Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.000 --> 00:27.760]  We're a little late coming in, but we have some heat issues in Austin that's giving
[00:27.760 --> 00:29.560]  us a little bit of difficulty.
[00:29.560 --> 00:30.560]  But we are up.
[00:30.560 --> 00:33.560]  We got phone lines are up.
[00:33.560 --> 00:39.200]  And Brett, didn't you have something really important and earth shattering to talk about?
[00:39.200 --> 00:42.080]  I really like putting Brett on the dime.
[00:42.080 --> 00:43.080]  We didn't talk about it.
[00:43.080 --> 00:47.880]  Oh, I was looking forward to hearing what our first caller here is doing in San Antonio.
[00:47.880 --> 00:48.880]  Okay.
[00:48.880 --> 00:51.320]  Let's go to our first caller in San Antonio.
[00:51.320 --> 00:56.960]  Hello, Mr. Joseph in San Antonio.
[00:56.960 --> 00:58.760]  Good evening, gentlemen.
[00:58.760 --> 01:03.360]  Very, very light.
[01:03.360 --> 01:04.360]  Can you hear me?
[01:04.360 --> 01:05.360]  All right.
[01:05.360 --> 01:06.360]  Wow.
[01:06.360 --> 01:10.920]  You sound like a really low volume there.
[01:10.920 --> 01:12.880]  He's pretty loud in comparison to y'all.
[01:12.880 --> 01:14.720]  Maybe just turn up your headphones.
[01:14.720 --> 01:15.720]  He's on a speaker phone too.
[01:15.720 --> 01:16.720]  Tell them to take it off speaker.
[01:16.720 --> 01:17.720]  No, no.
[01:17.720 --> 01:18.720]  Are you on a speaker phone?
[01:18.720 --> 01:21.000]  I'm on a proper phone.
[01:21.000 --> 01:25.520]  You don't even dare telling me to beat myself about the face and the ears of my phone.
[01:26.520 --> 01:30.280]  Just go ahead.
[01:30.280 --> 01:33.760]  Okay.
[01:33.760 --> 01:42.360]  San Antonio Municipal Court, speaking citation, the 22nd of April, I filed an affidavit of
[01:42.360 --> 01:44.400]  inability to pay.
[01:44.400 --> 01:47.360]  That's this year, 22nd of April, 2025.
[01:47.360 --> 01:57.600]  The 5th of May, they had the bench trial, claimed that the finding was guilty.
[01:57.600 --> 02:06.320]  The 16th of May, I filed defendant's notice of intent to appeal, which reads as such,
[02:06.320 --> 02:13.680]  I hereby give notice of intent to appeal the judgment entered in the above referenced case
[02:13.680 --> 02:17.840]  on May 5th, 2025.
[02:17.840 --> 02:22.160]  Then on the 3rd of June...
[02:22.160 --> 02:27.800]  Don't you have to say which court you're intending to appeal it to?
[02:27.800 --> 02:31.760]  He gives notice to the court that he's in.
[02:31.760 --> 02:32.760]  Correct.
[02:32.760 --> 02:39.640]  And I believe you're supposed to say to the lower court, which higher court you intend
[02:39.640 --> 02:43.240]  to take this to.
[02:43.240 --> 02:46.480]  Some traffic is only one you can take it to.
[02:46.480 --> 02:50.600]  All right, go ahead.
[02:50.600 --> 02:51.600]  Okay.
[02:51.600 --> 03:04.200]  Then on the 3rd of June, which is within the 30-day period to file an appeal, the brief,
[03:04.200 --> 03:09.800]  the appeal itself was filed, and then they just went quiet.
[03:09.800 --> 03:14.960]  And I didn't hear anything until I got a text message notifying me that there was an
[03:14.960 --> 03:20.920]  order to show cause, essentially show cause for why the fine wasn't paid.
[03:20.920 --> 03:22.880]  I never got mailed anything.
[03:22.880 --> 03:26.400]  So they texted you.
[03:26.400 --> 03:28.280]  Yeah, they texted me.
[03:28.280 --> 03:32.920]  Now, I'm glad they did it, but I never received the actual letter.
[03:32.920 --> 03:38.260]  What they sent was an order to show cause for deferred payment, and that order was entered
[03:38.260 --> 03:41.780]  on the 5th day of August.
