Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language Detected language: English [00:00.000 --> 00:09.560] ["Rick Astley- Don't Come For You"] [00:30.000 --> 00:32.000] Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? [00:32.000 --> 00:34.000] Bad boys, bad boys [00:34.000 --> 00:35.000] Whatcha gonna do? [00:35.000 --> 00:37.000] Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? [00:37.000 --> 00:40.000] When you were eight and you had bad traits [00:40.000 --> 00:43.000] You go to school and learn the golden rule [00:43.000 --> 00:46.000] So why are you acting like a bloody fool? [00:46.000 --> 00:48.000] If you get hot then you must get cool [00:48.000 --> 00:50.000] Bad boys, bad boys [00:50.000 --> 00:51.000] Whatcha gonna do? [00:51.000 --> 00:53.000] Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? [00:53.000 --> 00:55.000] Bad boys, bad boys [00:55.000 --> 00:56.000] Whatcha gonna do? [00:56.000 --> 00:59.000] Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? [00:59.000 --> 01:01.000] You chuck it on that one [01:01.000 --> 01:02.000] You chuck it on this one [01:02.000 --> 01:05.000] You chuck it on your mother and you chuck it on your father [01:05.000 --> 01:07.000] You chuck it on your brother and you chuck it on your sister [01:07.000 --> 01:10.000] You chuck it on that one and you chuck it on me [01:10.000 --> 01:11.000] Bad boys, bad boys [01:11.000 --> 01:13.000] Whatcha gonna do? [01:13.000 --> 01:15.000] Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? [01:15.000 --> 01:17.000] Bad boys, bad boys [01:17.000 --> 01:19.000] Whatcha gonna do? [01:19.000 --> 01:21.000] Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? [01:21.000 --> 01:23.000] Bad boys, bad boys [01:23.000 --> 01:24.000] Whatcha gonna do? [01:24.000 --> 01:26.000] Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? [01:26.000 --> 01:28.000] Bad boys, bad boys [01:28.000 --> 01:32.000] 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 --> 01:43.000] That old soldier man now give you no break Not even your agent now give you no breaks [01:43.000 --> 01:48.000] Bad boys, bad boys Whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? [01:48.000 --> 01:54.000] Bad boys, bad boys Whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? [01:54.000 --> 01:59.000] Bad boys, bad boys Whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? [01:59.000 --> 02:06.000] Bad boys, bad boys Whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? [02:25.000 --> 02:32.000] Why did you have to act so mean? Don't you know you're a human being? [02:32.000 --> 02:37.000] Born of a mother with a lover for father Reflection comes and reflection goes [02:37.000 --> 02:42.000] I know sometimes You wanna let go [02:42.000 --> 02:48.000] I know sometimes You wanna let go [02:48.000 --> 02:54.000] Bad boys, bad boys Whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? [02:54.000 --> 02:59.000] Bad boys, bad boys Whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? [02:59.000 --> 03:21.040] Okay, howdy, howdy, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio, and Brett and I are both [03:21.040 --> 03:24.920] here and I have a serious problem. [03:24.920 --> 03:28.760] Brett knows I'm old and decrepit. [03:28.760 --> 03:35.120] And he let me start out the show and he didn't tell me what the wrong date was. [03:35.120 --> 03:38.160] I didn't give you the wrong date or I didn't give you the year. [03:38.160 --> 03:40.680] We have a tradition of him giving me the wrong date. [03:40.680 --> 03:43.000] Well, how do you know I didn't give you the wrong date? [03:43.000 --> 03:44.000] Because I got the calendar. [03:44.000 --> 03:46.000] Well, you didn't give me one at all. [03:46.000 --> 03:49.240] It's the third of July. [03:49.240 --> 03:54.440] We're looking at July 3rd, it is the second half already of 2025. [03:54.440 --> 03:56.280] How about that? [03:56.280 --> 03:58.400] Man, it is going fast. [03:58.400 --> 04:03.600] Okay, 30 July, 23, 25, Thursday, the third of July. [04:03.600 --> 04:09.240] And we're opening the phone lines, except I can't open the phone lines, Brett, my clock [04:09.240 --> 04:10.240] is not working. [04:10.240 --> 04:12.240] All right, I got it. [04:12.240 --> 04:13.240] Okay, then. [04:14.240 --> 04:15.240] Anybody wants to call in? [04:15.240 --> 04:18.240] It's 512-646-1984. [04:18.240 --> 04:24.920] And the other day, you talked about discovery. [04:24.920 --> 04:28.520] And I have not, of all the stuff I've done, I haven't done enough discovery. [04:28.520 --> 04:31.120] I've done some, but not enough. [04:31.120 --> 04:35.640] And your treatment on discovery was frankly very interesting. [04:35.640 --> 04:36.640] Oh, good. [04:36.640 --> 04:39.640] I hope it was really helpful. [04:40.040 --> 04:45.040] We'll keep it until we get some callers. [04:45.040 --> 04:51.040] Looks like my turning on the caller lines didn't actually take. [04:51.040 --> 04:55.520] I'm going to hit that again. [04:55.520 --> 04:59.640] That's what mine is not doing either. [04:59.640 --> 05:02.480] It says it's not, it's timing out. [05:02.480 --> 05:06.840] So maybe Deborah, if she's listening, can check to see. [05:06.840 --> 05:08.840] Oh, I can go back to that. [05:09.040 --> 05:10.040] Give me a minute. [05:10.040 --> 05:11.040] Give me a minute. [05:11.040 --> 05:12.040] Okay. [05:12.040 --> 05:14.040] Deborah's fixing that. [05:14.040 --> 05:22.600] So yeah, with discovery, I don't know that I would necessarily be able to say it like [05:22.600 --> 05:27.400] I did before because I didn't have a script, I was just off the cuff. [05:27.400 --> 05:36.440] But the idea was I was wanting people to be able to use this powerful tool to get evidence [05:36.440 --> 05:46.080] in and evidence includes discovery, but it could also include other things. [05:46.080 --> 05:50.140] You could also get evidence from other places, but discoveries are really powerful and underused [05:50.140 --> 05:53.520] way to get the evidence you need. [05:53.520 --> 06:01.240] You're essentially asking the opposing party to produce for you the evidence that you need. [06:01.240 --> 06:03.720] You're asking them to tattle on themselves. [06:03.720 --> 06:04.720] Yeah. [06:04.720 --> 06:08.880] Whether it's exculpatory evidence, you're being accused of something and you need them [06:08.880 --> 06:17.300] to give you the proof that you're innocent or if you are, you might be the plaintiff [06:17.300 --> 06:24.600] in the case and you need the defendant to show proof of their guilt. [06:24.600 --> 06:30.840] You want to establish your case so that you can win. [06:31.840 --> 06:40.560] And I would reiterate the importance of paying attention to the elements because whatever [06:40.560 --> 06:45.280] your cause of action is, or if you're defending whatever cause of action is being brought [06:45.280 --> 06:51.320] against you, it has essential elements and that's really the only thing you need to pay [06:51.320 --> 06:53.680] attention to. [06:53.680 --> 07:01.400] How you felt about it, how rude the officer was, none of that makes any difference. [07:01.400 --> 07:08.340] Look at the cause of action, find its essential elements and get yourself some evidence that [07:08.340 --> 07:11.560] goes to those elements. [07:11.560 --> 07:15.360] Anything else, you're just wasting your time, spinning your wheels, wasting paper, there's [07:15.360 --> 07:17.020] no point. [07:17.020 --> 07:27.940] So I like to say, and people have different ways of approaching discovery, but I was sharing [07:27.940 --> 07:33.420] about my approach tends to begin with admissions. [07:33.420 --> 07:37.020] Now I'm not going to use up all of my admissions. [07:37.020 --> 07:42.780] Look in your rules, whatever jurisdiction, they may have a limit, may not, but you want [07:42.860 --> 07:48.380] to make sure that you just use some of them, don't use all of them. [07:48.380 --> 07:54.900] Like if you have an option to use 15 max, maybe you'll use five or 10. [07:54.900 --> 07:57.380] Don't get up to 15 or even 14. [07:57.380 --> 08:01.740] You want to save yourself, give yourself some buffer, some room later to ask admissions [08:01.740 --> 08:03.700] again later. [08:03.700 --> 08:08.820] So admissions are statements. [08:08.820 --> 08:12.600] You're not asking them questions, you don't need them to produce documents, you are making [08:12.600 --> 08:15.720] a statement of fact. [08:15.720 --> 08:25.320] You're asserting that something is true, and the things that you need to assert are statements [08:25.320 --> 08:34.800] that will slice and dice the essential elements so that you need to go after for each cause [08:34.800 --> 08:36.840] of action. [08:36.840 --> 08:41.280] Let's say you've got two causes of action coming against you, you're the defendant, [08:41.280 --> 08:44.800] and each one of those causes has five elements to it. [08:44.800 --> 08:54.520] So you must destroy at least one of each of those, one element for each cause. [08:54.520 --> 08:58.840] Or if you're the one that's the plaintiff and you're the one who is bringing the causes [08:58.840 --> 09:03.460] of action to the court, so let's say you've got two causes of action and each one has [09:04.020 --> 09:15.000] elements, you have to conclusively, solidly establish all 10 of those essential elements. [09:15.000 --> 09:20.940] If you miss one, then that entire cause of action fails. [09:20.940 --> 09:30.260] So you make these statements of fact that speaks to the essential element of a cause [09:30.260 --> 09:33.780] of action. [09:33.780 --> 09:37.060] And say them in a simple way. [09:37.060 --> 09:47.980] Don't say, and, and, and, while roughly abusing our system of justice and all this random [09:47.980 --> 09:50.020] stuff that doesn't really go with it. [09:50.020 --> 09:51.020] Leave all of that out. [09:51.020 --> 09:53.020] Leave your emotions out. [09:53.020 --> 09:56.420] Pretty much any adjective and adverb doesn't belong there. [09:56.460 --> 10:03.700] You need to just be really simple and clean and clear with your statement. [10:03.700 --> 10:08.140] And make your statement in a way that it's, it's large. [10:08.140 --> 10:10.980] It covers the bases. [10:10.980 --> 10:17.860] It doesn't get really specific and say, this person did this on, on Tuesday at 10 13 in [10:17.860 --> 10:19.620] the morning. [10:19.620 --> 10:27.220] Well, what if they, in their evasiveness, want to say, oh, actually, they did it, but [10:27.220 --> 10:33.120] it was at 10 11, it wasn't at 10 13, so I'm going to say denied. [10:33.120 --> 10:38.260] You want them to be forced by your phrasing, the wording that you use, they're forced to [10:38.260 --> 10:40.580] admit that it's true. [10:40.580 --> 10:45.340] Let me ask you to elaborate on something. [10:45.340 --> 10:54.340] You made a comment I found very telling about adjectives and adverbs and why not to use [10:54.340 --> 10:55.340] them. [10:58.340 --> 11:03.340] That dirty, rotten, no-good, lousy scoundrel, he did this. [11:06.340 --> 11:09.340] And say, he did this. [11:09.340 --> 11:11.340] Leave all that junk out of there. [11:11.340 --> 11:13.340] Exactly. [11:13.340 --> 11:18.260] Because if you're asking the other side to admit that he's a dirty rotten scoundrel, well, [11:18.260 --> 11:20.300] they're going to say denied. [11:20.300 --> 11:27.740] And then they won't even be getting to the point you needed them to admit that they did [11:27.740 --> 11:29.700] that thing. [11:29.700 --> 11:33.620] So yeah, or admit that a contract existed. [11:34.620 --> 11:42.740] Say admit that a fraudulent contract which duped the plaintiff into, no, no, no, leave [11:42.740 --> 11:45.220] all of that stuff out. [11:45.220 --> 11:46.820] Just admit that the contract existed. [11:46.820 --> 11:53.940] In other words, keep it as simple as you can and as clear as you can without all of the [11:53.940 --> 11:58.820] flavor that, you know, as you're telling your family about what happened, of course, they're [11:58.820 --> 11:59.980] going to get that flavor. [11:59.980 --> 12:07.700] But in your statements, your admissions, your discovery request for admissions, those statements [12:07.700 --> 12:12.220] need to be as tight and simple as possible. [12:12.220 --> 12:18.380] And they need to cover broadly what it is that you need covered. [12:18.380 --> 12:26.180] Don't be so specific that they can quibble with you