.000 --> 00:59.000] Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? [00:59.000 --> 01:01.000] You chuck it on that one [01:01.000 --> 01:02.000] You chuck it on this one [01:02.000 --> 01:05.000] You chuck it on your mother and you chuck it on your father [01:05.000 --> 01:07.000] You chuck it on your brother and you chuck it on yourself [01:29.000 --> 01:31.000] Another year's almost gone [01:35.000 --> 01:36.000] Excuse me [01:36.000 --> 01:41.000] Okay, I have my traffic site basically working [01:41.000 --> 01:45.000] And we're still testing it out before it goes live [01:45.000 --> 01:49.000] But we have it up and out putting documents [01:49.000 --> 01:53.000] And I'm fine-tuning the documents we're putting on it [01:54.000 --> 01:55.000] Excuse me [01:55.000 --> 01:56.000] Excuse me [01:57.000 --> 02:02.000] And I hope by the end of next week [02:02.000 --> 02:06.000] To have it up and online completely [02:07.000 --> 02:12.000] I have another project that may get my traffic site [02:12.000 --> 02:16.000] I mean my electronic lawyer launched [02:16.000 --> 02:23.000] I have someone who may launch the company to build questionnaires for insurance companies [02:25.000 --> 02:28.000] That could get us the funding to build the whole tool [02:28.000 --> 02:30.000] So things are looking pretty good [02:30.000 --> 02:32.000] How are things going with you? [02:32.000 --> 02:34.000] Oh, going pretty well [02:36.000 --> 02:41.000] I haven't been building any tools lately [02:41.000 --> 02:44.000] Or doing anything like that [02:44.000 --> 02:49.000] But I've been addressing some mold issues in our home [02:49.000 --> 02:53.000] So that makes my wife very happy [02:55.000 --> 02:57.000] I've got some [02:57.000 --> 03:04.000] I've got a five-gallon bucket of 35% peroxide [03:06.000 --> 03:09.000] Is that what you feed to your molds? [03:09.000 --> 03:12.000] Oh yeah, we'll go bye-bye [03:13.000 --> 03:15.000] It leaves residue that [03:15.000 --> 03:20.000] When you put it in there that strong, it leaves residue that will [03:20.000 --> 03:23.000] Keep it working down the road [03:24.000 --> 03:28.000] But if you get up to 50% it's getting close to rocket fuel [03:30.000 --> 03:32.000] It has this downside [03:32.000 --> 03:34.000] And 35% will bite you pretty good [03:34.000 --> 03:36.000] I think it's on you [03:36.000 --> 03:40.000] Well, one of our people in Texas has [03:43.000 --> 03:46.000] Has just gotten a ticket [03:46.000 --> 03:49.000] Got pulled over by a sheriff deputy [03:49.000 --> 03:52.000] And had four people in the car with her [03:52.000 --> 03:54.000] And she can attest to [03:54.000 --> 03:56.000] They can all attest to [03:56.000 --> 03:58.000] The deputies being after her [03:58.000 --> 04:00.000] She's saying stalking [04:00.000 --> 04:02.000] But I'm encouraging her to consider it as [04:02.000 --> 04:04.000] Stalking is [04:04.000 --> 04:07.000] Technically that's a crime and it has essential elements [04:07.000 --> 04:10.000] So instead of them attesting to stalking [04:10.000 --> 04:15.000] They should attest to facts that go to those essential elements [04:15.000 --> 04:18.000] However, back to the point about her ticket [04:18.000 --> 04:20.000] She got pulled over and [04:20.000 --> 04:23.000] The officer says that the reason was [04:23.000 --> 04:26.000] You're never going to believe this, Randy [04:26.000 --> 04:29.000] Something outside of subtitle C [04:29.000 --> 04:32.000] He reached way over to subtitle A [04:32.000 --> 04:36.000] And he says that she didn't have current registration [04:38.000 --> 04:43.000] He decided that was a good reason for him to go and do something [04:43.000 --> 04:47.000] He didn't have any lawful authority to enforce [04:47.000 --> 04:49.000] Oh [04:49.000 --> 04:51.000] What do you think? [04:51.000 --> 04:53.000] That is one of the things that [04:53.000 --> 04:55.000] In my tool [04:55.000 --> 04:58.000] That won't be on the first page [04:58.000 --> 05:00.000] It'll be on the second [05:00.000 --> 05:04.000] On the first page we got just standard stuff [05:04.000 --> 05:07.000] If it's a municipality [05:07.000 --> 05:11.000] We got one that Brett came up with [05:11.000 --> 05:15.000] About the city of municipal attorneys [05:15.000 --> 05:18.000] But after you go in the first time [05:18.000 --> 05:20.000] You hand in all these motions and then [05:20.000 --> 05:22.000] Bargain the snot out of them [05:22.000 --> 05:24.000] Then we start talking about [05:24.000 --> 05:26.000] The merits [05:26.000 --> 05:28.000] If an officer [05:28.000 --> 05:31.000] This actually doesn't have to go only to the merits [05:31.000 --> 05:36.000] It can destroy probable cause in the first instance [05:36.000 --> 05:38.000] Well [05:38.000 --> 05:40.000] Let's see [05:40.000 --> 05:44.000] I guess I could put in a [05:44.000 --> 05:46.000] Field [05:46.000 --> 05:48.000] Actually may have one [05:48.000 --> 05:53.000] To indicate what kind of an officer he was [05:53.000 --> 05:56.000] Municipal, county [05:56.000 --> 05:58.000] Highway patrol [05:58.000 --> 05:59.000] Then I could [05:59.000 --> 06:01.000] Put the logic in [06:02.000 --> 06:04.000] If it was, it's still there [06:04.000 --> 06:06.000] I haven't looked at that part yet [06:06.000 --> 06:08.000] If that's in there [06:08.000 --> 06:10.000] The one that I built in 2017 [06:10.000 --> 06:12.000] That was in there [06:12.000 --> 06:15.000] I mean, get that [06:15.000 --> 06:19.000] And we'll make the motion [06:19.000 --> 06:22.000] To [06:22.000 --> 06:26.000] Challenge the jurisdiction of the officer [06:26.000 --> 06:30.000] Charge the officer with aggravated assault [06:30.000 --> 06:33.000] Just a whole bunch of stuff [06:33.000 --> 06:37.000] He turned his emergency lights on [06:37.000 --> 06:41.000] And put this woman's life at risk [06:41.000 --> 06:44.000] He had reason to believe [06:44.000 --> 06:46.000] And did believe [06:46.000 --> 06:49.000] That if she did not stop immediately [06:49.000 --> 06:54.000] That there's a good chance the officer would come up and use a pit maneuver [06:54.000 --> 06:57.000] And commit aggravated assault with a motor vehicle [06:57.000 --> 06:59.000] Even to the point of using [06:59.000 --> 07:01.000] He could very well murder her [07:01.000 --> 07:03.000] With his pistol on her [07:03.000 --> 07:06.000] So the way I read the code [07:06.000 --> 07:10.000] If a person commits simple assault [07:10.000 --> 07:14.000] Turning those lights on when you lack [07:14.000 --> 07:18.000] Standing to do so [07:18.000 --> 07:20.000] Puts a person at risk [07:20.000 --> 07:22.000] And when someone threatens my life [07:22.000 --> 07:27.000] That meets the criteria of simple assault [07:27.000 --> 07:29.000] 2201 [07:29.000 --> 07:33.000] But if they are prominently displaying a deadly weapon [07:33.000 --> 07:35.000] Which [07:35.000 --> 07:37.000] Even if she didn't see it [07:37.000 --> 07:39.000] She knew full well he was [07:39.000 --> 07:43.000] That makes it a second degree felony [07:43.000 --> 07:45.000] Unless [07:45.000 --> 07:49.000] He is a public official acting under the color of pretense [07:49.000 --> 07:51.000] Of an official capacity [07:51.000 --> 07:53.000] And this case is clearly pretense [07:53.000 --> 07:56.000] That's a felony of the first degree [07:56.000 --> 08:00.000] In checking Westlaw [08:00.000 --> 08:05.000] That statute has never been enforced [08:05.000 --> 08:08.000] Ever [08:08.000 --> 08:09.000] Ever [08:09.000 --> 08:11.000] Or at least [08:11.000 --> 08:13.000] Has never [08:13.000 --> 08:17.000] Has never been carried through to a trial [08:17.000 --> 08:19.000] Never made it to the courts [08:19.000 --> 08:22.000] Yeah, if it did get brought to court [08:22.000 --> 08:25.000] Then it got taken out with a settlement [08:25.000 --> 08:26.000] We need to fix that [08:26.000 --> 08:28.000] So we can't see it, yeah [08:28.000 --> 08:32.000] So what's the local JP going to do [08:32.000 --> 08:35.000] Who's, or the [08:35.000 --> 08:38.000] The court judge, JP, or municipal judge [08:38.000 --> 08:41.000] Going to do when you get a first degree felony aggravated [08:41.000 --> 08:44.000] Assault charge against a police officer [08:44.000 --> 08:46.000] Well, they're going to ignore it, of course [08:46.000 --> 08:49.000] Because you're not a law enforcement officer [08:49.000 --> 08:52.000] And my golly, all their training told them [08:52.000 --> 08:54.000] That they just should ignore it [08:54.000 --> 08:58.000] If it doesn't come from a law enforcement officer [08:58.000 --> 09:02.000] So then you get to [09:02.000 --> 09:06.000] Charge the judge criminally [09:06.000 --> 09:09.000] And I can tell you from experience [09:09.000 --> 09:12.000] Turning to the bailiff and asking the bailiff [09:12.000 --> 09:15.000] To arrest the judge in his courtroom [09:15.000 --> 09:17.000] Last time I did that [09:17.000 --> 09:19.000] Was a municipal court judge [09:19.000 --> 09:23.000] I gave him a criminal complaint against the sheriff [09:23.000 --> 09:27.000] And a local justice of the peace [09:27.000 --> 09:30.000] He read them, ran them onto the record [09:30.000 --> 09:35.000] And on the record refused to take action [09:35.000 --> 09:37.000] And I said, well, in that case, your honor [09:37.000 --> 09:41.000] I now have business with the bailiff [09:41.000 --> 09:43.000] He said, go ahead, Mr. Kelton [09:43.000 --> 09:47.000] Mr. Bailiff, arrest this judge [09:47.000 --> 09:53.000] That was so much fun [09:53.000 --> 09:56.000] Go ahead, Mr. Kelton [09:56.000 --> 09:59.000] This sounds like it may be a good case [09:59.000 --> 10:03.000] To take on clean [10:03.000 --> 10:07.000] As they should get a criminal complaint [10:07.000 --> 10:11.000] To the municipal judge [10:11.000 --> 10:13.000] The sheriff [10:13.000 --> 10:16.000] Oh, this is a sheriff's deputy? [10:16.000 --> 10:18.000] Yeah, it was a sheriff's deputy [10:18.000 --> 10:20.000] Oh, then a justice of the peace [10:20.000 --> 10:22.000] Right [10:22.000 --> 10:25.000] So to the justice of the peace [10:25.000 --> 10:30.000] The police asking him to prosecute the officer [10:30.000 --> 10:34.000] Who initiated any legal prosecution against her [10:34.000 --> 10:40.000] That should create an interesting conundrum [10:40.000 --> 10:45.000] The judge is obviously going to protect the police officer [10:45.000 --> 10:48.000] And the judge needs to be hammered [10:48.000 --> 10:53.000] He needs criminal charges against him or her [10:53.000 --> 10:57.000] And needs a lawsuit [10:57.000 --> 11:01.000] I actually have that one written up [11:01.000 --> 11:08.000] Because I filed it against a justice of the peace in Victoria County [11:08.000 --> 11:12.000] And this is the one that said that since I wasn't a lawyer [11:12.000 --> 11:14.000] And hadn't talked to a lawyer [11:14.000 --> 11:16.000] He wasn't even going to read my complaints [11:16.000 --> 11:18.000] And threw them down on the counter [11:18.000 --> 11:20.000] Stormed out [11:20.000 --> 11:24.000] I watched him leave and said, well, Bubba [11:24.000 --> 11:27.000] We'll see how that works out for you [11:27.000 --> 11:30.000] When he walked into the county court [11:30.000 --> 11:35.000] As the defendant in my lawsuit against him [11:35.000 --> 11:41.000] That boy had himself a whole other attitude [11:41.000 --> 11:43.000] Now [11:43.000 --> 11:48.000] I'm going to go back to him [11:48.000 --> 11:53.000] With a criminal complaint against a deputy [11:53.000 --> 11:57.000] That arrested Dr. Joe [11:57.000 --> 12:03.000] And subsequently seized his airplane [12:03.000 --> 12:09.000] We put in a request for the intake information [12:09.000 --> 12:13.000] Into the property department of the city of Victoria [12:13.000 --> 12:16.000] They put in a request to the state attorney general [12:16.000 --> 12:20.000] And the state attorney general sent them back a response saying [12:20.000 --> 12:22.000] This was not a novel request [12:22.000 --> 12:25.000] So they just provided a [12:25.000 --> 12:28.000] What do you call it, Brett? [12:28.000 --> 12:31.000] Response that's just not [12:31.000 --> 12:33.000] A letter of opinion? [12:33.000 --> 12:34.000] Yes [12:34.000 --> 12:36.000] They got a name for it [12:36.000 --> 12:38.000] And what that means is [12:38.000 --> 12:43.000] Is that the lawyer did not do her due diligence [12:43.000 --> 12:45.000] Or the custodian of the record [12:45.000 --> 12:49.000] Before sending in the request [12:49.000 --> 12:52.000] Didn't check the pre-existing determinations [12:52.000 --> 12:54.000] So that would be the chief of police [12:54.000 --> 12:57.000] Who's the custodian of the record for the police department [12:57.000 --> 13:00.000] So when I file criminal charges against the chief of police [13:00.000 --> 13:02.000] Who I know personally [13:02.000 --> 13:06.000] With the justice of the peace [13:06.000 --> 13:10.000] I wonder what he's going to do this time [13:10.000 --> 13:14.000] This is a spot where you want to put this justice of the peace in [13:14.000 --> 13:16.000] You want to protect this officer when he [13:16.000 --> 13:20.000] Enforces a portion of the transportation code [13:20.000 --> 13:22.000] He's not authorized to enforce? [13:22.000 --> 13:23.000] Yep [13:23.000 --> 13:26.000] We'll see how that works out for you, bubba [13:27.000 --> 13:30.000] So if the lady wants it [13:30.000 --> 13:35.000] I will dig out that lawsuit and send it to her [13:39.000 --> 13:41.000] Maybe she can help me [13:41.000 --> 13:43.000] Fix all my typos [13:43.000 --> 13:45.000] I'm sure I've got some [13:47.000 --> 13:51.000] Would you like to go ahead and turn on the phone lines? [13:51.000 --> 13:53.000] Absolutely [13:53.000 --> 13:57.000] Alright, we're just going to go to our sponsors [13:57.000 --> 13:59.000] Give us a call 512- [14:13.000 --> 14:14.000] You can win too [14:14.000 --> 14:17.000] You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English [14:17.000 --> 14:20.000] On how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes [14:20.000 --> 14:24.000] What to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons [14:24.000 --> 14:26.000] How to answer letters and phone calls [14:26.000 --> 14:28.000] How to get debt collectors out of your credit report [14:28.000 --> 14:30.000] How to turn the financial tables on them [14:30.000 --> 14:33.000] And make them pay you to go away [14:33.000 --> 14:38.000] The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors [14:38.000 --> 14:40.000] Personal consultation is available as well [14:40.000 --> 14:43.000] For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com [14:43.000 --> 14:46.000] And click on the blue Michael Mears banner [14:46.000 --> 14:49.000] Or email michaelmears at yahoo.com [14:49.000 --> 14:51.000] That's ruleoflawradio.com [14:51.000 --> 14:56.000] Or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com [14:56.000 --> 14:59.000] To learn how to stop debt collectors now [15:00.000 --> 15:03.000] Are you looking to have a closer relationship with God [15:03.000 --> 15:05.000] And a better understanding of His Word? [15:06.000 --> 15:09.000] Then tune in to LogosRadioNetwork.com on Wednesdays [15:09.000 --> 15:12.000] From 8 to 10 p.m. Central Time for scripture talk [15:12.000 --> 15:15.000] Where Nana and her guests discuss the scriptures [15:15.000 --> 15:17.000] In accord with 2 Timothy 2.15 [15:17.000 --> 15:20.000] Study to show thyself approved unto God [15:20.000 --> 15:22.000] A workman that needeth not to be ashamed [15:22.000 --> 15:24.000] Rightly dividing the word of truth [15:24.000 --> 15:28.000] Starting in January, our first hour studies are in the book of Mark [15:28.000 --> 15:32.000] Where we'll go verse by