[00:00.000 --> 00:12.000]  Bad boys what you want what you want what you gonna do
[00:12.000 --> 00:16.000]  When Sheriff John Brown come for you
[00:16.000 --> 00:23.000]  Tell me what you wanna do what you gonna do
[00:23.000 --> 00:32.000]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[00:32.000 --> 00:37.000]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[00:37.000 --> 00:43.000]  When you were eight and you had bad treats You go to school and learn the golden rule
[00:43.000 --> 00:48.000]  So why are you acting like a bloody fool? If you get hot then you must get cool
[00:48.000 --> 00:59.000]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[00:59.000 --> 01:05.000]  You chuck it on that one, you chuck it on this one You chuck it on your mother and you chuck it on your father
[01:05.000 --> 01:10.000]  You chuck it on your brother and you chuck it on your sister You chuck it on that one and you chuck it on me
[01:10.000 --> 01:32.000]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[01:32.000 --> 01:37.000]  Nobody now give you no break Police now give you no break
[01:37.000 --> 01:42.000]  That old soldier man now give you no break Not even your agent now give you no breaks
[01:42.000 --> 01:48.000]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[01:48.000 --> 02:05.000]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[02:18.000 --> 02:36.000]  Okay, howdy, howdy, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio on this, the 12th day of December, 2024
[02:36.000 --> 02:40.000]  Another year, almost gone, holy mackerel
[02:40.000 --> 02:47.000]  And you know what that means, right? Today's Thursday the 12th, that means tomorrow is bar grievance day
[02:47.000 --> 02:52.000]  Ooh yeah, Friday the 13th, oh wonderful
[02:52.000 --> 03:01.000]  Anything that's just been kinda nagging at you and anybody that's not been doing records requests
[03:01.000 --> 03:07.000]  Some attorney's telling you some nonsense or some attorney's giving you any kind of pushback or lies or anything
[03:07.000 --> 03:13.000]  Or you just need to remind one of your favorite attorneys that you're just thinking of them
[03:13.000 --> 03:15.000]  Tomorrow's the day
[03:15.000 --> 03:21.000]  Tomorrow's a good day, well yesterday for me was a good day
[03:21.000 --> 03:27.000]  I had a meeting with the local county judge
[03:27.000 --> 03:38.000]  I've known him since he was a county attorney and then he became district attorney for about 20 years and then he moved to county judge
[03:38.000 --> 03:44.000]  And if there is such thing as an honest attorney, this guy was one of them
[03:44.000 --> 03:48.000]  One of the funniest sessions I had with him, I was in his office
[03:48.000 --> 03:58.000]  And his clerk brought in a copy of all of the bar actions for the last month or whatever
[03:58.000 --> 04:04.000]  And while we're talking, he's flipping through them, he flips this page over and he's kinda glancing through it
[04:04.000 --> 04:06.000]  Oh, I've done that
[04:06.000 --> 04:08.000]  He turns the page
[04:08.000 --> 04:10.000]  Ooh, I've done that too
[04:10.000 --> 04:16.000]  Just about every one of them he had done
[04:16.000 --> 04:20.000]  Whatever these guys were getting disciplined for
[04:20.000 --> 04:23.000]  He skated by and didn't get reported
[04:23.000 --> 04:25.000]  Yeah, he'd done all of it
[04:25.000 --> 04:31.000]  I imagine a lot of lawyers could say that if they've been around long enough
[04:32.000 --> 04:42.000]  So I have been addressing this issue with him about magistrates
[04:42.000 --> 04:48.000]  And he understood it, he got it
[04:48.000 --> 04:53.000]  But he wasn't, he didn't think it was important enough to take on
[04:54.000 --> 05:00.000]  And I talked to him a while back about trying out my questionnaire for people who've been arrested
[05:00.000 --> 05:02.000]  And he's up for that
[05:02.000 --> 05:05.000]  I don't have it quite ready yet
[05:05.000 --> 05:18.000]  But I talked to him yesterday about examining trials and asked him if he would be willing to meet with the magistrates in the county
[05:19.000 --> 05:31.000]  About having the police, when they arrest someone, get on their phone and call the magistrate and get permission from the magistrate to take the person to jail
[05:31.000 --> 05:36.000]  Well, as long as they do it according to the way that they've got this
[05:36.000 --> 05:45.000]  You can do it by video conference or even by phone as long as the person, it's not just the cop on the phone, it's the accused as well
[05:45.000 --> 05:47.000]  Before the magistrate on the phone is okay
[05:47.000 --> 05:55.000]  Yeah, and the point I made to him was, is people feel like they're not being heard
[05:55.000 --> 06:03.000]  So according to Chapter 16, that is the first thing that has to happen after they've been read the rights
[06:03.000 --> 06:11.000]  They have to be told, before any evidence is entered against them, they have an opportunity to make a statement
[06:11.000 --> 06:12.000]  Exactly
[06:12.000 --> 06:24.000]  And I also want him to videotape his courtroom hearings because he said that right now what he does, he advises people that they can make a statement
[06:24.000 --> 06:34.000]  But that they need to be careful because they more than anybody knows all the facts of the case
[06:35.000 --> 06:42.000]  And he warns them, you probably know facts that the prosecutor doesn't
[06:42.000 --> 06:54.000]  So before you give a statement, you might want to consider that you could reveal the fact that the prosecutor doesn't know and then he can use against you
[06:55.000 --> 07:04.000]  This guy is really, he seems to really care about people of what he's doing
[07:04.000 --> 07:12.000]  And I would very much like to get him some videos of his court hearings and put them on the web
[07:13.000 --> 07:24.000]  I want people to see that there are judges out there who are professional and treat people with dignity and respect
[07:24.000 --> 07:35.000]  But for this purpose, I wanted him to talk to the JPs and we put together an experiment
[07:36.000 --> 07:50.000]  Now the other issue is to get the sheriff to have his deputies call the JPs before they take someone to jail
[07:50.000 --> 08:04.000]  Now I think we can do that. We've got a new sheriff coming in and as soon as he gets in, I'll go talk to him and explain what I've got to him
[08:04.000 --> 08:14.000]  Now his new chief deputy may be problematic and he may not because I beat him up pretty good
[08:14.000 --> 08:26.000]  He is now the chief of police for this city of Rome with whom I've had a couple of tickets and a pretty good fight
[08:27.000 --> 08:37.000]  The last time I was there, I went into court with a friend of mine and they had the judge
[08:37.000 --> 08:44.000]  I thought it was a prosecutor, but it turned out to be the judge is talking to this, they call this person, I was talking to him
[08:44.000 --> 08:53.000]  The previous judge had retired and I guess they didn't have a prosecutor because the judge was doing these hearings
[08:53.000 --> 09:02.000]  And when they finished one of them, I went up to the clerk and said, I'm going to want a copy of the recording of this hearing
[09:02.000 --> 09:08.000]  And she said, we're not recording this hearing. What? What?
[09:08.000 --> 09:19.000]  Yeah, this is a court of record. You have to be recording the hearings and the judge said, well, this is just a show cause hearing
[09:19.000 --> 09:30.000]  Say what? This is a traffic ticket. You don't hold a show cause hearing for a traffic ticket
[09:30.000 --> 09:38.000]  What's going on here? Even if it is a show cause hearing, doesn't matter what it is, this is a court of record
[09:38.000 --> 09:43.000]  And then the chief of police come up and said, you need to go sit down
[09:43.000 --> 09:49.000]  You need to get out of my face, go over there, if I need you, I'll summon you
[09:49.000 --> 09:51.000]  Well, he did not take that well
[09:51.000 --> 09:54.000]  Yeah, they don't tend to like that very much
[09:54.000 --> 09:58.000]  He got a little feisty and I went over to the bailiff
[09:58.000 --> 10:04.000]  And I knew him, his name is Garrett, same as my son-in-law, the bailiff
[10:04.000 --> 10:09.000]  I said, Officer Garrett, are you the bailiff today? And he said, yes I am
[10:09.000 --> 10:15.000]  So, are you going to arrest the chief or do I need to call 911?
[10:15.000 --> 10:22.000]  And he said, well, Mr. Kelton, this is disrupting the hearing, can we step outside and talk about this?
[10:22.000 --> 10:24.000]  And I said, sure
[10:24.000 --> 10:31.000]  So we stepped outside and this guy handled me like a pro
[10:31.000 --> 10:35.000]  And I'd like to be handled like a pro
[10:35.000 --> 10:46.000]  He was professional, he was courteous, and he said, can we handle this later or somewhere else so we don't disrupt the court proceedings?
[10:46.000 --> 10:53.000]  I don't remember what all the conversation was, but he was very professional with me
[10:53.000 --> 10:57.000]  And so I agreed not to start a big fight with him
[10:57.000 --> 11:03.000]  And he said, this is a brand new judge, this is her first day here, and she's trying to get things sorted out
[11:03.000 --> 11:08.000]  And gave me good arguments not to annoy him too much
[11:08.000 --> 11:11.000]  So I didn't
[11:11.000 --> 11:17.000]  But the chief is in line for more criminal charges from me
[11:17.000 --> 11:26.000]  The time before that, I was at a city council meeting and I filed criminal charges against the chief of police
[11:26.000 --> 11:38.000]  And against their municipal judge who subsequently resigned or retired
[11:38.000 --> 11:48.000]  So I got my three minutes and gave criminal complaints to the mayor and ordered him to do what 1509 commanded him to do
[11:48.000 --> 11:51.000]  And as far as I know, he didn't do that
[11:51.000 --> 12:01.000]  So now I'll sue him in the same JP court that I sued the municipal judge in
[12:01.000 --> 12:05.000]  We'll see how this works out for him
[12:05.000 --> 12:15.000]  So the chief of police, as you might guess, is not very likely to send me a Christmas card
[12:15.000 --> 12:20.000]  And when the new sheriff takes over, he'll be the chief deputy
[12:20.000 --> 12:25.000]  So either he will not want to get in a fight with me
[12:25.000 --> 12:34.000]  And look at this proposal, I think if I have the county judge on board
[12:34.000 --> 12:41.000]  That he won't have much options, he certainly won't have a legal argument
[12:41.000 --> 12:51.000]  And if they don't do what I'm asking them to, then I will go after them criminally for every arrest they make
[12:51.000 --> 12:57.000]  But I don't want to tell them that beforehand because they'll take it as a threat
[12:57.000 --> 13:09.000]  So what I did instead was told it to one of the constables who, when this new guy takes over, is going to go to work for the sheriff's department
[13:09.000 --> 13:11.000]  So he will tell them
[13:11.000 --> 13:13.000]  Oh, nice
[13:13.000 --> 13:20.000]  A way to give them warning in a way without them being able to call it a threat
[13:20.000 --> 13:27.000]  Yeah, yeah, and this guy holds me in pretty high regard
[13:27.000 --> 13:35.000]  So he is likely to tell them, you know, this guy, you don't want to mess with this guy, he could be a real problem
[13:35.000 --> 13:41.000]  So it might be better if you look at what he's doing, especially if I got the judge on board
[13:41.000 --> 13:45.000]  The district judge doesn't like me, but he didn't want to screw with me either
[13:45.000 --> 13:51.000]  So I may have a place where we can get a county to give us a demonstration of how it should be done
[13:51.000 --> 13:56.000]  Hang on, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Wheel's Law Radio, I'm going to turn the phone lines on
[13:56.000 --> 13:59.000]  Calling number 512-646-99
[14:05.000 --> 14:08.000]  Debt collectors now with the Michael Mears Proven Method
[14:08.000 --> 14:14.000]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win two
[14:14.000 --> 14:20.000]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English 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 --> 14:33.000]  How to turn the financial tables on them 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 --> 14:46.000]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com 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 --> 14:57.000]  Or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com
[14:57.000 --> 15:00.000]  To learn how to stop debt collectors now
[15:00.000 --> 15:05.000]  Are you looking to have a closer relationship with God and a better understanding of His Word?
[15:05.000 --> 15:11.000]  Then tune in to LogosRadioNetwork.com on Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. Central Time for Scripture Talk
[15:11.000 --> 15:16.000]  Where Nana and her guests discuss the Scriptures in accord with 2 Timothy 2.15
[15:16.000 --> 15:23.000]  Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth
[15:23.000 --> 15:27.000]  Starting in January, our first hour studies are in the Book of Mark
[15:27.000 --> 15:31.000]  Where we'll go verse by verse and discuss the true Gospel message
[15:31.000 --> 15:38.000]  Our second hour topical studies will vary each week with discussions on sound doctrine and Christian character development
[15:38.000 --> 15:43.000]  We wish to reflect God's light and be a blessing to all those with a hearing ear
[15:43.000 --> 15:49.000]  Our goal is to strengthen our faith and to transform ourselves more into the likeness of our Lord and Savior Jesus
[15:49.000 --> 15:53.000]  So tune in to Scripture Talk live on LogosRadioNetwork.com
[15:53.000 --> 15:59.000]  Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. to inspire and motivate your studies of the Scriptures
[16:23.000 --> 16:27.000]  Who reacts? The Christian
[16:27.000 --> 16:29.000]  Wonder what they're hiding
[16:29.000 --> 16:31.000]  They don't have the answer
[16:31.000 --> 16:33.000]  Open up eyes
[16:33.000 --> 16:37.000]  Who reacts? The Christian
[16:37.000 --> 16:39.000]  Look what we get
[16:39.000 --> 16:41.000]  And they don't have the answer
[16:41.000 --> 16:43.000]  I'm sloping, slipping, sliding
[16:43.000 --> 16:45.000]  I'm a-tango, three-shoes-pussy
[16:45.000 --> 16:47.000]  Lord, how they want me to think
[16:47.000 --> 16:49.000]  Okay, how's that?
[16:49.000 --> 16:51.000]  Tune in to the Mic Randy
[16:51.000 --> 16:53.000]  Okay, is that better? Testing one, two, three
[16:55.000 --> 16:57.000]  We are live
[16:59.000 --> 17:01.000]  Oh, we're live
[17:01.000 --> 17:03.000]  Are we live, Brett?
[17:05.000 --> 17:07.000]  Yes, we are
[17:07.000 --> 17:09.000]  We have a couple of callers on the board already
[17:09.000 --> 17:11.000]  Okay
[17:11.000 --> 17:13.000]  I'm alive, I'm alive
[17:13.000 --> 17:15.000]  Okay
[17:15.000 --> 17:17.000]  So that's where we're at
[17:17.000 --> 17:25.000]  And while I'm doing this, Brett is taking on the guys in Austin
[17:25.000 --> 17:33.000]  Who are putting together the training program for JPs
[17:33.000 --> 17:37.000]  And he is kicking their butts
[17:37.000 --> 17:41.000]  So we may be in a position to where
[17:41.000 --> 17:47.000]  For me, this will be a 40-year odyssey
[17:47.000 --> 17:49.000]  Something I've been working on for 40 years
[17:49.000 --> 17:53.000]  We may actually get it done here very shortly
[17:53.000 --> 17:55.000]  Yahoo! Okay
[17:55.000 --> 17:57.000]  We have Alex in California
[17:57.000 --> 18:01.000]  Hello Alex, what do you have for us today?