[03:41.780 --> 03:50.420]  So I went down there today, and I found out I showed up to court.
[03:50.420 --> 03:53.820]  And they said, hey, what are you going to do about this payment?
[03:53.820 --> 03:56.980]  I said, what payment?
[03:56.980 --> 04:02.140]  All of my options for appealing have not been exhausted.
[04:02.140 --> 04:05.620]  And I went through the timeline of everything I just went through with you.
[04:05.620 --> 04:06.820]  On this date, this happened.
[04:06.820 --> 04:08.540]  On this date, this happened.
[04:08.540 --> 04:15.740]  And I said, as I understand it, I was summoned here for an illegitimate reason, and I should
[04:15.740 --> 04:17.020]  not be here.
[04:17.020 --> 04:22.740]  So the court manager was sitting next to the clerk of the court, and they conferred for
[04:22.740 --> 04:23.740]  a few minutes.
[04:23.740 --> 04:28.580]  And then the manager comes over and tells me, I apologize, you should not be here.
[04:28.580 --> 04:32.860]  So I proceeded to ask him some questions, and he asked me to step out in the hall so
[04:32.860 --> 04:33.860]  we could talk.
[04:34.860 --> 04:38.060]  So that the other people wouldn't hear.
[04:38.060 --> 04:39.060]  Exactly.
[04:39.060 --> 04:40.060]  Exactly.
[04:40.060 --> 04:41.060]  Let's keep this hush-hush.
[04:41.060 --> 04:47.220]  So I'm asking him, where do I file my claim for my time that I took out of work for my
[04:47.220 --> 04:52.860]  expense to prepare for this, the time and expense that it took me to prepare and to
[04:52.860 --> 04:53.860]  be here?
[04:53.860 --> 04:56.620]  He says, oh, you can file that with the clerk of the court.
[04:56.620 --> 04:59.100]  And I thought to myself, that's marvelous.
[04:59.100 --> 05:03.820]  I'll go over to the clerk of court, and I'll ask for a copy of the order to show cause.
[05:03.820 --> 05:04.820]  Which I got.
[05:04.820 --> 05:16.420]  So then I realized that their 30 days to reply to the appeal ended on the 3rd of July.
[05:16.420 --> 05:22.300]  And then I realized that the order to show cause is evidence that they sat on it ever
[05:22.300 --> 05:23.300]  since July.
[05:23.300 --> 05:29.700]  So that's, what's that, two months from July 3rd to September 5th?
[05:29.700 --> 05:31.820]  So I rushed home.
[05:31.820 --> 05:35.780]  I wrote, defendant's motion for default judgment.
[05:35.780 --> 05:40.140]  I made a copy of the documents I just talked about.
[05:40.140 --> 05:42.940]  The affidavit of inability to pay.
[05:42.940 --> 05:46.780]  I made copies of their guilty finding from the bench trial.
[05:46.780 --> 05:49.540]  Copies of intent to appeal.
[05:49.540 --> 05:51.340]  Copy of the appeal itself.
[05:51.340 --> 05:57.140]  But I made copies of the version that was stamped received by the clerk and the prosecutor's
[05:57.140 --> 05:58.420]  office.
[05:58.420 --> 06:00.300]  And then I also made four copies.
[06:00.300 --> 06:01.300]  Very good.
[06:01.300 --> 06:08.100]  I ran back down there, filed a copy with the court.
[06:08.100 --> 06:10.260]  Then I thought, and I got them to stamp it received.
[06:10.260 --> 06:11.860]  Now I screwed up.
[06:11.860 --> 06:16.300]  I left the building and forgot to get the prosecutor's office to stamp it, so I had
[06:16.300 --> 06:17.980]  to rush back and get them.
[06:17.980 --> 06:21.660]  But I had got that done, left a copy with the prosecutor's office, left a copy with
[06:21.660 --> 06:26.540]  the clerk, went down to the county court, and I should stop there.
[06:27.020 --> 06:31.940]  In the morning, when I left, after they told me, you don't need to be here, I'm sorry
[06:31.940 --> 06:33.980]  for the inconvenience.