about where something was because [12:26.180 --> 12:33.380] you were too specific or when something was or, you know, things like that. [12:33.380 --> 12:37.180] Let me make a little comment about that. [12:37.180 --> 12:41.700] If you say it, it can be a lie. [12:41.700 --> 12:45.720] But if I think it, it's true. [12:45.720 --> 12:55.820] So if I say this police officer did this and did this and did this, if I'm careful and [12:55.820 --> 13:03.300] I structure the facts that I present and the order I present them in, but I don't give [13:03.300 --> 13:10.380] any elaboration, then the listener will add that elaboration himself because the listener [13:10.380 --> 13:15.620] needs a way to make this string of facts make sense. [13:15.620 --> 13:16.620] Yes. [13:16.780 --> 13:28.220] So you try to craft the referential, the nature of the statement so that the reader [13:28.220 --> 13:34.180] will read it in a way that he will stick it together the way you want him to. [13:34.180 --> 13:40.460] If I tell the judge how he's supposed to think, he's going to be annoyed by that. [13:40.460 --> 13:45.700] But if I tell the judge, I'm going to give you a bunch of facts that demonstrates that [13:45.700 --> 13:48.580] this guy is a dirty rotten scoundrel. [13:48.580 --> 13:52.300] And then I give you facts that don't speak to dirty rotten scoundrel. [13:52.300 --> 13:53.300] He did this. [13:53.300 --> 13:54.300] He did this. [13:54.300 --> 13:55.300] He did this. [13:55.300 --> 13:59.620] Now I have framed in the mind of the reader. [13:59.620 --> 14:04.220] Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area [14:04.220 --> 14:05.620] of nutrition. [14:05.620 --> 14:10.340] People feed their pets better than they feed themselves, and it's time we changed all that. [14:10.380 --> 14:16.060] Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition. [14:16.060 --> 14:22.420] In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, young Jevity can [14:22.420 --> 14:24.660] provide the nutrients you need. [14:24.660 --> 14:29.500] Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which [14:29.500 --> 14:30.620] we reject. [14:30.620 --> 14:35.860] We have come to trust young Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with [14:35.860 --> 14:39.060] Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others. [14:39.060 --> 14:45.020] When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support [14:45.020 --> 14:46.660] quality radio. [14:46.660 --> 14:50.980] As you realize the benefits of young Jevity, you may want to join us. [14:50.980 --> 14:56.220] As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and [14:56.220 --> 14:58.180] increase your income. [14:58.180 --> 15:00.420] Order now. [15:00.420 --> 15:04.420] Are you looking to have a closer relationship with God and a better understanding of His [15:04.420 --> 15:05.580] Word? [15:05.580 --> 15:10.300] Then tune in to LogosRadioNetwork.com on Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. Central Time [15:10.300 --> 15:15.660] for Scripture Talk, where Nana and her guests discuss the Scriptures in accord with 2 Timothy [15:15.660 --> 15:16.660] 2.15. [15:16.660 --> 15:21.860] Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly [15:21.860 --> 15:24.260] dividing the word of truth. [15:24.260 --> 15:27.900] Starting in January, our first hour studies are in the Book of Mark, where we'll go [15:27.900 --> 15:31.580] verse by verse and discuss the true gospel message. [15:31.580 --> 15:36.240] Our second hour topical studies will vary each week with discussions on sound doctrine [15:36.240 --> 15:38.620] and Christian character development. [15:38.620 --> 15:43.140] We wish to reflect God's light and be a blessing to all those with a hearing ear. [15:43.140 --> 15:47.460] Our goal is to strengthen our faith and to transform ourselves more into the likeness [15:47.460 --> 15:49.720] of our Lord and Savior Jesus. [15:49.720 --> 15:56.380] So tune in to Scripture Talk live on LogosRadioNetwork.com, Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. to inspire and [15:56.380 --> 15:58.620] motivate your studies of the Scriptures. [16:01.580 --> 16:07.620] You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, LogosRadioNetwork.com [16:31.580 --> 16:35.620] LogosRadioNetwork.com [17:01.580 --> 17:05.620] LogosRadioNetwork.com [17:31.580 --> 17:35.620] LogosRadioNetwork.com [18:01.580 --> 18:05.620] LogosRadioNetwork.com [18:31.580 --> 18:35.620] LogosRadioNetwork.com [19:01.580 --> 19:05.620] LogosRadioNetwork.com [19:31.580 --> 19:35.620] LogosRadioNetwork.com [20:01.580 --> 20:05.620] LogosRadioNetwork.com [20:31.580 --> 20:35.620] LogosRadioNetwork.com [21:01.580 --> 21:05.620] LogosRadioNetwork.com [21:31.580 --> 21:35.620] LogosRadioNetwork.com [22:01.580 --> 22:05.620] LogosRadioNetwork.com [22:31.580 --> 22:35.620] LogosRadioNetwork.com [23:01.580 --> 23:05.620] LogosRadioNetwork.com [23:31.580 --> 23:35.620] Logos RadioNetwork.com [24:01.580 --> 24:05.620] Logos RadioNetwork.com [24:31.580 --> 24:35.620] Logos RadioNetwork.com [25:01.580 --> 25:05.620] Logos RadioNetwork.com [25:31.580 --> 25:35.620] Logos RadioNetwork.com [26:01.580 --> 26:05.620] Logos RadioNetwork.com [26:31.620 --> 26:35.620] Logos RadioNetwork.com [26:35.620 --> 26:39.620] Logos RadioNetwork.com [26:39.620 --> 26:43.660] Logos RadioNetwork.com [27:09.620 --> 27:13.660] Logos RadioNetwork.com [27:39.620 --> 27:43.660] Logos RadioNetwork.com [28:09.660 --> 28:13.660] Logos RadioNetwork.com [28:17.660 --> 28:21.660] Logos RadioNetwork.com [28:21.660 --> 28:25.660] Logos RadioNetwork.com [28:39.660 --> 28:43.660] Logos RadioNetwork.com [29:01.660 --> 29:05.660] LogosRadioNetwork.com [29:09.620 --> 29:14.020] to have to stand and defend our own rights. Among those rights are the right to travel freely from [29:14.020 --> 29:18.020] place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity, and most importantly, the right to due [29:18.020 --> 29:22.820] process of law. Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and [29:22.820 --> 29:27.060] preserve our rights through due process. Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with [29:27.060 --> 29:30.660] Rule of Law Radio, has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will [29:30.660 --> 29:35.140] help you understand what due process is and how to hold courts to the rule of law. You can get your [29:35.140 --> 29:39.860] own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today. [29:39.860 --> 29:43.940] By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus [29:43.940 --> 29:48.420] the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents, and [29:48.420 --> 29:52.100] other useful resource material. Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material [29:52.100 --> 29:57.300] from ruleoflawradio.com. Order your copy today and together we can have the free society we all want [29:57.300 --> 30:05.460] and deserve. Live free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com. [30:28.020 --> 30:33.460] Not be abused, officer. [30:33.460 --> 30:55.460] When you're gonna stop abuse, your power. [30:55.700 --> 31:00.420] So please Mr. Mackle and teach officers not to abuse their power. [31:01.380 --> 31:09.140] Send a request to the leader, the captain of all officers. Tell them to uphold the law. [31:10.500 --> 31:17.300] Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio, and I bring us in the show [31:17.300 --> 31:21.460] lively and upbeat because I did not run off the cliff. [31:25.380 --> 31:36.340] We do have Tina on the bridge and Tina may have a question, but Tina has a lot of content. So Tina, [31:36.340 --> 31:42.820] I'm not going to you yet, but I've unmuted you because I want you to be able to comment [31:43.780 --> 31:47.380] concerning Brett's presentation on discovery. [31:49.700 --> 31:50.020] Okay. [31:50.020 --> 31:50.820] Say hi, Tina. [31:52.820 --> 31:53.380] Hi there. [31:54.820 --> 31:55.620] Good. Okay. [31:56.820 --> 32:03.300] So we were talking about admissions and that's part of discovery, which is part of getting the [32:03.300 --> 32:12.180] evidence you need. And we were talking about how it's so typical for opposing counsel to [32:12.260 --> 32:18.180] look at a request for discovery from a pro se and just completely blow you off. [32:18.180 --> 32:24.500] They're not going to answer you. We already know that. So what's cool about that is I, knowing that, [32:25.140 --> 32:30.580] start with some admissions that I know would just kill the case. I'm going to totally win [32:30.580 --> 32:35.940] if these things are true. And I'll go ahead and put those in some requests for admission, [32:35.940 --> 32:41.460] at least to seal up everything with the elements that I need for [32:41.460 --> 32:51.140] however many causes of action are being brought. So then once the time passes, usually 30 days, [32:51.140 --> 33:01.140] like I said, well, no answer. The rules equate a non-answer or completely ignored you. That means [33:01.940 --> 33:09.140] they're deemed to be admitted. All of those statements. Now, if the lawyer answers, [33:10.340 --> 33:14.420] but he only answers three out of seven, then the other four are deemed admitted. [33:16.100 --> 33:22.580] Okay. But most likely, in my experience, they just don't answer at all. They completely ignore [33:23.540 --> 33:33.380] the request for admissions. So that's fine. That means come 30 days, it's deemed admitted, [33:34.020 --> 33:44.180] and come 31 days, I'm going to move the court to compel cooperation with the other request. [33:44.180 --> 33:49.060] I'm not going to say anything about the admissions. So remember I said I start with [33:49.060 --> 33:55.540] admissions, but then I follow it up with some others, maybe some interrogatories, asking questions, [33:57.540 --> 34:02.900] or I might have some request for production of certain documents. [34:04.340 --> 34:11.220] And it may seem to the lawyer that producing those documents would be, [34:11.220 --> 34:18.820] oh, that would be over burdensome and whatever. But as long as I can say, hey, this is reasonably [34:18.820 --> 34:26.260] calculated to produce admissible evidence. That's the line. If I'm asking for things that don't [34:26.260 --> 34:32.740] matter, then, you know, that's not appropriate. But if I ask for things that can be reasonably [34:32.740 --> 34:39.220] calculated to produce admissible evidence, hey, that's exactly what discovery is for. [34:40.260 --> 34:46.340] So the lawyer can't complain and whine about it, even if it is something that's difficult or [34:46.340 --> 34:56.820] time consuming for him to produce for me. So I follow up the admissions with some other request, [34:56.820 --> 35:04.260] production of documents or some whatever, request access to this particular location. [35:05.460 --> 35:12.100] I need to see this. I need something disclosed. And when they ignore that, [35:12.260 --> 35:20.020] then that's what my, on day 31, I'm moving the court to compel cooperation with discovery, [35:21.300 --> 35:27.300] but I don't mention the admissions, not in that motion to compel. I move the court to compel [35:28.100 --> 35:36.180] the production of the documents. That shows the court already that the other side is being [35:36.180 --> 35:39.620] the other side is being uncooperative. They're not following the rules. [35:41.620 --> 35:46.980] And then maybe a day or two later, I'm going to mention, hey, I have a motion to compel [35:47.860 --> 35:53.700] the production of these documents. So now I've got two things, to respond to interrogatories, [35:53.700 --> 35:58.580] whichever order I've done them in. And then now the court's seeing a pattern here. [35:59.380 --> 36:07.060] So by the time I move the court to deem my admissions admitted per rule, whatever, [36:08.820 --> 36:14.980] the court is already seeing a pattern of uncooperativeness from the other side. [36:16.020 --> 36:25.380] So to me, it's useful to put them in that order. Now, the reason I say we just touch this really [36:25.380 --> 36:31.220] quickly and then we can move on to whatever else, but the reason I say reserve some admissions [36:31.220 --> 36:36.740] for last is because after you get the production of documents, [36:38.020 --> 36:42.180] let's say they're being cooperative. I've never really found that to be the case. [36:42.900 --> 36:46.820] They say, hey, you're a pro se. We