[18:01.000 --> 18:05.000]  I have one initial question
[18:05.000 --> 18:07.000]  And then a follow-up question
[18:07.000 --> 18:09.000]  The initial question is
[18:09.000 --> 18:15.000]  Well, first of all, we all know that all the judges are swearing their oath
[18:15.000 --> 18:23.000]  To support the Constitution and the laws of the states or the US
[18:23.000 --> 18:25.000]  Yes
[18:25.000 --> 18:27.000]  Because that is a fact
[18:27.000 --> 18:33.000]  That should be their highest allegiance, right?
[18:33.000 --> 18:41.000]  But what they do is they go and try to find all these case laws and doctrines
[18:41.000 --> 18:45.000]  And try to rule on them
[18:45.000 --> 18:55.000]  So I wonder, is there anything, any authority, anything that tells them
[18:55.000 --> 19:01.000]  You have to look to the case law first and only then to the Constitution
[19:01.000 --> 19:05.000]  Even though they swore to uphold the Constitution
[19:05.000 --> 19:09.000]  So is there anything that requires them to do otherwise?
[19:09.000 --> 19:15.000]  Like the district court judges, the lower courts, federal district judges
[19:15.000 --> 19:19.000]  Well, keep in mind that they don't see the discrepancy
[19:19.000 --> 19:21.000]  What, Randy?
[19:21.000 --> 19:25.000]  I was going to ask, have you ever looked at the case law
[19:25.000 --> 19:31.000]  That would tell them that the Constitution stands in front of court decisions?
[19:31.000 --> 19:37.000]  Marbury versus Madison, 1803
[19:37.000 --> 19:45.000]  The problem with Marbury, it is, on the one hand, it's way too old
[19:45.000 --> 19:53.000]  You need to look at some later case law that references Marbury v. Madison
[19:53.000 --> 19:57.000]  That addresses the specific issue
[19:57.000 --> 20:01.000]  Let me have a look
[20:01.000 --> 20:07.000]  Well, where I go with that, Alex, is
[20:07.000 --> 20:13.000]  Well, first off, I was going to say they don't really recognize that there is a discrepancy
[20:13.000 --> 20:19.000]  They don't see it as looking at case law instead of the Constitution
[20:19.000 --> 20:25.000]  They tend to see it as, oh my goodness, we have no idea what the Constitution means
[20:25.000 --> 20:29.000]  We have to go look and see what some other judges said it means
[20:29.000 --> 20:35.000]  And so my response to that is, or my approach to that is
[20:35.000 --> 20:43.000]  No, you can't go and look for a definition or a treatment or a way to construe this
[20:43.000 --> 20:45.000]  Because it's already clear language
[20:45.000 --> 20:49.000]  The language is clear, so you don't go and try to figure it out by other people's opinions
[20:49.000 --> 20:53.000]  You only do that if it's unclear
[20:53.000 --> 20:55.000]  Yeah
[20:55.000 --> 21:03.000]  Right, I mean, my thinking, the logic is kind of really easy to see
[21:03.000 --> 21:05.000]  First of all, they swear their oath to it
[21:05.000 --> 21:09.000]  They're not swearing their oath to doctrines or case law
[21:09.000 --> 21:11.000]  They're swearing their oath to Constitution
[21:11.000 --> 21:17.000]  Number one and number two is it's the supreme law of the land
[21:17.000 --> 21:19.000]  So how can they put doctrines above it?
[21:19.000 --> 21:25.000]  But I'm trying to find any authority that I could include in my argumentation
[21:25.000 --> 21:29.000]  And the only thing, I mean, I will include the logic here
[21:29.000 --> 21:33.000]  I mean, it's kind of on its face logical
[21:33.000 --> 21:37.000]  But it feels like when I'm reading all these case laws
[21:37.000 --> 21:41.000]  That they're always looking up to what the SCOTUS said
[21:41.000 --> 21:45.000]  And always on binding or persuasive case law
[21:45.000 --> 21:51.000]  And all the doctrines and all the stuff that the SCOTUS made up
[21:51.000 --> 21:55.000]  And I wonder if that's actually could be deemed as legislating
[21:55.000 --> 21:59.000]  Because of the SCOTUS
[21:59.000 --> 22:03.000]  Let's speak to Harmon Taylor
[22:03.000 --> 22:05.000]  Harmon Taylor came on
[22:05.000 --> 22:11.000]  And he is saying that the Constitution doesn't apply
[22:11.000 --> 22:19.000]  The only thing that applies in the court are court rulings relating to the Constitution
[22:19.000 --> 22:23.000]  So I raise an opposition to that
[22:23.000 --> 22:27.000]  He said everything is by contract and I said yeah it is
[22:27.000 --> 22:34.000]  And I'm claiming that the Constitution is brought into the courts
[22:34.000 --> 22:38.000]  By their oath of office
[22:38.000 --> 22:41.000]  That is the contract
[22:41.000 --> 22:49.000]  And that contract incorporates all of the canons of the Constitution
[22:49.000 --> 22:56.000]  As covenants in the contract
[22:56.000 --> 23:02.000]  With the state that they agreed that they swore to when they swore their oath
[23:02.000 --> 23:09.000]  I ran that past Harmon and he kind of stuttered with that one
[23:09.000 --> 23:14.000]  But then did agree that yeah that's the case
[23:14.000 --> 23:20.000]  So this argument of does the Constitution apply or not in the courts
[23:20.000 --> 23:23.000]  Yeah absolutely it does
[23:23.000 --> 23:27.000]  Now the courts may want to do what they want to do
[23:27.000 --> 23:31.000]  But it's up to us to bring them back
[23:31.000 --> 23:37.000]  And there was a question I had in what you were speaking to
[23:37.000 --> 23:46.000]  The courts going out and finding their own case law
[23:46.000 --> 23:49.000]  I have seen case law and I don't remember where it's at
[23:49.000 --> 23:54.000]  Addressing the duty of the court
[23:54.000 --> 24:00.000]  It is the duty of the court to determine the facts in accordance with the rules of evidence
[24:00.000 --> 24:06.000]  Then apply the law as it comes to him or her to the facts in the case
[24:06.000 --> 24:14.000]  That it was not the place of the judge and it was frowned upon for the judge to do his own legal research
[24:14.000 --> 24:22.000]  That it is the duty of the parties to bring the facts and the law and put them on the record
[24:22.000 --> 24:28.000]  If the judge goes out and finds his own law
[24:28.000 --> 24:34.000]  Then he's acting as a arbiter
[24:34.000 --> 24:40.000]  And there's no one to object to the facts and law he brings into the case
[24:40.000 --> 24:45.000]  He's choosing a side and litigating on one of their behalf
[24:46.000 --> 24:50.000]  Exactly, so if you want facts and law before the case
[24:50.000 --> 24:55.000]  You as the litigant has to bring it, not the judge
[24:55.000 --> 25:02.000]  And when you were speaking you were presupposing that the judge could just go out and do this
[25:02.000 --> 25:06.000]  And I wanted to say whoa, no he can't
[25:06.000 --> 25:13.000]  If he does that then that needs to get an immediate objection and motion to disqualify the judge
[25:13.000 --> 25:18.000]  Yeah, however sometimes it's not the judge that's bringing this and making the presumption
[25:18.000 --> 25:22.000]  Sometimes it's the opposing counsel, right?
[25:22.000 --> 25:29.000]  Alex, I would say the one who asserts is the one who has the burden of proof
[25:29.000 --> 25:39.000]  You don't have to prove that the Constitution takes precedent over some other thing
[25:40.000 --> 25:49.000]  Whether it's their case law or whether it's their hearty boy's code that they wrote down in the back room
[25:49.000 --> 25:53.000]  That they really like, it doesn't matter what they like
[25:53.000 --> 25:59.000]  If they want to assert that such and such has importance in your case
[25:59.000 --> 26:06.000]  And not only has some importance but actually overrides Constitution
[26:06.000 --> 26:11.000]  The clear language, they need to support that by something
[26:11.000 --> 26:16.000]  They can't just throw it out there and go along with their, well this is the way we do things
[26:16.000 --> 26:22.000]  No, I don't care what rules and clubs you have, it doesn't matter what associations you're part of, it doesn't matter
[26:22.000 --> 26:27.000]  Because we're doing, this is a different kind of thing here
[26:27.000 --> 26:33.000]  We've got Constitution and you want to talk about something else that's going to be more than that, well then prove it up
[26:34.000 --> 26:45.000]  Did I understand correctly that Harmon said that it is not the Constitution that counts in the courtroom or it is?
[26:45.000 --> 26:47.000]  Did I misunderstand that?
[26:47.000 --> 26:50.000]  No, you didn't misunderstand, you were correct
[26:50.000 --> 26:55.000]  That is what he said, that the Constitution doesn't matter and it throws us all for a loop when he does that
[26:55.000 --> 26:57.000]  And Randy says he gives us all a headache
[26:57.000 --> 26:59.000]  Well, we're going to go to our sponsor
[27:00.000 --> 27:05.000]  Businesses ask you for a lot of personal information and you may trust them to keep it safe
[27:05.000 --> 27:10.000]  But it turns out that even the most trusted companies may be unwittingly revealing your secrets
[27:10.000 --> 27:13.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be right back with details
[27:29.000 --> 27:37.000]  Data privacy is a big deal, so nearly every company has a policy explaining how they handle your personal information
[27:37.000 --> 27:40.000]  But what happens if it escapes their control?
[27:40.000 --> 27:48.000]  It's not an idle question, according to a recent survey, a shocking 90% of U.S. companies use data privacy
[27:48.000 --> 27:51.000]  But what happens if it escapes their control?
[27:51.000 --> 27:53.000]  What happens if it escapes their control?
[27:53.000 --> 28:03.000]  It's not an idle question, according to a recent survey, a shocking 90% of U.S. 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
[28:50.000 --> 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 buildingwatt.org
[28:57.000 --> 29:00.000]  Why it fell, why it matters, and what you can do
[29:20.000 --> 29:26.000]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today
[29:26.000 --> 29:31.000]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law vs. The Lie
[29:31.000 --> 29:36.000]  Video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents, and other useful resource materials
[29:36.000 --> 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 --> 29:44.000]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law vs. The Lie
[29:44.000 --> 29:50.000]  Video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents, and other useful resource materials
[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
[30:14.000 --> 30:19.000]  Officer, you're taking the law in the hand
[30:19.000 --> 30:23.000]  Won't you follow the law of the land
[30:23.000 --> 30:26.000]  I don't understand
[30:26.000 --> 30:29.000]  Your job is to protect and preserve
[30:29.000 --> 30:31.000]  Not beat and abuse
[30:31.000 --> 30:34.000]  Officer
[30:34.000 --> 30:37.000]  When you're gonna stop abuse
[30:37.000 --> 30:40.000]  Your power
[30:40.000 --> 30:43.000]  When you're gonna stop abuse
[30:43.000 --> 30:45.000]  Your power
[30:45.000 --> 30:47.000]  When you're gonna stop abuse
[30:47.000 --> 30:49.000]  Your power
[30:49.000 --> 30:54.000]  Alright, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio, Randy Kelton, I'm Brett Fountain
[30:54.000 --> 30:57.000]  And we're talking with Alex in California
[30:57.000 --> 31:08.000]  And Alex, as we were going out we were talking about the Constitution and does it apply in our courts
[31:08.000 --> 31:27.000]  And the presumption that they have, that they're acting on, they're acting on a presumption that case law is how we define actions
[31:27.000 --> 31:34.000]  Or how we define what happens, the whole process, all the parts of it is we're gonna go by case law
[31:34.000 --> 31:46.000]  Right, but that presumption hasn't been supported by any kind of, it has no legal support
[31:46.000 --> 31:55.000]  For them to be able to just set the Constitution aside and say we're gonna act this way instead
[31:55.000 --> 32:03.000]  Does that make sense? I'm thinking in terms of he who asserts has the burden of proof because
[32:03.000 --> 32:10.000]  That's the only way that makes sense, you shouldn't have to come in here after they swore to uphold the Constitution
[32:10.000 --> 32:19.000]  You shouldn't have to come in here and find some case law that says that case law is inferior to something else
[32:19.000 --> 32:21.000]  Right?
[32:21.000 --> 32:28.000]  Yeah, this makes, I mean to me the Constitution applies first of all because it's supreme
[32:28.000 --> 32:33.000]  Second of all because that's the only thing that gives governmental actors their power
[32:33.000 --> 32:36.000]  And third because they swear their oath to it
[32:36.000 --> 32:45.000]  And so for me I was just looking for anything that requires them, any doctrine that actually requires them
[32:45.000 --> 32:52.000]  To look to the circuit rulings or the SCOTUS rulings when they assess a case
[32:52.000 --> 33:04.000]  And I'm trying to rebut their arguments and what I'm actually trying to do is I want to put this following question before the court
[33:04.000 --> 33:12.000]  And the question is show me where the article, the section and the clause in the federal Constitution
[33:12.000 --> 33:28.000]  Where the people gave you the power to immunize yourself from violating the rights that the people gave you the power to protect
[33:28.000 --> 33:30.000]  To be violated
[33:30.000 --> 33:32.000]  Show me that section
[33:32.000 --> 33:36.000]  So that sounds to me like a declaratory judgment suit
[33:36.000 --> 33:40.000]  You'll have to work on the wording of that so it doesn't sound objectionable to them
[33:40.000 --> 33:43.000]  What makes you think you can be immune? You can commit all these crimes
[33:43.000 --> 33:48.000]  You'll have to work on the wording so that it is really tight and succinct
[33:48.000 --> 33:51.000]  But that would be a declaratory judgment suit
[33:51.000 --> 33:55.000]  You put the question in front of them and it's specifically that kind of suit
[33:55.000 --> 33:57.000]  You're not making a claim
[33:57.000 --> 34:02.000]  You're not saying this defendant over here harmed me in this way
[34:02.000 --> 34:06.000]  And so you don't have those essential elements or a cause of action like that
[34:06.000 --> 34:19.000]  You specifically have the right to put this question in front of the courts because you have some uncertainty as to your rights or your status
[34:19.000 --> 34:26.000]  And so that's what is the foundation for this declaratory judgment suit
[34:26.000 --> 34:34.000]  The thing is I already have my, if you guys remember, I have a suit in federal courts
[34:34.000 --> 34:43.000]  And there are judges named as a defendant and I have to overcome the stupid immunity doctrine that the SCOTUS established
[34:43.000 --> 34:51.000]  And I want to make sure that this question gets put before the court and that they have to answer it
[34:51.000 --> 34:57.000]  And so I don't, I guess, I mean, it would have to be within that suit
[34:57.000 --> 35:03.000]  So it wouldn't be a declaratory judgment suit as a sense alone
[35:03.000 --> 35:08.000]  How could I best incorporate that and not try to get at this?
[35:08.000 --> 35:13.000]  Why not? Why would it not be its own suit?
[35:14.000 --> 35:22.000]  Oh, you mean should I, would it be better to file another suit just like a parallel just for that?