verse and discuss the true gospel message [15:32.000 --> 15:35.000] Our second hour topical studies will vary each week [15:35.000 --> 15:39.000] With discussions on sound doctrine and Christian character development [15:39.000 --> 15:41.000] We wish to reflect God's light [15:41.000 --> 15:44.000] And be a blessing to all those with a hearing ear [15:44.000 --> 15:46.000] Our goal is to strengthen our faith [15:46.000 --> 15:50.000] And to transform ourselves more into the likeness of our Lord and Savior Jesus [15:50.000 --> 15:52.000] So tune in to scripture talk [15:52.000 --> 15:54.000] Live on LogosRadioNetwork.com [15:54.000 --> 15:56.000] Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. [15:56.000 --> 16:00.000] To inspire and motivate your studies of the scriptures [16:02.000 --> 16:05.000] You are listening to the LogosRadioNetwork [16:05.000 --> 16:09.000] LogosRadioNetwork.com [16:32.000 --> 16:39.000] LogosRadioNetwork.com [16:39.000 --> 16:46.000] LogosRadioNetwork.com [16:46.000 --> 16:53.000] LogosRadioNetwork.com [16:53.000 --> 17:00.000] LogosRadioNetwork.com [17:00.000 --> 17:07.000] LogosRadioNetwork.com [17:07.000 --> 17:14.000] LogosRadioNetwork.com [17:14.000 --> 17:21.000] LogosRadioNetwork.com [17:21.000 --> 17:28.000] Logbok [17:28.000 --> 17:31.000] Okay, we are back. [17:31.000 --> 17:34.000] Randy Kelton, Brent Fountain, Rule of Law Radio. [17:34.000 --> 17:37.000] And we've got a call on the board. [17:37.000 --> 17:40.000] We've got Alex from California. [17:40.000 --> 17:41.000] Hello, Alex. [17:41.000 --> 17:44.000] What do you have for us today? [17:45.000 --> 17:55.000] I have a lot of little questions about the letter that I got from the Fed. [17:55.000 --> 18:05.000] So I sent in my very defective complaint because I didn't have enough time, but I needed to get it in. [18:05.000 --> 18:08.000] So I sent it in and I filed it. [18:08.000 --> 18:15.000] And I also filed a motion for so that I can file electronically. [18:15.000 --> 18:21.000] And I filed a motion to proceed and form a papyrus. [18:21.000 --> 18:28.000] And so I got a letter back and they granted my informal papyrus, which is great. [18:28.000 --> 18:32.000] And they denied my motion for electronic filing. [18:32.000 --> 18:41.000] And it says here that they have to scrutinize the... [18:41.000 --> 18:50.000] It says here, the court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the court determines that the complaint is legally [18:50.000 --> 19:02.000] privileged or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. [19:02.000 --> 19:03.000] According to... [19:03.000 --> 19:16.000] Yes, there's a part, the drawback to filing informal papyrus is they got a whole stacks of lawsuits from the jails, people incarcerated. [19:16.000 --> 19:17.000] Yeah. [19:17.000 --> 19:20.000] And they're all informal papyrus. [19:20.000 --> 19:22.000] And they were just getting stacks of them. [19:22.000 --> 19:32.000] And finally, they passed a new rule that says that if you file informal papyrus, the court can get the first look at the suit. [19:32.000 --> 19:42.000] And if it decides that the suit is not substantial or it's frivolous, then they can dismiss the suit sui sponte. [19:42.000 --> 19:45.000] And that's what they're telling you. [19:45.000 --> 19:46.000] Yeah. [19:46.000 --> 19:49.000] If you pay, if you pay, they can't. [19:49.000 --> 19:56.000] They do, but they need to wait for a motion to dismiss from the other side. [19:56.000 --> 20:09.000] And my question is, because I know, like I have to file an amendment complaint anyway, but at this point, should I wait? [20:09.000 --> 20:12.000] No, don't wait. [20:12.000 --> 20:20.000] Just get your other one, before they dismiss it, get your amended in. [20:20.000 --> 20:28.000] You might file a motion with the court to stay a ruling to give you time to file an amended pleading. [20:28.000 --> 20:30.000] Oh. [20:30.000 --> 20:34.000] So, okay, so if... [20:34.000 --> 20:40.000] Let me make a statement here that I hope everybody kind of gets it. [20:40.000 --> 20:45.000] You know, people have issues and they say, what can I do for this? What can I do for that? [20:45.000 --> 20:48.000] You can do about anything. [20:48.000 --> 20:54.000] A motion is just a motion. You can move the court to do anything you want them to do. [20:54.000 --> 21:03.000] There's not some specific set of singular things that you can move the court to do. [21:03.000 --> 21:07.000] You can move the court to stand on their head and squawk like a chicken. [21:07.000 --> 21:11.000] You can't if they want to, but they can deny it if they want to. [21:11.000 --> 21:15.000] You better show some good grounds for that. [21:15.000 --> 21:22.000] Anything that's reasonable, you can ask the court to do. [21:22.000 --> 21:29.000] So when you're considering writing a motion, you don't consider, rather, can I file a motion for this, that, or the other? [21:29.000 --> 21:34.000] If it's reasonable and rational, the courts will hear it. [21:34.000 --> 21:37.000] So, go ahead. [21:37.000 --> 21:49.000] So if I wouldn't do that and I would wait for him to rule and he would, let's say, dismiss it with prejudice even, then my only remedy would be findings of fact. [21:49.000 --> 21:51.000] It's an appeal. [21:51.000 --> 21:53.000] Your remedy is an appeal. [21:53.000 --> 22:06.000] First, you would file a motion for findings of fact inclusions in law if they did not give an effective judgment. [22:06.000 --> 22:17.000] Unlike the state, in the Fed, a ruling by the court has two parts, a ruling to dismiss. [22:17.000 --> 22:32.000] Generally, most every ruling you get from the Fed under Rule 53 will have a, every ruling you get from the Fed will have a judgment under Rule 53. [22:32.000 --> 22:36.000] There's two parts to the rulings in the federal court. [22:36.000 --> 22:52.000] There is the statement of the conclusion of the court, and then there are findings of fact and conclusions at law that are issued in the form of a judgment. [22:52.000 --> 23:02.000] In my case, I asked for one and didn't get one, so I'm going to file criminal charges against the judges for not giving me one. [23:02.000 --> 23:05.000] This is the Fifth Circuit. [23:05.000 --> 23:06.000] Yeah. [23:06.000 --> 23:10.000] So he will give you findings of fact. [23:10.000 --> 23:12.000] He'll tell you what's wrong with your suit. [23:12.000 --> 23:18.000] So it might be a good idea to wait until he throws it out. [23:18.000 --> 23:22.000] It's just a problem if he throws it out with prejudice. [23:22.000 --> 23:36.000] If he looks at your suit and says that you didn't, you know, sees that, gets the impression that you did not take the suit serious enough to give him a decent document, he may just get annoyed and toss it. [23:36.000 --> 23:40.000] Prejudice. [23:40.000 --> 23:47.000] And I don't have this automatic right to amend my cleaning in this case. [23:47.000 --> 23:49.000] Yeah, you do. [23:49.000 --> 23:54.000] Why are you saying no? [23:54.000 --> 23:59.000] Because Randy said he could just dismiss it with prejudice. [23:59.000 --> 24:13.000] Yeah, but if you get an amendment to do that before, if you make an amendment before they have a chance to do that, there's no reason why you can't do that. [24:13.000 --> 24:25.000] So, oh, so the right for one amended pleading is only effective before a ruling, not after. [24:25.000 --> 24:28.000] Wait, say that again. [24:28.000 --> 24:36.000] The plaintiff and federal court has one has a right to at least once amend their pleading. [24:36.000 --> 24:51.000] So if he rules now and he dismisses it dismisses it with prejudice, and my only remedy would be an appeal that would that would mean that I don't have right for this. [24:51.000 --> 24:56.000] Okay, this goes to how, how bad your suit is. [24:56.000 --> 25:05.000] A dismiss with prejudice, they have to rule that there is no way you can correct this suit so that it would make a claim. [25:05.000 --> 25:13.000] If you sued someone for parting their hair on the left, they're going to dismiss with prejudice. [25:13.000 --> 25:16.000] Yeah, because there's no way you can fix that. [25:16.000 --> 25:28.000] There's no way you can rearrange it or provide any case law or do anything that was missing or say you didn't do something proper about your document. [25:28.000 --> 25:32.000] Because the whole basis of it, it just can't be fixed. [25:32.000 --> 25:40.000] And that's that's rule 12b6 fail to state a claim on which recovery can be had. [25:40.000 --> 25:47.000] Now they're required to accept what you say as true for this purpose. [25:47.000 --> 25:50.000] Whatever you state must be accepted as true. [25:50.000 --> 25:56.000] And if everything you say were true, would you have a claim? [25:56.000 --> 26:11.000] So if you sue for something like a policeman writes you a ticket and you sue him for harassment, for writing your ticket, we're going to throw that out. [26:11.000 --> 26:13.000] Because you failed to state a claim. [26:13.000 --> 26:17.000] He's acting within his rights to file the ticket. [26:17.000 --> 26:27.000] So to sue him for what he has a statutory right and a statutory duty to do is failing to state a claim. [26:27.000 --> 26:32.000] Generally, they tend not to like to dismiss with prejudice. [26:32.000 --> 26:36.000] That's a calm breath. [26:36.000 --> 26:40.000] It just sounds prejudicial. [26:40.000 --> 26:44.000] It's discouraged, but they will do it. [26:44.000 --> 26:52.000] So as long as you get it amended before they dismiss with prejudice, then you're good. [26:52.000 --> 26:57.000] Or you might file a motion for state to give you time to correct it because you file the wrong copy. [26:57.000 --> 27:01.000] We'll be right back. [27:01.000 --> 27:05.000] Businesses ask you for a lot of personal information and you may trust them to keep it safe. [27:05.000 --> 27:11.000] But it turns out that even the most trusted companies may be unwittingly revealing your secrets. [27:11.000 --> 27:14.000] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be right back with details. [27:42.000 --> 27:46.000] Data privacy is a big deal. [27:46.000 --> 27:51.000] So nearly every company has a policy explaining how they handle your personal information. [27:51.000 --> 27:54.000] But what happens if it escapes their control? [27:54.000 --> 27:56.000] It's not an idle question. [27:56.000 --> 28:03.000] According to a recent survey, a shocking 90% of US companies admit their security was breached by hackers in the last year. [28:03.000 --> 28:07.000] That's one more reason you should trust your searches to startpage.com. [28:07.000 --> 28:11.000] Unlike other search engines, Startpage doesn't store any data on you. [28:11.000 --> 28:15.000] They've never been hacked, but even if they were, there would be nothing for criminals to see. [28:15.000 --> 28:17.000] The cupboard would be bare. [28:17.000 --> 28:20.000] Too bad other companies don't treat your data the same way. [28:20.000 --> 28:25.000] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com. [28:38.000 --> 28:42.000] World Trade Center 7. A 47-story skyscraper was not hit by a plane. [28:42.000 --> 28:46.000] Although the official explanation is that fire brought down Building 7. [28:46.000 --> 28:50.000] Over 1,200 architects and engineers have looked into the evidence. [28:50.000 --> 28:52.000] And believe there is more to the story. [28:52.000 --> 28:55.000] Bring justice to my son, my uncle, my nephew, my son. [28:55.000 --> 28:57.000] Go to buildingwhat.org. [28:57.000 --> 29:00.000] Why it fell, why it matters, and what you can do. [29:02.000 --> 29:05.000] Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law traffic seminar. [29:05.000 --> 29:07.000] In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society. [29:07.000 --> 29:09.000] And if we the people are ever going to have a free society, [29:09.000 --> 29:12.000] then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights. [29:12.000 --> 29:15.000] Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place. [29:15.000 --> 29:17.000] The right to act in our own private capacity. [29:17.000 --> 29:19.000] And most importantly, the right to due process of law. [29:19.000 --> 29:25.000] Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process. [29:25.000 --> 29:28.000] Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, [29:28.000 --> 29:31.000] has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available [29:31.000 --> 29:35.000] that will help you understand what due process is and how to hold courts to the rule of law. [29:35.000 --> 29:40.000] You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today. [29:40.000 --> 29:45.000] By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie, [29:45.000 --> 29:50.000] video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents, and other useful resource material. [29:50.000 --> 29:54.000] Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. [29:54.000 --> 29:59.000] Order your copy today, and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve. [30:01.000 --> 30:07.000] Live, free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com [30:31.000 --> 30:51.000] Okay, we are back. [30:51.000 --> 30:57.000] Randy Kelton, Brent Fountain, Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking to Alex in California. [30:57.000 --> 31:06.000] So, what is the state of your amended suit? [31:06.000 --> 31:11.000] How far are you from being able to file yet? [31:11.000 --> 31:14.000] I don't understand. What did you say? [31:14.000 --> 31:19.000] How long will it take you to get an amended suit put together? [31:19.000 --> 31:27.000] Well, I mean, for me, because I'm a perfectionist, probably two to three months if I want to. [31:27.000 --> 31:39.000] How long would it take you to get a unperfected suit with all the claims in it put together? [31:39.000 --> 31:44.000] Okay, this is the only thing you need. [31:44.000 --> 31:51.000] You need a claim in which you have clearly alleged all of the elements of the claim. [31:51.000 --> 32:01.000] What are the elements, what are the causes of action that you have claimed? [32:01.000 --> 32:09.000] I have claimed 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242. [32:09.000 --> 32:16.000] That's not going to work. [32:16.000 --> 32:21.000] You know what's wrong with that, Alex? Do you understand what's the uh-oh? [32:21.000 --> 32:24.000] No, not yet. [32:24.000 --> 32:29.000] Here's the uh-oh. We have public prosecutors. [32:29.000 --> 32:37.000] It used to be, before 1863, that you could prosecute someone for violation of a criminal law. [32:37.000 --> 32:40.000] 18 U.S. Code is the criminal code. [32:40.000 --> 32:42.000] But now you can't. [32:42.000 --> 32:43.000] Yeah. [32:43.000 --> 32:52.000] They've got public prosecutors and they have exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute Title 18. [32:52.000 --> 32:57.000] They'll throw that out with prejudice. [32:57.000 --> 33:04.000] It's a 1983 suit, but I did put those in because I alleged the same. [33:04.000 --> 33:16.000] That'll work if you used 18 241, 242 in support of a 42 U.S. Code 1983 suit, then you're cooking. [33:16.000 --> 33:27.000] I will caution you though, Alex. I'll caution you that we have seen where courts will throw out the suit, a 1983 suit, [33:27.000 --> 33:32.000] just because somebody was talking about 242 or even 241. [33:32.000 --> 33:49.000] And they, you know, Randy has mentioned several times how courts will unfortunately focus on one thing that's not the main issue and fail to address the elephant in the room. [33:49.000 --> 33:52.000] Well, so you've brought this 1983 suit. [33:52.000 --> 34:08.000] If you're going to bring up 241 and 242, speak