[06:33.980 --> 06:39.260]  After I left the property, I got a phone call and a voicemail from someone from the court
[06:39.260 --> 06:41.380]  saying, hey, I need you to give me a call.
[06:41.380 --> 06:43.340]  I've got a few questions for you.
[06:43.340 --> 06:46.820]  You can't do it in writing.
[06:46.820 --> 06:47.940]  That would be too dangerous.
[06:47.940 --> 06:50.780]  But they're hoping you'll just do it a phone call.
[06:50.780 --> 06:52.900]  Oh, it gets better, Brett.
[06:52.900 --> 06:54.660]  It gets so much better.
[06:54.660 --> 07:00.040]  So I go back there to file the motion for default judgment and all of the supporting
[07:00.040 --> 07:05.580]  paperwork that shows I did these things on these dates, and I served it to the prosecutor's
[07:05.580 --> 07:06.580]  office.
[07:06.580 --> 07:11.180]  So the clerk is filing the first copy, because that's their copy to keep.
[07:11.180 --> 07:18.780]  And a woman comes up from behind on my left, and she looks over my shoulder at the open
[07:18.780 --> 07:22.620]  folder that's got the next version for the clerk to time-step, and she starts reading
[07:22.620 --> 07:23.620]  it.
[07:23.620 --> 07:27.380]  And I just reach up and very calmly close the folder so she can't see what's going
[07:27.380 --> 07:30.180]  on and ask how I can help her.
[07:30.180 --> 07:38.380]  So it turns out, this is, I believe, the clerk, I don't have it handy here, but it's the court
[07:38.380 --> 07:48.380]  supervisor, and she proceeds to give me unsolicited legal advice on the steps I have to take to
[07:48.380 --> 07:50.620]  properly appeal.
[07:50.620 --> 07:55.780]  And those steps are things like, you have to file a motion for a new trial.
[07:55.780 --> 08:01.340]  And then if it gets accepted by the judge, you get your new hearing.
[08:01.340 --> 08:04.160]  If it gets turned down, then you can appeal.
[08:04.160 --> 08:08.020]  And you have to do an appeal bond, and you have to do all this stuff.
[08:08.020 --> 08:10.060]  And then you get to appeal.
[08:10.060 --> 08:16.700]  And I'm thinking to myself, they made a mess, and they have sent her out to mop up the mess
[08:16.700 --> 08:20.260]  and keep it contained in this court.
[08:20.260 --> 08:22.000]  So I just listen to her and let her ramble.
[08:22.000 --> 08:27.020]  I've got two audio recordings of her giving me unsolicited legal advice.
[08:27.020 --> 08:32.860]  I haven't looked her up on the state bar to see if she has a bar card license.
[08:32.860 --> 08:39.780]  But if she doesn't, then that's doubly a big problem, because then she's, what is it, giving
[08:39.780 --> 08:44.380]  – let's see here, the echo is throwing me off in the background.
[08:44.380 --> 08:48.980]  She offered unsolicited legal advice, and she works for the court.
[08:49.380 --> 08:52.220]  So you're thinking about that unauthorized practice of law?
[08:53.100 --> 08:54.100]  That's it.
[08:54.100 --> 08:55.100]  That is the one.
[08:55.100 --> 08:57.500]  So those are potentially two criminal complaints.
[08:57.500 --> 09:01.100]  Well then, I just let her talk and said, thanks for the information.
[09:01.100 --> 09:02.100]  I appreciate that.
[09:02.100 --> 09:08.500]  And she seemed more than happy to allow me to extend the time for me to file a motion
[09:08.500 --> 09:10.460]  for a new trial.
[09:10.460 --> 09:17.180]  So I left there and went to the prosecutor's office, got everything stamped, and then turned
[09:17.220 --> 09:22.220]  in the copy for them, took two copies with me, went down to the county court, told them
[09:22.220 --> 09:23.220]  what happened.
[09:23.220 --> 09:30.220]  Now, mind you, this is the same county clerk that I called 911 on a couple months ago.
[09:33.420 --> 09:34.820]  And I'm sure they remember.
[09:34.820 --> 09:35.820]  Oh, yeah.
[09:35.820 --> 09:39.220]  Do you want to hear the rest of that after the break?
[09:39.220 --> 09:41.220]  Yeah, looking forward to it.