[35:22.000 --> 35:26.000]  That's what would make sense to me. I'm not saying for you it would be better
[35:26.000 --> 35:29.000]  I don't know really the details of what you've got going on
[35:29.000 --> 35:38.000]  But it sounds like that's what would seem simple to me is to put another suit out there that's just that question
[35:38.000 --> 35:46.000]  Tight, simple, clean, no way to escape, no way to misconstrue
[35:46.000 --> 35:51.000]  And it's atomic, it's all by itself, it's got its own beginning and ending
[35:51.000 --> 35:59.000]  And then you can use that if you get a ruling that says, no, we're not allowed to go violate the Constitution
[35:59.000 --> 36:07.000]  And just, you know, whatever, if you get something like that, then you can use that in your ongoing case
[36:07.000 --> 36:12.000]  Res judicata on that particular issue
[36:12.000 --> 36:17.000]  Why res judicata? How would that be, res judicata?
[36:17.000 --> 36:21.000]  It just means that that part has already been decided
[36:21.000 --> 36:36.000]  If you get a ruling on, you do a petition for declaratory judgment and ask the court to declare how the law applies to this set of facts
[36:37.000 --> 36:56.000]  And once you've got that ruling, now you can take that ruling into court and say, in this fact set, I was harmed because they failed to apply this ruling to this set of facts
[36:56.000 --> 37:02.000]  Ruling is made separate, so it's res judicata, it's already been determined
[37:02.000 --> 37:16.000]  If you go to the court and say, I was arrested and taken to jail and prosecuted and the jury found me not guilty
[37:16.000 --> 37:24.000]  Supreme has ruled that in that case, your imprisonment was false imprisonment and you have standing to sue
[37:24.000 --> 37:34.000]  So you go, you do a declaratory judgment suit. In this particular case I have here, I was arrested and charged with this crime and held in jail for this amount of days
[37:34.000 --> 37:41.000]  And then the court found the trial and at that trial I was found not guilty
[37:41.000 --> 37:51.000]  And moved the court to rule that your imprisonment was false
[37:51.000 --> 37:58.000]  By law, that's the case law that says absolutely it was, get the court to rule that
[37:58.000 --> 38:02.000]  Now you go back to the civil court and sue for damages
[38:02.000 --> 38:08.000]  The question of whether or not your imprisonment was false has already been answered
[38:08.000 --> 38:11.000]  That's res judicata
[38:11.000 --> 38:19.000]  Can't ask for damages in a declaratory judgment suit, so that makes it more clean
[38:19.000 --> 38:28.000]  They can't claim immunity in a declaratory judgment suit because there's nothing for them to be immune from
[38:28.000 --> 38:41.000]  I had a federal judge McBride dismiss my declaratory judgment suit with prejudice because I failed to state a claim on which recovery can be had
[38:41.000 --> 38:49.000]  I went straight to the special agent charge of the FBI in Dallas and filed criminal charges against him
[38:49.000 --> 38:55.000]  I had three other people file that exact same suit and he didn't dismiss any of those
[38:55.000 --> 39:06.000]  He got a call from the FBI agent wanting to know why this guy was trying to get to arrest the judge, got the judge's attention
[39:06.000 --> 39:11.000]  Declaratory judgment suits seem to be relatively
[39:11.000 --> 39:18.000]  This is an elegant way to use them
[39:18.000 --> 39:27.000]  Is it better to do that in the same federal court at the same time?
[39:27.000 --> 39:31.000]  No, the declaratory judgment first
[39:31.000 --> 39:39.000]  Because there are no claims against anybody, there's nobody for the judge to protect
[39:39.000 --> 39:47.000]  They all slither up behind this thin blue line where you're not making any claims against anybody
[39:47.000 --> 39:50.000]  You're asking them to rule on point of law
[39:50.000 --> 39:53.000]  Nobody has any immunity from this
[39:53.000 --> 40:00.000]  So Alex is noting that her federal case is already ongoing
[40:00.000 --> 40:10.000]  So if she were to take this declaratory judgment suit to the same judge, he's going to notice, oh, that's the same lady, it's the same fact set
[40:10.000 --> 40:14.000]  She's trying to get this one issue here
[40:14.000 --> 40:18.000]  So she's wondering, can I take it to somewhere else?
[40:18.000 --> 40:23.000]  You don't get to pick judges in a federal case
[40:23.000 --> 40:26.000]  You've already filed this suit
[40:26.000 --> 40:36.000]  So if you file another suit on the same fact set, they will join the two suits
[40:36.000 --> 40:45.000]  There might be a different venue if you mention one of the defendants in your declaratory judgment suit happens to live over the line into some other district
[40:45.000 --> 40:51.000]  That won't help because they will come in and say, this is already before the courts
[40:51.000 --> 40:57.000]  No, there would be a different cause of action before the courts already
[40:57.000 --> 40:59.000]  This would be brand new
[40:59.000 --> 41:02.000]  Do you have a business with five employees or more?
[41:02.000 --> 41:06.000]  How would you like to save hundreds of thousands of dollars in FICA taxes?
[41:06.000 --> 41:10.000]  Do you have a major medical plan that nobody can afford to be on?
[41:10.000 --> 41:17.000]  Or how would you like to save in premium costs on a current major medical plan by lowering the claims cost?
[41:17.000 --> 41:32.000]  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
[41:32.000 --> 41:38.000]  If you are an employee, you also will get a pay raise by paying less in FICA taxes
[41:38.000 --> 41:44.000]  As an employer, you will save hundreds of thousands of dollars in matching FICA taxes
[41:44.000 --> 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
[41:59.000 --> 42:02.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[42:03.000 --> 42:14.000]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step
[42:14.000 --> 42:18.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing
[42:18.000 --> 42:22.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself
[42:22.000 --> 42:27.000]  Thousands have won with our step by step course, and now you can too
[42:27.000 --> 42:33.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience
[42:33.000 --> 42:42.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts
[42:42.000 --> 42:51.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more
[42:51.000 --> 43:00.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ
[43:21.000 --> 43:49.000]  Okay, we are back. Indy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio
[43:49.000 --> 44:03.000]  And I was talking about this on the board. I'm not speaking here from well researched legal knowledge
[44:03.000 --> 44:12.000]  What I'm speaking to here is just as good a sense as I can come up with
[44:12.000 --> 44:19.000]  This is not something that can be considered as unique or first blush
[44:19.000 --> 44:28.000]  It has occurred in the courts over and over and over where you have a court hearing on a fact set
[44:28.000 --> 44:35.000]  And someone wants a special ruling on that fact set
[44:35.000 --> 44:47.000]  Courts are not going to let them go out and start another case and force the defendant to answer another case and force the court to relitigate a whole second case
[44:47.000 --> 44:52.000]  That fact sets already before the court in an action
[44:52.000 --> 44:56.000]  Consider yourself on the other side
[44:56.000 --> 45:00.000]  Someone sues you and you're the defendant
[45:00.000 --> 45:08.000]  And then partway through the suit, they want a ruling on a special issue so they go file another suit
[45:08.000 --> 45:18.000]  Are you going to answer that other suit, hire lawyers to handle that other suit and go through all the discovery and everything that's involved in the suit
[45:18.000 --> 45:21.000]  And the courts are going to say no, no, no, we're not going to do that
[45:21.000 --> 45:27.000]  Like you said, they might want to force a jointer so that it pushes the two together
[45:27.000 --> 45:37.000]  What they're most likely to do is say if you have another issue on the same fact set, you need to file that into the court that's already in place
[45:37.000 --> 45:43.000]  And instead of a petition for declaratory judgment
[45:43.000 --> 45:52.000]  When we brought that up, we were contemplating a case where get your declaratory judgment first
[45:52.000 --> 46:00.000]  Once you have your declaratory judgment, now you can, once that suit is closed, actions closed
[46:00.000 --> 46:07.000]  Now you can go back and say, okay, that ruling gave me this claim
[46:07.000 --> 46:12.000]  Now I can come in and make this claim, file a second suit
[46:12.000 --> 46:29.000]  If you're already in court, you can, instead of a petition for declaratory judgment, you can get the same effect by filing a motion for declaratory judgment
[46:29.000 --> 46:36.000]  Ask them to give you a ruling on point of law
[46:36.000 --> 46:43.000]  Would that be the same as a motion for judicial determination?
[46:43.000 --> 46:47.000]  Yes, it's exactly what it is
[46:47.000 --> 46:55.000]  Declaratory judgment, judicial determination, you're asking the court, you can file a separate petition for declaratory judgment
[46:55.000 --> 47:01.000]  Or you can file a declaratory judgment and a civil suit together
[47:01.000 --> 47:05.000]  So long as they're on the same fact set
[47:05.000 --> 47:13.000]  What Brett and I were saying was, strategically, file the declaratory judgment first
[47:13.000 --> 47:20.000]  Because then you end this whole lot of issues, you don't have to litigate, it's a whole lot cleaner
[47:20.000 --> 47:31.000]  And if you get a ruling against you, then had you did the whole suit, it would have cost you a whole lot more to get thrown out of court
[47:31.000 --> 47:40.000]  Declaratory judgment is simpler, and it's more strategic if you can get that declaratory judgment ruling first
[47:40.000 --> 47:47.000]  Because the judge is not trying to protect these other public officials or the other litigant
[47:47.000 --> 47:56.000]  It's not even considering their rights, 12b1, 12b6 don't apply here, don't even have to mess with that
[47:57.000 --> 48:06.000]  So it simplifies things up and it doesn't drag in its potential sympathy for opposing parties
[48:06.000 --> 48:12.000]  They'll probably know what you're doing, maybe
[48:12.000 --> 48:18.000]  But it is cleaner, and in speaking to that
[48:18.000 --> 48:27.000]  Remind me Brett, when I go after these guys next time, start with declaratory judgment
[48:33.000 --> 48:47.000]  So now the situation is that I put in my complaint, which I already admitted was defective because I didn't take enough time
[48:47.000 --> 48:57.000]  And then because I got the informal poppers granted, a judge has to evaluate the whole thing
[48:57.000 --> 49:07.000]  And the judge has issued his findings and recommendations to dismiss the complaint without the leave to amend
[49:07.000 --> 49:20.000]  So now I have to file my objections, and what is the best way to incorporate that question into my objections?
[49:20.000 --> 49:25.000]  Should I incorporate that as a...
[49:25.000 --> 49:29.000]  Wait a minute, what did his judgment say?
[49:29.000 --> 49:39.000]  He's recommending to dismiss the complaint without amend to a leave, and that is the magistrate
[49:39.000 --> 49:46.000]  That's the ruling, that's not the judgment. In the federal court you have a ruling and you have a judgment
[49:46.000 --> 49:51.000]  Judgment in effect is findings of fact and conclusions of law
[49:51.000 --> 49:57.000]  Did he address the facts and the law upon which he based his ruling?
[49:57.000 --> 50:07.000]  No, and it's not a ruling, so this is the magistrate judge evaluating, screening the case because it's an informal poppers case
[50:07.000 --> 50:19.000]  So it's not a ruling yet, but it will be a ruling when the trial judge accepts the recommendations of the magistrate
[50:19.000 --> 50:25.000]  You can file an opposition to the recommendations
[50:25.000 --> 50:33.000]  Yeah, so I have to file objections, and I have to properly object to everything, and the trial judge has to consider my objections
[50:33.000 --> 50:48.000]  Did the magistrate judge file a document explaining the law and the facts and the law to which he applied to those facts?
[50:48.000 --> 50:51.000]  No, just case law, that's all
[50:51.000 --> 51:00.000]  File a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law
[51:00.000 --> 51:11.000]  You don't know what to appeal because the judge did not give you the facts and law on which he based his ruling
[51:11.000 --> 51:19.000]  I think it's rule 53 or 58
[51:19.000 --> 51:26.000]  I think it's rule 53, they are required to give you a judgment
[51:26.000 --> 51:31.000]  It's not a final judgment
[51:32.000 --> 51:44.000]  It is a ruling, any ruling, you can ask when they make a determination, whatever it is, they got to tell you how they got there
[51:44.000 --> 51:52.000]  A judge has no discretion in properly applying the law to the facts
[51:53.000 --> 52:01.000]  The judge has to tell you what facts he relied on and what law he applied to those facts
[52:01.000 --> 52:05.000]  That's in the federal rules
[52:05.000 --> 52:13.000]  You have no way to appeal if you don't know what the judge ruled
[52:13.000 --> 52:18.000]  How can you appeal a ruling when you don't know what the ruling was?
[52:18.000 --> 52:30.000]  By not giving you findings of facts and conclusions of law, the magistrate judge is denying you your ability or right to appeal their decision
[52:30.000 --> 52:36.000]  You can't even oppose it because you don't know what he ruled
[52:36.000 --> 52:46.000]  So when you say appeal the decision, you mean to object to his right?
[52:46.000 --> 52:56.000]  So file an opposition to the ruling and request findings of facts and conclusions of law
[52:56.000 --> 53:01.000]  That's what you have to do first, request findings of facts and conclusions
[53:01.000 --> 53:06.000]  You can't do anything because you don't know what the judge ruled
[53:06.000 --> 53:12.000]  You know what the final determination was, but you don't know how he got there
[53:12.000 --> 53:18.000]  So how are you going to appeal what he ruled because you don't know what he ruled on?
[53:18.000 --> 53:22.000]  What facts? What law?
[53:22.000 --> 53:28.000]  What law did you apply to? What facts? How did you come to this decision?
[53:28.000 --> 53:36.000]  I think it's rule 53 of rules, federal rules of civil procedure that require them to do that
[53:36.000 --> 53:41.000]  So ask for it, that stops the clock
[53:41.000 --> 53:51.000]  They gave me a deadline to file objections, so I should do that
[53:51.000 --> 53:57.000]  First, what are you going to object to? Thin air?
[53:57.000 --> 54:02.000]  Yeah, I'm going to object to that he didn't provide any facts or a law
[54:02.000 --> 54:09.000]  That's the motion asking for findings of facts and conclusions of law, that's not your opposition
[54:09.000 --> 54:14.000]  You can't oppose the ruling because you don't know what the heck it is
[54:14.000 --> 54:17.000]  It's just too empty
[54:17.000 --> 54:25.000]  And then when he gives it to you, then you can look at it and raise an issue to it
[54:25.000 --> 54:30.000]  If he doesn't give you one, then you can request one from trial court
[54:30.000 --> 54:45.000]  If that don't give you one, then you file a petition for written mandamus asking the appellate court to order them to give it to you
[54:45.000 --> 54:58.000]  It's well established in federal law, they have to do that because it leaves a litigant with no grounds for appeal
[54:58.000 --> 55:07.000]  Because the only thing you can appeal is a judge's failure to properly apply the law to the facts
[55:07.000 --> 55:13.000]  You don't know what he applied to what, so that denies you your right to appeal
[55:13.000 --> 55:16.000]  Does that make sense?
[55:16.000 --> 55:23.000]  No, it totally makes sense, I'm just thinking strategically the best thing
[55:23.000 --> 55:32.000]  And then at the same time, could I then already put my motion in for a judicial determination on the question that I would present?