to the fact that you're only bringing it up to show that their actions were objectively unreasonable or to show that what they did was inappropriate. [34:08.000 --> 34:15.000] Not because you're asking the court to address those issues as crimes. [34:15.000 --> 34:19.000] Yes, they should address those issues as crimes, but that's not what your suit is about. [34:19.000 --> 34:25.000] Your suit is for the civil rights deprivation and you need damages for that. [34:25.000 --> 34:29.000] You have a claim related to that. Does that make a difference? [34:29.000 --> 34:32.000] I mean, does that distinction make sense to you? [34:32.000 --> 34:44.000] It does make sense to me, but my point to include those was that because as far as I understood, I can only like, there are three judges in my suit and one CEO in the court. [34:44.000 --> 34:53.000] So the judges have their absolute immunity and I understood that they just don't have that when they commit crimes. [34:53.000 --> 35:18.000] Well, here's what I'm going to suggest that you do is instead of saying 18 US Code 241, 18 US Code 242, is you take the text of the statute and accuse them of doing what the text of the statute says. [35:18.000 --> 35:28.000] That they gathered together on the highway, work in concert inclusion, one with the other, to deny me in this or that right. [35:28.000 --> 35:34.000] Just don't mention 18 US Code 242. [35:34.000 --> 35:50.000] You know, I use 3903 all the time and I can leave 3903 out and I could say that this public official exerted or purported to exert an authority did not expressly have and in the process denied me the full and free access to or enjoyment of right. [35:50.000 --> 35:55.000] And by so doing denied me in procedural due process. [35:55.000 --> 35:58.000] I haven't mentioned the crime. [35:58.000 --> 36:02.000] I did quote the statute. I just didn't cite it. [36:02.000 --> 36:14.000] Okay, but how do I avoid that my complaint gets dismissed because the defendant is immune from such relief? [36:14.000 --> 36:31.000] Because they will do you allege that the actions taken were beyond the scope of the officials authority as in this case, I would be would want to 18 US Code 242. [36:31.000 --> 36:41.000] She's right, Brett. You would want to say that the official took these actions in violation of 18 US Code 242. [36:41.000 --> 36:50.000] And by so doing acted outside the scope of their authority as committing criminal acts is not within scope. [36:50.000 --> 36:58.000] It is critical that you accuse the officer of acting outside the scope of their authority. [36:58.000 --> 37:03.000] And by saying that they committed a crime and then claiming it's outside of scope. [37:03.000 --> 37:12.000] You got that covered and that should make you immune from a dismissal with prejudice. [37:12.000 --> 37:18.000] It didn't not my case, but I was a bit heavy handed. [37:18.000 --> 37:21.000] I'll be less heavy handed next time. [37:21.000 --> 37:24.000] What do you mean by heavy handed? [37:24.000 --> 37:29.000] I sued him for $485 million to $20 million apiece. [37:29.000 --> 37:40.000] I sued everybody. I accused them of a claim that every prosecution for the last 50 years was without subject matter jurisdiction. [37:40.000 --> 37:50.000] So if they ruled in my favor, they'd be subject to civil suit because you can challenge subject matter jurisdiction no matter how remote in history. [37:50.000 --> 37:56.000] And all the prosecutions for the last 50 years go in the toilet. [37:56.000 --> 38:02.000] And regardless of what the law says, they're not going to let that happen. [38:02.000 --> 38:05.000] Right. Okay, I got it. [38:05.000 --> 38:12.000] I violated my own rule. Never back a bulldog in the corner without giving him a way out. [38:12.000 --> 38:14.000] Okay. [38:14.000 --> 38:21.000] Yeah, I planned on dealing the way out, but they didn't let me get there. [38:21.000 --> 38:25.000] I'll know better next time. [38:25.000 --> 38:39.000] Does it even make sense to because I so far I have sued them in their individual and official, but if I alleged they committed crimes and. [38:39.000 --> 38:45.000] Okay, here's the problem with individual and official. [38:45.000 --> 38:56.000] If you sue them in both, the jurisdiction can indemnify the official. [38:56.000 --> 39:05.000] And then the jurisdiction will claim that they're immune from suit and the courts will throw both out. [39:05.000 --> 39:11.000] So, you know, I was careful only to sue them in their personal capacity. [39:11.000 --> 39:25.000] Because what I wanted to do was get to get past the 12b6 and then get them get the attorney general to file a notice of state interest. [39:25.000 --> 39:32.000] And if you did that, then the state could indemnify them and come to the table and make me a deal. [39:32.000 --> 39:38.000] First thing I want to do is scare the poop out of them. And I think I got that done. [39:38.000 --> 39:43.000] Because we're seeing some minor changes in that direction. [39:43.000 --> 39:48.000] But I didn't get my ruling. [39:48.000 --> 39:56.000] So when I go back, then I will make the claim a lot smaller like yours is. [39:56.000 --> 40:03.000] You're not claiming that the whole system is totally corrupt and everything they've ever done is corrupt and wrong. [40:03.000 --> 40:07.000] You're just arguing one little issue. [40:07.000 --> 40:19.000] Yeah, a few. I didn't quite understand that. So if I do both official and private, then the state will come and say. [40:19.000 --> 40:29.000] The state will say that they will indemnify these guys and they will say that we cannot be sued because we're sovereign. [40:29.000 --> 40:38.000] And the federal courts will almost always throw it out. [40:38.000 --> 40:47.000] You got to keep them from having an easy path to throwing it out because they want to protect each other. [40:47.000 --> 40:59.000] Hang on. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Raw Radio, a call in number 512-646-1984. We'll be right back. [41:18.000 --> 41:33.000] The Champ Plan is a Section 125 IRS approved preventative health plan that provides your employees with doctors, medications, emergency care, and Teladoc all at zero cost with zero copay. [41:33.000 --> 41:39.000] If you are an employee, you also will get a pay raise by paying less in FICA taxes. [41:39.000 --> 41:45.000] As an employer, you will save hundreds of thousands of dollars in matching FICA taxes. [41:45.000 --> 41:51.000] The Champ Plan can help add working capital, market resale value, or pay down lines of credit. [41:51.000 --> 41:59.000] Call Scott at 214-730-2471 or dallasmms.com. [42:15.000 --> 42:23.000] If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. [42:23.000 --> 42:28.000] Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too. [42:28.000 --> 42:34.000] Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience. [42:34.000 --> 42:43.000] 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. [42:43.000 --> 42:52.000] You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more. [42:52.000 --> 43:01.000] Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ. [43:13.000 --> 43:20.000] If you did not have any problems, where are you going to look for one? [43:20.000 --> 43:26.000] If you could not wait anybody too long, would your purpose as be done? [43:26.000 --> 43:31.000] Such a sad man, a soldier, a warrior of love, scaffolding to keep in peace. [43:31.000 --> 43:36.000] Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio. [43:36.000 --> 43:45.000] And we've only got one caller on the board. If you have a question or comment, give us a call, 512-646-1984. [43:45.000 --> 43:55.000] And okay, we're talking to Alex in California, and she has sued. This is over a traffic citation. Is it, Alex? [43:55.000 --> 44:01.000] No, it's not. I had the traffic citation in Arkansas, and I'm still fighting that. [44:01.000 --> 44:18.000] But this is over two judges. One judge deprived me of my right to be heard and issued a ruling that would deprive me of my right to privacy. [44:18.000 --> 44:26.000] And the other judge issued a ruling that would have as its premise a criminal action. [44:26.000 --> 44:41.000] And the third judge is the presiding judge, who I am alleging refused to do his, follow his supervisory function. [44:41.000 --> 44:49.000] And he also made false accusations against me in writing about all the procedural stuff that was going on. [44:49.000 --> 44:56.000] So that's why I'm alleging a conspiracy, because I had submitted complaints to the presiding judge about these other judges. [44:56.000 --> 45:12.000] And he made some false claims about what I did and what happened and never addressed those wrongdoings of these other judges. [45:12.000 --> 45:21.000] From what you're saying, this judge is not likely to dismiss with prejudice. [45:21.000 --> 45:33.000] Because if what you're telling us, you've stated in your claim, then pretty well may have stated a claim. [45:33.000 --> 45:43.000] No, I mean, yeah, I just didn't. I think, I mean, I'd love to send you this if you want to have a look. [45:43.000 --> 45:51.000] Email it to me. Yeah, it's only nine pages, not even that long. [45:51.000 --> 45:59.000] Oh, the suit that I had that stuck in court the longest, it's two pages. [46:00.000 --> 46:09.000] Guy was helping Rick Tonini. He had a mortgage that was issued by Wells Fargo. [46:09.000 --> 46:14.000] Wells Fargo was the servicer and Wells Fargo was doing the foreclosure. [46:14.000 --> 46:19.000] And we filed a suit and said, who the heck are you? We don't know who you are. [46:19.000 --> 46:25.000] We never entered into a contract with you, never entered into a contract with your alleged principal. [46:25.000 --> 46:33.000] Prove it up. And what that goes to is you don't have to admit anything. [46:33.000 --> 46:44.000] Seven years later, the California Supreme threw out my cert. That was a really good cert. [46:44.000 --> 46:54.000] Seven years. It took them seven years. They had it nine months, the cert, before they dismissed it. [46:54.000 --> 47:04.000] But it was only two pages. And most of it was all the superfluous stuff. [47:04.000 --> 47:12.000] So it doesn't matter how big it is, so long as it makes states a claim on which recovery can be had. [47:12.000 --> 47:20.000] So if these judges exerted or purported to exert an authority they did not expressly have, [47:20.000 --> 47:30.000] and in the process exceeded their authority, and in the process denied you full and free access to your enjoyment right, [47:30.000 --> 47:39.000] and they conspired one with the other to do that, and the court accepts everything you say is true, [47:40.000 --> 47:48.000] depending on what you said they did, pretty good chance you've got a claim. [47:48.000 --> 48:00.000] If you don't have a claim, you have a claim that's fixable, because you didn't accuse them of partner hair on the left. [48:00.000 --> 48:08.000] You accused them of things that actually are crimes, and those crimes are beyond scope. [48:08.000 --> 48:18.000] At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if you said beyond scope or not. If it is beyond scope, that's enough. [48:18.000 --> 48:32.000] So you might want to wait for the court's ruling. And what the court will do is tell you everything you have to address. [48:32.000 --> 48:38.000] If the court doesn't address it, you don't have to worry about it. [48:38.000 --> 48:48.000] So it could dramatically limit the scope of your response and could keep you from putting things in there that will confuse the issue. [48:49.000 --> 48:51.000] Okay. [48:51.000 --> 49:07.000] You know, when we read court cases, I am always surprised at how well done they are from the Supreme, the Supreme and U.S. Supreme in the states. [49:07.000 --> 49:17.000] When I read Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals' rulings in Texas, I am surprised at how well written they are. [49:18.000 --> 49:26.000] So you use the judge, especially in the federal courts even better, to tell you exactly what's wrong with your case. [49:26.000 --> 49:38.000] And this is normally how they do it. They'll tell you what's wrong with your side of the case, and they'll tell the other side what's wrong with their side of the case. [49:38.000 --> 49:46.000] Because they want to be able to make a good ruling. So in the Fed, they tend to be helpful. [49:47.000 --> 49:49.000] Well, yeah. [49:49.000 --> 49:57.000] I'm trying to get people to move away from this notion that they're all out to get us. [49:57.000 --> 50:08.000] They may be all out to get us, but it's not functional for you to act that way. [50:08.000 --> 50:15.000] You have to give them an opportunity to actually do the right thing before they can do the right thing. [50:15.000 --> 50:21.000] If you presuppose they're going to do the wrong thing, you'll wind up getting them to do the wrong thing. [50:21.000 --> 50:26.000] You will not get in your life what you want, what you wish for. [50:26.000 --> 50:32.000] You will create in your life your internal expectations, and that will come out in your lawsuit. [50:32.000 --> 50:39.000] If you write your suit from the expectation that the court will rule in your favor if you give them what they need, [50:39.000 --> 50:47.000] then at the very least, you'll have a well-constructed lawsuit that you can take further. [50:47.000 --> 50:49.000] Do you want the facts? [50:49.000 --> 50:52.000] Go ahead. [50:52.000 --> 51:04.000] I did claim all those things, and I also put some questions in there, [51:04.000 --> 51:09.000] questions for the court to rule on or make a declaration on them. [51:09.000 --> 51:21.000] But I just didn't specifically describe all the essential elements of yours. [51:21.000 --> 51:30.000] That's likely to get you a dismissal of what not with prejudice, and that's not a bad thing. [51:30.000 --> 51:38.000] Because now you get the court to tell you exactly what you have to fix, and that's primarily when I get one of those, [51:38.000 --> 51:47.000] and I file a response, I always start out with the court's criticisms are well taken. [51:47.000 --> 51:51.000] Now, set the courts up for what I'm going to do next. [51:51.000 --> 52:00.000] What I'm going to do next is address the primary elements of the case that must be there [52:00.000 --> 52:07.000] and then specifically address their complaints, their considerations. [52:07.000 --> 52:15.000] So if we do this right, then we get the courts to only pay attention to how you've addressed their considerations [52:15.000 --> 52:19.000] and keep them from straying off into other areas. [52:19.000 --> 52:23.000] Stroke them a little bit. [52:23.000 --> 52:29.000] Now, I know we've got the purists out there that say, well, this is a court of law, [52:29.000 --> 52:33.000] and how the court feels about me shouldn't make any difference. [52:33.000 --> 52:36.000] Well, yeah, you're right about that. [52:36.000 --> 52:38.000] But good luck with that. [52:38.000 --> 52:43.000] At the end of the day, we're dealing with human beings. [52:43.000 --> 52:53.000] And if you go into court and treat the court as if you expect the court to be a dirty, rotten, stinking criminal, [52:53.000 --> 53:02.000] you're likely to get a PO'd court who will act like a dirty, rotten, stinking criminal. [53:02.000 --> 53:08.000] But if you treat the court with dignity and respect and show an expectation of good faith and fair dealing, [53:08.000 --> 53:13.000] you're more likely to get it, whether you get it the way you want it or not. [53:13.000 --> 53:27.000] And warning to everybody, if a judge does his job right, then generally neither side will be happy. [53:27.000 --> 53:31.000] Because he's there to find a just adjudication. [53:31.000 --> 53:36.000] You