don't like you. We're not going to deal with you. We don't even [36:46.820 --> 36:53.460] want to talk to you. So we're just ignore you. But let's say that if they do produce the documents [36:53.460 --> 37:02.340] that are needed or they do respond to interrogatories, then that will open up for you. [37:04.820 --> 37:11.620] That'll help you to better craft the last statements of fact that you're going to need [37:13.460 --> 37:21.940] in order to lock it all down before court. You need to lock in your win in writing from them, [37:21.940 --> 37:27.300] from the opposing counsel, ideally. If there are any holes in that where they can't produce [37:27.300 --> 37:32.980] something for you, well, maybe you know something that you could produce as an affidavit or you [37:32.980 --> 37:39.620] get somebody else who can be called to testify, that's fine. But ideally, if you can get the [37:39.620 --> 37:47.540] opposing counsel to produce this evidence for you, that's great. And having a few admissions left [37:47.540 --> 37:52.740] over within your quota of however many they tell you you're allowed to have. So if you're allowed [37:52.740 --> 38:00.420] to have 25 and you've still got 10 left, then after you've reviewed all of the other evidence that [38:00.420 --> 38:07.540] they've provided during discovery, then you can take a look at that and say, here's a place where [38:07.540 --> 38:14.100] I really need to drill down. They've been vague. They've been evasive. I can tell this is their [38:14.100 --> 38:24.580] weak spot. So that's where you would put in some more requests for admission. And again, admission [38:24.580 --> 38:31.060] is for statements of fact. People keep on getting this confused. They'll say they're doing requests [38:31.060 --> 38:37.700] for admission, but when I look at the document they're producing, it's questions. So with admissions, [38:37.700 --> 38:46.420] we don't ask questions. These are things that are true or false and you want them to be true. [38:47.780 --> 38:54.660] Sorry, say that again. Can you give us an example of this? Because I think that is confusing to a [38:54.660 --> 39:01.700] lot of people. And I kind of see where you're going. And I like the fact that you're saying, [39:01.700 --> 39:06.740] let's leave some of these admissions till later. And I hope you're going to expand on why, but [39:06.740 --> 39:13.460] give us a really good example too of these admissions. Well, how would you craft [39:14.260 --> 39:22.180] a request for admissions? Okay. Let's take your situation with your home and [39:24.980 --> 39:32.180] let's say that, let's see, was it you that were the plaintiff [39:32.180 --> 39:38.740] in that situation where you lost your home? Was that a, were you the plaintiff? [39:40.420 --> 39:48.260] Yes. Okay. So what was the cause of action that you were needing to establish there? [39:51.380 --> 39:57.140] Oh, it's been so long. I'm not really sure, but I was trying to, I was trying to, you know, [39:57.220 --> 40:04.900] basically established that the bank was basically lying to me and, you know, failing to [40:06.900 --> 40:15.700] abide by the California law that gave us, you know, the, what is it? The, I'm trying to think [40:15.700 --> 40:22.180] of the name of the act, which really had no power because California is a non-judicial state. [40:22.900 --> 40:30.900] They can just take your home. Okay. So let's say, for example, that in your request for admissions, [40:31.460 --> 40:37.060] you needed to show that they were lying, perhaps because you were trying to prove fraud or [40:37.060 --> 40:41.380] something like that. So you needed to show that they lied to you and that they knew they were lying. [40:42.500 --> 40:50.340] So in your admissions, you found out that it's got all the pieces of it there, [40:50.900 --> 40:54.340] but we're going to have to come back on the other side to talk about this. [40:54.340 --> 40:56.740] Cause we're going to our sponsors. We'll be right back. [40:58.980 --> 41:04.260] Do you have a business with five employees or more? How would you like to save hundreds of [41:04.260 --> 41:10.340] thousands of dollars in FICA taxes? Do you have a major medical plan that nobody can afford to be on [41:10.340 --> 41:16.420] or how would you like to save in premium costs on a current major medical plan by lowering the [41:16.420 --> 41:24.180] claims cost? The chant plan is a section 125 IRS approved preventative health plan that provides [41:24.180 --> 41:31.780] your employees with doctors, medications, emergency care, and Teladoc all at zero cost with zero [41:31.780 --> 41:38.820] copay. If you are an employee, you also will get a pay raise by paying less than FICA taxes. As an [41:38.820 --> 41:45.380] employer, you will save hundreds of thousands of dollars in matching FICA taxes. The chant plan [41:45.380 --> 41:52.020] can help add working capital market resale value or pay down lines of credit. Call Scott [41:52.020 --> 42:02.660] at 214-730-2471 or dallasmms.com. Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? [42:03.220 --> 42:08.020] Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to [42:08.020 --> 42:16.020] understand for CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step. If you have a lawyer, [42:16.020 --> 42:20.900] know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for [42:20.900 --> 42:28.180] yourself. Thousands have won with our step by step course, and now you can too. Jurisdictionary was [42:28.180 --> 42:34.660] created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience. Even if you're not in a [42:34.660 --> 42:40.100] lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices [42:40.100 --> 42:46.980] that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, [42:46.980 --> 42:54.180] forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com [42:54.180 --> 42:59.700] and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ. [43:54.260 --> 43:55.700] Watching the sparks fly [44:01.060 --> 44:06.260] The friction is an addiction, the hard work can leave you cold as nails [44:06.260 --> 44:12.420] There's been hostility toward tranquility, heavy loads of taping on scales [44:12.420 --> 44:17.220] The time is colliding with the conflict, you find out after a while [44:17.860 --> 44:23.860] It's not your moral standard, it's your patience that's on trial [44:23.860 --> 44:25.860] Watching the sparks fly [44:29.860 --> 44:31.860] Watching the sparks fly [44:35.860 --> 44:37.860] Watching the sparks fly [44:41.860 --> 44:43.860] Watching the sparks fly [44:47.620 --> 44:49.620] Watching the sparks fly [45:11.380 --> 45:16.020] All right, welcome back to the rule of law radio. Randy Kelton, I'm Brett Fountain. [45:17.220 --> 45:24.500] On this 3rd of July, 2025, we're talking with Tina in California, or actually we're just [45:25.300 --> 45:31.300] letting Tina, we're bouncing some ideas off of Tina here. Now Tina, when we went out, [45:31.300 --> 45:38.660] we were talking about that you were asking for an example. And one thing that you could say if [45:38.660 --> 45:46.180] you're trying to prove that the opposite side, the opposite party was lying, for example, maybe [45:46.180 --> 45:50.500] you're trying to prove fraud. And so that's part of it. You need to show that their statements [45:50.500 --> 45:56.900] were false, right? And to show that they were willing. Well, if they were knowingly false. [45:56.900 --> 46:03.220] Well, one thing you could do as a simple request for admission, you could ask them to admit [46:04.740 --> 46:12.820] that they had knowledge of the falsity of XYZ document. [46:13.540 --> 46:22.900] Now, that covers two elements with one statement. Knowledge of the falsity means [46:24.500 --> 46:31.460] it was false and they knew it. You're not asking them, you don't want to make it too specific to [46:31.460 --> 46:36.020] say they had actual knowledge or constructive knowledge. Now you're kind of making it where [46:36.020 --> 46:42.340] they can say, oh, how do I get out of this? But just leave it as knowledge, for example. [46:43.060 --> 46:52.260] So then you're saying, at that time, you had knowledge of the falsity of this document. Now, [46:53.380 --> 46:58.500] you have established, if that thing gets taken as true, that statement gets taken as true, [47:00.420 --> 47:05.780] now you've established that part of the fraud. Does that make sense? [47:05.780 --> 47:12.820] Yes, actually, it's interesting that you say that because relating to my situation, [47:13.540 --> 47:19.220] I found out well, well after the fact, after my cases were all dismissed, that they had actually [47:20.100 --> 47:26.420] had knowledge of the falsity of the documents they submitted to court to say I had transferred my [47:26.420 --> 47:32.260] property. It's in the loan file that they knew these were fraud, but they submitted them anyway. [47:32.820 --> 47:41.620] But I was never allowed to get to discovery. In all of my cases, except for the one against the [47:42.340 --> 47:51.860] timeless treasures, they never allowed discovery. And in fact, the one that I was allowed discovery [47:51.860 --> 47:57.380] against that bankruptcy case, that's the only case I've won because I was allowed discovery. [47:57.860 --> 48:02.260] Interesting, yes. Yeah, because you have to have the admissible evidence. And if you [48:02.260 --> 48:10.820] are disallowed that, that's terrible. So what do you mean you were not allowed discovery? [48:10.820 --> 48:14.820] Let's just drill into that for just a moment. I'm not trying to embarrass you. I know a lot of [48:14.820 --> 48:19.300] I've done a ton of things wrong. And I know I'm not trying to highlight something that you did [48:19.300 --> 48:25.300] wrong. But I'm wondering, what do you mean by that? When you say you weren't allowed discovery, [48:25.300 --> 48:27.620] was it because the other side just didn't answer? [48:29.220 --> 48:34.740] No, they kept closing my cases and saying, you know, you have no case, you have this, [48:34.740 --> 48:41.540] you're refusing to allow me to speak. I mean, it was just and I admit, I was definitely completely [48:41.540 --> 48:49.860] naive at the beginning and didn't know all these things. You know, yeah, you were probably like me [48:49.860 --> 48:55.460] early on. I thought that if I would just, I would just have the facts and the law on my side. [48:57.460 --> 48:58.500] It was a shoo in. [49:00.020 --> 49:05.700] Yes. And you think they're going to be honest and these attorneys are going to be honest. And then [49:05.700 --> 49:11.700] you find no, they even admit to being dishonest. And the court say, oh, that's litigation privilege. [49:11.700 --> 49:16.900] So it's okay for them to be dishonest. You're just banging your head against a brick wall, [49:17.620 --> 49:25.780] thinking, you know, how do you combat this as a prosaic litigant? And I'm facing this in this [49:25.780 --> 49:28.820] bankruptcy, you know, through proceedings. [49:28.820 --> 49:37.780] So about that dishonesty, for example, while the court may believe and rule that litigation [49:37.780 --> 49:44.900] privilege covers all the dishonesty that they want to have, still the fact that they were dishonest [49:44.900 --> 49:50.340] is part of one of the essential elements. So if that gets established, then fraud can be established. [49:50.340 --> 49:55.940] See what I mean? Regardless of litigation privilege, they may have litigations, [49:55.940 --> 50:01.140] they may have badges and broaches about how dishonest they are and who cares. [50:01.140 --> 50:06.260] But as long as that's an element in the fraud that you're trying to prove, you've got it. [50:08.340 --> 50:14.020] But I was still denied. And even though I presented the fraud, they admitted to the fraud [50:14.020 --> 50:23.620] and it was found in my loan file after the fact, the court still did not let me get to do all this. [50:23.620 --> 50:31.060] So if you find out about this after your case is closed, how do you come back saying, [50:31.060 --> 50:37.780] this is new discovery that I was not allowed to have, that I could not have found out because it [50:37.780 --> 50:48.580] was hidden intentionally? How can you then say, I need discovery now because I have since found out [50:48.580 --> 50:50.980] that this happened? Is that- [50:50.980 --> 50:54.900] I'm not sure if there is a way. I've seen that people do a motion