[55:32.000 --> 55:37.000]  No, you can't object to it, you don't know what he ruled
[55:37.000 --> 55:40.000]  First you got to get findings of facts and conclusions
[55:40.000 --> 55:49.000]  Hang on, Andy Kelvin, Brett Fountain, he was on the radio
[55:49.000 --> 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 --> 56:06.000]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the scripture
[56:06.000 --> 56:08.000]  Enter the recovery version
[56:08.000 --> 56:17.000]  First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more than 9000 explanatory footnotes
[56:17.000 --> 56:27.000]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, 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 --> 56:43.000]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102
[56:43.000 --> 56:46.000]  Or by ordering online at freestudybible.com
[56:46.000 --> 56:49.000]  That's freestudybible.com
[56:49.000 --> 56:59.000]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com
[56:59.000 --> 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 --> 57:16.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember one of your constitutional rights
[57:16.000 --> 57:18.000]  Privacy is under attack
[57:18.000 --> 57:21.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again
[57:21.000 --> 57:26.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too
[57:26.000 --> 57:31.000]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself
[57:31.000 --> 57:34.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to
[57:34.000 --> 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 --> 58:00.000]  That shocking image of a third party in my parents' bed reminds me what the Third Amendment was designed to prevent
[58:00.000 --> 58:06.000]  It protects us from being forced to share our homes with soldiers, 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 re-read the Third Amendment
[58:16.000 --> 58:21.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com
[58:31.000 --> 58:35.000]  The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of our Constitution
[58:35.000 --> 58:38.000]  They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect
[58:38.000 --> 58:40.000]  Our liberty depends on it
[58:40.000 --> 58:46.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember one of your constitutional rights
[58:46.000 --> 58:48.000]  Privacy is under attack
[58:48.000 --> 58:52.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again
[58:52.000 --> 58:56.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too
[58:56.000 --> 59:01.000]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself
[59:01.000 --> 59:04.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to
[59:04.000 --> 59:07.000]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com
[59:07.000 --> 59:11.000]  The private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing
[59:11.000 --> 59:14.000]  Start over with StartPage
[59:15.000 --> 59:21.000]  Imagine four eyes staring at you through binoculars, a magnifying glass, or a pair of x-ray goggles
[59:21.000 --> 59:27.000]  That imagery reminds me that the Fourth Amendment guarantees Americans freedom from unreasonable search and seizure
[59:27.000 --> 59:30.000]  Fourth Amendment? Four eyes staring at you? Get it?
[59:30.000 --> 59:34.000]  Unfortunately, the government is trampling our Fourth Amendment rights in the name of security
[59:34.000 --> 59:39.000]  Case in point, TSA airport scanners that peer under your clothing
[59:39.000 --> 59:46.000]  When government employees demand a peep at your privates without probable cause, I say it's time to sound the constitutional alarm bells
[59:46.000 --> 59:53.000]  Join me in asking our representatives to dust off the Bill of Rights and use their googly eyes to take a gander at the Fourth
[59:53.000 --> 59:58.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com
[01:00:46.000 --> 01:01:14.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Callum, Brett Fountain, Rue La Radio, and we're talking to Alex in California, and Alex, you're asking us to tell you something
[01:01:14.000 --> 01:01:25.000]  You apparently want to hear something, and we're not telling you what you want to hear, so you keep asking us to tell you the same thing again in a different way
[01:01:26.000 --> 01:01:29.000]  It's not going to change
[01:01:33.000 --> 01:01:36.000]  Oh, then I'm not understanding, I think
[01:01:36.000 --> 01:01:43.000]  Yeah, you clearly, because this seems really, really straightforward
[01:01:43.000 --> 01:01:58.000]  A judge has no discretion in properly applying the law to the facts, so how did this judge apply the law to the facts in your case?
[01:01:58.000 --> 01:02:04.000]  Maybe, could I give an example that might help you?
[01:02:04.000 --> 01:02:16.000]  If the judge were to simply rule against you, and didn't say anything about why, then how can you appeal that judgment?
[01:02:16.000 --> 01:02:38.000]  But if he were to say, I'm ruling against you because this law that the opposing party brought is on point, it's controlling, this particular law over here is perfect, and we're going with that
[01:02:38.000 --> 01:02:47.000]  Now you can go read that law, you can go see if it's on point, you can see if it's controlling or should only be advisory
[01:02:47.000 --> 01:02:54.000]  You can go look up that ruling and you can read it and say, oh, it actually doesn't say what he thought it said
[01:02:54.000 --> 01:02:59.000]  You can challenge it, you can point out what's wrong with it or why it's not on point
[01:02:59.000 --> 01:03:18.000]  See what I mean? If you don't have any reasons given, he didn't point to any fact and say, oh, well, you've never lived in America or whatever, he can point out some fact, and now you know what to challenge
[01:03:18.000 --> 01:03:25.000]  Here the judge ruled to dismiss with prejudice without leave to amend
[01:03:25.000 --> 01:03:39.000]  That means that he must rule that there is a problem with your pleading, which you cannot fix, no matter how you rewrite the pleading, you can't fix it
[01:03:39.000 --> 01:03:49.000]  If I sue you for parting your hair on the left and it's not against the law to part your hair on the left, there's no way I can fix that suit
[01:03:49.000 --> 01:03:53.000]  So they could dismiss with prejudice
[01:03:53.000 --> 01:04:07.000]  He has to tell you that. What did you claim such that there is no way you can adjust your pleading to have a viable claim before the court?
[01:04:07.000 --> 01:04:15.000]  So all he claimed was case law and doctrine. He did not support
[01:04:15.000 --> 01:04:23.000]  Stop, stop. Did he give you case law and doctrine that applied to facts?
[01:04:23.000 --> 01:04:32.000]  Not the same set of facts, maybe similar, but one of those is like this doctrine of absolute judicial
[01:04:32.000 --> 01:04:40.000]  Hold on, hold on, in his ruling to dismiss with prejudice
[01:04:40.000 --> 01:04:59.000]  Did he state a set of facts and a conclusion that they did not amount to a claim and that there was no way you could rewrite your suit based on these facts that you would have a claim?
[01:04:59.000 --> 01:05:03.000]  That's the only way he can get to dismiss with prejudice
[01:05:03.000 --> 01:05:13.000]  Yeah, so his findings and recommendations don't, they don't say with prejudice or without, but they do say that he thinks that I can't fix
[01:05:13.000 --> 01:05:20.000]  Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. I'm just about to get irritated here
[01:05:20.000 --> 01:05:28.000]  He filed findings and recommendations
[01:05:28.000 --> 01:05:35.000]  I've been asking you about findings this whole time and just now there's findings?
[01:05:35.000 --> 01:05:44.000]  No, I said that before. The magistrate judge issued his findings and recommendations that are going to be submitted to the district judge
[01:05:44.000 --> 01:05:54.000]  Did he state in his findings specifically what he found?
[01:05:54.000 --> 01:06:08.000]  Or did he just say dismiss without leave to amend? Was it just one sentence or did he state why he decided to dismiss without leave to amend?
[01:06:08.000 --> 01:06:11.000]  Yeah, so he brought up the
[01:06:11.000 --> 01:06:30.000]  Wait, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Be more specific. Yes, he did move, explain why he ruled to dismiss without leave to amend
[01:06:30.000 --> 01:06:38.000]  Well, why, the only thing he brought up was case law. He did not bring up
[01:06:38.000 --> 01:06:45.000]  That's what it's for. That's what you're supposed to do
[01:06:45.000 --> 01:06:51.000]  Now you go and look at those cases and you rip them to shreds
[01:06:51.000 --> 01:06:58.000]  You figure out why each one of them either was misquoted, is not on point, you figure out what's wrong with it
[01:06:58.000 --> 01:07:04.000]  Or maybe it wasn't even a public, maybe it wasn't even a published law
[01:07:04.000 --> 01:07:10.000]  Maybe he cited something from Westlaw or some private thing that's even be presidential
[01:07:10.000 --> 01:07:14.000]  Go rip it to shreds
[01:07:14.000 --> 01:07:18.000]  Tina, you there?
[01:07:18.000 --> 01:07:20.000]  Yes, I'm here
[01:07:20.000 --> 01:07:25.000]  Okay, Tina, I did something wrong there
[01:07:25.000 --> 01:07:28.000]  And I don't know what I did wrong
[01:07:28.000 --> 01:07:35.000]  Spent all of this time talking about requesting findings and fact and conclusions at law
[01:07:35.000 --> 01:07:39.000]  But she already had it
[01:07:39.000 --> 01:07:42.000]  How did I miss that?
[01:07:42.000 --> 01:07:49.000]  Well, sometimes you might not listen to what people are saying or they may be saying
[01:07:49.000 --> 01:07:54.000]  What? You're being churlish
[01:07:54.000 --> 01:07:56.000]  Now you sound like my wife
[01:07:56.000 --> 01:08:01.000]  Alex, tell her I listened
[01:08:01.000 --> 01:08:08.000]  Well, sorry, Andy, Alex was talking about something that is called findings and recommendations
[01:08:08.000 --> 01:08:16.000]  Which Alex felt like that it didn't have anything in there about the Constitution
[01:08:16.000 --> 01:08:20.000]  Or didn't have anything in there that was substantial enough to make sense to her
[01:08:20.000 --> 01:08:25.000]  So she's overlooking the case law and saying I want something real
[01:08:25.000 --> 01:08:27.000]  Maybe that's what's going on
[01:08:27.000 --> 01:08:30.000]  I did something wrong here
[01:08:30.000 --> 01:08:33.000]  I'm trying to figure out what I did wrong
[01:08:33.000 --> 01:08:41.000]  Just because you know so much, forget that we don't know and have as much knowledge as you do it
[01:08:41.000 --> 01:08:48.000]  And sometimes we need more than one to express what we're trying to say
[01:08:48.000 --> 01:08:53.000]  Because we're not as trusted
[01:08:53.000 --> 01:08:59.000]  Maybe let somebody explain and say I didn't get this part
[01:08:59.000 --> 01:09:03.000]  What do you mean?
[01:09:03.000 --> 01:09:08.000]  Tina, are you on a hands-free device?
[01:09:08.000 --> 01:09:12.000]  Hold on one second
[01:09:12.000 --> 01:09:14.000]  Oh my goodness
[01:09:14.000 --> 01:09:16.000]  I'm going to break him up a little bit
[01:09:16.000 --> 01:09:20.000]  Brett, we caught Tina on a hands-free device
[01:09:20.000 --> 01:09:24.000]  Oh, shamey, shamey
[01:09:24.000 --> 01:09:26.000]  She probably didn't know any better, you know
[01:09:26.000 --> 01:09:28.000]  She's on the line for the first time, call her
[01:09:28.000 --> 01:09:31.000]  That's right, you're right about that
[01:09:31.000 --> 01:09:39.000]  So we shouldn't ask her to beat herself around the eyes and the ears with her phone?
[01:09:39.000 --> 01:09:47.000]  Okay, I had trouble hearing you
[01:09:47.000 --> 01:09:52.000]  I'm the host
[01:09:52.000 --> 01:09:56.000]  It's my job to listen better
[01:09:56.000 --> 01:10:06.000]  I'm concerned here that I missed something really basic
[01:10:06.000 --> 01:10:10.000]  Don't you dare say I don't listen
[01:10:10.000 --> 01:10:14.000]  My feelings, poor me
[01:10:14.000 --> 01:10:20.000]  Sometimes you don't hear, you might listen, but you don't hear what we're trying to say
[01:10:20.000 --> 01:10:28.000]  Because we're not practiced at the law like you guys are
[01:10:28.000 --> 01:10:31.000]  Does that make sense?
[01:10:31.000 --> 01:10:33.000]  I apologize, Alex
[01:10:33.000 --> 01:10:35.000]  I missed something
[01:10:35.000 --> 01:10:40.000]  It was my fault that I somehow wasn't able to be clear enough
[01:10:40.000 --> 01:10:44.000]  I apologize to everybody else
[01:10:44.000 --> 01:10:49.000]  Okay, so Tina, you have findings of fact
[01:10:49.000 --> 01:11:00.000]  So now look at the findings and the law and say and argue how the judge failed to properly apply the law to the facts
[01:11:00.000 --> 01:11:07.000]  And argue how you could adjust your pleading so that you would have a claim
[01:11:07.000 --> 01:11:14.000]  He essentially dismissed your case on a 12b6
[01:11:14.000 --> 01:11:16.000]  This is a 12b6 dismissal
[01:11:16.000 --> 01:11:22.000]  He's saying that you failed to state a claim
[01:11:22.000 --> 01:11:26.000]  Yes, and I know how to rebut everything that he wrote
[01:11:26.000 --> 01:11:32.000]  Like I've looked in all the case law and I rebut everything, I think
[01:11:32.000 --> 01:11:35.000]  That case, that's all you have to do
[01:11:35.000 --> 01:11:39.000]  You file an opposition to the ruling
[01:11:39.000 --> 01:11:44.000]  Because he's given a recommendation to the trial judge
[01:11:44.000 --> 01:11:54.000]  So you file an opposition to his recommendation and urge the trial judge not to dismiss with prejudice
[01:11:54.000 --> 01:12:00.000]  But accept some of their criticisms as well founded
[01:12:00.000 --> 01:12:11.000]  And move the court to allow you to file an amended pleading to correct the errors pointed out by the magistrate judge
[01:12:11.000 --> 01:12:16.000]  This way you're not spitting in the magistrate judge's face
[01:12:16.000 --> 01:12:22.000]  You're just saying that he was a bit harsh
[01:12:22.000 --> 01:12:31.000]  And so with the initial question of putting this question in front of the court, the constitutional question
[01:12:31.000 --> 01:12:33.000]  Should I leave that for later?
[01:12:33.000 --> 01:12:39.000]  The one that says where in the constitution doesn't give you that right to immunize yourself
[01:12:39.000 --> 01:12:42.000]  Should I leave that for later?
[01:12:42.000 --> 01:12:44.000]  No, argue it here
[01:12:44.000 --> 01:12:48.000]  Okay, so should I do that separate in the motion?
[01:12:48.000 --> 01:12:55.000]  Did the judge rule that they had to render his ruling based on immunity?