come in with your expectations, they come in with their expectations. [53:36.000 --> 53:45.000] And generally in the real world, both expectations are overblown to some degree, and they need to be. [53:45.000 --> 53:53.000] You ask for more than you want so that they can deny you some stuff and give you what you actually want. [53:53.000 --> 53:56.000] And it's what the courts try to do. [53:56.000 --> 54:03.000] So if you assume the court's going to screw you over, you're going to feel like they screwed you over. [54:03.000 --> 54:14.000] But if you try to consider the courts as human beings, then try to put yourself in their position. [54:14.000 --> 54:20.000] When a guy paid me to come to Australia to help him with a family law issue, [54:20.000 --> 54:24.000] and they picked me up at the airport and they got to the Sydney Bay Bridge, [54:24.000 --> 54:30.000] there's some guy up there with these huge banners talking about how corrupt the family courts are. [54:30.000 --> 54:40.000] But in studying the family courts, if you're a good family court judge, when you get done, nobody's going to be happy. [54:40.000 --> 54:44.000] Nobody's going to get everything they want. [54:44.000 --> 54:46.000] Yeah, that's true. [54:46.000 --> 54:52.000] No matter how you rule, there's no way that gets everybody to be happy. [54:52.000 --> 54:56.000] I couldn't do that. I'm not built for it. [54:56.000 --> 55:04.000] So consider the judge's position and ask him for more than you want. [55:04.000 --> 55:08.000] Then give him something to throw out. [55:08.000 --> 55:14.000] But keep in mind, people only have so many no's in them. [55:14.000 --> 55:16.000] We took that in sales course. [55:16.000 --> 55:22.000] You get your client to say no to you two or three times, and he don't like saying no to you. [55:22.000 --> 55:26.000] Then you get him to say no to you about stuff you don't care about. [55:26.000 --> 55:30.000] So you can get him to say yes about what you do care about. [55:30.000 --> 55:35.000] Hang on, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Hula La Radio. [55:35.000 --> 55:40.000] Call in number 512-646-1984. [55:40.000 --> 55:42.000] We'll be taking your calls all night. [55:42.000 --> 55:45.000] We'll be right back. [55:45.000 --> 55:47.000] Three seconds. [55:48.000 --> 55:53.000] The Bible remains the most popular book in the world. [55:53.000 --> 55:57.000] Yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it. [55:57.000 --> 56:01.000] Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, [56:01.000 --> 56:05.000] but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the scripture. [56:05.000 --> 56:08.000] Enter the recovery version. [56:08.000 --> 56:12.000] First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, [56:12.000 --> 56:17.000] but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes. [56:17.000 --> 56:21.000] Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, [56:21.000 --> 56:27.000] providing an entrance into the riches of the word beyond which you've ever experienced before. [56:27.000 --> 56:32.000] Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking. [56:32.000 --> 56:38.000] This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free [56:38.000 --> 56:43.000] at 1-888-551-0102 [56:43.000 --> 56:47.000] or by ordering online at freestudybible.com. [56:47.000 --> 56:50.000] That's freestudybible.com. [57:02.000 --> 57:05.000] The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of our Constitution. [57:05.000 --> 57:08.000] They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect. [57:08.000 --> 57:10.000] Our liberty depends on it. [57:10.000 --> 57:13.000] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way [57:13.000 --> 57:16.000] to remember one of your constitutional rights. [57:35.000 --> 57:38.000] This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com, [57:38.000 --> 57:42.000] the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. [57:42.000 --> 57:45.000] Start over with Startpage. [57:45.000 --> 57:48.000] Imagine your mom and dad are getting ready for bed. [57:48.000 --> 57:51.000] They pull back the covers and find a third party there. [57:51.000 --> 57:54.000] He announces, I'm with the military and I'm sleeping here tonight. [57:54.000 --> 57:58.000] That shocking image of a third party in my parents' bed reminds me [57:58.000 --> 58:00.000] what the Third Amendment was designed to prevent. [58:00.000 --> 58:03.000] It protects us from being forced to share our homes with soldiers, [58:03.000 --> 58:06.000] a common demand in the days of our founding fathers. [58:06.000 --> 58:09.000] Third party? Third Amendment? Get it? [58:09.000 --> 58:12.000] So if you answer a knock at your door and guys in fatigues demand lodging, [58:12.000 --> 58:16.000] tell them to dust off their copy of the Bill of Rights and reread the Third Amendment. [58:16.000 --> 58:21.000] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com. [58:21.000 --> 58:25.000] The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of our Constitution. [58:25.000 --> 58:29.000] They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect. [58:29.000 --> 58:31.000] Our liberty depends on it. [58:31.000 --> 58:34.000] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way [58:34.000 --> 58:37.000] to remember one of your constitutional rights. [58:37.000 --> 58:39.000] Privacy is under attack. [58:39.000 --> 58:44.000] When you give up data about yourself, you'll never know what's going to happen to you. [58:44.000 --> 58:47.000] You'll never know what's going to happen to you. [58:47.000 --> 58:49.000] Privacy is under attack. [58:49.000 --> 58:52.000] When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. [58:52.000 --> 58:57.000] And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. [58:57.000 --> 59:02.000] So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself. [59:02.000 --> 59:05.000] Privacy. It's worth hanging on to. [59:05.000 --> 59:08.000] This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, [59:08.000 --> 59:12.000] the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. [59:12.000 --> 59:16.000] Start over with StartPage. [59:16.000 --> 59:20.000] Imagine four eyes staring at you through binoculars, a magnifying glass, [59:20.000 --> 59:22.000] or a pair of x-ray goggles. [59:22.000 --> 59:26.000] That imagery reminds me that the Fourth Amendment guarantees Americans freedom [59:26.000 --> 59:28.000] from unreasonable search and seizure. [59:28.000 --> 59:31.000] Fourth Amendment? Four eyes staring at you? Get it? [59:31.000 --> 59:34.000] Unfortunately, the government is trampling our Fourth Amendment rights [59:34.000 --> 59:36.000] in the name of security. [59:36.000 --> 59:40.000] Case in point, TSA airport scanners that peer under your clothing. [59:40.000 --> 59:44.000] When government employees demand a peep at your privates without probable cause, [59:44.000 --> 59:47.000] it's time to sound the constitutional alarm bells. [59:47.000 --> 59:50.000] Join me in asking our representatives to dust off the Bill of Rights [59:50.000 --> 59:54.000] and use their googly eyes to take a gander at the Fourth. [59:54.000 --> 59:59.000] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com. [01:00:14.000 --> 01:00:17.000] I'm a scratch man. Tell them I'm a libertarian. [01:00:17.000 --> 01:00:20.000] They say we born to lose, but we born to win. [01:00:20.000 --> 01:00:22.000] Come rock my world. [01:00:23.000 --> 01:00:26.000] Child love rule this land. [01:00:26.000 --> 01:00:29.000] Child love rule this land. [01:00:29.000 --> 01:00:32.000] Child love rule this land. [01:00:32.000 --> 01:00:35.000] Child love rule this land. [01:00:35.000 --> 01:00:38.000] Child love rule this land. [01:00:38.000 --> 01:00:41.000] Child love rule this land. [01:00:41.000 --> 01:00:44.000] Child love rule this land. [01:00:44.000 --> 01:00:47.000] Child love rule this land. [01:00:47.000 --> 01:00:50.000] Child love rule this land. [01:00:51.000 --> 01:00:53.000] Chant down Babylon. [01:00:53.000 --> 01:00:55.000] And do it daily. [01:00:55.000 --> 01:00:58.000] And when night come, pray for everybody [01:00:58.000 --> 01:01:02.000] So one by one, me have to chant them on [01:01:02.000 --> 01:01:03.500] Me chant down Babylon, [01:01:03.500 --> 01:01:05.500] because Babylon is wrong. [01:01:05.500 --> 01:01:10.000] The only right man, me say, is the rastaman We take myself to,... [01:01:20.000 --> 01:01:28.760] And we're talking to Alex in California. [01:01:28.760 --> 01:01:35.000] And okay, I hope all that preaching I was doing made sense. [01:01:35.000 --> 01:01:40.360] I do this stuff and I never know how it sounds and I can only hear it coming out my ears. [01:01:40.360 --> 01:01:44.580] I can't see the people I'm talking to and see how disgusted they are. [01:01:44.580 --> 01:01:49.560] So it's sometimes doing radio is a struggle. [01:01:49.600 --> 01:01:51.120] I guess I've never done it. [01:01:51.120 --> 01:01:55.080] I mean, it doesn't make sense in general. [01:01:55.080 --> 01:02:01.920] But while you were speaking, I was thinking that was the attitude I went in to those judges [01:02:01.920 --> 01:02:07.400] that I'm seeing now into their courtrooms because I was trusting the judiciary at that [01:02:07.400 --> 01:02:09.160] point, I lost that trust now. [01:02:09.160 --> 01:02:13.280] So it's really, it's a little bit harder for me to- [01:02:13.280 --> 01:02:16.080] Yeah, to go back and trust again. [01:02:16.080 --> 01:02:20.160] It goes back to our rule. [01:02:20.160 --> 01:02:26.160] You can never expect to win your case simply because you have the law and the facts on [01:02:26.160 --> 01:02:27.160] your side. [01:02:27.160 --> 01:02:28.160] Right. [01:02:28.160 --> 01:02:33.080] You could expect to win your case if you have the politics on your side and all politics [01:02:33.080 --> 01:02:34.080] is local. [01:02:34.080 --> 01:02:41.280] And I'm not saying that these judges all out there doing these things because they're politically [01:02:41.280 --> 01:02:43.840] expedient. [01:02:43.840 --> 01:02:48.720] I have a son-in-law who is a justice of the peace. [01:02:48.720 --> 01:02:59.440] And when he adjudicates cases, he does everything wrong, but that's how he was trained. [01:02:59.440 --> 01:03:05.240] These judges become judges and they do what judges do. [01:03:05.240 --> 01:03:09.400] The lawyers become lawyers and they do what lawyers do. [01:03:09.600 --> 01:03:14.880] Yeah, we got all these highfalutin and high-minded codes. [01:03:14.880 --> 01:03:21.440] But at the end of the day, when you're down there in the trenches, they do what they do. [01:03:21.440 --> 01:03:27.680] When I was in the military and we were in combat, we had all of these guidelines that [01:03:27.680 --> 01:03:30.440] we were to follow. [01:03:30.440 --> 01:03:38.880] And we followed them when we could or when failure to follow would be evident. [01:03:39.080 --> 01:03:42.520] Otherwise, we did what worked. [01:03:42.520 --> 01:03:51.680] We did what got us to our objective, kept us alive, and then we told our bosses, our [01:03:51.680 --> 01:03:55.240] higher-ups that we did exactly what they told us to do. [01:03:55.240 --> 01:03:59.840] This is the real world we live in. [01:03:59.840 --> 01:04:02.720] Judges are no different from everybody else. [01:04:02.720 --> 01:04:07.600] So we can have all of our high-minded notions, but at the end of the day, we're dealing [01:04:07.600 --> 01:04:11.880] with human beings who have pressures on them. [01:04:11.880 --> 01:04:18.800] Judges have this docket that they have to plow their way through. [01:04:18.800 --> 01:04:24.720] In Texas, if you got a traffic ticket and you appealed it, it never came before the [01:04:24.720 --> 01:04:25.720] court. [01:04:25.720 --> 01:04:29.400] And I went down to the prosecutor and I jumped all over him about that. [01:04:29.400 --> 01:04:33.800] And he said, yeah, when I first got in office, I raised that as an issue. [01:04:34.280 --> 01:04:38.080] Plus all these truck drivers, they were getting all these tickets and they'd just appeal [01:04:38.080 --> 01:04:40.040] them and they'd never come to court. [01:04:40.040 --> 01:04:41.680] So they gave me tickets as they wanted to. [01:04:41.680 --> 01:04:43.680] They never got prosecuted. [01:04:43.680 --> 01:04:51.040] But he said, yeah, I went to the county judge and I said, we need to process these traffic [01:04:51.040 --> 01:04:52.520] tickets to appeal to the county court. [01:04:52.520 --> 01:04:54.360] And he said, OK. [01:04:54.360 --> 01:05:02.120] His clerk came in two days later and put 3,000 cases on his desk and said, have fun. [01:05:02.280 --> 01:05:04.960] 3,000, wow. [01:05:04.960 --> 01:05:10.240] He said, I never did that again. [01:05:10.240 --> 01:05:16.800] So in the real world, there are real world practical pressures that have nothing to do [01:05:16.800 --> 01:05:20.680] with the right of things or the rule of law. [01:05:20.680 --> 01:05:26.520] And if we don't understand that, spin in our wheels. [01:05:26.560 --> 01:05:33.560] So in order for you to get what you want, you have to become the squeakiest wheel in [01:05:33.560 --> 01:05:37.040] the pile. [01:05:37.040 --> 01:05:41.080] And that's why we talk about bar grievances and judicial conduct complaints. [01:05:41.080 --> 01:05:50.200] So if you're going into the Fed, then you want to file judicial conduct complaints against [01:05:50.200 --> 01:05:53.720] the judges that you're suing. [01:05:54.680 --> 01:05:57.880] Because they're going to whine about it. [01:05:57.880 --> 01:06:03.120] Oh, those dirty rats, they filed all these judicial conduct complaints and bar grievances [01:06:03.120 --> 01:06:04.440] and blah, blah, blah. [01:06:04.440 --> 01:06:07.120] We didn't do that to the Fed. [01:06:07.120 --> 01:06:10.200] You didn't threaten that with the Fed. [01:06:10.200 --> 01:06:13.680] But they look in the background and say, yeah, this is what this person is going to do to [01:06:13.680 --> 01:06:18.040] me and she's going to screw up my career now. [01:06:18.040 --> 01:06:23.320] So I got to give her a reason not to do that. [01:06:23.320 --> 01:06:25.120] I hope that makes sense. [01:06:25.120 --> 01:06:26.120] We have to be practical. [01:06:26.120 --> 01:06:27.120] It does make sense. [01:06:27.120 --> 01:06:36.960] So I'm still wondering, my complaint, if I leave it as it is, it does have both capacities [01:06:36.960 --> 01:06:37.960] on it. [01:06:37.960 --> 01:06:46.240] He has the right, he has the standing to dismiss it and he has the standing to dismiss it with [01:06:46.240 --> 01:06:47.840] prejudice. [01:06:47.880 --> 01:06:56.720] From what you've told me, if he dismisses with prejudice, then you would want to immediately [01:06:56.720 --> 01:07:03.280] do a petition for writ of mandamus to the appellate court. [01:07:03.280 --> 01:07:12.840] Wait a minute, Brett, mandamus, can we challenge his sui sponte dismissal with a mandamus? [01:07:12.840 --> 01:07:15.320] I don't know about that. [01:07:15.320 --> 01:07:23.280] You can't necessarily get the higher court to set it aside or vacate it, but that's not [01:07:23.280 --> 01:07:25.960] something you can mandate. [01:07:25.960 --> 01:07:30.760] We're dealing with a judicial ruling. [01:07:30.760 --> 01:07:40.000] So it would take, yeah, I guess the first thing would be findings of fact if they don't [01:07:40.000 --> 01:07:41.000] give you a judgment. [01:07:41.000 --> 01:07:45.280] If they do give you a judgment, then you'd want to file an appeal. [01:07:45.280 --> 01:07:53.080] If they dismiss it with prejudice, you would want to file an appeal and then file the amended [01:07:53.080 --> 01:07:59.280] pleading