to reopen a case, [50:55.540 --> 51:01.780] but I've never had success with that myself. But let's talk about for a moment the part where you [51:01.780 --> 51:09.860] were denied discovery. Now I have for a long time been telling people about two kinds of [51:10.900 --> 51:16.340] in-court solutions that they have. And today I learned that there's a third. [51:17.780 --> 51:24.340] So I've been telling people about petitioning the appellate court for a writ of mandamus [51:25.220 --> 51:29.780] or going to the appellate court and asking for an interlocutory order. [51:30.740 --> 51:36.260] Interlocutory meaning between the speaking, like interrupting the lower court, having the higher [51:36.260 --> 51:41.700] court interrupt the lower court, or with mandamus asking the higher court to mandate that the lower [51:41.700 --> 51:47.940] court follow the law. And both of those would be perfectly appropriate in a situation where [51:47.940 --> 51:54.180] you're not being allowed to have discovery. I mean, that's basic. You have to have discovery. [51:54.180 --> 51:59.220] If they're not allowing you discovery, what is this? Star chambers? You've already got your mind [51:59.220 --> 52:03.460] made up of what's the ruling going to be before there's any evidence. You're not even allow [52:03.460 --> 52:12.180] evidence. The appellate court will take a dim view of that. Sorry, say that again. [52:13.380 --> 52:16.580] That happens a lot with pro se litigants. They just dismiss them. [52:16.580 --> 52:24.660] Oh, you are right. Unfortunately, that's very constant. That's almost 100% of the time. It's [52:24.660 --> 52:32.180] super predictable. We have some people who are lawyers who, they're good lawyers. They have a [52:32.180 --> 52:38.260] right heart and they go into the courtroom and they can't imagine that the court is mistreating [52:38.260 --> 52:46.500] us just because we're a pro se. Scalia talked about this, but for the most part, they don't [52:46.500 --> 52:50.820] realize that that bias exists. They think that if we just as a pro se, we'll go in there and [52:51.300 --> 52:57.460] you know, cite the proper rules and put the motions in in a timely way and, you know, [52:58.100 --> 53:04.100] cite to something that's controlling law, boom, we're going to have our win. And [53:05.540 --> 53:09.620] people like you and me realize that there is a definite bias in place. [53:10.660 --> 53:16.100] There is. In fact, I'm bringing that into my appeal to my denial of the appeal. [53:16.820 --> 53:23.300] Um, and, and I've actually found, uh, somebody to help actually quite affordable because I was [53:23.300 --> 53:29.620] just running into total time constraints. And one of the things they've come up with, um, [53:29.620 --> 53:35.380] and I'll just read this sentence, even assuming the court was not obligated to give notice, [53:36.020 --> 53:42.900] it, uh, or will only first to justify dismissal without notice or leave to amend. However, [53:42.900 --> 53:50.420] this rule is not absolute. The sixth circuit has repeatedly emphasized that Sue Sponte dismissals [53:50.420 --> 53:59.540] under 1915 E are disfavored where the plaintiff is pro se and there is a possible yes for [53:59.540 --> 54:05.300] amendment. The bankruptcy court was not required to dismiss the complaint without notice, [54:05.300 --> 54:11.860] particularly when it was the first filing and the plaintiff sought discovery to support her claims. [54:12.420 --> 54:16.020] Even assuming the court was not obligated to give notice, [54:16.020 --> 54:22.820] it erred in failing to afford appellant an opportunity to amend. Appellant explicitly [54:22.820 --> 54:30.100] requested further discovery to substantiate her claims and had not previously been granted any [54:30.100 --> 54:38.180] opportunity to amend where amendment is not clearly futile. It is an abuse of discretion [54:38.180 --> 54:46.340] to deny leave to amend, particularly in pro se and IFP in formal paupers context, [54:46.340 --> 54:54.100] see the fountain, the Harry seven sixties, uh, sixth circuit 2013. So I'm hoping. [54:54.100 --> 54:58.500] So tell me something, what, what document was this part of and did it go to an appellate court or [54:58.500 --> 55:04.100] did it go into the court, the trial court? It went to the truck and then it went to the [55:04.100 --> 55:08.900] appellate court. Now I'm feeling the appellate decision to upon the trial court. So I'm going [55:08.900 --> 55:15.140] to the further. Okay. Well, let me just mention real quickly a third item that I learned just [55:15.140 --> 55:20.820] today. And it's the writ of certiorari. Now I thought certs are only for after the lower court [55:21.780 --> 55:27.380] comes to a decision, but it turns out that we can use the petition for writ of certiorari [55:28.340 --> 55:37.220] similar to a mandamus or endulocutory order to have the higher court speak to the lower court [55:37.220 --> 55:42.260] and slap them into following the law. All right, hold on just a moment. [55:42.260 --> 55:45.220] We're about to go to our sponsors and we will be right back. [55:49.060 --> 55:54.580] The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated [55:54.740 --> 56:00.740] because they struggle to understand it. Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, [56:00.740 --> 56:04.900] but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the scripture. [56:05.860 --> 56:12.340] Enter the recovery version. First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, [56:12.340 --> 56:16.500] but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes. [56:17.140 --> 56:22.980] Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance into the [56:22.980 --> 56:28.340] riches of the word beyond which you've ever experienced before. Bibles for America would [56:28.340 --> 56:34.100] like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking. This comprehensive yet compact [56:34.100 --> 56:44.340] study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102 or by ordering online [56:44.340 --> 56:48.980] at freestudybible.com. That's freestudybible.com. [56:51.940 --> 56:58.100] You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com. [57:00.660 --> 57:04.420] The Bill of Rights contains the first 10 amendments of our Constitution. [57:04.420 --> 57:08.100] They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect. [57:08.100 --> 57:12.100] Our liberty depends on it. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be right back with an [57:12.100 --> 57:15.460] unforgettable way to remember one of your constitutional rights. [57:42.100 --> 57:48.900] Start over with Startpage. Most people think of seven as a more civilized number than six. [57:48.900 --> 57:54.500] Think of how the number six is implicated in evil, as in the biblical 666. So it would fit [57:54.500 --> 57:59.460] right in that the seventh amendment would be about civil trials. Civil seven, civil trials, [57:59.460 --> 58:04.420] get it? Civil trials are ones where people sue instead of beating each other up over a dispute, [58:04.420 --> 58:08.580] like the dividing line between properties. They take their dispute to a courthouse and [58:08.580 --> 58:13.380] settle matters civilly without the fisticuffs. The seventh amendment guarantees that Americans [58:13.380 --> 58:18.420] have the right to a jury in certain civil matters instead of having a lone judge rule on the case. [58:19.060 --> 58:23.140] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com. [58:31.300 --> 58:35.060] The Bill of Rights contains the first 10 amendments of our Constitution. [58:35.060 --> 58:38.740] They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect. [58:38.740 --> 58:42.740] Our liberty depends on it. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be right back with an [58:42.740 --> 58:46.100] unforgettable way to remember one of your constitutional rights. [58:46.820 --> 58:52.340] Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. [58:52.340 --> 58:57.140] And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. [58:57.140 --> 59:02.420] So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. [59:02.420 --> 59:06.980] Privacy. It's worth hanging on to. This public service announcement is brought to you by [59:06.980 --> 59:12.500] StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. [59:12.500 --> 59:20.100] Start over with StartPage. Remember the scene in George Orwell's novel 1984 when Winston is [59:20.100 --> 59:25.700] threatened with his worst fear? That fear was having a cage of hungry rats unleashed on his face. [59:25.700 --> 59:30.100] But what if his worst fear was spiders? Eight-legged spiders, to be exact. Getting [59:30.100 --> 59:35.060] a face full of spiders would be pretty cruel and unusual. That image of eight-legged spiders will [59:35.060 --> 59:38.980] help you remember the Eighth Amendment. Our founding fathers added the Eighth Amendment [59:38.980 --> 59:43.700] to the U.S. Constitution to protect us from creepy-crawly eight-legged punishments and [59:43.700 --> 59:48.260] other cruel and unusual prison practices that were common in their day. The Eighth Amendment [59:48.260 --> 59:52.900] also prohibits the government from requiring excessive bail and charging excessive fines. [59:53.540 --> 59:59.380] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com. [01:00:30.100 --> 01:00:42.420] Chant down, Bobby. Chant for justice. Chant for justice. Chant for rules. Chant for our words. [01:00:42.420 --> 01:00:44.420] Chant for our words. [01:01:00.580 --> 01:01:11.460] Hey, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rue La Radio on this, the third day of July, [01:01:12.260 --> 01:01:19.780] 2025, halfway through the year already. My mama warned me about this, [01:01:20.420 --> 01:01:28.580] that it keeps getting faster and faster. Okay, we're talking. We've got Tina on the line and [01:01:29.300 --> 01:01:36.100] Brett has been schooling us on discovery. And when I say us, I mean me too. [01:01:37.940 --> 01:01:44.980] I told Brett on the break, it's very seldom that I listen to my own archives. But this is one I'll [01:01:44.980 --> 01:01:52.900] listen to because this is information that's beyond me. Okay, Brett, teach me. [01:01:53.540 --> 01:02:03.300] I'm not the teacher. I am a fellow learner who's happy to share some of the things that I [01:02:03.860 --> 01:02:10.180] found to be successful. And in this about cert, that's something that I just learned today [01:02:11.300 --> 01:02:16.660] that would apply in this situation. Like I said, I thought that a petition for writ of certiorari [01:02:17.300 --> 01:02:23.700] was only for after the court comes to a decision. And that's the final thing. [01:02:23.700 --> 01:02:29.940] So instead of appealing, you can have a certain kind of appeal, which is petitioning the appellate [01:02:29.940 --> 01:02:35.220] court for a writ of certiorari. And I've done that before, and that was a winning move for me. [01:02:37.300 --> 01:02:43.620] But in this particular situation, the court does something that's completely inappropriate. [01:02:44.260 --> 01:02:48.260] I thought that the only remedies were mandamus or an interlocutory order, [01:02:48.260 --> 01:02:54.340] but it turns out we can also use the cert petition, the appellate court for a writ of certiorari. [01:02:56.020 --> 01:03:01.300] Okay, so let's see. Anything else we want to talk about there on your situation there [01:03:02.020 --> 01:03:07.620] before? Or would you like to go ahead and go to what your reason for your call? [01:03:07.620 --> 01:03:14.020] Well, I was just, you know, part of the reason was to say I've been finding some of this out [01:03:14.020 --> 01:03:18.740] and don't wish everybody a happy Fourth of July as your independence from Great Britain. [01:03:18.740 --> 01:03:24.580] But when you see the writ of certiorari, you know, I've always thought the writ of certiorari [01:03:24.580 --> 01:03:29.620] only go to the Supreme Court. But what you're saying is it can go to the lower court, [01:03:30.820 --> 01:03:32.420] lower appellate court. Is that correct? [01:03:32.420 --> 01:03:37.380] Yeah, it doesn't have to be the last appellate court. [01:03:39.540 --> 01:03:46.260] There's what I used it for and saw success was going from a justice of the Peace Court, [01:03:46.260 --> 01:03:54.900] which is an inferior court, and going from their ruling