[01:12:55.000 --> 01:13:01.000]  Then here's the place to argue it
[01:13:01.000 --> 01:13:08.000]  So then I would do objections in one file and motion for judicial determination in parallel
[01:13:08.000 --> 01:13:12.000]  No, here you have to file an opposition to his ruling
[01:13:12.000 --> 01:13:16.000]  This is not a place for a declaratory judgment
[01:13:16.000 --> 01:13:20.000]  That should be filed in a separate motion
[01:13:20.000 --> 01:13:28.000]  Well, I don't know Brett, I guess you could ask the judge to rule on this point of law
[01:13:28.000 --> 01:13:31.000]  It's a motion, you can ask him anything you want
[01:13:35.000 --> 01:13:42.000]  You're arguing that the magistrate improperly applied the immunity
[01:13:42.000 --> 01:13:48.000]  And tell the judge how it was improperly applied and ask him to apply it different
[01:13:48.000 --> 01:13:52.000]  Hang on, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, rule of law radio
[01:13:52.000 --> 01:13:57.000]  We've got three callers on so I won't give out the call-in number, we'll be right back
[01:14:12.000 --> 01:14:17.000]  Donna and her guests discussed the scriptures in accord with 2 Timothy 2.15
[01:14:17.000 --> 01:14:24.000]  Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needed not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth
[01:14:24.000 --> 01:14:28.000]  Starting in January, our first hour studies are in the Book of Mark
[01:14:28.000 --> 01:14:32.000]  Where we'll go verse by verse and discuss the true gospel message
[01:14:32.000 --> 01:14:39.000]  Our second hour topical studies will vary each week with discussions on sound doctrine and Christian character development
[01:14:39.000 --> 01:14:43.000]  We reflect God's light and be a blessing to all those with a hearing ear
[01:14:43.000 --> 01:14:49.000]  Our goal is to strengthen our faith and to transform ourselves more into the likeness of our Lord and Savior Jesus
[01:14:49.000 --> 01:14:55.000]  So tune in to scripture talk live on logosradio.com Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m.
[01:14:55.000 --> 01:14:59.000]  To inspire and motivate your studies of the scriptures
[01:14:59.000 --> 01:15:05.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters or even lawsuits?
[01:15:05.000 --> 01:15:08.000]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears Proven Method
[01:15:08.000 --> 01:15:14.000]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win two
[01:15:14.000 --> 01:15:20.000]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes
[01:15:20.000 --> 01:15:24.000]  What to do when contacted by phone, mail or court summons
[01:15:24.000 --> 01:15:26.000]  How to answer letters and phone calls
[01:15:26.000 --> 01:15:28.000]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit report
[01:15:28.000 --> 01:15:33.000]  How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away
[01:15:33.000 --> 01:15:38.000]  The Michael Mears Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors
[01:15:38.000 --> 01:15:40.000]  Personal consultation is available as well
[01:15:40.000 --> 01:15:46.000]  For more information please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner
[01:15:46.000 --> 01:15:49.000]  Or email michaelmears at yahoo.com
[01:15:49.000 --> 01:15:51.000]  That's ruleoflawradio.com
[01:15:51.000 --> 01:15:56.000]  Or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com
[01:15:56.000 --> 01:15:59.000]  To learn how to stop debt collectors now
[01:15:59.000 --> 01:16:06.000]  This is the Logos Logos Radio Network
[01:16:30.000 --> 01:16:35.000]  Ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick again
[01:16:35.000 --> 01:16:40.000]  I was blindsided but now I can see your plan
[01:16:40.000 --> 01:16:45.000]  You put the fear in my pockets, took the money from my hand
[01:16:45.000 --> 01:16:50.000]  Ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick again
[01:16:50.000 --> 01:16:54.000]  Ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick again
[01:16:54.000 --> 01:16:58.000]  Ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick again
[01:17:20.000 --> 01:17:25.000]  And we're gonna run out of time. If you have more questions for us, call us back tomorrow
[01:17:25.000 --> 01:17:28.000]  Will that work, Alex?
[01:17:28.000 --> 01:17:31.000]  Absolutely, absolutely, of course
[01:17:31.000 --> 01:17:33.000]  Thank you
[01:17:33.000 --> 01:17:37.000]  Okay, now we're gonna go to Tina
[01:17:37.000 --> 01:17:40.000]  Okay, Tina, where have you been?
[01:17:40.000 --> 01:17:44.000]  Oh, I've been listening in
[01:17:44.000 --> 01:17:47.000]  Everything going on
[01:17:47.000 --> 01:17:54.000]  I've had a huge amount of food donations that I've had to pick up for the homeless shelter and other pantries
[01:17:54.000 --> 01:17:59.000]  After Thanksgiving, I had 700 pies to pick up and find
[01:17:59.000 --> 01:18:06.000]  I've been working pretty much all day, every day
[01:18:06.000 --> 01:18:09.000]  Wow
[01:18:09.000 --> 01:18:12.000]  Yeah, your audio is breaking up a lot
[01:18:12.000 --> 01:18:18.000]  I can tell that you've been busy delivering hundreds of pies and all kinds of food after Thanksgiving
[01:18:18.000 --> 01:18:21.000]  Delivering to the homeless
[01:18:21.000 --> 01:18:25.000]  Wow, but your audio is something's breaking up over there
[01:18:25.000 --> 01:18:30.000]  Well, you know, these cell phones, they're great when they work and when they don't work
[01:18:30.000 --> 01:18:34.000]  And when they crackle, it's really bad and there's nothing you can do about it
[01:18:34.000 --> 01:18:37.000]  That is much better
[01:18:37.000 --> 01:18:41.000]  Whatever you did
[01:18:41.000 --> 01:18:43.000]  That's working well
[01:18:43.000 --> 01:18:46.000]  Yeah, so I'll just sit here and not move
[01:18:46.000 --> 01:18:52.000]  But I've got a couple of quick questions, both related to a bankruptcy
[01:18:52.000 --> 01:18:57.000]  One is where I have that one against the consignment store
[01:18:57.000 --> 01:19:01.000]  Where we got the judgment, then they filed a Chapter 13
[01:19:01.000 --> 01:19:04.000]  And I filed to get that denied
[01:19:04.000 --> 01:19:07.000]  The judge said no, they're trying their best
[01:19:07.000 --> 01:19:14.000]  And I filed an appeal on his judgment and put all kinds of good stuff in
[01:19:14.000 --> 01:19:19.000]  And then all of a sudden, after I did that, they didn't respond
[01:19:19.000 --> 01:19:25.000]  And they dismissed, voluntarily dismissed their Chapter 13
[01:19:25.000 --> 01:19:28.000]  Now this is very strange because they
[01:19:28.000 --> 01:19:31.000]  They didn't want to have to go through discovery?
[01:19:31.000 --> 01:19:33.000]  I don't know
[01:19:33.000 --> 01:19:39.000]  Well, it was interesting because in the papers, both the attorney and they in their declaration had said
[01:19:39.000 --> 01:19:45.000]  Well, we're really trying our hard and we want to ensure that everyone gets paid fairly
[01:19:45.000 --> 01:19:52.000]  And we were afraid that some creditors might be a little aggressive
[01:19:52.000 --> 01:19:58.000]  Basically meaning the four judgment creditors that got kicked out of a Chapter 7
[01:19:58.000 --> 01:20:00.000]  When I filed that adversary proceeding
[01:20:00.000 --> 01:20:06.000]  So I put in my appeal and said, well, it's really odd that they're saying this now
[01:20:06.000 --> 01:20:10.000]  When, in fact, if they were truthful, they tried to
[01:20:10.000 --> 01:20:16.000]  They filed a Chapter 7 to dismiss everyone's debt
[01:20:16.000 --> 01:20:21.000]  And now they're saying they're trying hard to pay everyone fairly
[01:20:21.000 --> 01:20:26.000]  If they really wanted to do that, they would never have filed a Chapter 7
[01:20:26.000 --> 01:20:31.000]  And gone through two attorneys and thousands and thousands of dollars
[01:20:31.000 --> 01:20:35.000]  They would have paid their creditors and filed a Chapter 13
[01:20:35.000 --> 01:20:43.000]  So whether that, and I also put in that they should never have been allowed to file a Chapter 13
[01:20:43.000 --> 01:20:47.000]  Within three days of getting a dismissal on their Chapter 7
[01:20:47.000 --> 01:20:55.000]  And she could not file because she is now a convicted felon for a financial embezzlement crime
[01:20:55.000 --> 01:21:01.000]  Whether their attorney said, I'm not going to work on this appeal unless you pay me $10,000
[01:21:01.000 --> 01:21:05.000]  Or whether he realized that I was going after him too
[01:21:05.000 --> 01:21:09.000]  For him aiding and abetting their fraud
[01:21:09.000 --> 01:21:14.000]  I don't know, but it's now at the Appellate Court
[01:21:14.000 --> 01:21:18.000]  And when they dismissed, I wrote to the Appellate Court and said
[01:21:18.000 --> 01:21:24.000]  I'm not sure if they're going to try to re-file or whatever
[01:21:24.000 --> 01:21:29.000]  I don't want to waste the Court's time with an appeal that is seemingly mute
[01:21:29.000 --> 01:21:31.000]  Because they have voluntarily dismissed
[01:21:31.000 --> 01:21:38.000]  But I would like the Court to file something, I forget how I worded it
[01:21:38.000 --> 01:21:44.000]  But to deny them filing a bankruptcy for seven years
[01:21:44.000 --> 01:21:47.000]  Because of abuse of the bankruptcy system
[01:21:47.000 --> 01:21:50.000]  They did not respond to that
[01:21:50.000 --> 01:21:56.000]  It's still sitting at the Court and this has been maybe six weeks
[01:21:56.000 --> 01:21:59.000]  Can I, and is it proper?
[01:21:59.000 --> 01:22:03.000]  Move for default judgment, not for default, move for summary judgment
[01:22:03.000 --> 01:22:09.000]  Summary judgment, okay, that's a difficult one to write though, isn't it?
[01:22:09.000 --> 01:22:16.000]  No, you raise these issues, there is no opposition to the issue
[01:22:16.000 --> 01:22:22.000]  If this was the original petition, you would move for default judgment
[01:22:22.000 --> 01:22:30.000]  But since it's not the original petition, it's a motion within the trial
[01:22:30.000 --> 01:22:36.000]  If you file a motion with a set of assertions and allegations
[01:22:36.000 --> 01:22:41.000]  And the opposing party fails to rebut those assertions and allegations
[01:22:41.000 --> 01:22:46.000]  Then the Court must take those assertions and allegations as true
[01:22:46.000 --> 01:22:51.000]  And if the assertions and allegations were true
[01:22:51.000 --> 01:22:57.000]  And that truth would amount to a claim against the other party
[01:22:57.000 --> 01:23:04.000]  Then you have a right to a summary judgment claim as an unopposed claim
[01:23:04.000 --> 01:23:08.000]  Okay, that would make sense
[01:23:08.000 --> 01:23:13.000]  Because I really just want them stopped from ever filing a bankruptcy for the next seven years
[01:23:13.000 --> 01:23:18.000]  Because their MO is just keep filing every few months, six months
[01:23:18.000 --> 01:23:22.000]  And somehow they get the money to file a bankruptcy and keep it going for a while
[01:23:22.000 --> 01:23:27.000]  And then it either gets dismissed or they dismiss it or I have to file an advisory proceeding
[01:23:27.000 --> 01:23:34.000]  And that's going to keep stopping collection efforts on the judgment
[01:23:34.000 --> 01:23:37.000]  Okay, so that should be simple enough
[01:23:37.000 --> 01:23:42.000]  If they don't respond, then you have a right to summary judgment
[01:23:42.000 --> 01:23:48.000]  In the court order, they said that they have until October the 30th to file a response
[01:23:48.000 --> 01:23:56.000]  And if they do not file, by then they lose their right to attend any hearing or do any oral argument
[01:23:56.000 --> 01:23:59.000]  But we haven't come to any oral argument yet either
[01:23:59.000 --> 01:24:04.000]  So they've just given up their chance
[01:24:04.000 --> 01:24:10.000]  The oral argument would have been in the form of if they don't respond
[01:24:10.000 --> 01:24:14.000]  They know they're going to get a summary judgment motion
[01:24:14.000 --> 01:24:22.000]  And they can't come and argue because they didn't raise their issues in a timely manner
[01:24:22.000 --> 01:24:26.000]  And as they voluntarily dismiss that Chapter 13
[01:24:26.000 --> 01:24:35.000]  Does that technically mean they are not represented by the bankruptcy attorney anymore?
[01:24:35.000 --> 01:24:37.000]  No
[01:24:37.000 --> 01:24:39.000]  No, so they could still be?
[01:24:39.000 --> 01:24:40.000]  Yes
[01:24:40.000 --> 01:24:42.000]  Except that they didn't have the money
[01:24:43.000 --> 01:24:52.000]  Well, if the bankruptcy attorney was only contracted for this Chapter 7
[01:24:52.000 --> 01:24:56.000]  Then I would suspect that would terminate his contract
[01:24:56.000 --> 01:24:59.000]  But we don't know what his contract was
[01:24:59.000 --> 01:25:04.000]  The only thing I've seen is he was hired to file that Chapter 13
[01:25:04.000 --> 01:25:08.000]  That's the only thing that I've seen on record
[01:25:08.000 --> 01:25:12.000]  Yeah, but she could have a contract with him that you don't see
[01:25:12.000 --> 01:25:14.000]  That would be a private contract
[01:25:14.000 --> 01:25:16.000]  And that wouldn't surprise me
[01:25:16.000 --> 01:25:20.000]  Well, I'll file for a summary judgment and see if I can get that done
[01:25:20.000 --> 01:25:26.000]  The second question is the different bankruptcy in a different state from a business perspective
[01:25:26.000 --> 01:25:33.000]  The person put me down as a creditor saying he owed me a certain amount of money
[01:25:34.000 --> 01:25:38.000]  Now after I filed an adversary proceeding again within that
[01:25:38.000 --> 01:25:45.000]  Because he was filing a Chapter 7 and he's under investigation by the FTC and all other people
[01:25:45.000 --> 01:25:49.000]  He's truly a bad guy
[01:25:49.000 --> 01:25:56.000]  But he has an attorney and the attorney said, well, I haven't proven that he received the money
[01:25:56.000 --> 01:26:02.000]  I haven't proven that he was part of this group of, you know, this business group
[01:26:02.000 --> 01:26:06.000]  And you haven't proven that this and the other
[01:26:06.000 --> 01:26:11.000]  And I said, well, really I said he admitted that he owed me the money
[01:26:11.000 --> 01:26:15.000]  When he filed the Chapter 7 and put me down as a creditor
[01:26:15.000 --> 01:26:20.000]  That's an admission that he owes money, correct?
[01:26:20.000 --> 01:26:23.000]  Sound that way to me
[01:26:23.000 --> 01:26:25.000]  That's what happened
[01:26:25.000 --> 01:26:29.000]  Here's a check that he wrote to me as he was paying
[01:26:29.000 --> 01:26:36.000]  Each time they make a payment, the statute of limitations is told, correct?
[01:26:36.000 --> 01:26:37.000]  Oh
[01:26:37.000 --> 01:26:39.000]  Don't run me off the cliff, Randy
[01:26:39.000 --> 01:26:42.000]  I wouldn't know if the statute of limitations is told
[01:26:42.000 --> 01:26:46.000]  Hang on, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, rule of law radio
[01:26:46.000 --> 01:26:53.000]  And we're talking to Tina who didn't run off the cliff
[01:26:53.000 --> 01:26:56.000]  So maybe we'll just push her off
[01:26:56.000 --> 01:26:59.000]  What do you say about that, Tina?