you would have filed with your appeal. [01:07:59.280 --> 01:08:02.280] And the appellate court would accept the amended pleading? [01:08:02.280 --> 01:08:08.920] Well, you can have the court look at the amended pleading and say, well, the judge dismissed [01:08:08.920 --> 01:08:17.440] with prejudice on the presumption that the claim could not be fixed, but here we've got [01:08:17.440 --> 01:08:20.920] a copy of the complaint that is fixed. [01:08:20.920 --> 01:08:27.000] So they're likely to overturn his ruling with prejudice, remand it back to the state court [01:08:27.000 --> 01:08:34.600] with orders to allow the amended pleading that's included with your appeal. [01:08:34.640 --> 01:08:41.040] So when you say I have to make sure that I state all my claims, and if I did, like I [01:08:41.040 --> 01:08:47.240] kind of, I mean, obviously I did it more in detail, as long as I allege everything, is [01:08:47.240 --> 01:08:50.200] that basically what you're saying I have to do? [01:08:50.200 --> 01:08:51.200] Definitely? [01:08:51.200 --> 01:08:58.600] Yeah, if you may, from what you've told me, you may have already alleged sufficient to [01:08:58.600 --> 01:09:06.360] get past this initial sui sponte dismissal by the federal judge. [01:09:06.360 --> 01:09:15.880] Now your next hurdle will be a 12b6, which will raise the bar somewhat. [01:09:15.880 --> 01:09:23.080] So by the time you, if they file a 12b6, which they almost certainly will, then you file [01:09:23.160 --> 01:09:34.720] an opposition to the 12b6 and a amended pleading, if you can get the trial judge to dismiss [01:09:34.720 --> 01:09:36.720] without prejudice. [01:09:36.720 --> 01:09:43.640] Let me back up and sort this out again. [01:09:43.640 --> 01:09:46.760] If he dismisses with prejudice, you file an appeal. [01:09:47.720 --> 01:09:54.240] In any appeal, you ask the appellate court to, you appeal the dismissal with prejudice [01:09:54.240 --> 01:10:02.920] and ask the appellate court to reverse and remand the case back to the trial court and [01:10:02.920 --> 01:10:05.760] accept your amended pleading. [01:10:05.760 --> 01:10:10.920] And then it starts all over again. [01:10:10.920 --> 01:10:14.920] That's generally not so hard to do. [01:10:14.920 --> 01:10:19.160] That's not a high bar to get over. [01:10:19.160 --> 01:10:20.560] Okay. [01:10:20.560 --> 01:10:27.480] Because dismissal with prejudice of the original petition is disfavored. [01:10:27.480 --> 01:10:30.480] It's what? [01:10:30.480 --> 01:10:31.480] Disfavored. [01:10:31.480 --> 01:10:35.480] Oh, disfavored, yeah. [01:10:35.480 --> 01:10:37.560] That's the word I was trying to think of earlier. [01:10:38.200 --> 01:10:42.440] They don't like to do that because it denies the litigant in their remedy. [01:10:47.480 --> 01:10:54.680] And like I said, the fact that I right now still have all of the four in both of their [01:10:54.680 --> 01:11:01.160] capacities, is that, because you said that could be a drawback because they would. [01:11:02.360 --> 01:11:03.720] Maybe and maybe not. [01:11:08.360 --> 01:11:14.200] Hey, there's a problem when you're going after a jurisdiction. [01:11:15.320 --> 01:11:17.880] Did they subject you to false imprisonment? [01:11:21.240 --> 01:11:22.120] Did they arrest you? [01:11:24.520 --> 01:11:25.960] I don't understand this. [01:11:25.960 --> 01:11:26.600] They what? [01:11:28.600 --> 01:11:30.600] At the time this occurred, were you arrested? [01:11:32.280 --> 01:11:34.840] No, no, this is not criminal. [01:11:34.840 --> 01:11:36.920] This has to do with the civil. [01:11:38.040 --> 01:11:45.320] No, no, what I'm getting to is if you were arrested and you included a false imprisonment [01:11:45.320 --> 01:11:51.960] claim, one of the few things that most every jurisdiction in the country [01:11:51.960 --> 01:11:55.800] has waived their sovereign immunity for is false imprisonment. [01:11:57.240 --> 01:11:59.240] Oh, no, there's a thing of that in there. [01:11:59.240 --> 01:12:03.800] That would get you right past sovereign immunity. [01:12:04.520 --> 01:12:06.120] They're going to say there's a sovereign. [01:12:07.320 --> 01:12:10.520] And the courts have said the sovereign can do no wrong. [01:12:11.880 --> 01:12:13.640] Sovereign meaning the state? [01:12:14.520 --> 01:12:15.320] State itself. [01:12:16.280 --> 01:12:21.320] The state itself is a legal fiction. [01:12:22.280 --> 01:12:24.600] And a legal fiction can't do anything wrong. [01:12:24.600 --> 01:12:25.480] It can't do anything. [01:12:26.600 --> 01:12:27.800] It's just a legal fiction. [01:12:27.800 --> 01:12:32.680] It's just an idea wrapped around a set of verbiage. [01:12:33.960 --> 01:12:38.360] If something is done wrong, that idea didn't do something wrong. [01:12:38.360 --> 01:12:40.280] A human being did something wrong. [01:12:41.720 --> 01:12:42.200] Yeah. [01:12:42.200 --> 01:12:44.040] So that's why I think that, isn't it? [01:12:45.640 --> 01:12:50.600] The courts have said the sovereign is immune because he can't do anything wrong. [01:12:50.600 --> 01:12:56.280] And the sovereign cannot authorize human beings to do anything wrong. [01:12:57.480 --> 01:13:02.840] So if anybody appears to be authorized by somebody else to do that, then it wasn't [01:13:03.960 --> 01:13:07.160] the fictional entity that did that authorizing. [01:13:07.160 --> 01:13:07.640] It can't. [01:13:08.680 --> 01:13:13.000] It was somebody who criminally did the authorizing. [01:13:13.000 --> 01:13:19.080] So then you have the crimes and you have the person who pushed the bad [01:13:20.440 --> 01:13:22.600] de facto customer practice. [01:13:22.600 --> 01:13:23.960] They both are out of scope. [01:13:25.000 --> 01:13:28.120] And it sounds like that's how you've made your claim. [01:13:29.720 --> 01:13:31.560] I did, but that's what I'm thinking. [01:13:32.200 --> 01:13:33.160] I mean, I hope I did. [01:13:34.760 --> 01:13:41.960] It sounds like you're going to have a sufficient claim to avoid dismissal with prejudice. [01:13:43.000 --> 01:13:45.880] The judges are used to getting pro se crap. [01:13:47.320 --> 01:13:49.000] And they just toss that stuff. [01:13:49.000 --> 01:13:51.560] So yours don't sound like pro se crap. [01:13:51.560 --> 01:13:54.520] Hang on, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain Wheel of Law Radio. [01:13:55.160 --> 01:13:56.120] We'll be right back. [01:13:56.120 --> 01:14:05.560] Are you looking to have a closer relationship with God and a better understanding of his word? [01:14:05.560 --> 01:14:10.600] Then tune in to LogosRadioNetwork.com on Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. Central time [01:14:10.600 --> 01:14:15.880] for scripture talk, where Nana and her guests discuss the scriptures in accord with 2 Timothy [01:14:15.880 --> 01:14:21.720] 2.15. Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, [01:14:21.720 --> 01:14:23.400] rightly dividing the word of truth. [01:14:24.120 --> 01:14:27.640] Starting in January, our first hour studies are in the Book of Mark, [01:14:27.640 --> 01:14:31.640] where we'll go verse by verse and discuss the true gospel message. [01:14:31.640 --> 01:14:36.440] Our second hour topical studies will vary each week with discussions on sound doctrine [01:14:36.440 --> 01:14:41.400] and Christian character development. We wish to reflect God's light and be a blessing to [01:14:41.400 --> 01:14:46.600] all those with a hearing ear. Our goal is to strengthen our faith and to transform ourselves [01:14:46.600 --> 01:14:51.800] more into the likeness of our Lord and Savior Jesus. So tune in to scripture talk live on [01:14:51.800 --> 01:14:58.120] LogosRadioNetwork.com Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. to inspire and motivate your studies of the [01:14:58.120 --> 01:15:04.280] scriptures. Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even [01:15:04.280 --> 01:15:09.960] lawsuits? Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method. Michael Mears has [01:15:09.960 --> 01:15:15.080] won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win too. You'll get [01:15:15.080 --> 01:15:20.120] step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights [01:15:20.120 --> 01:15:25.640] statutes, what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, how to answer letters [01:15:25.640 --> 01:15:30.280] and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the financial [01:15:30.280 --> 01:15:36.760] tables on them and make them pay you to go away. The Michael Mears proven method is the solution [01:15:36.760 --> 01:15:41.480] for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well. For more [01:15:41.480 --> 01:15:47.400] information please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner or email [01:15:47.400 --> 01:15:57.320] MichaelMears at yahoo.com. That's RuleOfLawRadio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com [01:15:57.320 --> 01:16:07.240] to learn how to stop debt collectors now. This is the Logos Radio Network. [01:16:17.400 --> 01:16:17.480] Mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm [01:16:47.400 --> 01:16:50.900] me with that same old trick again. [01:16:54.900 --> 01:16:55.900] Hang on. [01:17:11.400 --> 01:17:13.900] Ain't gonna drop me with that same old trick. [01:17:13.900 --> 01:17:15.900] Okay, we are back. [01:17:15.900 --> 01:17:17.900] Randy Carlson, Brett Fountainwood of La Rio, [01:17:17.900 --> 01:17:22.900] and we're talking to Alex in California, [01:17:22.900 --> 01:17:26.400] and I'm gonna bring in Chris in Colorado. [01:17:26.400 --> 01:17:27.400] Hello, Chris. [01:17:28.400 --> 01:17:29.400] Hey, Randy. [01:17:30.900 --> 01:17:32.900] You're dabbling in the federal courts. [01:17:32.900 --> 01:17:37.400] Do you have any input for Alex? [01:17:37.400 --> 01:17:40.900] She has filed an action in form of paupers, [01:17:40.900 --> 01:17:46.400] and she's concerned that she didn't have it ready yet, [01:17:46.400 --> 01:17:48.400] and she's running out of time, [01:17:48.400 --> 01:17:51.400] so we just had her file it anyway. [01:17:51.400 --> 01:17:55.400] And now she's afraid that the court's gonna dismiss it with prejudice, [01:17:55.400 --> 01:18:00.400] and you've been on, I think you've got an idea of what she's done. [01:18:00.400 --> 01:18:04.900] What's your opinion on what you think is likely to happen? [01:18:04.900 --> 01:18:07.900] Yeah, I was actually glad that you guys spoke to this, Randy. [01:18:07.900 --> 01:18:12.900] What you said earlier actually opened my eyes quite a bit to the politics, [01:18:12.900 --> 01:18:14.400] and I do have something to share with us. [01:18:14.400 --> 01:18:20.400] So I threw in my case for the 1983 for getting wrongfully arrested, [01:18:20.400 --> 01:18:22.400] all that kind of stuff, so it's kind of on point. [01:18:22.400 --> 01:18:26.900] And because it was in form of paupers to do a screening, [01:18:26.900 --> 01:18:32.400] and the judge came back, the magistrate judge, I'm assuming this one was, [01:18:32.400 --> 01:18:37.400] and he basically spelled out everything in an order I needed to correct. [01:18:37.900 --> 01:18:41.900] This was the only second, third time in my suit, [01:18:41.900 --> 01:18:45.400] but this judge was extremely clear [01:18:45.400 --> 01:18:47.900] of what that second amended complaint, [01:18:47.900 --> 01:18:50.900] I'm sorry, the first amended complaint needed to include. [01:18:50.900 --> 01:18:52.900] Now, one of the questions I had for you, Randy, [01:18:52.900 --> 01:18:58.400] is this concept of the courts are not to be advocates from the pro se, [01:18:58.400 --> 01:19:01.400] if he actually quoted that case, I think it's a Hall case. [01:19:01.400 --> 01:19:06.400] And from what I can understand, what that means is that as a pro se, [01:19:06.400 --> 01:19:09.400] even your pleadings don't have to be 100%. [01:19:09.400 --> 01:19:14.400] You don't have to have every single element in there according to that Hall case. [01:19:14.400 --> 01:19:18.400] But there has to be something that the court can grab onto [01:19:18.400 --> 01:19:24.400] and wrap their heads around, a remedy that they can eventually offer. [01:19:24.400 --> 01:19:27.400] That's what I'm interpreting that case. [01:19:27.400 --> 01:19:33.400] Now, we as pro se often find courts that come down as hard as they do as an attorney, [01:19:33.400 --> 01:19:37.400] but that's just some judges, they feel like they can do that. [01:19:37.400 --> 01:19:41.400] So as far as what I would say, are you pro se? [01:19:43.400 --> 01:19:44.400] Yes. [01:19:44.400 --> 01:19:45.400] Sorry, I forgot. [01:19:45.400 --> 01:19:46.400] Alex. [01:19:46.400 --> 01:19:47.400] I'm sorry. [01:19:47.400 --> 01:19:48.400] I'm sorry. [01:19:48.400 --> 01:19:49.400] Are you poor and pauperous? [01:19:49.400 --> 01:19:50.400] I'm sorry. [01:19:50.400 --> 01:19:51.400] Yes, yes. [01:19:51.400 --> 01:19:54.400] And that would be the screening about, yeah. [01:19:54.400 --> 01:19:58.400] So you haven't got your case in yet, there hasn't been a screening yet? [01:19:58.400 --> 01:20:00.400] There hasn't been a screening yet. [01:20:00.400 --> 01:20:05.400] I did get my first complaint in, but it's not perfect. [01:20:05.400 --> 01:20:10.400] And I'm not satisfied with it, but I was on the statute of limitations to get it in. [01:20:10.400 --> 01:20:11.400] Okay. [01:20:11.400 --> 01:20:13.400] Warning, warning, warning. [01:20:13.400 --> 01:20:18.400] Alex, I mean, Chris, you're dealing with a perfectionist here. [01:20:18.400 --> 01:20:20.400] She told us it wasn't perfect. [01:20:20.400 --> 01:20:27.400] And then we questioned her on what she did, and it sounds like it's pretty good. [01:20:28.400 --> 01:20:30.400] I think she has ways out, though. [01:20:30.400 --> 01:20:34.400] Like, if you're a perfectionist, then from what I've seen from both, I've done two federal [01:20:34.400 --> 01:20:37.400] cases under informal pauperous now. [01:20:37.400 --> 01:20:40.400] One was in Wyoming, and the second one was in Colorado. [01:20:40.400 --> 01:20:45.400] And both of them, the court has to screen your case to see if it's going to make it [01:20:45.400 --> 01:20:47.400] into the courts. [01:20:47.400 --> 01:20:52.400] So if you haven't had that done yet, they're going to tell you what's wrong with it if [01:20:52.400 --> 01:20:53.400] there's anything wrong. [01:20:53.400 --> 01:20:56.400] And then you can, I'm assuming California does that? [01:20:57.400 --> 01:21:02.400] What her concern was is that they would tell her what's wrong with it and dismiss it with [01:21:02.400 --> 01:21:03.400] prejudice. [01:21:03.400 --> 01:21:10.400] But once we spoke to her and she told us what she had alleged, I think the likelihood of [01:21:10.400 --> 01:21:14.400] a dismissal with prejudice is very, very slim. [01:21:16.400 --> 01:21:19.400] Yeah, I wouldn't think that's going to happen. [01:21:19.400 --> 01:21:23.400] Well, having said that, there's one thing I can think of. [01:21:23.400 --> 01:21:25.400] You're going after judges. [01:21:27.400 --> 01:21:36.400] And what they may say is these judges have absolute immunity, unless you have alleged [01:21:36.400 --> 01:21:41.400] that they acted outside the scope of their authority. [01:21:45.400 --> 01:21:50.400] I would suggest you even put a header on the paragraph where you talk about that and say [01:21:50.400 --> 01:21:59.400] something like beyond the scope of immunity or something that actually says the word immunity. [01:21:59.400 --> 01:22:01.400] You're addressing the issue of immunity. [01:22:01.400 --> 01:22:03.400] You're showing why they don't have immunity. [01:22:03.400 --> 01:22:07.400] And put that in a header, then talk about it. [01:22:09.400 --> 01:22:11.400] See, that'll get