to a county court. So I petitioned the [01:03:54.900 --> 01:04:02.260] county court for writ of certiorari saying, because I wanted the appellate court to declare [01:04:03.220 --> 01:04:09.540] that the case had never been properly commenced in order to invoke the lower court's jurisdiction. [01:04:10.340 --> 01:04:21.060] Brett, is that particular writ of certiorari specific to Texas and specific to [01:04:22.020 --> 01:04:26.420] municipal or JP to county courts in Texas? [01:04:27.780 --> 01:04:34.500] I don't know the answer to that. The rule that I used was specific to that. But obviously [01:04:35.380 --> 01:04:39.860] that rule doesn't cover all situations. So if I were in a different court, I would look at those [01:04:39.860 --> 01:04:46.020] rules and find something that applies in that situation. [01:04:46.980 --> 01:04:48.580] That makes sense. [01:04:48.580 --> 01:04:52.980] I know when you first got my attention, I was surprised and taken aback. [01:04:54.180 --> 01:05:02.580] And it does appear to be unique to Texas law, the fact that they call it a certiorari. [01:05:03.620 --> 01:05:06.740] They could have called it a lot of other things, but they called it a certiorari. [01:05:07.380 --> 01:05:10.900] And I haven't seen that in any other states I've looked at. [01:05:10.900 --> 01:05:20.500] So there may be another way to do this, to get to the same outcome without using the term [01:05:20.500 --> 01:05:29.220] certiorari. It's the point I'm making that happens to be the way they state it in Texas, [01:05:29.220 --> 01:05:32.100] but there's probably something similar in every other state. [01:05:34.020 --> 01:05:34.900] Yeah, I bet you're right. [01:05:34.900 --> 01:05:42.820] Okay. So we have, let's see, I think it's up around a 200. Let me take a look. [01:05:46.740 --> 01:05:47.540] That was for the... [01:05:51.620 --> 01:06:01.940] No, it's not 200. I'll find the rule here. But what was it that you called in about today, Tina? [01:06:02.900 --> 01:06:09.540] Oh, no, I was just going to talk about what I'd been finding out in my case through this [01:06:10.580 --> 01:06:15.460] using Fiverr.com, actually. So there's some really good people on there and there's some [01:06:15.460 --> 01:06:20.820] really kind of hokey people, but they found a really good person to get some case law. [01:06:20.820 --> 01:06:27.220] And they're helping me put something together that I think this appellate court is not going to be [01:06:27.220 --> 01:06:35.460] able to get by. So sometimes when you just are running out of time, you just don't have enough [01:06:36.740 --> 01:06:43.700] knowledge or you can use some of these people. And sometimes they are in other countries, [01:06:43.700 --> 01:06:52.180] but they are familiar with our law and how to research it. And I've really got what I think is [01:06:52.180 --> 01:07:01.220] some interesting information and interesting case law. And when it's finished, I will post it [01:07:02.500 --> 01:07:11.060] on the website so that people can see it and see if it helps them, because he's coming up with [01:07:11.700 --> 01:07:19.540] some really interesting comments, one of them that I've read to you, and some interesting case law [01:07:19.540 --> 01:07:24.500] and putting it into this theory. He even talks about the complaint-contained [01:07:24.500 --> 01:07:30.020] facts that could support a veil-piercing theory. He said, although Appellant did not use the term [01:07:30.020 --> 01:07:35.300] piercing the corporate veil, she alleged that debtor Forbes and Huffman operated the corporation [01:07:35.300 --> 01:07:41.460] without transparency, misused funds for personal benefit, and used email communications bearing [01:07:41.460 --> 01:07:46.980] all three names in signature. These facts, if true, could support a claim that the corporate [01:07:46.980 --> 01:07:54.500] entity was a mere alter ego. I had not thought of that fact. So this person is bringing in [01:07:54.500 --> 01:07:59.780] something to go to the Appellate Court that they may have to look at a little bit more seriously. [01:07:59.780 --> 01:08:04.180] Yeah, that's great. And he talks about foresafe pleading must be construed liberally, [01:08:04.180 --> 01:08:12.180] and dismissal based on technical omissions like failure to name a legal doctrine is disfavored. [01:08:12.180 --> 01:08:19.860] The bankruptcy court should have allowed discovery or at least amendments to develop these allegations. [01:08:22.020 --> 01:08:26.740] And then he goes on to say that a bankruptcy court failed to afford appropriate latitude [01:08:26.740 --> 01:08:33.780] to a pro se litigant. An appellant's pro se status required the bankruptcy court to construe [01:08:33.780 --> 01:08:41.220] her filings liberally. Instead, the court adopted a strict construction and elevated form over [01:08:41.220 --> 01:08:48.020] substance. It also failed to consider the liberal amendment standard under rule 15. [01:08:48.020 --> 01:08:56.260] The BAP's affirmance of this approach was clear error. So the way he's putting some of this [01:08:56.260 --> 01:09:02.180] is really interesting. I'm hoping this gets me somewhere. [01:09:03.780 --> 01:09:10.180] Yeah. Well, as for whether this could apply in California or, I mean, you might take a look. I [01:09:10.180 --> 01:09:19.620] found it in Texas. It's Texas rules of civil procedure, and it's rule 506.4 writ of certiorari. [01:09:21.220 --> 01:09:29.780] And it says, except in eviction cases, after final judgment, in a case tried in justice court, [01:09:30.500 --> 01:09:37.300] a party may apply to the county court for a writ of certiorari. So it just so happens, [01:09:37.300 --> 01:09:42.820] county is where the appeal would go anyway. And they're just spelling it out here in this rule. [01:09:44.100 --> 01:09:47.220] It just doesn't apply to eviction cases, but applies to every other case. [01:09:48.180 --> 01:09:54.020] And here in this rule, it's saying after final judgment in a case tried in justice court. So I [01:09:54.020 --> 01:10:01.700] did have to wait. But in other situations, apparently that could be a good fit. So I [01:10:01.700 --> 01:10:08.100] learned today. I've never tried it, but if you find something like that in California [01:10:09.140 --> 01:10:16.100] has similar wording, you might go ahead and look for that. And it says here, the grounds, [01:10:16.100 --> 01:10:21.860] it says an application must be granted. So you apply for sure. You petition for a cert. [01:10:21.860 --> 01:10:29.540] The application must be granted only if it contains a sworn statement, setting forth facts [01:10:29.540 --> 01:10:34.260] showing that either, one, the justice court did not have jurisdiction, [01:10:36.340 --> 01:10:41.860] or two, the final determination of the suit worked an injustice to the applicant that was [01:10:41.860 --> 01:10:48.260] not caused by the applicant's own inexcusable neglect. So for me, both of those were true. [01:10:48.980 --> 01:10:54.260] If either one were true, the application must be granted. But for me, both were true. So I [01:10:54.260 --> 01:11:00.340] highlighted both of them and the writ was issued. Sorry? [01:11:00.340 --> 01:11:05.860] Talk about must. I like the fact that you use the word must versus may and shall, [01:11:06.500 --> 01:11:13.540] because words have meaning, as you say. Now, would it be good if you're saying it has to have a [01:11:13.540 --> 01:11:21.060] sworn statement? Would it add extra emphasis that they could not deny if you made the sworn [01:11:21.060 --> 01:11:25.460] statement and then had it notarized before submitting it to the court? [01:11:27.460 --> 01:11:31.700] Well, that would be part of making it a sworn statement. You're swearing before someone who [01:11:31.700 --> 01:11:40.100] has the authority to, quote, administer the oath. So that could be a notary public. It could be a [01:11:40.100 --> 01:11:44.580] judge. Doesn't have to be the same judge that you're filing it in that court. It could be [01:11:44.580 --> 01:11:51.380] some other judge. But they, judges, clerks, your local rules will spell out all of the people [01:11:51.380 --> 01:11:57.700] before whom you could swear to make this sworn statement. But then you would sign down there [01:11:57.700 --> 01:12:02.260] at the jurat. You would sign right before that and then they would sign in the jurat [01:12:03.620 --> 01:12:09.140] to say that they administered the oath and so forth. [01:12:09.140 --> 01:12:13.620] I think it would be very helpful for people to do it in front of a notary [01:12:14.420 --> 01:12:22.260] rather than a court clerk or someone else, because they don't have any hidden bias against a pro se [01:12:22.260 --> 01:12:26.580] litigant. They're just, you know, hey, we're a notary, we're taking your sworn statement, [01:12:26.580 --> 01:12:31.700] we're administering the jurat. Whereas if you're with someone related to the court, they may like, [01:12:31.700 --> 01:12:37.460] oh, you know, I mean, I think it's just better to go to a notary. [01:12:38.260 --> 01:12:45.380] Yes, I agree with you. And not only is there that bias, but there's a bias in the other direction [01:12:45.380 --> 01:12:53.780] if you go to your bank. So I've found that sometimes going to the standard notary public, [01:12:53.780 --> 01:13:01.780] notaries public, they may feel hesitant to notarize your signature on a document they [01:13:01.780 --> 01:13:07.140] don't really understand. If they're seeing a title on the document that they're a little [01:13:07.140 --> 01:13:13.380] uncomfortable about, maybe they're really used to seeing, you know, 10 different kinds of documents [01:13:13.380 --> 01:13:20.580] and you bring them something they've never seen before. Petition for a writ of what certity, [01:13:20.580 --> 01:13:31.060] what is this? And so if you go to your bank, you're their customer and they tend to [01:13:31.620 --> 01:13:35.700] treat you a little bit better. They tend to almost have a bias in the other direction. [01:13:35.700 --> 01:13:40.100] They're ready to notarize anything. It doesn't matter. They're not trying to read it. They're [01:13:40.100 --> 01:13:45.620] not trying to decide if anything in there is true. They just do their job. If you swear that it's [01:13:45.620 --> 01:13:51.220] true, that's the whole point. You're the one doing the swearing, not them. So they're ready to help [01:13:51.220 --> 01:13:55.460] you. I think that's pretty cool. I did have this problem with Wells Fargo. [01:13:55.460 --> 01:14:04.980] Are you looking to have a closer relationship with God and a better understanding of his word? [01:14:04.980 --> 01:14:10.180] Then tune in to logosradionetwork.com on Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. Central time for [01:14:10.180 --> 01:14:16.020] scripture talk, where Nana and her guests discuss the scriptures in accord with 2nd Timothy 2 15. [01:14:16.660 --> 01:14:21.140] Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, [01:14:21.220 --> 01:14:26.340] rightly dividing the word of truth. Starting in January, our first hour studies are in the [01:14:26.340 --> 01:14:31.940] book of Mark, where we'll go verse by verse and discuss the true gospel message. Our second hour [01:14:31.940 --> 01:14:36.900] topical studies will vary each week with discussions on sound doctrine and Christian character [01:14:36.900 --> 01:14:42.660] development. We wish to reflect God's light and be a blessing to all those with a hearing ear. [01:14:42.660 --> 01:14:47.140] Our goal is to strengthen our faith and to transform ourselves more into the likeness [01:14:47.140 --> 01:14:52.980] of our Lord and Savior Jesus. So tune in to scripture talk live on logosradionetwork.com [01:14:52.980 --> 01:14:58.180] Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. to inspire and motivate your studies of the scriptures. [01:14:59.940 --> 01:15:05.860] Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area of nutrition. [01:15:05.860 --> 01:15:10.740] People feed their pets better than they feed themselves. And it's time we changed all that. [01:15:10.740 --> 01:15:15.540] Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment [01:15:15.540 --> 01:15:20.580] is good nutrition. In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, [01:15:20.580 --> 01:15:26.580] and mutilated, young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need. Logos Radio Network gets [01:15:26.580 --> 01:15:32.100] many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject. We have come to trust [01:15:32.100 --> 01:15:38.340] young Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, [01:15:38.340 --> 01:15:44.340] and many others. When you order from logosradionetwork.com, your health will improve [01:15:44.340 --> 01:15:49.700] as you help support quality radio. As you realize the benefits of young Jevity, [01:15:49.700 --> 01:15:54.660] you may want to join us. As a distributor, you can experience improved health, [01:15:54.660 --> 01:15:59.140] help your friends and family, and increase your income. Order now. [01:16:14.340 --> 01:16:35.940] Okay, we are back in Kelton, Brett Fountain, and Rudy Larrillo on this, the third day of July [01:16:35.940 --> 01:16:44.660] 2025, this Thursday, the third day of July 2025. Friday will be the fourth. [01:16:46.900 --> 01:16:52.500] And when we went out, I was talking about there are times when your bank won't notarize. [01:16:54.340 --> 01:17:01.780] And I went to the Wells Fargo, and I have an account with Wells Fargo. I had one for 40 years. [01:17:01.780 --> 01:17:05.300] And they wouldn't notarize my documents. [01:17:07.700 --> 01:17:08.260] Just because. [01:17:08.260 --> 01:17:08.740] Why not? [01:17:09.940 --> 01:17:11.460] I was suing Wells Fargo. [01:17:16.020 --> 01:17:20.980] She said, I can't notarize these. She said, sure you can. You're a state notary. [01:17:21.940 --> 01:17:26.660] You can't be biased. Why don't you get me in trouble? Why don't you go across the street [01:17:26.660 --> 01:17:37.620] to chase? I don't like those guys. But in all other cases, your bank is almost always [01:17:38.180 --> 01:17:42.180] a great place to get your notary done and they never charge you. [01:17:42.180 --> 01:17:58.660] After they had the mortgage meltdown, the banks of Wells Fargo [01:18:00.100 --> 01:18:07.940] can't notarize any document that is not theirs. You have to go to like the EPS store to see a [01:18:07.940 --> 01:18:15.540] notary. I found the most success for getting actual really good notaries done is AAA. [01:18:16.100 --> 01:18:21.780] And they're very, very strict about the documents they sign, how they sign it. [01:18:21.780 --> 01:18:30.340] And you cannot have any blank spaces. Every page has to be there. So they're very, very [01:18:31.300 --> 01:18:38.420] careful about not having any fraud associated with them. But the big banks will not notarize [01:18:38.420 --> 01:18:45.060] anything that is not their document. Not anymore. Not here anyway. Different states, different [01:18:45.060 --> 01:18:48.580] places, maybe different, but mostly in California. [01:18:48.580 --> 01:18:55.860] Well, the problem with a notary is even if the notary is a notary for the bank, [01:18:55.860 --> 01:19:03.780] the notary is a notary. And the notary is subject to state law. [01:19:05.140 --> 01:19:09.540] That's true, Randy. But remember, I had all those problems with notaries [01:19:09.540 --> 01:19:14.580] that were not valid. You had the robo-signing notaries. [01:19:14.580 --> 01:19:18.260] Oh, yes. I definitely remember those. [01:19:19.220 --> 01:19:23.700] Yeah. And they actually caused a lot of foreclosures, including mine. [01:19:24.260 --> 01:19:30.980] And they, I mean, I went after the notaries and the banks, if they work for the bank, [01:19:32.340 --> 01:19:40.660] they're not independent. They're notarizing the bank's documents. And so how can they be [01:19:40.660 --> 01:19:47.620] independent if the bank is paying them their salary to notarize their documents? [01:19:47.620 --> 01:19:50.100] Well, not only can they, they must be independent. [01:19:51.620 --> 01:19:56.180] It's very clear. The statutes leave no wiggle room for misunderstanding that. They are, [01:19:56.740 --> 01:20:04.340] and when they're doing their notary public service, those documents are exclusively [01:20:04.340 --> 01:20:09.380] belong to the state and they have nothing to do with the bank. Even if the bank's name is on it, [01:20:10.340 --> 01:20:16.100] even if she puts the ledger away in a bank desk, it does not belong to the bank. [01:20:17.060 --> 01:20:23.860] That's exactly true. And I cited all that and the documents are missing. [01:20:25.380 --> 01:20:31.940] And I got some very good information and I haven't, I was not able to fight that. [01:20:33.380 --> 01:20:41.940] They literally, the documents went missing. And they were, and the notary admitted she gave the [01:20:42.020 --> 01:20:47.220] documents to the bank, even though they don't belong to the bank. And in Texas for sure, [01:20:47.220 --> 01:20:51.780] they're supposed to give them to the county recorder's office if they, you know, [01:20:51.780 --> 01:20:56.980] give up their notary position or the bank. And they don't. In my case, [01:20:56.980 --> 01:21:03.540] the county recorder's office has no documents, no books from these notaries, nothing. [01:21:06.340 --> 01:21:07.700] Spoliation of evidence. [01:21:08.820 --> 01:21:10.900] That should get a complaint against the clerk. [01:21:12.260 --> 01:21:12.760] Yeah. [01:21:13.220 --> 01:21:15.780] It's the duty of the clerk to maintain these records. [01:21:16.660 --> 01:21:23.940] Well, I'll tell you what, I've had a really good story about a great result with a particular [01:21:23.940 --> 01:21:31.220] notary public. After a while, there was one particular guy who he, everybody in the office [01:21:31.220 --> 01:21:37.380] was a notary public, but I would go in there and I would take my criminal complaints or sometimes [01:21:37.380 --> 01:21:43.140] it'd be accompanied by a judicial misconduct complaint. And I would say, I swear this is all [01:21:43.140 --> 01:21:49.140] true. I'm not telling a lie. This is absolutely what happened. And they started seeing this [01:21:49.140 --> 01:21:55.060] pattern. And one guy in particular, he really liked that I was, you know, sticking to these judges. [01:21:55.060 --> 01:22:01.940] Yeah, they've done us all wrong. And he's kind of, he was very encouraged that somebody was [01:22:01.940 --> 01:22:08.180] doing something about it. Whether or not there was a result to show him on any of that, he just [01:22:08.180 --> 01:22:13.860] loved it that I was calling them out for their crimes. And he got to where he says, I'm not [01:22:13.860 --> 01:22:19.940] going to charge you anything. So he would, every time I'd go in there, he would just, [01:22:19.940 --> 01:22:25.620] don't worry about it. Don't worry about it. And so then it was, it was free as long as I would [01:22:25.620 --> 01:22:28.180] go in there. He was, if he was there, it was free. [01:22:32.660 --> 01:22:35.460] And that's a good indication that the public at large [01:22:36.580 --> 01:22:43.540] are the good guys. And these notaries for the banks, that was a major, major [01:22:45.060 --> 01:22:51.460] conspiracy on their part, major fraud. They created their own notaries so their notaries [01:22:51.460 --> 01:23:01.300] would do whatever they told them to. We went after the notary for giving the [01:23:02.900 --> 01:23:12.340] money. Tina, how did that go? The notary gave her records to the bank instead of the county clerk. [01:23:13.540 --> 01:23:19.220] Correct. And it went nowhere with the court. They didn't care. It went nowhere with any of the [01:23:19.220 --> 01:23:26.020] complaints. They didn't care. It was really, you know, I just got completely, and they said, [01:23:26.020 --> 01:23:31.460] oh, after so many years, you can't go after the notary, just that and the other. But the [01:23:31.460 --> 01:23:39.700] clerks in Texas, they, and you know, I went as high as I could. They didn't care. They didn't [01:23:39.700 --> 01:23:47.780] care that the notary, and it's clear that she got a reprimand and then they wiped the reprimand out, [01:23:47.780 --> 01:23:54.500] basically. And the attorney- Wiped out the reprimand? What does that mean? [01:23:54.500 --> 01:24:05.860] Well, the notary, you know, got an educational reprimand and then it was reduced to some other [01:24:05.860 --> 01:24:12.340] thing. I can't remember the exact terms they reduced it to because she didn't follow the, you [01:24:12.340 --> 01:24:17.860] know, the rules of notary. So it went from a slap on the hand to a slap on the finger? [01:24:18.020 --> 01:24:28.660] Basically, yes. Yes, exactly. And I've got all the documents. It was unbelievable that, you know, [01:24:29.380 --> 01:24:36.900] they just don't seem to care because she worked for a bank and the attorney from California [01:24:36.900 --> 01:24:43.220] interfered across state lines and went, you know, and just basically said, oh, this is, [01:24:43.220 --> 01:24:49.060] this is bullshit. You know, she's, you know, she's just a disgruntled homeowner. [01:24:50.020 --> 01:24:54.340] I mean, he was not allowed to be going across state lines and interfering with that, [01:24:55.940 --> 01:25:02.420] you know, what was it, this, what do you call it, where they're trying to investigate something. [01:25:02.420 --> 01:25:09.300] But he went in and then, and she, this notary, gave the documents to this attorney. [01:25:09.300 --> 01:25:17.620] Wait, wait a minute. She gave all her documents to this attorney across state lines. I mean, [01:25:17.620 --> 01:25:26.820] when you look at that case, it's unbelievable what they got away with. And the courts didn't care. [01:25:27.700 --> 01:25:35.300] It sounds like that situation could have been a suit against that, the CEO of that bank for having [01:25:36.100 --> 01:25:40.980] a tampered with governmental record because the notary public's records don't belong to the bank [01:25:41.860 --> 01:25:44.980] to just sue the CEO specifically for that one count. [01:25:46.180 --> 01:25:50.100] Yep. Mr. Mnuchin, who we tried to go after in Texas and they were going to go after him. [01:25:50.100 --> 01:25:55.780] And then it all got, you know, blown away. I'm sure he paid somebody off to not go before the [01:25:55.780 --> 01:26:03.220] grand jury. And I don't know where Randy's case going after that went, you know, you know, it was, [01:26:03.220 --> 01:26:07.380] it disappeared from everybody's view. And the two people that pushed it forward [01:26:08.020 --> 01:26:14.340] was then nowhere to be seen after this. They were, you know, gone from their positions. [01:26:17.300 --> 01:26:22.180] And then after that, I found that that bank had defrauded the government. And there was a case [01:26:22.180 --> 01:26:29.140] against them in Texas, bought by a whistleblower for defrauding the government while he was in [01:26:29.140 --> 01:26:40.340] charge of that bank. Really interesting. Well, I on occasion tend to remind people [01:26:41.780 --> 01:26:47.300] that Jesus went around the whole land preaching what the [01:26:49.220 --> 01:26:54.820] Pharisees considered to be heresy, but they didn't care. It wasn't until he went into the [01:26:54.820 --> 01:27:03.780] church, the temple and kicked over the table right back. Reality TV, sugar, [01:27:03.780 --> 01:27:08.820] obesity, jet lag, the list of things that makes us dumber just keeps on growing. [01:27:08.820 --> 01:27:11.940] But now researchers say we can add stress to the list. [01:27:11.940 --> 01:27:17.940] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, back with details in a moment. Privacy is under attack. When you [01:27:17.940 --> 01:27:22.980] give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. And once your privacy is gone, [01:27:22.980 --> 01:27:29.220] you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. So protect your rights, say no to surveillance [01:27:29.220 --> 01:27:35.060] and keep your information to yourself. Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. This message is brought [01:27:35.060 --> 01:27:41.140] to you by startpage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing. [01:27:41.140 --> 01:27:48.420] Start over with StartPage. Are you always on the go and juggling multiple projects? If so, [01:27:48.420 --> 01:27:54.020] you might think that multitasking proves you're smart. But think again, all that stress might be [01:27:54.020 --> 01:27:59.540] eating your brain. A new study finds stress reduces the number of connections between neurons, [01:27:59.540 --> 01:28:04.820] which actually makes it harder for people to manage problems. Researchers at Yale University [01:28:04.820 --> 01:28:10.100] found that stressed out people have less gray matter in their prefrontal cortex. That's the [01:28:10.100 --> 01:28:15.940] part of the brain that helps us weigh conflicting ideas and regulate our emotions. So take a deep [01:28:15.940 --> 01:28:21.940] breath and chill out. It'll help keep your mind as sharp as a tack. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for [01:28:21.940 --> 01:28:32.500] startpage.com, the world's most private search engine. This is building seven, a 47 story [01:28:32.500 --> 01:28:37.220] skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11th. The government says that fire brought it [01:28:37.220 --> 01:28:42.820] down. However, 1500 architects and engineers concluded it was a controlled demolition. Over [01:28:42.900 --> 01:28:47.700] 6000 of my fellow service members have given their lives. Thousands of my fellow first responders [01:28:47.700 --> 01:28:51.860] are dying. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm a structural engineer. I'm a New York City correction [01:28:51.860 --> 01:28:56.980] officer. I'm an air force pilot. I'm a father who lost his son. We're Americans and we deserve the [01:28:56.980 --> 01:29:04.100] truth. Go to rememberbuildingseven.org today. Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the rule of law [01:29:04.100 --> 01:29:08.100] traffic seminar. In today's America, we live in an us against them society. And if we the people [01:29:08.100 --> 01:29:12.500] are ever going to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights. [01:29:12.500 --> 01:29:16.180] Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own [01:29:16.180 --> 01:29:20.580] private capacity, and most importantly, the right to due process of law. Traffic courts afford us [01:29:20.580 --> 01:29:24.580] the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due [01:29:24.580 --> 01:29:28.980] process. Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio has put together [01:29:28.980 --> 01:29:33.140] the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is [01:29:33.140 --> 01:29:37.140] and how to hold the courts to the rule of law. You can get your own copy of this invaluable material [01:29:37.140 --> 01:29:41.860] by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today. By ordering now you'll receive a copy [01:29:41.860 --> 01:29:45.860] of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of the [01:29:45.860 --> 01:29:50.420] original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents and other useful resource material. [01:29:50.420 --> 01:29:54.340] Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. [01:29:54.340 --> 01:29:58.420] Order your copy today and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve. [01:29:58.420 --> 01:30:06.980] You are listening to the Logos Radio Network. Logosradionetwork.com [01:30:58.420 --> 01:31:24.580] Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio on this Thursday, the third day [01:31:24.580 --> 01:31:34.740] of July 2025 and we're talking to Sweet Tina. Not to be confused with Charlie's Tina. This is [01:31:34.740 --> 01:31:44.900] not Charlie's Tina. This is Sweet Tina. Okay. Yeah, we were talking about that on the break. [01:31:45.700 --> 01:31:54.740] Jesus went around the Holy Land preaching what the Pharisees, who today are called the rabbis, [01:31:55.780 --> 01:31:59.860] the Pharisees were the learned men, the ones who carried the knowledge. [01:32:00.900 --> 01:32:07.380] And he was preaching what essentially he considered to be heresy. But the Pharisee said, [01:32:07.860 --> 01:32:13.540] he's not bothering anybody. We don't care. It wasn't until he went into the temple [01:32:14.740 --> 01:32:20.660] and kicked over the tables of the money changers. That's when he got in trouble. [01:32:22.340 --> 01:32:28.740] The banks were the bad boys on the block then. They're the bad boys on the block now. [01:32:30.420 --> 01:32:36.900] We don't see a lot of hoopla about that because they do all their dirty work in the background. [01:32:38.180 --> 01:32:40.500] But they are the baddest boys on the block. [01:32:43.860 --> 01:32:55.940] So always it's the banks. And with this 2008 foreclosure crisis, that was carefully engineered. [01:32:55.940 --> 01:33:08.340] The collapse occurred after the government removed the restrictions on naked short selling. [01:33:09.300 --> 01:33:16.340] After the 1929 depression was engineered, it was triggered by naked short selling. [01:33:17.060 --> 01:33:26.580] After 1929, they put in restrictions, the Glass-Steagall Act and a restriction on bucket shops [01:33:28.420 --> 01:33:35.380] to prevent derivative sales. I can't go into all the details. I don't have time on [01:33:35.380 --> 01:33:42.420] what derivative sales are. But the bucket shops were where you could go in and bet on a stock, [01:33:43.380 --> 01:33:48.340] bet on whether it was going to increase or decrease without actually purchasing the stock. [01:33:49.300 --> 01:33:57.460] By doing that, you could have an extremely adverse effect on the stock and naked short selling. [01:33:58.420 --> 01:34:07.380] Naked short selling is complicated. I don't have time to present it all here, but a broker could [01:34:07.460 --> 01:34:15.780] sell stocks that didn't actually exist or that they didn't own, and they would sell a whole bunch [01:34:15.780 --> 01:34:23.060] of stocks that didn't actually exist and then use those stocks to put a call on all the stocks to [01:34:23.060 --> 01:34:28.980] bankrupt the company. Because when they sell these non-existent stocks, the company gets profit from [01:34:28.980 --> 01:34:37.220] those stocks. And then when they put a call on all these stocks, it bankrupts the company. [01:34:37.220 --> 01:34:44.260] Well, they forbid that after 1929 with the Glass-Steagall Act and the prohibition on [01:34:44.260 --> 01:34:54.180] derivative sales. They removed that restriction, the restriction on derivative sales in the year [01:34:54.180 --> 01:35:04.020] 2000. And for eight years, the banks would write you a loan if you could stand up and sign your [01:35:04.020 --> 01:35:11.860] name because they intended to sell derivatives on your mortgage. You get a mortgage, you pay, [01:35:11.860 --> 01:35:19.140] so you got a $100,000 mortgage. The mortgage broker who gets the mortgage, [01:35:20.820 --> 01:35:28.820] they go to the Federal Reserve and they say, okay, I've got 10% of this mortgage on deposit. [01:35:29.540 --> 01:35:37.860] I want to draw the other 90% from the Federal Reserve. And the Federal Reserve would put a [01:35:37.860 --> 01:35:45.940] mark on a ledger. Now, this was a great idea because it increased the velocity of money [01:35:45.940 --> 01:35:52.740] without increasing the amount of money in circulation. So the money came into existence [01:35:52.740 --> 01:36:02.260] by a mark on a ledger with the idea that when the sale was made and the money was paid back, [01:36:02.260 --> 01:36:06.260] it would pay back to the Federal Reserve and they would mark that off the ledger. [01:36:07.300 --> 01:36:14.500] And the money would go back to the thin air from which it came. And that worked really well. [01:36:15.460 --> 01:36:25.220] Problem is they would do this mortgage and they would buy a mortgage insurance policy on the [01:36:25.220 --> 01:36:32.500] mortgage. And then they would, the company who created the mortgage, all they did was create [01:36:32.500 --> 01:36:39.300] mortgages. They didn't service them. So they would sell the mortgage. They would take the mortgage [01:36:39.300 --> 01:36:50.580] and sell it to someone who, an aggregator who would bundle these mortgages into a special [01:36:50.580 --> 01:37:00.740] purpose vehicle and sell them to a long-term investment like retirement funds and such. [01:37:00.740 --> 01:37:12.180] And that was all okay, except all they had to do was change a few figures on the mortgage and [01:37:12.180 --> 01:37:18.900] sell it to somebody else and then sell it to somebody else. And for each one they sold, [01:37:18.900 --> 01:37:24.260] they would buy a mortgage insurance. And the mortgage insurance would pay 85% [01:37:24.420 --> 01:37:31.540] of the original mortgage amount. So they needed the buyer to pay down 15%. [01:37:33.300 --> 01:37:40.980] Once they paid down 15% for every derivative that they've sold, they would have to match that 15% [01:37:40.980 --> 01:37:49.780] payment. But they create the mortgage, the mortgage company creates the mortgage, and then they sell [01:37:49.780 --> 01:37:58.580] it to the aggregator and the aggregator pays off the mortgage to the mortgage company and they give [01:37:58.580 --> 01:38:03.540] the money back to the Federal Reserve. So all that gets cleared out. Now you've got this mortgage. [01:38:04.420 --> 01:38:11.620] And they get a derivative insurance on it, a mortgage insurance on it, and then they sell [01:38:11.620 --> 01:38:18.660] another copy of it and another one and another one and another one. China accused Bank of America of [01:38:18.660 --> 01:38:25.940] selling them the same mortgage 60 times. So you've got this one mortgage out here [01:38:26.820 --> 01:38:36.660] and it's been sold to 60 different people. And each time a payment is made by the mortgagee, [01:38:37.460 --> 01:38:43.300] then the bank or whoever is holding this makes a payment to all these other 60 [01:38:43.300 --> 01:38:52.420] mortgagees. The idea is get it paid down to 15% and then force the [01:38:52.980 --> 01:39:02.260] original buyer into bankruptcy and into foreclosure. Once it forecloses, then the derivative insurance [01:39:02.260 --> 01:39:12.820] policies pays off for all these other 60 mortgages. Is that scary guys? So you wonder why [01:39:13.540 --> 01:39:20.500] you can fight a foreclosure and the banks will never ever back down? [01:39:22.020 --> 01:39:28.580] That's because they don't care about your loan. They care about the other 60s they've sold out [01:39:28.580 --> 01:39:36.180] there. And if they can't force you into bankruptcy and force the derivative insurance companies to [01:39:36.180 --> 01:39:44.740] pay off, then they have to pay all this back with interest. So they'll spend an ungodly fortune on, [01:39:44.740 --> 01:39:52.100] we've got one guy that was on last week and he's been fighting a $100,000 mortgage for his mother [01:39:52.100 --> 01:40:00.660] for 15 years. And he has kicked their behind, but they are still coming after him like gangbusters. [01:40:01.620 --> 01:40:08.420] They have spent way more than the value of that mortgage to make sure they get a foreclosure. [01:40:10.900 --> 01:40:15.940] Sometimes I think that happens with us as a pro se as well when we're fighting a traffic [01:40:18.100 --> 01:40:25.140] situation. And there's so much money involved, they can't afford to give us the ruling that [01:40:25.140 --> 01:40:30.980] lines up with the law. So it's not like you're arguing with your neighbor about a fence, [01:40:30.980 --> 01:40:39.140] he put his fence across my line or his dog chewed up my bicycle tire, those kinds of things. I think [01:40:39.140 --> 01:40:45.060] the court can rule equitably and everything's fair and the rules rule and all of that. [01:40:46.500 --> 01:40:52.740] But yeah, sometimes there's just so much money involved and they cannot look bad. [01:40:52.740 --> 01:40:57.780] And I'm working on a solution. I'll get to them and come back on the other side. [01:40:59.060 --> 01:41:04.340] Do you have a business with five employees or more? How would you like to save hundreds of [01:41:04.340 --> 01:41:10.420] thousands of dollars in FICA taxes? Do you have a major medical plan that nobody can afford to be on? [01:41:10.420 --> 01:41:16.500] Or how would you like to save in premium costs on a current major medical plan by lowering the [01:41:16.500 --> 01:41:24.260] claims cost? The champ plan is a section 125 IRS approved preventative health plan that provides [01:41:24.260 --> 01:41:32.500] your employees with doctors, medications, emergency care and Teladoc all at zero cost with zero co-pay. [01:41:32.500 --> 01:41:39.860] If you are an employee, you also will get a pay raise by paying less in FICA taxes. As an employer, [01:41:39.860 --> 01:41:46.020] you will save hundreds of thousands of dollars in matching FICA taxes. The champ plan can help [01:41:46.020 --> 01:41:53.060] add working capital, market resale value or pay down lines of credit. Call Scott at 214-730-2471 [01:41:56.660 --> 01:42:02.580] or dallasmms.com. Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? [01:42:03.220 --> 01:42:07.460] Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary. The affordable, [01:42:07.460 --> 01:42:13.860] easy to understand, four CD course that will show you how in 24 hours step by step. [01:42:14.500 --> 01:42:19.780] If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, [01:42:19.780 --> 01:42:25.620] know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step by step course and now [01:42:25.620 --> 01:42:32.260] you can too. Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning [01:42:32.260 --> 01:42:38.020] experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand [01:42:38.020 --> 01:42:43.620] about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio [01:42:43.620 --> 01:42:51.300] classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics and much more. [01:42:51.300 --> 01:43:00.340] Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ. [01:43:21.860 --> 01:43:29.220] Some things in this world I will never understand. Some things I realize fully. [01:43:30.580 --> 01:43:37.380] Somebody's on the police. Okay, we are back. Brandy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio [01:43:37.380 --> 01:43:45.300] and we've got Tina on the line. And when we went out, we were talking about the foreclosures and [01:43:45.300 --> 01:43:53.300] why it's so hard to fight a foreclosure. Because the bank has this vested interest that [01:43:54.340 --> 01:43:59.620] they don't disclose. And Brett mentioned on the break that traffic tickets are the same way. [01:44:01.780 --> 01:44:07.460] You have this municipal court and they got 500 tickets, [01:44:07.460 --> 01:44:17.620] 500 cases on their desk. They have to adjudicate these 500 cases. And then they come across [01:44:20.980 --> 01:44:28.420] Joe's citizen patriot who wants to fight them. Well, the last thing they want is these other [01:44:29.060 --> 01:44:37.620] 500 people to know that you can actually fight them. So they're going to do everything they can [01:44:37.620 --> 01:44:44.820] to hammer you. And they don't care about your case, they care about the other 500. [01:44:46.260 --> 01:44:52.820] And that's what we have to deal with. And we've got a strategy for that. Grand juries. [01:44:52.820 --> 01:45:01.460] Now, I don't care if a grand jury never indicts anybody, that is not the point. [01:45:03.460 --> 01:45:04.100] The point is... [01:45:04.100 --> 01:45:05.460] They need to get at least one. [01:45:06.100 --> 01:45:06.980] It would be nice. [01:45:08.420 --> 01:45:10.420] But then everybody can be properly scared. [01:45:11.140 --> 01:45:16.340] Exactly. The fact that they're there, it's like you've got this big humongous thing [01:45:16.980 --> 01:45:24.020] hanging over the road. And you got to drive under it. And every once in a while just randomly this [01:45:24.020 --> 01:45:31.540] thing drops out of the sky and smashes to the ground. And you have to drive under it every two [01:45:31.540 --> 01:45:41.700] or three times every other day. And it never fell on anybody. But you know if it falls on anybody, [01:45:41.780 --> 01:45:47.940] it'll be you. Every time you come to it, you're going to be looking up there wondering, [01:45:47.940 --> 01:45:57.540] is that going to fall on me today? Right. That is the power of a grand jury. Not indictments. [01:45:58.980 --> 01:46:06.500] But who wants to play Russian roulette with their liberty today? [01:46:06.580 --> 01:46:14.820] You got pretty good odds. You got six to one, or five to one. So your odds are pretty good. [01:46:14.820 --> 01:46:18.340] You want to try it? You want to spin that chamber and take a shot? [01:46:19.620 --> 01:46:26.180] That's the power of grand juries. And as soon as I get my project up, I just sent my project [01:46:26.580 --> 01:46:33.540] to the programmer. I used AI to build it. I've been doing a lot of work with AI lately. [01:46:34.500 --> 01:46:41.140] And I'm beginning to understand the strengths and weaknesses of it. I know Elon Musk is concerned [01:46:41.140 --> 01:46:49.620] that AI is going to take over. But from my experience with Grok, that's a very important [01:46:49.620 --> 01:46:56.020] topic for me to be talking about. It's about AI. It's going to take over. But [01:46:57.300 --> 01:47:06.100] from my experience with Grok, that's X's engine, and ChatGtp, [01:47:08.580 --> 01:47:17.620] is there may be some day that AI will pretty well take over, but it's not this day. [01:47:17.620 --> 01:47:27.940] but it also has its weaknesses. AI is not intelligent at the end of the day. It's just [01:47:27.940 --> 01:47:37.980] a machine. And when you use AI, you have to be intelligent. I ran GROK and it made this [01:47:37.980 --> 01:47:44.140] program for me. And I said, okay, you need to add this little piece to it. And he said, [01:47:44.140 --> 01:47:49.620] okay, I can do that. And it added this piece to it and it broke two others. So, okay, go [01:47:49.620 --> 01:47:53.620] back and fix these two pieces you broke. It goes back and fixes those two pieces you broke [01:47:53.620 --> 01:48:01.260] and it breaks two or three others. And the more I try to get it to fix it, the more it breaks. [01:48:01.260 --> 01:48:07.540] It just completely breaks down. Brett said, yeah, he'd been there too. Yeah, [01:48:07.540 --> 01:48:11.940] I've had the same experience. Yeah, you get it to do this really sophisticated thing. [01:48:11.940 --> 01:48:20.300] But if you try to adjust it after that, and I figured out how to use it, I wrote up this [01:48:20.300 --> 01:48:27.860] presentation. This is what I want you to do. And it did it. And then I said, wait a minute, [01:48:27.860 --> 01:48:33.540] wait a minute, I need more stuff. So I said, okay, add this to it. And it added this to it [01:48:33.540 --> 01:48:39.260] and it screwed up something else. And I said, okay, fix that. And it fixed that and it screwed [01:48:39.260 --> 01:48:44.020] up something else. Okay, wait, wait, wait, wait. Let's go back to the beginning. Give you the [01:48:44.020 --> 01:48:52.900] original instructions and then add instructions based on the things I missed that I wanted added [01:48:52.900 --> 01:49:03.860] or the changes I wanted to make so that the AI engine gets it all as one huge presentment. I'm [01:49:03.860 --> 01:49:13.260] giving it a page and a half of instructions. And it does the whole thing. This thing built me [01:49:13.260 --> 01:49:23.140] a complete website with all the different functions I asked for. One of the interesting [01:49:23.140 --> 01:49:31.100] things is I can tell it to do this and it will do it. And then I can open another instance of it, [01:49:31.100 --> 01:49:40.220] give it the exact same instructions and tell it to do this and it will do it. And both of [01:49:40.220 --> 01:49:53.540] them will essentially work. But they're only sort of related to one another. Every time you ask it [01:49:53.540 --> 01:49:59.980] to do this, it'll do it different. You can give it the exact same instructions five times in a row. [01:49:59.980 --> 01:50:05.180] It'll give you a different output five times in a row. [01:50:05.180 --> 01:50:12.620] So how about with the grand juries? You were talking about the federal grand juries. What [01:50:12.620 --> 01:50:17.860] do you hope would be the outcome? You were talking about after you get through this with [01:50:17.860 --> 01:50:22.700] Grok and you get something working there, you're going to turn your attention to grand juries? [01:50:23.220 --> 01:50:33.740] I filed criminal charges against the Fifth Circuit judges. They threw out my suit. We [01:50:33.740 --> 01:50:42.140] paid them $700 for an appeal. And they're required under Rule 52 to rule on every issue [01:50:42.140 --> 01:50:51.380] brought in the case. And this 150-page suit, their response was the suit is frivolous, [01:50:51.380 --> 01:50:57.340] dismissed with prejudice. But you only gave them $700. You didn't give them a tip? [01:50:57.340 --> 01:51:05.940] I said, is that a fact, Jack? I paid you guys to give me a ruling on each issue so I'd have [01:51:05.940 --> 01:51:15.580] things I could appeal. And a failure under Walker v. Packer, a failure to properly apply the law [01:51:15.580 --> 01:51:25.180] to the facts, is an abuse of discretion, according to Walker v. Packer. That's a [01:51:25.180 --> 01:51:33.300] Fifth Circuit federal case. And I'm saying that if a public official abuses his discretion, [01:51:33.300 --> 01:51:39.260] and in the process denies meaningful free access to or enjoyment of the right, [01:51:39.260 --> 01:51:47.860] well, that's a class A misdemeanor in the state. And it's also a violation of 18 U.S. Code 242. [01:51:47.860 --> 01:51:56.620] But if more than one person act in concert and collusion toward that act, that's a violation of [01:51:56.620 --> 01:52:06.860] 18 U.S. Code 241. And that is a felony. So I filed felony charges against the Fifth Circuit judges [01:52:06.860 --> 01:52:14.140] for denying me due process with the federal grand jury in Fort Worth. And I sent it to the [01:52:14.140 --> 01:52:19.620] federal grand jury. And the federal judge and federal clerk intercepted that communication and [01:52:19.620 --> 01:52:26.260] treated it like a civil filing and dismissed it because it didn't pay the filing fee. And I said, [01:52:26.260 --> 01:52:32.860] is that a fact, Jack? So as soon as I get my project up and get some time release, [01:52:32.900 --> 01:52:38.900] I'm going to go to the U.S. attorney in Fort Worth and file criminal charges with the grand [01:52:38.900 --> 01:52:47.060] jury at his address. And when he don't give it to the grand jury, then I'm going to file [01:52:47.060 --> 01:52:54.740] criminal charges against him with the U.S. attorney in D.C. And when he doesn't give it to [01:52:54.740 --> 01:53:01.980] the grand jury, I'm going to file it with his office at his address, but addressed to the [01:53:01.980 --> 01:53:09.580] former of the grand jury. So when I don't get my cover letter back, and I won't, then I'm going [01:53:09.580 --> 01:53:20.420] to sue the president as respondeat superior for Pam Bondi as respondeat superior for the U.S. [01:53:20.420 --> 01:53:28.260] attorney. This will let me drag the president into court. And I don't care if I get to the [01:53:28.260 --> 01:53:32.340] president or I don't get some of his lawyers. I'm going to say to them, look, guys, you got [01:53:32.340 --> 01:53:39.740] doze going on over here and they're trying to find fraud, waste, and abuse. You have a grand [01:53:39.740 --> 01:53:50.860] jury. And that grand jury is the only difference between a democracy and a republic. It was the [01:53:50.860 --> 01:54:02.740] genius of our founders, and you're not using it. Direct those grand juries. Set aside time, [01:54:02.740 --> 01:54:11.300] one time a month or one time every three months. We don't care. So that they will sit and hear [01:54:11.300 --> 01:54:21.340] complaints by private citizens. It will change this democracy back into a republic. And if you [01:54:21.340 --> 01:54:28.700] got a governmental agency that's playing fast and loose with public funds, somebody in that [01:54:28.700 --> 01:54:37.860] agency knows. If you open the grand jury so that citizens can give anonymous notice of crime to a [01:54:37.860 --> 01:54:46.340] grand jury, it will change everything. Used to do that in Fort Worth when I first came to Texas in [01:54:46.340 --> 01:54:56.180] 76. But they quit doing it because nobody showed up. I said, guys, that's because it worked. Nobody [01:54:56.180 --> 01:55:01.780] wanted to risk a citizen filing criminal charges against them with the grand jury, so they had [01:55:01.780 --> 01:55:18.460] their act straight. Tina, what do you think? Well, let's go for it. I think you've just got to move back. We have to get these grand juries for sure. [01:55:18.460 --> 01:55:31.100] I just got my software to my programmer in the Netherlands, and I hope that'll take the load off of me. Then I go back to doing these other things and use AI to build these things. [01:55:31.100 --> 01:55:47.180] And I'm hoping we can start really putting the pressure on. Thank you all for listening. We'll be back tomorrow night for our regular four hour info marathon. Thank you all for listening. And good night.