[01:27:01.000 --> 01:27:05.000]  Reality TV, sugar, obesity, jet lag
[01:27:05.000 --> 01:27:09.000]  The list of things that makes us dumber just keeps on growing
[01:27:09.000 --> 01:27:12.000]  But now researchers say we can add stress to the list
[01:27:12.000 --> 01:27:15.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, back with details in a moment
[01:27:15.000 --> 01:27:17.000]  Privacy is under attack
[01:27:17.000 --> 01:27:21.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again
[01:27:21.000 --> 01:27:26.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too
[01:27:26.000 --> 01:27:31.000]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself
[01:27:31.000 --> 01:27:34.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to
[01:27:34.000 --> 01:27:37.000]  This message is brought to you by Startpage.com
[01:27:37.000 --> 01:27:41.000]  The private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing
[01:27:41.000 --> 01:27:44.000]  Start over with Startpage
[01:27:44.000 --> 01:27:48.000]  Are you always on the go and juggling multiple projects?
[01:27:48.000 --> 01:27:52.000]  If so, you might think that multitasking proves you're smart
[01:27:52.000 --> 01:27:56.000]  But think again, all that stress might be eating your brain
[01:27:56.000 --> 01:28:00.000]  A new study finds stress reduces the number of connections between neurons
[01:28:00.000 --> 01:28:03.000]  Which actually makes it harder for people to manage problems
[01:28:03.000 --> 01:28:10.000]  Researchers at Yale University found that stressed out people have less gray matter in their prefrontal cortex
[01:28:10.000 --> 01:28:15.000]  That's the part of the brain that helps us weigh conflicting ideas and regulate our emotions
[01:28:15.000 --> 01:28:20.000]  So take a deep breath and chill out. It'll help keep your mind as sharp as a tack
[01:28:20.000 --> 01:28:26.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for Startpage.com, the world's most private search engine
[01:28:30.000 --> 01:28:36.000]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11
[01:28:36.000 --> 01:28:38.000]  The government says that fire brought it down
[01:28:38.000 --> 01:28:43.000]  However, 1500 architects and engineers concluded it was a controlled demolition
[01:28:43.000 --> 01:28:46.000]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives
[01:28:46.000 --> 01:28:48.000]  Thousands of my fellow first responders are dying
[01:28:48.000 --> 01:28:50.000]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist
[01:28:50.000 --> 01:28:51.000]  I'm a structural engineer
[01:28:51.000 --> 01:28:52.000]  I'm a New York City correction officer
[01:28:52.000 --> 01:28:53.000]  I'm an Air Force pilot
[01:28:53.000 --> 01:28:55.000]  I'm a father who lost his son
[01:28:55.000 --> 01:28:57.000]  We're Americans and we deserve the truth
[01:28:57.000 --> 01:29:00.000]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today
[01:29:02.000 --> 01:29:05.000]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law traffic seminar
[01:29:05.000 --> 01:29:07.000]  In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society
[01:29:07.000 --> 01:29:09.000]  And if we the people are ever going to have a free society
[01:29:09.000 --> 01:29:12.000]  Then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights
[01:29:12.000 --> 01:29:15.000]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place
[01:29:15.000 --> 01:29:17.000]  The right to act in our own private capacity
[01:29:17.000 --> 01:29:19.000]  And most importantly, the right to due process of law
[01:29:19.000 --> 01:29:22.000]  Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity
[01:29:22.000 --> 01:29:25.000]  To learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process
[01:29:25.000 --> 01:29:28.000]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio
[01:29:28.000 --> 01:29:31.000]  Has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available
[01:29:31.000 --> 01:29:33.000]  That will help you understand what due process is
[01:29:33.000 --> 01:29:35.000]  And how to hold courts to the rule of law
[01:29:35.000 --> 01:29:37.000]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material
[01:29:37.000 --> 01:29:40.000]  By going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today
[01:29:40.000 --> 01:29:42.000]  By ordering now you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book
[01:29:42.000 --> 01:29:45.000]  The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie
[01:29:45.000 --> 01:29:47.000]  Video and audio of the original 2009 seminar
[01:29:47.000 --> 01:29:50.000]  Hundreds of research documents and other useful resource material
[01:29:50.000 --> 01:29:54.000]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com
[01:29:54.000 --> 01:29:59.000]  Order your copy today and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve
[01:30:01.000 --> 01:30:04.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network
[01:30:04.000 --> 01:30:07.000]  Logosradionetwork.com
[01:30:11.000 --> 01:30:13.000]  Yeah, who you want to chip?
[01:30:13.000 --> 01:30:14.000]  Who you take me for?
[01:30:14.000 --> 01:30:15.000]  Free Tully?
[01:30:15.000 --> 01:30:16.000]  Who you want to chip?
[01:30:16.000 --> 01:30:17.000]  I'm not free Tully
[01:30:17.000 --> 01:30:18.000]  You can't chip me
[01:30:18.000 --> 01:30:20.000]  What I'm saying?
[01:30:20.000 --> 01:30:22.000]  Don't let them chip you in the morning
[01:30:22.000 --> 01:30:23.000]  Chip you in the evening
[01:30:23.000 --> 01:30:25.000]  Put a chip in your body
[01:30:25.000 --> 01:30:27.000]  And then when you go computer reading
[01:30:27.000 --> 01:30:29.000]  You can't hide me from nobody
[01:30:29.000 --> 01:30:30.000]  What I'm saying?
[01:30:30.000 --> 01:30:31.000]  Chip in your mom
[01:30:31.000 --> 01:30:32.000]  Chip in your daddy
[01:30:32.000 --> 01:30:35.000]  Chip in your grandpa and the granny
[01:30:35.000 --> 01:30:36.000]  Chip in me
[01:30:36.000 --> 01:30:37.000]  Chip in your baby
[01:30:37.000 --> 01:30:39.000]  Chip in your family
[01:30:39.000 --> 01:30:40.000]  Chip in your family
[01:30:40.000 --> 01:30:41.000]  Chip in your dog
[01:30:41.000 --> 01:30:42.000]  And the cat around me
[01:30:42.000 --> 01:30:43.000]  Okay, we are back
[01:30:43.000 --> 01:30:46.000]  Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio
[01:30:46.000 --> 01:30:47.000]  And we're here
[01:30:47.000 --> 01:30:50.000]  We're talking to Savvy Tina
[01:30:50.000 --> 01:30:54.000]  You did not fall for Brett's gambit
[01:30:55.000 --> 01:30:56.000]  No, it was your gambit
[01:30:56.000 --> 01:30:57.000]  You knew that
[01:31:01.000 --> 01:31:02.000]  Okay
[01:31:03.000 --> 01:31:08.000]  Bankruptcy in a different situation
[01:31:08.000 --> 01:31:12.000]  One guy stated on a legal document
[01:31:12.000 --> 01:31:16.000]  That he owed you money that is
[01:31:16.000 --> 01:31:19.000]  Goes to collateral estoppel
[01:31:20.000 --> 01:31:23.000]  Yeah, he can't later claim that he doesn't
[01:31:24.000 --> 01:31:25.000]  Yeah
[01:31:26.000 --> 01:31:28.000]  And the attorney should know that
[01:31:28.000 --> 01:31:29.000]  His attorney
[01:31:29.000 --> 01:31:32.000]  The attorney obviously absolutely does know that
[01:31:32.000 --> 01:31:35.000]  And so the attorney should get a bargainous
[01:31:36.000 --> 01:31:37.000]  Oh, I like that
[01:31:37.000 --> 01:31:39.000]  I got to do one of those
[01:31:40.000 --> 01:31:41.000]  Yeah
[01:31:41.000 --> 01:31:44.000]  Because he's trying to claim that his
[01:31:44.000 --> 01:31:47.000]  I haven't proven his client had anything to do with it
[01:31:47.000 --> 01:31:49.000]  Well, his client already admitted it
[01:31:49.000 --> 01:31:52.000]  His client's name is on every email
[01:31:52.000 --> 01:31:56.000]  And his client's name is on one of the checks that I was paid
[01:31:56.000 --> 01:32:02.000]  And that shows that his client was actually involved wholeheartedly in this
[01:32:02.000 --> 01:32:07.000]  So for him to say no, he wasn't and he never did any of this
[01:32:07.000 --> 01:32:11.000]  And to say the statute of limitations is told
[01:32:11.000 --> 01:32:15.000]  Well, the last payment they made me was in 2021
[01:32:15.000 --> 01:32:19.000]  So the statute of limitations told from the last payment they made
[01:32:19.000 --> 01:32:21.000]  Because that's an admission that they owe me money
[01:32:22.000 --> 01:32:27.000]  Failure to speak with candor to the court in motion for sanctions
[01:32:28.000 --> 01:32:30.000]  Oh, yeah, I would like to go to that
[01:32:30.000 --> 01:32:33.000]  I would say go look at rule number one too
[01:32:33.000 --> 01:32:36.000]  Because there's something in there in rule number one
[01:32:36.000 --> 01:32:39.000]  There's a lot of anti-fraud stuff
[01:32:39.000 --> 01:32:42.000]  So he's not supposed to represent a fraudster
[01:32:42.000 --> 01:32:47.000]  He's supposed to make every effort to deter the client from fraud
[01:32:47.000 --> 01:32:49.000]  And dissuade the client from fraud
[01:32:49.000 --> 01:32:51.000]  That's another bar grievance
[01:32:51.000 --> 01:32:52.000]  He didn't do that
[01:32:52.000 --> 01:32:57.000]  He's supposed to after he discovers that the client is involved in fraud
[01:32:57.000 --> 01:33:00.000]  He's supposed to take some kind of actions to mitigate that
[01:33:00.000 --> 01:33:03.000]  He's supposed to drop the client, withdraw from representation
[01:33:03.000 --> 01:33:05.000]  He's not doing any of these things
[01:33:05.000 --> 01:33:06.000]  That's a lot of bar grievances
[01:33:06.000 --> 01:33:09.000]  It sounds like he ought to get at least one of them tomorrow
[01:33:12.000 --> 01:33:14.000]  So tomorrow's Friday the 13th, Tina
[01:33:14.000 --> 01:33:18.000]  Give him at least one of them on Friday the 13th
[01:33:19.000 --> 01:33:23.000]  Well, if I can get one written up quick tonight, I will do that
[01:33:23.000 --> 01:33:25.000]  We're leaving for an event tomorrow
[01:33:25.000 --> 01:33:30.000]  But yeah, that sounds like a good few bar grievances against him
[01:33:30.000 --> 01:33:31.000]  That'll really dissuade him
[01:33:31.000 --> 01:33:34.000]  Now it's sitting right now in the appellate court
[01:33:34.000 --> 01:33:37.000]  And nothing has been done
[01:33:37.000 --> 01:33:41.000]  Because I wrote a response to them
[01:33:41.000 --> 01:33:45.000]  And then he wrote a reply and he was a day late
[01:33:45.000 --> 01:33:47.000]  And they gave him an instanta
[01:33:47.000 --> 01:33:50.000]  They let him file instanta
[01:33:50.000 --> 01:33:53.000]  Have you heard that term before?
[01:33:53.000 --> 01:33:56.000]  And I objected to that, saying the attorney shouldn't
[01:33:56.000 --> 01:33:58.000]  You shouldn't just allow him to do that
[01:33:58.000 --> 01:34:03.000]  Because you didn't allow me to do it with his partner in crime
[01:34:03.000 --> 01:34:08.000]  And they denied my appeal because I was a couple of days late as a pro se
[01:34:08.000 --> 01:34:10.000]  But now they're letting the attorney say
[01:34:10.000 --> 01:34:12.000]  Oh no, you can file instanta
[01:34:12.000 --> 01:34:15.000]  And the clerk actually emailed him and said
[01:34:15.000 --> 01:34:18.000]  Yes, we'd like you to try to file this
[01:34:18.000 --> 01:34:20.000]  And then the judge approved it
[01:34:20.000 --> 01:34:23.000]  You know, just because he's an attorney?
[01:34:23.000 --> 01:34:26.000]  So I wrote a response saying it shouldn't be allowed
[01:34:26.000 --> 01:34:27.000]  And all this kind of stuff
[01:34:27.000 --> 01:34:28.000]  And they probably won't like it
[01:34:28.000 --> 01:34:30.000]  But now it's sitting there
[01:34:30.000 --> 01:34:34.000]  Is there anything I can do to file?
[01:34:34.000 --> 01:34:37.000]  The clerk said today that it's in front of the judges
[01:34:37.000 --> 01:34:40.000]  There's nothing she has to say or no
[01:34:40.000 --> 01:34:43.000]  We just have to wait until the judges make a decision
[01:34:43.000 --> 01:34:46.000]  But this was from October the 30th
[01:34:51.000 --> 01:34:54.000]  Should I make any, you know, like a
[01:34:54.000 --> 01:35:01.000]  Because I didn't put in there what you'd said just a few minutes earlier
[01:35:01.000 --> 01:35:04.000]  About what the, you know, collateral estoppel
[01:35:04.000 --> 01:35:06.000]  I didn't put that part in
[01:35:13.000 --> 01:35:17.000]  Brett, did you mute my computer?
[01:35:20.000 --> 01:35:23.000]  I wish I had a button for that
[01:35:23.000 --> 01:35:26.000]  That would just be too much fun
[01:35:29.000 --> 01:35:31.000]  I was reading the definition of instanta
[01:35:31.000 --> 01:35:34.000]  And I missed part of that
[01:35:34.000 --> 01:35:36.000]  Well, I'm wondering if it's something I can
[01:35:36.000 --> 01:35:38.000]  Extra that I can file now
[01:35:38.000 --> 01:35:42.000]  It's just sitting there because I failed to include
[01:35:42.000 --> 01:35:44.000]  You know, the collateral estoppel
[01:35:44.000 --> 01:35:46.000]  Where he'd admitted the owed me
[01:35:46.000 --> 01:35:47.000]  And now he's trying to say he didn't
[01:35:47.000 --> 01:35:53.000]  I did not put that part in to one of my responses
[01:35:53.000 --> 01:35:56.000]  Then file an amended response
[01:35:56.000 --> 01:35:57.000]  Okay
[01:35:57.000 --> 01:36:02.000]  And ask the court for permission to file an amended response
[01:36:02.000 --> 01:36:07.000]  As you missed a argument
[01:36:07.000 --> 01:36:11.000]  Okay
[01:36:11.000 --> 01:36:14.000]  And could I put in there that I would like to move the sanctions
[01:36:14.000 --> 01:36:18.000]  For the attorney aiding and abetting fraud by his clients?
[01:36:18.000 --> 01:36:20.000]  Absolutely
[01:36:20.000 --> 01:36:22.000]  I am
[01:36:24.000 --> 01:36:25.000]  Well, might as well
[01:36:25.000 --> 01:36:26.000]  What have I got to lose?
[01:36:26.000 --> 01:36:28.000]  They're probably going to rule against me anyway
[01:36:28.000 --> 01:36:30.000]  Because I'm just a mere pro se
[01:36:30.000 --> 01:36:34.000]  And they're, you know, shielding their buddies
[01:36:34.000 --> 01:36:37.000]  But, you know
[01:36:37.000 --> 01:36:40.000]  You're probably right in that
[01:36:40.000 --> 01:36:43.000]  So might as well make it as hard form as possible
[01:36:43.000 --> 01:36:46.000]  Okay, well, give it a go
[01:36:46.000 --> 01:36:48.000]  Why not?