you a 12B1. [01:22:12.400 --> 01:22:17.400] If they say that the judges are absolutely immune from suit, that comes under 12B1. [01:22:17.400 --> 01:22:20.400] You need to beat that. [01:22:20.400 --> 01:22:25.400] So you need to accuse them of acting outside scope. [01:22:25.400 --> 01:22:27.400] It's kind of the key words. [01:22:27.400 --> 01:22:28.400] Chris? [01:22:28.400 --> 01:22:34.400] Yeah, so it sounds like I should just wait and see. [01:22:34.400 --> 01:22:37.400] I think so from what you said. [01:22:37.400 --> 01:22:38.400] Okay. [01:22:39.400 --> 01:22:49.400] From what I've heard, unless, if you've accused them of acting outside of scope, which you apparently did, [01:22:49.400 --> 01:22:57.400] you accused them of violating 18 U.S. Code 241, 242, that would be outside of scope. [01:22:57.400 --> 01:23:03.400] Good chance you're going to stay in there and you're going to get exactly what Chris got. [01:23:04.400 --> 01:23:05.400] Hopefully. [01:23:05.400 --> 01:23:08.400] Chris, what circuit are you in in Colorado? [01:23:08.400 --> 01:23:10.400] I'm in the 10th Circuit. [01:23:10.400 --> 01:23:19.400] And I'm also, I'm in the appeals court now as well because the first case in Wyoming did get dismissed with prejudice, [01:23:19.400 --> 01:23:22.400] but he first let it into the courts. [01:23:22.400 --> 01:23:27.400] So I think there's some politics going on behind the scenes because just he did a sua sponte, all kinds of stuff. [01:23:27.400 --> 01:23:30.400] So, I mean, there's ways out. [01:23:30.400 --> 01:23:32.400] This is my first appeal as well. [01:23:32.400 --> 01:23:37.400] So as Randy and as Dr. Graves talked about, it doesn't really matter what happens in the trial court, [01:23:37.400 --> 01:23:41.400] but it's scary the first time that happens because you have an appeal. [01:23:41.400 --> 01:23:49.400] And one other point, I don't know if you're using chat GPT, Randy spoke to it I think last week about it. [01:23:49.400 --> 01:23:55.400] It's not, you shouldn't lean on it as a hundred percent, in my opinion, legal assistant, [01:23:55.400 --> 01:23:59.400] but it is a hell of an assistant to help you work all these things out. [01:23:59.400 --> 01:24:06.400] So if you just put in everything that we talked about tonight and then ask the question, it'll unravel, help you unravel it fairly quickly. [01:24:06.400 --> 01:24:10.400] Yeah, I'll try because I use perplexity AI. [01:24:10.400 --> 01:24:15.400] And I found out that some things were right and some were wrong, but it was helpful. [01:24:15.400 --> 01:24:19.400] So I'll try to chat GPT and see what that's like. Thanks for. [01:24:19.400 --> 01:24:26.400] Yeah, spend the 20 bucks, get the 4.0 or 4.0 and just keep hitting it from different angles until it makes sense. [01:24:26.400 --> 01:24:28.400] It will help. [01:24:28.400 --> 01:24:30.400] Okay, all right. [01:24:30.400 --> 01:24:35.400] Talking to these AI engines is kind of an art form. [01:24:35.400 --> 01:24:42.400] I'm building a tool now that I will take this obscure statute, [01:24:42.400 --> 01:24:54.400] the article and subsection A, sub subsection one, sub sub subsection two, and ask it to explain that. [01:24:54.400 --> 01:24:59.400] Boom, it gives me a full page of explanation on it. [01:24:59.400 --> 01:25:05.400] Oh, cool. Now, I don't trust its citations. [01:25:05.400 --> 01:25:10.400] It gets those wrong because it's looking in documents that lawyers have filed. [01:25:10.400 --> 01:25:18.400] And the state of of starry decisis in this country is atrocious. [01:25:18.400 --> 01:25:21.400] Is it really? Yeah, it is. [01:25:22.400 --> 01:25:28.400] Chad, the AI engines are no better than the lawyers who file these documents. [01:25:28.400 --> 01:25:35.400] They're citing. Let me Google that for you. [01:25:35.400 --> 01:25:47.400] So if if chat, if AI engines appear to be inventing case law, it's because lawyers have been inventing case law. [01:25:47.400 --> 01:25:56.400] Yeah. And judges and not abiding by star decisis like those ones that I'm suing. [01:25:56.400 --> 01:26:02.400] But now, OK, I don't want to waste too much of your guys time and Chris's time. [01:26:02.400 --> 01:26:05.400] So, yeah, thank you so much. [01:26:05.400 --> 01:26:10.400] I'll call him again. Let you know what happened. [01:26:10.400 --> 01:26:13.400] Wonderful. OK, OK. [01:26:13.400 --> 01:26:15.400] Thank you, Alex. [01:26:15.400 --> 01:26:20.400] OK, Chris, what do you have for us today? [01:26:20.400 --> 01:26:27.400] Well, after you guys talked, I might want to call back in another night and go over this official slash individual. [01:26:27.400 --> 01:26:29.400] I think it'd be good for people to learn, including me. [01:26:29.400 --> 01:26:34.400] I got that was one of the issues that the judge mentioned. [01:26:34.400 --> 01:26:40.400] I need to be more specific, but I have another something to speak about that I caught in my my first case. [01:26:40.400 --> 01:26:47.400] So when we come back from the break, I guess I'll share it and see what you guys think about it. [01:26:47.400 --> 01:26:52.400] OK, this is Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain of Rule of Law Radio. [01:26:52.400 --> 01:26:57.400] I've got two segments and I think we can finish those out with Chris. [01:26:57.400 --> 01:27:02.400] Hang on. We'll be right back. [01:27:02.400 --> 01:27:09.400] Reality TV, sugar, obesity, jet lag, the list of things that makes us dumber just keeps on growing. [01:27:09.400 --> 01:27:12.400] But now researchers say we can add stress to the list. [01:27:12.400 --> 01:27:15.400] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. Back with details in a moment. [01:27:15.400 --> 01:27:21.400] Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. [01:27:21.400 --> 01:27:26.400] And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish, too. [01:27:26.400 --> 01:27:31.400] So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. [01:27:31.400 --> 01:27:34.400] Privacy. It's worth hanging on to. [01:27:34.400 --> 01:27:41.400] This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing. [01:27:41.400 --> 01:27:45.400] Start over with StartPage. [01:27:45.400 --> 01:27:48.400] Are you always on the go and juggling multiple projects? [01:27:48.400 --> 01:27:52.400] If so, you might think that multitasking proves you're smart. [01:27:52.400 --> 01:27:56.400] But think again. All that stress might be eating your brain. [01:27:56.400 --> 01:28:00.400] A new study finds stress reduces the number of connections between neurons, [01:28:00.400 --> 01:28:03.400] which actually makes it harder for people to manage problems. [01:28:03.400 --> 01:28:09.400] Researchers at Yale University found that stressed out people have less gray matter in their prefrontal cortex. [01:28:09.400 --> 01:28:14.400] That's the part of the brain that helps us weigh conflicting ideas and regulate our emotions. [01:28:14.400 --> 01:28:20.400] So take a deep breath and chill out. It'll help keep your mind as sharp as a tack. [01:28:20.400 --> 01:28:25.400] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine. [01:28:25.400 --> 01:28:31.400] This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11. [01:28:31.400 --> 01:28:33.400] The government says that fire brought it down. [01:28:33.400 --> 01:28:38.400] However, 1,500 architects and engineers concluded it was a controlled demolition. [01:28:38.400 --> 01:28:41.400] Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives. [01:28:41.400 --> 01:28:43.400] Thousands of my fellow first responders are dying. [01:28:43.400 --> 01:28:45.400] I'm not a conspiracy theorist. [01:28:45.400 --> 01:28:46.400] I'm a structural engineer. [01:28:46.400 --> 01:28:47.400] I'm a New York City correction officer. [01:28:47.400 --> 01:28:48.400] I'm an Air Force pilot. [01:28:48.400 --> 01:28:50.400] I'm a father who lost his son. [01:28:51.400 --> 01:28:53.400] We're Americans, and we deserve the truth. [01:28:53.400 --> 01:28:56.400] Go to RememberBuilding7.org today. [01:28:56.400 --> 01:29:00.400] Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law traffic seminar. [01:29:00.400 --> 01:29:03.400] In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society, [01:29:03.400 --> 01:29:05.400] and if we the people are ever going to have a free society, [01:29:05.400 --> 01:29:08.400] then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights. [01:29:08.400 --> 01:29:11.400] Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, [01:29:11.400 --> 01:29:13.400] the right to act in our own private capacity, [01:29:13.400 --> 01:29:16.400] and most importantly, the right to due process of law. [01:29:17.400 --> 01:29:20.400] Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity [01:29:20.400 --> 01:29:23.400] to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process. [01:29:23.400 --> 01:29:26.400] Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, [01:29:26.400 --> 01:29:29.400] has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available [01:29:29.400 --> 01:29:31.400] that will help you understand what due process is [01:29:31.400 --> 01:29:33.400] and how to hold courts to the rule of law. [01:29:33.400 --> 01:29:35.400] You can get your own copy of this invaluable material [01:29:35.400 --> 01:29:38.400] by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today. [01:29:38.400 --> 01:29:40.400] By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, [01:29:40.400 --> 01:29:43.400] The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie, [01:29:44.400 --> 01:29:47.400] video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, [01:29:47.400 --> 01:29:50.400] hundreds of research documents, and other useful resource material. [01:29:50.400 --> 01:29:53.400] Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material [01:29:53.400 --> 01:29:55.400] from ruleoflawradio.com. [01:29:55.400 --> 01:29:57.400] Order your copy today, and together we can have [01:29:57.400 --> 01:29:59.400] the free society we all want and deserve. [01:30:00.400 --> 01:30:04.400] You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, [01:30:04.400 --> 01:30:07.400] logosradionetwork.com. [01:30:29.400 --> 01:30:32.400] Thank you. [01:31:00.400 --> 01:31:04.400] Okay, we are back. [01:31:04.400 --> 01:31:06.400] We're in Kelton Brat Fountain Rule of Law Radio, [01:31:06.400 --> 01:31:10.400] and we're talking to Chris in Colorado. [01:31:10.400 --> 01:31:15.400] And you want to talk about how to sue them [01:31:15.400 --> 01:31:18.400] in their individual capacity next time. [01:31:18.400 --> 01:31:23.400] And this time, you have something that came up from your first case. [01:31:24.400 --> 01:31:29.400] Yeah, so I busted my booty to get the brief done [01:31:29.400 --> 01:31:35.400] and constructing something that the courts would consider. [01:31:35.400 --> 01:31:37.400] And so I spent a lot of time on it. [01:31:37.400 --> 01:31:40.400] And doing that, I had to go over all the original documents. [01:31:40.400 --> 01:31:44.400] And I reread the judge's order a few times through, [01:31:44.400 --> 01:31:47.400] and I don't know how I missed this the first time. [01:31:47.400 --> 01:31:50.400] But as I'm reading it this time, it went, [01:31:50.400 --> 01:31:52.400] did I just read what I just read? [01:31:52.400 --> 01:31:55.400] So I'm going to try not to be biased or set you guys up to be biased, [01:31:55.400 --> 01:31:57.400] but just tell me what you think about this. [01:31:57.400 --> 01:32:00.400] So the whole crux of why my case got dismissed [01:32:00.400 --> 01:32:04.400] is because I didn't file a government notice. [01:32:04.400 --> 01:32:08.400] Now, I argued, well, I called the Secretary of State [01:32:08.400 --> 01:32:10.400] and I called the licensing agents for the hospital [01:32:10.400 --> 01:32:12.400] to find out, are they public or private? [01:32:12.400 --> 01:32:13.400] And they said they're private. [01:32:13.400 --> 01:32:15.400] Three people at the Department of Health, [01:32:15.400 --> 01:32:18.400] licensing and survey, who regulates them in licensing, [01:32:18.400 --> 01:32:19.400] said they're private. [01:32:19.400 --> 01:32:21.400] Swore up and down they were private. [01:32:21.400 --> 01:32:22.400] Have those phone calls recorded. [01:32:22.400 --> 01:32:24.400] Call the Secretary of State. [01:32:24.400 --> 01:32:27.400] That's where all businesses are essentially listed, right? [01:32:27.400 --> 01:32:29.400] Secretary of State basically, see, I think that's a private [01:32:29.400 --> 01:32:32.400] that used to be called this business, now they call this business. [01:32:32.400 --> 01:32:34.400] Okay, they gave me both names. [01:32:34.400 --> 01:32:36.400] All right, so I don't file a government notice. [01:32:36.400 --> 01:32:39.400] That's the sole reason my case has been dismissed. [01:32:39.400 --> 01:32:41.400] Now, I brought up a bunch of arguments. [01:32:41.400 --> 01:32:45.400] Well, you know, I was pretty out of it, disabled for many months. [01:32:45.400 --> 01:32:47.400] The tolling shouldn't, you know, the statute of limitations [01:32:47.400 --> 01:32:48.400] should not have been tolling. [01:32:48.400 --> 01:32:52.400] I was clearly misled by another government entity. [01:32:52.400 --> 01:32:56.400] And then also, you know, I also argued substantial compliance [01:32:56.400 --> 01:33:00.400] because I, the Department of Health did an investigation into my matter. [01:33:00.400 --> 01:33:03.400] And they found that the hospital was in violation. [01:33:03.400 --> 01:33:06.400] And then they asked the hospital to come into compliance, therefore. [01:33:06.400 --> 01:33:07.400] Wait, wait, wait. [01:33:07.400 --> 01:33:11.400] Hold on just a second before we go past this before I lose it. [01:33:11.400 --> 01:33:15.400] Write down Federal Crop Insurance v. Merrill. [01:33:16.400 --> 01:33:19.400] Federal Crop Insurance v. Merrill. [01:33:19.400 --> 01:33:20.400] Okay. [01:33:20.400 --> 01:33:24.400] I can't believe I actually remembered that. [01:33:24.400 --> 01:33:29.400] It's been years since I've come across it, but write that down. [01:33:29.400 --> 01:33:34.400] That says a guy plants summer wheat, insures it. [01:33:34.400 --> 01:33:37.400] Then he plants winter wheat behind summer wheat, [01:33:37.400 --> 01:33:43.400] goes to the Federal Insurance Bureau and insures the winter wheat. [01:33:43.400 --> 01:33:46.400] The winter wheat fails, he files a claim. [01:33:46.400 --> 01:33:49.400] And the courts told him, too bad, [01:33:49.400 --> 01:33:53.400] you can't get winter wheat insurance after summer wheat. [01:33:53.400 --> 01:33:55.400] And he said, but you guys sold it to me. [01:33:55.400 --> 01:33:56.400] Yeah, I know. [01:33:56.400 --> 01:34:03.400] But because we have an agent who made a mistake [01:34:03.400 --> 01:34:07.400] or misinformed a person buying the insurance [01:34:07.400 --> 01:34:10.400] doesn't mean that we can violate federal law. [01:34:11.400 --> 01:34:20.400] So if you listen to what a federal agent tells you, you're on your own. [01:34:20.400 --> 01:34:23.400] Okay, well, that's where I'm getting to, okay. [01:34:23.400 --> 01:34:27.400] So I have all these valid ways for the court to jump on to this, [01:34:27.400 --> 01:34:32.400] that there's a lot going on to why I didn't file that government notice. [01:34:32.400 --> 01:34:35.400] And the whole idea is, well, how do you become informed? [01:34:35.400 --> 01:34:39.400] Okay, so that's what I'm arguing in the appellate court, essentially. [01:34:39.400 --> 01:34:42.400] And substantial compliance is probably not my strongest, [01:34:42.400 --> 01:34:44.400] but they were notified. [01:34:44.400 --> 01:34:46.400] And that's the whole point behind a government