[01:36:48.000 --> 01:36:50.000]  And that's all I've got for you today
[01:36:50.000 --> 01:36:52.000]  In the term of questions
[01:36:52.000 --> 01:36:55.000]  Okay, thank you very much, Tina
[01:36:55.000 --> 01:36:59.000]  Now we're going to go to Joseph in Texas
[01:36:59.000 --> 01:37:02.000]  Joseph, where have you been?
[01:37:02.000 --> 01:37:05.000]  Howdy, Randy
[01:37:05.000 --> 01:37:10.000]  Well, I heard y'all talk about Harmon Taylor in the Constitution earlier
[01:37:10.000 --> 01:37:15.000]  That made called Bishop versus U.S. come to mind
[01:37:15.000 --> 01:37:20.000]  Which was a 1973 Supreme Court ruling
[01:37:20.000 --> 01:37:24.000]  And one of the things I got out of that court ruling
[01:37:24.000 --> 01:37:30.000]  That if your behavior is due to
[01:37:30.000 --> 01:37:36.000]  If you think it's justifiable due to a previous court ruling you have read
[01:37:36.000 --> 01:37:40.000]  You cannot be penalized for such behavior
[01:37:40.000 --> 01:37:44.000]  And so why that case is not used
[01:37:44.000 --> 01:37:48.000]  At just about everything we're fighting is beyond my understanding
[01:37:50.000 --> 01:37:53.000]  Can you email that case to me?
[01:37:53.000 --> 01:37:55.000]  Well, I'll be more than glad to
[01:37:55.000 --> 01:37:58.000]  I'll even tell you the name and number on it right now
[01:37:58.000 --> 01:38:02.000]  Where everybody within hearing range can look it up
[01:38:02.000 --> 01:38:06.000]  412-US-346
[01:38:09.000 --> 01:38:11.000]  Did you get that?
[01:38:11.000 --> 01:38:13.000]  US-346
[01:38:13.000 --> 01:38:17.000]  Yeah, 412-US-346
[01:38:18.000 --> 01:38:22.000]  12, US-346, got it
[01:38:22.000 --> 01:38:24.000]  That's 412
[01:38:24.000 --> 01:38:26.000]  Yeah, 412
[01:38:26.000 --> 01:38:28.000]  Yeah, I'll send it to you
[01:38:28.000 --> 01:38:30.000]  Appreciate it
[01:38:30.000 --> 01:38:31.000]  Thank you
[01:38:31.000 --> 01:38:35.000]  That's it? Wait, you got a whole segment you gotta use up
[01:38:36.000 --> 01:38:40.000]  Oh, well, excuse me, you know, I guess I'm tired
[01:38:42.000 --> 01:38:45.000]  Say something insightful and intuitive
[01:38:45.000 --> 01:38:48.000]  Enthrall our listeners
[01:38:48.000 --> 01:38:53.000]  Well, and yeah, explain a little bit more about what's on your mind about this
[01:38:53.000 --> 01:38:58.000]  You said you're surprised that this case is not used more
[01:38:58.000 --> 01:39:04.000]  Every time we get pulled over for no driver's license, no insurance, no other mumbo jumbo
[01:39:04.000 --> 01:39:09.000]  We get all these court rulings saying you're not required to do it
[01:39:09.000 --> 01:39:11.000]  Ah, good point
[01:39:11.000 --> 01:39:15.000]  Oh, so you're saying because the Supreme Court has ruled
[01:39:15.000 --> 01:39:20.000]  And we can act in good faith and we should be able to lean on that
[01:39:20.000 --> 01:39:23.000]  So we can't be held accountable for doing otherwise
[01:39:23.000 --> 01:39:27.000]  Yeah, and I just put on my
[01:39:27.000 --> 01:39:32.000]  Ed heading plates and got pulled over by the DPS
[01:39:32.000 --> 01:39:34.000]  And I couldn't get them to write me a ticket
[01:39:34.000 --> 01:39:36.000]  They wrote me a warning and I objected to it
[01:39:36.000 --> 01:39:39.000]  Told them write me a ticket and they wouldn't do it
[01:39:39.000 --> 01:39:46.000]  Well, that's nice when you're smart and able to word everything so well
[01:39:46.000 --> 01:39:49.000]  Well, what I did was I said, why did you pull me over?
[01:39:49.000 --> 01:39:53.000]  You weren't displaying your license plate
[01:39:53.000 --> 01:39:57.000]  I said, well, you know what deadheading means
[01:39:57.000 --> 01:39:59.000]  And he kind of fumbled and mumbled
[01:39:59.000 --> 01:40:04.000]  I said, yeah, it means I gave you notice I'm not in commerce
[01:40:04.000 --> 01:40:07.000]  So why did you pull me over?
[01:40:07.000 --> 01:40:10.000]  He kind of stumbled around
[01:40:10.000 --> 01:40:15.000]  I said, look, what if you're requiring that I have commercial license plate
[01:40:15.000 --> 01:40:18.000]  To use the public highways
[01:40:18.000 --> 01:40:25.000]  Then you have now converted the public highways from belonging to the public
[01:40:25.000 --> 01:40:28.000]  To commercial use only
[01:40:28.000 --> 01:40:33.000]  And we really need to get this argument before the supreme
[01:40:33.000 --> 01:40:36.000]  Then he come back with a warning
[01:40:36.000 --> 01:40:39.000]  He checked my plates I had my plates underneath the car
[01:40:39.000 --> 01:40:42.000]  The fake plates
[01:40:42.000 --> 01:40:45.000]  And he checked them and they were expired
[01:40:45.000 --> 01:40:48.000]  Yeah, yeah, I know I was going to get them fixed the other day
[01:40:48.000 --> 01:40:52.000]  But they said I had to get it inspected so I'll just wait till January
[01:40:52.000 --> 01:40:54.000]  He didn't write me for anything
[01:40:54.000 --> 01:40:56.000]  We'll be okay, we're done tonight
[01:40:56.000 --> 01:40:59.000]  Wait a minute, we shouldn't be done
[01:40:59.000 --> 01:41:02.000]  Do you have a business with five employees or more?
[01:41:02.000 --> 01:41:06.000]  How would you like to save hundreds of thousands of dollars in FICA taxes?
[01:41:06.000 --> 01:41:10.000]  Do you have a major medical plan that nobody can afford to be on?
[01:41:10.000 --> 01:41:15.000]  Or how would you like to save in premium costs on a current major medical plan
[01:41:15.000 --> 01:41:17.000]  By lowering the claims cost?
[01:41:17.000 --> 01:41:23.000]  The CHAMP plan is a section 125 IRS approved preventative health plan
[01:41:23.000 --> 01:41:29.000]  That provides your employees with doctors, medications, emergency care, and Teladoc
[01:41:29.000 --> 01:41:32.000]  All at zero cost with zero co-pay
[01:41:32.000 --> 01:41:38.000]  If you are an employee, you also will get a pay raise by paying less in FICA taxes
[01:41:38.000 --> 01:41:44.000]  As an employer, you will save hundreds of thousands of dollars in matching FICA taxes
[01:41:44.000 --> 01:41:51.000]  The CHAMP plan can help add working capital, market resale value, or pay down lines of credit
[01:41:51.000 --> 01:41:59.000]  Call Scott at 214-730-2471 or dallasmms.com
[01:41:59.000 --> 01:42:02.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:42:02.000 --> 01:42:06.000]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary
[01:42:06.000 --> 01:42:14.000]  The affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step
[01:42:14.000 --> 01:42:18.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing
[01:42:18.000 --> 01:42:22.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself
[01:42:22.000 --> 01:42:27.000]  Thousands have won with our step by step course, and now you can too
[01:42:27.000 --> 01:42:33.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience
[01:42:33.000 --> 01:42:38.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[01:42:38.000 --> 01:42:42.000]  About the principles and practices that control our American courts
[01:42:42.000 --> 01:42:51.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more
[01:42:51.000 --> 01:43:00.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner, or call toll free, 866-LAW-EZ
[01:43:03.000 --> 01:43:16.000]  Hello? Oh man, in jail? You got busted? Oh man, I'm broke, dude
[01:43:16.000 --> 01:43:26.000]  Some things in this world I will never understand
[01:43:26.000 --> 01:43:30.000]  Some things I realize fully
[01:43:30.000 --> 01:43:35.000]  Somebody's on a police, a policeman
[01:43:35.000 --> 01:43:39.000]  Somebody's on a police, a bully
[01:43:39.000 --> 01:43:43.000]  There's always a room at the top of the hill
[01:43:43.000 --> 01:43:48.000]  I hear through the grapevine and it's lonely there still
[01:43:48.000 --> 01:43:52.000]  They're wishing it was more than a position to fill
[01:43:52.000 --> 01:43:56.000]  They know that if they don't do it, somebody will
[01:43:56.000 --> 01:44:00.000]  Some things in this world I will never understand
[01:44:00.000 --> 01:44:04.000]  Some things I realize fully
[01:44:04.000 --> 01:44:09.000]  Somebody's on a police, a policeman
[01:44:09.000 --> 01:44:12.000]  Somebody's on a police, a bully
[01:44:12.000 --> 01:44:15.000]  I know they will
[01:44:15.000 --> 01:44:17.000]  Yeah, they're gonna put the bill
[01:44:17.000 --> 01:44:19.000]  I know they will
[01:44:19.000 --> 01:44:22.000]  I see so much injustice still
[01:44:22.000 --> 01:44:24.000]  I know they will
[01:44:24.000 --> 01:44:26.000]  Never fail to tip back that scale
[01:44:26.000 --> 01:44:28.000]  I know they will
[01:44:28.000 --> 01:44:30.000]  Never fail to tip back that scale
[01:44:30.000 --> 01:44:32.000]  I know they will
[01:44:32.000 --> 01:44:37.000]  Okay, we are back, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking to Joseph in Texas
[01:44:37.000 --> 01:44:46.000]  Now Joseph, you had me send you my complaint against the magistrate
[01:44:47.000 --> 01:44:49.000]  Correct, and I really appreciate it
[01:44:49.000 --> 01:44:52.000]  I think that is a valuable tool
[01:44:52.000 --> 01:44:56.000]  Are you planning on using it?
[01:44:56.000 --> 01:44:58.000]  Most definitely
[01:44:58.000 --> 01:45:01.000]  Oh, that is so much fun
[01:45:01.000 --> 01:45:07.000]  What I plan to do is I'm gonna take a criminal complaint to a magistrate
[01:45:07.000 --> 01:45:11.000]  And the magistrate's gonna refuse to issue a warrant
[01:45:11.000 --> 01:45:19.000]  But then I'm gonna go to the nearest JP immediately and file that lawsuit
[01:45:19.000 --> 01:45:27.000]  So the magistrate will know for sure that I played him like a cheap fiddle
[01:45:27.000 --> 01:45:36.000]  Which reminds me, Brett, I gotta come out to Wood County and file against that judge out there
[01:45:36.000 --> 01:45:46.000]  We got a judge in Wood County where I tried to get him to take criminal complaints against a sheriff's deputy
[01:45:46.000 --> 01:45:54.000]  And he refused for the stated reason that I was not a police officer
[01:45:54.000 --> 01:45:59.000]  So now I'm gonna sue him in his personal capacity
[01:45:59.000 --> 01:46:03.000]  I warned him, and I broke my own rule
[01:46:03.000 --> 01:46:07.000]  I told him, I said, you have to understand
[01:46:07.000 --> 01:46:16.000]  I sued the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme for $20 million for doing what you're doing right now
[01:46:16.000 --> 01:46:22.000]  Oh, he was furious and just stormed out
[01:46:22.000 --> 01:46:25.000]  So now I'll go back and sue him
[01:46:25.000 --> 01:46:30.000]  Oh, that is gonna be so much fun
[01:46:30.000 --> 01:46:34.000]  And I'm encouraging everybody to do this
[01:46:34.000 --> 01:46:39.000]  This is how we'll get the system back
[01:46:39.000 --> 01:46:45.000]  They are not gonna pay attention to us until they have to answer a lawsuit
[01:46:45.000 --> 01:46:53.000]  And if they have to answer a lawsuit where they just got played like a cheap fiddle
[01:46:53.000 --> 01:46:56.000]  That is gonna be bad for them
[01:46:56.000 --> 01:47:00.000]  And this will get around to everybody
[01:47:00.000 --> 01:47:10.000]  You notice, Joseph, that that has those blank lines for where you put in the names and all the data and information?
[01:47:10.000 --> 01:47:12.000]  Yes
[01:47:12.000 --> 01:47:16.000]  I made up mine and filled out everything on the computer
[01:47:16.000 --> 01:47:22.000]  Printed it out and looked at it and said, nah
[01:47:22.000 --> 01:47:26.000]  Loaded it back up and took out all that information and put in blank lines
[01:47:26.000 --> 01:47:33.000]  And then went to the JP's office and filled it out by hand in front of the JP
[01:47:33.000 --> 01:47:41.000]  So it's clear to her, it was a fill in the blanks document
[01:47:41.000 --> 01:47:46.000]  This is, what, 12 pages?
[01:47:46.000 --> 01:47:49.000]  I forget, 12 or 15 pages
[01:47:49.000 --> 01:47:52.000]  It was a pretty big document
[01:47:52.000 --> 01:47:55.000]  I filled everything out by hand
[01:47:55.000 --> 01:48:00.000]  Go to the back and signed it in the back and she's standing there watching me
[01:48:00.000 --> 01:48:04.000]  So I know they think this is a fill in the blanks document
[01:48:04.000 --> 01:48:11.000]  So we need Joseph to file one and Brett to file half a dozen
[01:48:11.000 --> 01:48:17.000]  And some other folks out there, they're having problems with the local constabulary
[01:48:17.000 --> 01:48:20.000]  They're not doing their job
[01:48:20.000 --> 01:48:23.000]  Go in there and set them up
[01:48:23.000 --> 01:48:30.000]  I can tell you from experience, that is so much fun
[01:48:30.000 --> 01:48:32.000]  And it is absolutely satisfying
[01:48:32.000 --> 01:48:39.000]  I also have to file against the mayor in Rome, Texas
[01:48:39.000 --> 01:48:42.000]  I went to a city council meeting
[01:48:42.000 --> 01:48:46.000]  And signed up for my three minutes
[01:48:46.000 --> 01:48:48.000]  And walked up to the podium
[01:48:48.000 --> 01:48:50.000]  I have some documents here for the mayor
[01:48:50.000 --> 01:48:56.000]  And I handed it over to a council member and they handed it down to the mayor
[01:48:56.000 --> 01:49:01.000]  Now those are criminal accusations
[01:49:01.000 --> 01:49:09.000]  I am going to expect you as the mayor to act in your capacity as a magistrate
[01:49:10.000 --> 01:49:12.000]  And issue warrants on those
[01:49:12.000 --> 01:49:15.000]  Now I know your lawyer sitting over here next to you
[01:49:15.000 --> 01:49:20.000]  He's going to give you a lot of song and dance and seltzer down your pants
[01:49:20.000 --> 01:49:24.000]  And you can listen to him if you want to
[01:49:24.000 --> 01:49:29.000]  Or you can issue those warrants the way 15.09 commands you to do
[01:49:29.000 --> 01:49:31.000]  Your three minutes are up
[01:49:31.000 --> 01:49:35.000]  Okay
[01:49:35.000 --> 01:49:37.000]  My three minutes are up
[01:49:37.000 --> 01:49:41.000]  So I can't explain anything else to him
[01:49:41.000 --> 01:49:45.000]  Well, it's been a week or two
[01:49:45.000 --> 01:49:47.000]  It's been almost a month
[01:49:47.000 --> 01:49:49.000]  It was the 14th of last month
[01:49:49.000 --> 01:49:51.000]  And I have not
[01:49:51.000 --> 01:49:54.000]  I've got no notice that he issued a warrant
[01:49:54.000 --> 01:49:57.000]  What does that give you reason to believe?
[01:49:57.000 --> 01:50:04.000]  That he did not issue a warrant and now sue him in the JP court
[01:50:04.000 --> 01:50:09.000]  In his personal capacity
[01:50:09.000 --> 01:50:12.000]  Oh, this is going to be too much fun
[01:50:12.000 --> 01:50:14.000]  But I'm interesting
[01:50:14.000 --> 01:50:21.000]  I wanted the municipal judge to file an answer
[01:50:21.000 --> 01:50:25.000]  Before I filed a second act suit
[01:50:25.000 --> 01:50:27.000]  I want to see what he argues
[01:50:27.000 --> 01:50:30.000]  He's a lawyer
[01:50:30.000 --> 01:50:35.000]  I sued him personally in his individual capacity
[01:50:35.000 --> 01:50:38.000]  I want to see what he does
[01:50:38.000 --> 01:50:45.000]  I'm hoping he files a motion to dismiss for judicial immunity
[01:50:45.000 --> 01:50:47.000]  I got that one ready
[01:50:47.000 --> 01:50:49.000]  Yeah
[01:50:49.000 --> 01:50:51.000]  That's an easy one to bat down
[01:50:51.000 --> 01:50:57.000]  Yeah, I'm thinking he may come up with something unique
[01:50:57.000 --> 01:50:59.000]  I'll be surprised if he does
[01:50:59.000 --> 01:51:03.000]  But it's really not appropriate for us to consider
[01:51:03.000 --> 01:51:08.000]  That all these guys are stupid and ignorant
[01:51:08.000 --> 01:51:12.000]  Because you may get 10 or 20 that are stupid and ignorant
[01:51:12.000 --> 01:51:17.000]  And then you'll get the one that will swatch you like a fly
[01:51:17.000 --> 01:51:19.000]  Yeah
[01:51:19.000 --> 01:51:21.000]  I don't want to be their fly
[01:51:21.000 --> 01:51:23.000]  But I do want to see their arguments
[01:51:23.000 --> 01:51:25.000]  I want to collect all the arguments I can
[01:51:25.000 --> 01:51:27.000]  Every time I get an argument
[01:51:27.000 --> 01:51:30.000]  We're going to go into the pleading
[01:51:30.000 --> 01:51:33.000]  And add stuff in it to address that argument
[01:51:33.000 --> 01:51:37.000]  Joseph, have you read this thing through yet?
[01:51:37.000 --> 01:51:40.000]  I haven't read it all the way through yet
[01:51:40.000 --> 01:51:44.000]  So as much as you've read
[01:51:44.000 --> 01:51:46.000]  How did it read?
[01:51:46.000 --> 01:51:48.000]  Did it read? Did it make sense?
[01:51:48.000 --> 01:51:54.000]  Or were there any questions that I created and that I didn't answer?
[01:51:54.000 --> 01:52:00.000]  It looks like I can make it into a tool for several other things
[01:52:00.000 --> 01:52:06.000]  I think that's been my biggest handicap all these years
[01:52:06.000 --> 01:52:13.000]  Is my inefficiency at paperwork
[01:52:13.000 --> 01:52:19.000]  That's fine for me to do several things with
[01:52:19.000 --> 01:52:22.000]  Well, look at how I did that
[01:52:22.000 --> 01:52:23.000]  I've got these rules
[01:52:23.000 --> 01:52:28.000]  One of them is never make a proactive statement of law out of your own mouth
[01:52:28.000 --> 01:52:32.000]  So if I say something's a certain way
[01:52:32.000 --> 01:52:38.000]  I say in this statute
[01:52:38.000 --> 01:52:41.000]  They can't do this based on this statute
[01:52:41.000 --> 01:52:46.000]  Which reads as follows, and then I quote the statute
[01:52:46.000 --> 01:52:50.000]  This case states as follows
[01:52:50.000 --> 01:52:52.000]  I don't say what the case states
[01:52:52.000 --> 01:52:56.000]  I quote what it actually says
[01:52:56.000 --> 01:53:01.000]  You notice I put headings on most every paragraph
[01:53:01.000 --> 01:53:05.000]  And all that's to guide the mind of the reader
[01:53:05.000 --> 01:53:09.000]  So that they always know where they're at in the document
[01:53:09.000 --> 01:53:13.000]  Did you find yourself getting lost in that document?
[01:53:13.000 --> 01:53:15.000]  No
[01:53:15.000 --> 01:53:19.000]  But that's on the same way I've been working for years
[01:53:19.000 --> 01:53:23.000]  Somebody gave me some stuff that George Gordon put out
[01:53:23.000 --> 01:53:27.000]  I won't say in 83
[01:53:27.000 --> 01:53:30.000]  It's like always never say nothing by your authority
[01:53:30.000 --> 01:53:34.000]  But state by court, you know, give court ruling
[01:53:34.000 --> 01:53:39.000]  By what authority you make such statements
[01:53:39.000 --> 01:53:41.000]  Yeah, we hated to lose George
[01:53:41.000 --> 01:53:42.000]  I never got to meet him
[01:53:42.000 --> 01:53:44.000]  I talked to him a couple of times
[01:53:44.000 --> 01:53:45.000]  But never got to meet him
[01:53:45.000 --> 01:53:48.000]  He was a big loss
[01:53:48.000 --> 01:53:50.000]  He sure was
[01:53:50.000 --> 01:53:52.000]  But I think he
[01:53:52.000 --> 01:53:56.000]  In 83, I think he had a heck of a lot better attitude
[01:53:56.000 --> 01:53:59.000]  Than he did
[01:53:59.000 --> 01:54:02.000]  You know, about 10, 15 years later
[01:54:02.000 --> 01:54:06.000]  It's like everything that he said was his
[01:54:06.000 --> 01:54:10.000]  And you had to have his permission to use what he said
[01:54:10.000 --> 01:54:14.000]  But back in 83, it's like take everything I tell you
[01:54:14.000 --> 01:54:17.000]  And give to all your buddy, pals, and friends
[01:54:17.000 --> 01:54:19.000]  Share it with everybody
[01:54:19.000 --> 01:54:22.000]  But like, you know, basically they got the attitude
[01:54:22.000 --> 01:54:24.000]  Don't share it with anybody
[01:54:24.000 --> 01:54:27.000]  You know, they got to pay to get it from me
[01:54:27.000 --> 01:54:28.000]  But then again
[01:54:28.000 --> 01:54:30.000]  Ah, how about that
[01:54:30.000 --> 01:54:33.000]  He was on the internet regularly
[01:54:33.000 --> 01:54:37.000]  Giving out all kinds of information
[01:54:37.000 --> 01:54:39.000]  Well, that was trying to drive
[01:54:39.000 --> 01:54:44.000]  I understand him trying to get paid for his time
[01:54:44.000 --> 01:54:46.000]  I get that
[01:54:46.000 --> 01:54:50.000]  But I do other things to get paid for my time
[01:54:50.000 --> 01:54:54.000]  So here we're trying to change the system
[01:54:54.000 --> 01:54:56.000]  And Ted, I didn't get to you
[01:54:56.000 --> 01:54:58.000]  Can you call in tomorrow night?
[01:54:58.000 --> 01:55:00.000]  Because I definitely want to talk to you
[01:55:00.000 --> 01:55:02.000]  Hold on, let me
[01:55:02.000 --> 01:55:04.000]  You there, Ted?
[01:55:04.000 --> 01:55:06.000]  Yep
[01:55:06.000 --> 01:55:08.000]  Okay, will you call in tomorrow night?
[01:55:08.000 --> 01:55:10.000]  I definitely want to talk to you
[01:55:10.000 --> 01:55:12.000]  Okay
[01:55:12.000 --> 01:55:14.000]  Thank you, Ted
[01:55:15.000 --> 01:55:19.000]  And thank you, Joseph
[01:55:19.000 --> 01:55:23.000]  Let me know when you start filing that
[01:55:23.000 --> 01:55:27.000]  Make sure you give me any responses that you get
[01:55:27.000 --> 01:55:29.000]  I want to get as many as possible
[01:55:29.000 --> 01:55:31.000]  So we got everything covered
[01:55:31.000 --> 01:55:33.000]  Because we want them to come to the table
[01:55:33.000 --> 01:55:36.000]  And offer us some money to go away
[01:55:36.000 --> 01:55:41.000]  And you have my permission to sell out
[01:55:41.000 --> 01:55:43.000]  Thanks for bringing up that USB bishop
[01:55:43.000 --> 01:55:45.000]  It looks like it'd be useful for tax stuff
[01:55:45.000 --> 01:55:47.000]  Okay, we are out of time
[01:55:47.000 --> 01:55:49.000]  Thank you for listening
[01:55:49.000 --> 01:55:52.000]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free
[01:55:52.000 --> 01:55:54.000]  A unique study Bible called
[01:55:54.000 --> 01:55:56.000]  The New Testament Recovery Version
[01:55:56.000 --> 01:56:00.000]  The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes
[01:56:00.000 --> 01:56:03.000]  That explain what the Bible says verse by verse
[01:56:03.000 --> 01:56:07.000]  Helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life
[01:56:07.000 --> 01:56:10.000]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America
[01:56:10.000 --> 01:56:15.000]  Call us toll free at 888-551-0102
[01:56:15.000 --> 01:56:19.000]  Or visit us online at bfa.org
[01:56:19.000 --> 01:56:21.000]  This translation is highly accurate
[01:56:21.000 --> 01:56:24.000]  And it comes with over 13,000 cross references
[01:56:24.000 --> 01:56:29.000]  Plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible
[01:56:29.000 --> 01:56:31.000]  This is truly a Bible you can understand
[01:56:31.000 --> 01:56:34.000]  To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version
[01:56:35.000 --> 01:56:40.000]  Call us toll free at 888-551-0102
[01:56:40.000 --> 01:56:44.000]  That's 888-551-0102
[01:56:44.000 --> 01:56:48.000]  Or visit us online at bfa.org
[01:56:49.000 --> 01:56:54.000]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network
[01:56:54.000 --> 01:56:57.000]  At logosradionetwork.com
[01:57:01.000 --> 01:57:05.000]  The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of our Constitution
[01:57:05.000 --> 01:57:09.000]  They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect
[01:57:09.000 --> 01:57:10.000]  Our liberty depends on it
[01:57:10.000 --> 01:57:12.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht
[01:57:12.000 --> 01:57:14.000]  And I'll be right back with an unforgettable way
[01:57:14.000 --> 01:57:16.000]  To remember your First Amendment rights
[01:57:16.000 --> 01:57:18.000]  Privacy is under attack
[01:57:18.000 --> 01:57:20.000]  When you give up data about yourself
[01:57:20.000 --> 01:57:21.000]  You'll never get it back again
[01:57:21.000 --> 01:57:23.000]  And once your privacy is gone
[01:57:23.000 --> 01:57:26.000]  You'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too
[01:57:26.000 --> 01:57:28.000]  So protect your rights
[01:57:28.000 --> 01:57:31.000]  Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself
[01:57:31.000 --> 01:57:34.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to
[01:57:34.000 --> 01:57:37.000]  This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com
[01:57:37.000 --> 01:57:41.000]  The private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing
[01:57:41.000 --> 01:57:44.000]  Start over with Startpage
[01:57:45.000 --> 01:57:47.000]  Spar, it's what fighters do
[01:57:47.000 --> 01:57:51.000]  It's also how I remember the five guarantees of the First Amendment
[01:57:51.000 --> 01:57:54.000]  If you plan to take away my rights, I'm going to spar with you
[01:57:54.000 --> 01:57:56.000]  SPAR with an extra P
[01:57:56.000 --> 01:58:00.000]  S for speech, P for press, another P for petition
[01:58:00.000 --> 01:58:02.000]  A for assembly, and R for religion
[01:58:02.000 --> 01:58:08.000]  Most Americans are familiar with the First Amendment guarantees of free speech, press, assembly and religion
[01:58:08.000 --> 01:58:10.000]  But petition for redress is another matter
[01:58:10.000 --> 01:58:14.000]  We have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances
[01:58:14.000 --> 01:58:17.000]  It means that if we're unhappy with what's going on in our government
[01:58:17.000 --> 01:58:20.000]  We can spell out the reasons without fear of being thrown into jail
[01:58:20.000 --> 01:58:22.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht
[01:58:22.000 --> 01:58:25.000]  More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com
[01:58:30.000 --> 01:58:34.000]  The Bill of Rights contains the First Ten Amendments of our Constitution
[01:58:34.000 --> 01:58:37.000]  They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect
[01:58:37.000 --> 01:58:39.000]  Our liberty depends on it
[01:58:39.000 --> 01:58:45.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember one of your constitutional rights
[01:58:46.000 --> 01:58:48.000]  Privacy is under attack
[01:58:48.000 --> 01:58:51.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again
[01:58:51.000 --> 01:58:56.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too
[01:58:56.000 --> 01:59:01.000]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself
[01:59:01.000 --> 01:59:04.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to
[01:59:04.000 --> 01:59:07.000]  This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com
[01:59:07.000 --> 01:59:11.000]  The private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing
[01:59:11.000 --> 01:59:14.000]  Start over with Startpage
[01:59:15.000 --> 01:59:21.000]  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
[01:59:21.000 --> 01:59:25.000]  It's how I remember that the Second Amendment guarantees us the right to bear arms
[01:59:25.000 --> 01:59:29.000]  Arms that embrace our freedoms and won't let anyone take them away without a fight
[01:59:29.000 --> 01:59:33.000]  Get it? Two arms, bear hug, bear arms?
[01:59:33.000 --> 01:59:38.000]  The late Senator Hubert Humphrey captured the spirit of the Second Amendment so well when he said
[01:59:38.000 --> 01:59:43.000]  The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government
[01:59:43.000 --> 01:59:47.000]  One more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America
[01:59:47.000 --> 01:59:50.000]  But which historically has proved to always be possible
[01:59:50.000 --> 01:59:55.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com
[02:01:03.000 --> 02:01:05.000]  Come on
[02:01:33.000 --> 02:01:48.000]  Music
[02:01:48.000 --> 02:01:55.000]  Alright, good evening friends and welcome. It is time for INN World Report Radio here on the Great Logos Radio Network
[02:01:55.000 --> 02:02:00.000]  My name is Tom Kiley. I have the distinct honor to bring this show