notice [01:34:46.400 --> 01:34:49.400] is still the government entity is notified. [01:34:49.400 --> 01:34:52.400] They can now, quote unquote, prepare, which they never do. [01:34:52.400 --> 01:34:54.400] It's a formality, that's all it is. [01:34:54.400 --> 01:34:55.400] They never do. [01:34:55.400 --> 01:34:57.400] They're not required to do anything behind that government notice, [01:34:57.400 --> 01:34:59.400] but we are. [01:34:59.400 --> 01:35:01.400] We are absolutely required, okay. [01:35:01.400 --> 01:35:02.400] And this is what I have a problem with. [01:35:02.400 --> 01:35:04.400] But anyway, that's what Harmon talks to. [01:35:04.400 --> 01:35:06.400] It's just a way that they protect themselves. [01:35:07.400 --> 01:35:10.400] No, wait, that's an interesting point that you bring up about, [01:35:10.400 --> 01:35:12.400] they did have notice. [01:35:12.400 --> 01:35:13.400] Yeah. [01:35:13.400 --> 01:35:18.400] Is the requirement, this about the reason why your suit was dropped, [01:35:18.400 --> 01:35:25.400] is this requirement saying that you have to serve some particular document [01:35:25.400 --> 01:35:30.400] or just that you have to make sure that they got notice? [01:35:30.400 --> 01:35:32.400] Constructive notice. [01:35:32.400 --> 01:35:33.400] Yeah. [01:35:33.400 --> 01:35:34.400] It's just a few elements. [01:35:34.400 --> 01:35:41.400] Look at the concept of constructive notice, [01:35:41.400 --> 01:35:46.400] because there is a lot of case law on that. [01:35:46.400 --> 01:35:48.400] Well, the way out of it is a thing called substantial compliance, [01:35:48.400 --> 01:35:50.400] and every state has a little bit different. [01:35:50.400 --> 01:35:54.400] Even in Wyoming, there's a case that says if the government had proper [01:35:54.400 --> 01:36:00.400] former knowledge of their violations in the context of being able to prepare [01:36:00.400 --> 01:36:04.400] or for liabilities, then it's been complied with. [01:36:04.400 --> 01:36:05.400] Yeah. [01:36:05.400 --> 01:36:08.400] That's the nuance is there has to be a few elements, [01:36:08.400 --> 01:36:11.400] meaning they have to have an amount. [01:36:11.400 --> 01:36:13.400] So I had to make an alleged amount, [01:36:13.400 --> 01:36:18.400] and then I have to swear under penalty of false swearing now, [01:36:18.400 --> 01:36:20.400] it used to be just perjury, now it's false swearing in Wyoming, [01:36:20.400 --> 01:36:22.400] that the facts are true. [01:36:22.400 --> 01:36:23.400] Okay, now they're on notice. [01:36:23.400 --> 01:36:27.400] All right, well, I've been through part of that process, [01:36:27.400 --> 01:36:31.400] and I'm now presenting a new idea to the appellate court. [01:36:31.400 --> 01:36:34.400] I don't think they've ever addressed it in this way. [01:36:34.400 --> 01:36:37.400] But anyway, so what I did is I gave the appellate court many ways [01:36:37.400 --> 01:36:39.400] that there's just still a way that I could have complied [01:36:39.400 --> 01:36:42.400] in the context of what happened to me. [01:36:42.400 --> 01:36:47.400] So substantial compliance is usually very cutthroat in most states [01:36:47.400 --> 01:36:48.400] from what I've seen. [01:36:48.400 --> 01:36:50.400] Like, it's not just that they had notice, [01:36:50.400 --> 01:36:53.400] but there has to be an amount that you had to address. [01:36:53.400 --> 01:36:55.400] Like, I'm suing you for $250,000, [01:36:55.400 --> 01:36:57.400] and it has to be in your notice to the government, okay. [01:36:57.400 --> 01:36:59.400] But again, the problem is that the government [01:36:59.400 --> 01:37:00.400] doesn't have to do anything. [01:37:00.400 --> 01:37:02.400] They don't have to act on that. [01:37:02.400 --> 01:37:05.400] So we have to act on the government notice, [01:37:05.400 --> 01:37:09.400] but the government behind that notice can do nothing. [01:37:09.400 --> 01:37:11.400] It's a double standard, [01:37:11.400 --> 01:37:13.400] very weighted in favor of the government, [01:37:13.400 --> 01:37:16.400] and that's why you eventually bring a lawsuit, [01:37:16.400 --> 01:37:18.400] because the government's been tasked [01:37:18.400 --> 01:37:20.400] to investigate themselves [01:37:20.400 --> 01:37:22.400] and then try to remedy it with that person, [01:37:22.400 --> 01:37:23.400] which they usually never do. [01:37:23.400 --> 01:37:24.400] I've talked to lawyers. [01:37:24.400 --> 01:37:25.400] They say they never do it. [01:37:25.400 --> 01:37:27.400] So they always end up suing them in the end. [01:37:27.400 --> 01:37:29.400] So it's just a BS formality. [01:37:29.400 --> 01:37:33.400] Okay, so back to what I found in the judge's order. [01:37:33.400 --> 01:37:38.400] So I argued, okay, well, I looked on the Secretary of State, [01:37:38.400 --> 01:37:41.400] say I called them, and I also called the Slicings Division [01:37:41.400 --> 01:37:44.400] to find out if it's a government entity or not. [01:37:44.400 --> 01:37:47.400] And he acknowledged that I called the Department of Health, [01:37:47.400 --> 01:37:49.400] but he said I got bad advice. [01:37:49.400 --> 01:37:51.400] So he did acknowledge I got bad advice, [01:37:51.400 --> 01:37:53.400] but didn't talk to it anymore. [01:37:53.400 --> 01:37:55.400] And then he goes, then he does this. [01:37:55.400 --> 01:38:00.400] He says, and he actually put a hyperlink in the order [01:38:00.400 --> 01:38:04.400] to the Secretary of State, the exact place that I went to, [01:38:04.400 --> 01:38:07.400] and it lists the Cheyenne Regional Medical Center, [01:38:07.400 --> 01:38:11.400] which is the DBA from Memorial Hospital of Laramie County. [01:38:11.400 --> 01:38:13.400] Okay, now we're to the Memorial Hospital of Laramie County. [01:38:13.400 --> 01:38:15.400] That's the person who registered it. [01:38:15.400 --> 01:38:17.400] That's the actual entity. [01:38:17.400 --> 01:38:19.400] And here's where he goes next. [01:38:19.400 --> 01:38:23.400] And then he brings up a case where Memorial Hospital of Laramie County [01:38:23.400 --> 01:38:26.400] was found to be a government entity. [01:38:29.400 --> 01:38:32.400] And I didn't catch it at first. [01:38:32.400 --> 01:38:33.400] I'm just like, okay, that's a form. [01:38:33.400 --> 01:38:34.400] That's just whatever. [01:38:34.400 --> 01:38:35.400] That's just whatever. [01:38:35.400 --> 01:38:36.400] That's just whatever. [01:38:36.400 --> 01:38:37.400] But he didn't go anywhere else. [01:38:37.400 --> 01:38:39.400] He didn't go to another agency. [01:38:39.400 --> 01:38:40.400] He didn't go to the Department of Health. [01:38:40.400 --> 01:38:44.400] He didn't go anywhere else that the general public would look and say, [01:38:44.400 --> 01:38:46.400] oh, yeah, that's a government entity. [01:38:46.400 --> 01:38:48.400] Okay, I have to file a government notice. [01:38:48.400 --> 01:38:54.400] He referenced case law as the sole source of that knowledge. [01:38:57.400 --> 01:38:58.400] What do you guys think of that? [01:39:01.400 --> 01:39:03.400] Well, first off, was it a published case? [01:39:05.400 --> 01:39:10.400] Or was it Westlaw, some number, just a private reference? [01:39:10.400 --> 01:39:12.400] Yeah, I mean, it's out there. [01:39:12.400 --> 01:39:13.400] I'm pretty sure it wasn't published. [01:39:13.400 --> 01:39:14.400] I didn't check the point. [01:39:14.400 --> 01:39:15.400] I didn't check, but... [01:39:16.400 --> 01:39:23.400] And did it say what it's purported to have said? [01:39:23.400 --> 01:39:28.400] Those are the first two questions I look at when I see a judge [01:39:28.400 --> 01:39:31.400] or an attorney for that matter, [01:39:31.400 --> 01:39:35.400] trying to make a point and say something is some way because of a case law. [01:39:35.400 --> 01:39:39.400] That's the first two questions that I'm looking at. [01:39:39.400 --> 01:39:42.400] I'm assuming it is a published case. [01:39:42.400 --> 01:39:44.400] And two, I'm assuming it's because I haven't read through it. [01:39:44.400 --> 01:39:48.400] I just took a break after getting the brief file, but it is on my list to do. [01:39:48.400 --> 01:39:50.400] I'm going to read through it and see the context, [01:39:50.400 --> 01:39:53.400] and I'm assuming the context is going to be somebody else did not file a government notice. [01:39:53.400 --> 01:39:57.400] And in that case, it was determined that, yes, it is a government entity. [01:39:57.400 --> 01:40:01.400] Okay, but that case, from what I saw, is only about two or three years old. [01:40:01.400 --> 01:40:03.400] So my question is... [01:40:03.400 --> 01:40:05.400] I would say don't assume. [01:40:05.400 --> 01:40:07.400] My suggestion would be go find it. [01:40:09.400 --> 01:40:13.400] And it doesn't always have to say Westlaw, some number. [01:40:13.400 --> 01:40:15.400] That's a dead giveaway. [01:40:15.400 --> 01:40:23.400] But in one case, I had a judge quote to me or cite to me, Stevens v. State. [01:40:23.400 --> 01:40:29.400] Now, the judge was acting as a prosecutor at that moment and opposing party to me, [01:40:29.400 --> 01:40:33.400] which, you know, that's a big deal on its own. [01:40:33.400 --> 01:40:40.400] But when the judge cited Stevens v. State, I went home and I couldn't find it. [01:40:40.400 --> 01:40:42.400] It didn't exist. [01:40:42.400 --> 01:40:47.400] Finally, it came up that that was an unpublished case. [01:40:47.400 --> 01:40:51.400] And it wasn't saying Westlaw, this and that number. [01:40:51.400 --> 01:40:54.400] It was Stevens v. State, but it was unpublished. [01:40:54.400 --> 01:40:56.400] So don't assume. [01:40:56.400 --> 01:40:59.400] I would suggest you really go check that out. [01:40:59.400 --> 01:41:02.400] Do you have a business with five employees or more? [01:41:02.400 --> 01:41:06.400] How would you like to save hundreds of thousands of dollars in FICA taxes? [01:41:06.400 --> 01:41:10.400] Do you have a major medical plan that nobody can afford to be on? [01:41:10.400 --> 01:41:15.400] Or how would you like to save in premium costs on a current major medical plan [01:41:15.400 --> 01:41:17.400] by lowering the claims cost? [01:41:17.400 --> 01:41:23.400] The CHAMP plan is a section 125 IRS approved preventative health plan [01:41:23.400 --> 01:41:28.400] that provides your employees with doctors, medications, emergency care, [01:41:28.400 --> 01:41:32.400] and Teladoc all at zero cost with zero copay. [01:41:32.400 --> 01:41:38.400] If you are an employee, you also will get a pay raise by paying less in FICA taxes. [01:41:38.400 --> 01:41:44.400] As an employer, you will save hundreds of thousands of dollars in matching FICA taxes. [01:41:44.400 --> 01:41:49.400] The CHAMP plan can help add working capital, market resale value, [01:41:49.400 --> 01:41:51.400] or pay down lines of credit. [01:41:51.400 --> 01:41:59.400] Call Scott at 214-730-2471 or dallasmms.com. [01:41:59.400 --> 01:42:03.400] Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? [01:42:03.400 --> 01:42:06.400] Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary. [01:42:06.400 --> 01:42:10.400] Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course [01:42:10.400 --> 01:42:14.400] that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step. [01:42:14.400 --> 01:42:18.400] If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. [01:42:18.400 --> 01:42:22.400] If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. [01:42:22.400 --> 01:42:27.400] Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too. [01:42:27.400 --> 01:42:33.400] Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience. [01:42:33.400 --> 01:42:38.400] Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand [01:42:38.400 --> 01:42:42.400] about the principles and practices that control our American courts. [01:42:42.400 --> 01:42:48.400] You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, [01:42:48.400 --> 01:42:51.400] pro se tactics, and much more. [01:42:51.400 --> 01:43:00.400] Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner, or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ. [01:43:04.400 --> 01:43:16.400] Hello? Oh, man, you're in jail? You got busted? Oh, man, I'm broke, dude. [01:43:22.400 --> 01:43:30.400] Some things in this world I will never understand. Some things I realize fully. [01:43:30.400 --> 01:43:39.400] Somebody's on a police, a policeman. Somebody's on a police, a bully. [01:43:39.400 --> 01:43:48.400] There's always a room at the top of the hill. I hear things are great, fine, and it's lonely there, too. [01:43:48.400 --> 01:43:56.400] They're wishing it was more than our position to fill. They know that if they don't do it, somebody will. [01:43:56.400 --> 01:44:04.400] Some things in this world I will never understand. Some things I realize fully. [01:44:04.400 --> 01:44:13.400] Somebody's on a police, a policeman. Somebody's on a police, a bully. [01:44:13.400 --> 01:44:18.400] I know they will. Yeah, they're gonna put the bill. [01:44:18.400 --> 01:44:23.400] Because I see so much interest in them. I know they will. [01:44:23.400 --> 01:44:27.400] Never fail to tip back the scale. I know they will. [01:44:27.400 --> 01:44:32.400] Never fail to tip back the scale. I know they will. [01:44:34.400 --> 01:44:36.400] I know they will. [01:44:37.400 --> 01:44:51.400] Okay, we are back at the Brenda Kelton-Brett Fountain Rules Law Radio on this, the 17th day of October 2024, and we're talking to Chris in Colorado. [01:44:51.400 --> 01:44:54.400] Okay, Chris, where were we? [01:44:54.400 --> 01:45:04.400] Well, Chris was assuming that the case law cited by the judge would have been published and that it said what the judge said it said. [01:45:05.400 --> 01:45:12.400] So we were just, I was touching on maybe don't assume that now. What was after that you were going to tell us next? [01:45:12.400 --> 01:45:15.400] The fact that it wasn't published is a real problem. [01:45:15.400 --> 01:45:19.400] Well, no, we don't know that yet. We don't know yet. [01:45:19.400 --> 01:45:25.400] But I will look that up. And okay, let me pose this question one other another way. [01:45:25.400 --> 01:45:31.400] All right, Randy Brett and somebody, maybe it's me, we're going to sue somebody in New York. [01:45:31.400 --> 01:45:35.400] Okay, somebody in New York screwed us all together. [01:45:35.400 --> 01:45:39.400] And we have a business name, but we don't have the full designation. [01:45:39.400 --> 01:45:47.400] So we call agencies in that place to find the business designation. Is it an LLC? Is it in a corporate? You know, all that kind of stuff. [01:45:47.400 --> 01:45:51.400] We can't find it. It's a little more obscure. [01:45:51.400 --> 01:45:57.400] So we start digging a little more. Oh, that's regulated by so-and-so. It's a financial institution. You need to call the Department of Finance in New York. [01:45:57.400 --> 01:46:01.400] Okay. So we call them and they say, okay, oh, yeah, we licensed that company. [01:46:01.400 --> 01:46:10.400] And their designation is this. They are actually a corporate or something, you know, a corporation, C-Corp or something like that, or some really weird, you know, benign, you know, whatever. [01:46:10.400 --> 01:46:13.400] And they give us that. So we sue them. [01:46:13.400 --> 01:46:20.400] And then the company comes back and dismiss the case, get it dismissed because we sued the wrong entity. We serve the wrong entity. [01:46:20.400 --> 01:46:23.400] And we're like, what's going on? You know, how could we serve the wrong entity? [01:46:23.400 --> 01:46:31.400] And then the judge quotes, well, in this case law from New York, that company was deemed clearly as this designation. [01:46:31.400 --> 01:46:41.400] And you should have known that. What? How would I have known that from case law? How would I even known to have been in case for that company? [01:46:41.400 --> 01:46:42.400] There's no way to know that. [01:46:43.400 --> 01:46:54.400] Exactly. So I went to the registering agencies who would know that, who the business is actually tasked, self-tasked to register themselves, make themselves clear to the public. [01:46:54.400 --> 01:47:04.400] And then the people who are licensing that agency or that business should certainly know because they're the one tasked to know who they're licensing and regulating within their state. [01:47:04.400 --> 01:47:23.400] Okay, so that's my logic. When I read this from the court, it dawned on me that this guy is implying that the general public, not lawyers, the general public is to be informed by digging through thousands of cases to find the answer to whether or not it's a government entity or not. [01:47:23.400 --> 01:47:26.400] That is exactly the case. [01:47:26.400 --> 01:47:41.400] Or he's inferring that you could point the finger of blame at the agency who cost you your whole case. [01:47:41.400 --> 01:47:57.400] Brett and I are really on the same page. Exactly what I was saying. You as a consumer have a reasonable expectation of good faith and fair dealing from your public officials. [01:47:57.400 --> 01:48:07.400] You go to the official that's licensing this company and they don't know where it's at. Then you have exercised due diligence. [01:48:08.400 --> 01:48:10.400] Yes. [01:48:10.400 --> 01:48:16.400] And that's exactly what I argued. Exactly what I argued on multiple pages. [01:48:16.400 --> 01:48:28.400] Now the judge has said so. Now the judge has said, well, obviously they are a government agency as seen in this case law. [01:48:28.400 --> 01:48:37.400] Well, if the judge seems to think that everybody should have known it, well certainly that agency, people that you called, should have known it. [01:48:37.400 --> 01:48:43.400] And you sue that agency for failure to provide good faith and fair services. [01:48:43.400 --> 01:48:50.400] That'll jerk a knot in the judge's behind. [01:48:50.400 --> 01:48:54.400] He's probably not thinking that he's throwing the agency under the bus. [01:48:54.400 --> 01:49:08.400] No, but he is the way I look at it. He's hinting, maybe without intending to, but he's hinting that the agency should have told you right. [01:49:08.400 --> 01:49:14.400] And since they didn't, that's what cost you your whole case. [01:49:14.400 --> 01:49:28.400] Chris, you might consider moving the court for leave to file an amended pleading to include this agency for failure to provide good faith and fair dealings. [01:49:28.400 --> 01:49:34.400] Judge, you want to throw them under the bus? Well, let's get the bus out and run them over with it. [01:49:34.400 --> 01:49:44.400] Well, I'm thinking of suing them separately because not only did they do this, they told me I couldn't get the record, the findings from their investigation. [01:49:44.400 --> 01:49:51.400] That's public record, by the way, that they said I could not get it without a subpoena. I was not entitled to their findings. [01:49:51.400 --> 01:49:57.400] Now I found out over a year later that was incorrect. They lied to me. So that's that's count number two. [01:49:57.400 --> 01:50:09.400] Then when I found this record on online, it's public record again, and I read through it, I found out that they didn't do their investigation how they were supposed to. [01:50:09.400 --> 01:50:16.400] They had evidence. They have video evidence in their hand that they ignored. And they covered for the hospital. [01:50:16.400 --> 01:50:23.400] And when I called them on the phone and I said, what's going on here? Why are you guys? Did you even read the video? They basically hung up on me and said, we're not doing anything else. [01:50:23.400 --> 01:50:29.400] And they like political. It was like a political almost feeling to it. We're getting we're getting away from this one. Goodbye, Chris. [01:50:29.400 --> 01:50:43.400] So they're definitely getting sued at some point. But I want to feel this field of the situation now before I come out with guns blazing because it's very it's obviously political to some extent in my opinion. [01:50:43.400 --> 01:50:49.400] First, first I get one judge, a magistrate judge, and then all of a sudden I get the head judge for the federal courts up there. [01:50:49.400 --> 01:50:59.400] And then he takes it over, screams it, says it's a good case, lets it in, goes through and then dismisses it with prejudice and ignored most of my arguments. [01:50:59.400 --> 01:51:04.400] Now I'm in the appeals court. I want to feel them out and see how they feel about all this. [01:51:04.400 --> 01:51:12.400] Did the judge fail to properly apply the law to the facts? [01:51:12.400 --> 01:51:15.400] Yeah, he ignored half of them. [01:51:15.400 --> 01:51:22.400] Have you OK, do you have Walker v Packer? [01:51:22.400 --> 01:51:25.400] Oh, I haven't read that one. No, I read the other one. [01:51:25.400 --> 01:51:31.400] Write that down. Walker v Packer. It's in the Fifth Circuit. See if you can find something corresponding. [01:51:31.400 --> 01:51:37.400] And what circuit are you in? [01:51:38.400 --> 01:51:51.400] See if you can find something that corresponding there should be Walker v Packer says a judge has no discretion in properly applying the law to the facts. [01:51:51.400 --> 01:52:03.400] A failure to do so is an abuse of discretion and an abuse of discretion is the only thing for which you can file an appeal. [01:52:03.400 --> 01:52:06.400] It's right there in the case. [01:52:06.400 --> 01:52:18.400] But the way I read penal code in Texas and every state has an official misconduct statute in Texas is called official oppression. [01:52:18.400 --> 01:52:30.400] If a public official fails to perform a duty, he is required to perform and in the process denies a citizen full and free access to or enjoyment of a right. [01:52:30.400 --> 01:52:34.400] That is a criminal act. [01:52:34.400 --> 01:52:37.400] And that is beyond the scope of the judge. [01:52:37.400 --> 01:52:43.400] So for a judge to fail to properly apply the law to the facts, that's it. [01:52:43.400 --> 01:52:51.400] We're in where in the failure denies you in the full and free access to or enjoyment of a cry of a right. [01:52:51.400 --> 01:52:59.400] That's a crime. That's outside of scope. [01:52:59.400 --> 01:53:06.400] To the judge personally. [01:53:06.400 --> 01:53:08.400] So I'm still there. [01:53:08.400 --> 01:53:10.400] I'm still here. [01:53:10.400 --> 01:53:19.400] I'm thinking about the politics of this. Brett brought up a point tonight that and a couple of lawyers I've talked to, I've got one good guy who helps me. [01:53:19.400 --> 01:53:21.400] They say you never know really what's on the judge's mind. [01:53:21.400 --> 01:53:27.400] He said he could have dismissed your case because of a couple of reasons. [01:53:27.400 --> 01:53:37.400] What's the term lawyers are covering your CYO, covering CYA? [01:53:37.400 --> 01:53:42.400] That was one of them. He's covering his butt and or he just can't rule on it. [01:53:42.400 --> 01:53:48.400] Okay, Chris, this is radio. You cannot say covering your ass. [01:53:48.400 --> 01:53:53.400] You can say covering your anus. [01:53:53.400 --> 01:53:57.400] There was an R in there. [01:53:57.400 --> 01:54:00.400] Oh, arse. [01:54:00.400 --> 01:54:02.400] I think you can say arse. [01:54:02.400 --> 01:54:04.400] That's one of those foreign words, right? [01:54:04.400 --> 01:54:11.400] Tina Coldbrook might have something to say about that. [01:54:11.400 --> 01:54:13.400] So he said he could be covering his butt. [01:54:13.400 --> 01:54:16.400] He could also not want to rule on it. [01:54:16.400 --> 01:54:20.400] And it could be just something too complex that he doesn't want the heat from. [01:54:20.400 --> 01:54:23.400] So he's again circling back and covering his butt. [01:54:23.400 --> 01:54:25.400] So that's why he's referencing all these cases. [01:54:25.400 --> 01:54:27.400] And so he made the argument in both. [01:54:27.400 --> 01:54:30.400] It was it was in both directions like there. [01:54:30.400 --> 01:54:33.400] Here's all the courts and the circuits that say for my favor. [01:54:33.400 --> 01:54:35.400] Here's all the courts in another direction, not in my favor. [01:54:35.400 --> 01:54:39.400] I'm going with the ones that are closest to us, which is, again, plaintiff. [01:54:39.400 --> 01:54:43.400] But it was a sui sponte issue that I never even raised. [01:54:43.400 --> 01:54:47.400] So I argued a number of things. [01:54:47.400 --> 01:54:53.400] First of all, I took I took that argument right out of my debris for the appellate court won't do anything. [01:54:53.400 --> 01:54:56.400] But anyway, back to the politics, I think Brett made up a good point. [01:54:56.400 --> 01:55:01.400] Like the fact that the Department of State Department of Health doesn't know. [01:55:01.400 --> 01:55:04.400] Then why should I know exactly for the case law? That's a great point. [01:55:04.400 --> 01:55:08.400] I think he may have set him up indirectly. [01:55:08.400 --> 01:55:10.400] Good. You sue them. [01:55:10.400 --> 01:55:18.400] It's it's my policy that if these guys want to fight, best fight has one you pick. [01:55:18.400 --> 01:55:21.400] You want to try to screw me over. I'll see if I can turn it back on you. [01:55:21.400 --> 01:55:25.400] And this may be the best method to go after. [01:55:25.400 --> 01:55:30.400] To me, it sounds like fun. Now they've got to cover their own behinds. [01:55:30.400 --> 01:55:33.400] OK, enjoy. Out of time. [01:55:33.400 --> 01:55:34.400] Thank you, Chris. [01:55:34.400 --> 01:55:39.400] We will be back tomorrow night on our four hour info marathon. [01:55:39.400 --> 01:55:43.400] This is Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio. [01:55:43.400 --> 01:55:47.400] And tomorrow night we'll have four hours. We've been taking calls all night. [01:55:47.400 --> 01:55:49.400] So give us a call tomorrow night. [01:55:49.400 --> 01:55:57.400] Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study Bible called the New Testament Recovery Version. [01:55:57.400 --> 01:56:03.400] The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9000 footnotes that explain what the Bible says verse by verse. [01:56:03.400 --> 01:56:07.400] Helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life. [01:56:07.400 --> 01:56:10.400] Order your free copy today from Bibles for America. [01:56:10.400 --> 01:56:19.400] Call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org. [01:56:19.400 --> 01:56:25.400] This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross references. [01:56:25.400 --> 01:56:29.400] Plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible. [01:56:29.400 --> 01:56:31.400] This is truly a Bible you can understand. [01:56:31.400 --> 01:56:40.400] To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version call us toll free at 888-551-0102. [01:56:40.400 --> 01:56:48.400] That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org. [01:57:01.400 --> 01:57:05.400] The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of our Constitution. [01:57:05.400 --> 01:57:09.400] They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect. [01:57:09.400 --> 01:57:11.400] Our liberty depends on it. [01:57:11.400 --> 01:57:16.400] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember your First Amendment rights. [01:57:16.400 --> 01:57:18.400] Privacy is under attack. [01:57:18.400 --> 01:57:22.400] When you give up data about yourself you'll never get it back again. [01:57:22.400 --> 01:57:26.400] And once your privacy is gone you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. [01:57:26.400 --> 01:57:28.400] So protect your rights. [01:57:28.400 --> 01:57:32.400] Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. [01:57:32.400 --> 01:57:34.400] Privacy. It's worth hanging on to. [01:57:34.400 --> 01:57:38.400] This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com. [01:57:38.400 --> 01:57:42.400] The private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing. [01:57:42.400 --> 01:57:45.400] Start over with Startpage. [01:57:45.400 --> 01:57:47.400] Spar. It's what fighters do. [01:57:47.400 --> 01:57:51.400] It's also how I remember the five guarantees of the First Amendment. [01:57:51.400 --> 01:57:54.400] If you plan to take away my rights I'm going to spar with you. [01:57:54.400 --> 01:57:56.400] Spar with an extra P. [01:57:56.400 --> 01:57:57.400] S for speech. [01:57:57.400 --> 01:57:58.400] P for press. [01:57:58.400 --> 01:58:00.400] Another P for petition. [01:58:00.400 --> 01:58:01.400] A for assembly. [01:58:01.400 --> 01:58:03.400] And R for religion. [01:58:03.400 --> 01:58:08.400] Most Americans are familiar with the First Amendment guarantees of free speech, press, assembly and religion. [01:58:08.400 --> 01:58:10.400] But petition for redress is another matter. [01:58:10.400 --> 01:58:14.400] We have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. [01:58:14.400 --> 01:58:21.400] It means that if we're unhappy with what's going on in our government we can spell out the reasons without fear of being thrown into jail. [01:58:21.400 --> 01:58:26.400] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com. [01:58:31.400 --> 01:58:35.400] The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of our Constitution. [01:58:35.400 --> 01:58:38.400] They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect. [01:58:38.400 --> 01:58:40.400] Our liberty depends on it. [01:58:40.400 --> 01:58:46.400] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember one of your constitutional rights. [01:58:46.400 --> 01:58:48.400] Privacy is under attack. [01:58:48.400 --> 01:58:51.400] When you give up data about yourself you'll never get it back again. [01:58:51.400 --> 01:58:56.400] And once your privacy is gone you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. [01:58:56.400 --> 01:58:58.400] So protect your rights. [01:58:58.400 --> 01:59:01.400] Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. [01:59:01.400 --> 01:59:04.400] Privacy. It's worth hanging on to. [01:59:04.400 --> 01:59:08.400] This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com. [01:59:08.400 --> 01:59:12.400] The private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing. [01:59:12.400 --> 01:59:14.400] Start over with StartPage. [01:59:15.400 --> 01:59:22.400] When I think of the Second Amendment I visualize myself wrapping my two arms around the Bill of Rights in a big old bear hug. [01:59:22.400 --> 01:59:26.400] It's how I remember that the Second Amendment guarantees us the right to bear arms. [01:59:26.400 --> 01:59:30.400] Arms that embrace our freedoms and won't let anyone take them away without a fight. [01:59:30.400 --> 01:59:33.400] Get it? Two arms? Bear hug? Bear arms? [01:59:33.400 --> 01:59:38.400] The late Senator Hubert Humphrey captured the spirit of the Second Amendment so well when he said, [01:59:39.400 --> 01:59:44.400] The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, [01:59:44.400 --> 01:59:48.400] one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, [01:59:48.400 --> 01:59:51.400] but which historically has proved to always be possible. [01:59:51.400 --> 01:59:56.400] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com. [02:00:38.400 --> 02:00:40.400] Thank you. [02:01:08.400 --> 02:01:10.400] Thank you. [02:01:38.400 --> 02:01:55.400] Alright, good evening friends and welcome. It is time for INN World Report Radio here on the Great Logos Radio Network. [02:01:55.400 --> 02:02:01.400] My name is Tom Kiley. I have the distinct honor to bring this show to you here on Thursday.