[09:41.220 --> 09:48.260]  All right, if anybody else wants to call in, it's 512-646-1984, and we'll be right back.
[10:11.220 --> 10:15.980]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish, too.
[10:15.980 --> 10:21.020]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[10:21.020 --> 10:23.740]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[10:23.740 --> 10:28.040]  This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com, the private search
[10:28.040 --> 10:31.580]  engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[10:31.580 --> 10:35.340]  Start over with Startpage.
[10:35.340 --> 10:37.500]  Cell phones emit radio frequency energy.
[10:37.500 --> 10:38.500]  It's a fact.
[10:38.500 --> 10:42.140]  Whether it's dangerous to have a phone beaming this kind of radiation near your head has
[10:42.140 --> 10:43.140]  been disputed.
[10:43.140 --> 10:47.500]  Some have blamed it for brain tumors, while cell phone companies have downplayed concerns.
[10:47.500 --> 10:51.900]  Well, now the Journal of the American Medical Association is confirming that cell phones
[10:51.900 --> 10:53.140]  affect brain chemistry.
[10:53.140 --> 10:58.540]  A study of 47 volunteers showed that glucose metabolism in the area of the brain closest
[10:58.540 --> 11:02.220]  to the cell phone antenna increases when the cell phone is on.
[11:02.220 --> 11:06.140]  While researchers aren't sure whether this exposure causes damage, I'm not taking any
[11:06.140 --> 11:07.140]  chances.
[11:07.140 --> 11:10.580]  I always keep the phone far from my body, and I use a corded headset.
[11:10.580 --> 11:12.580]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[11:12.580 --> 11:15.060]  More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[11:37.140 --> 11:56.580]  Are you looking to have a closer relationship with God and a better understanding of His
[11:56.580 --> 11:57.580]  Word?
[11:57.580 --> 12:02.700]  Then tune in to LogosRadioNetwork.com on Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. Central Time for Scripture
[12:02.700 --> 12:09.120]  Talk, where Nana and her guests discuss the scriptures in accord with 2 Timothy 2.15.
[12:09.120 --> 12:13.620]  Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly
[12:13.620 --> 12:16.060]  dividing the word of truth.
[12:16.060 --> 12:19.660]  Starting in January, our first hour studies are in the Book of Mark, where we'll go
[12:19.660 --> 12:23.340]  verse by verse and discuss the true gospel message.
[12:23.340 --> 12:27.980]  Our second hour topical studies will vary each week with discussions on sound doctrine
[12:27.980 --> 12:30.340]  and Christian character development.
[12:30.340 --> 12:34.860]  We wish to reflect God's light and be a blessing to all those with a hearing ear.
[12:34.860 --> 12:39.180]  Our goal is to strengthen our faith and to transform ourselves more into the likeness
[12:39.180 --> 12:41.460]  of our Lord and Savior Jesus.
[12:41.460 --> 12:48.100]  So tune in to Scripture Talk live on LogosRadioNetwork.com Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. to inspire and
[12:48.100 --> 12:50.540]  motivate your studies of the scriptures.
[12:50.540 --> 13:00.260]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[13:00.340 --> 13:15.900]  Yeah, I got a warrant and I gonna solve them to the hell government them, prosecute them.
[13:15.900 --> 13:16.900]  Okay.
[13:16.900 --> 13:17.900]  Okay.
[13:17.900 --> 13:18.900]  Okay.
[13:18.900 --> 13:19.900]  Okay.
[13:19.900 --> 13:20.900]  Okay.
[13:20.900 --> 13:21.900]  Okay.
[13:21.900 --> 13:22.900]  Okay.
[13:22.900 --> 13:23.900]  Okay.
[13:23.900 --> 13:24.900]  Okay.
[13:55.900 --> 13:56.900]  Okay.
[13:56.900 --> 13:57.900]  We are back.
[13:57.900 --> 14:03.900]  Randy Kelton, Fountain Rouge Law Radio, and we're talking to Super Joe in Texas.
[14:03.900 --> 14:04.900]  Okay.
[14:04.900 --> 14:08.140]  Super Joe, where were we at?
[14:08.140 --> 14:12.900]  You were going to the county clerk.
[14:12.900 --> 14:14.100]  Yeah.
[14:14.100 --> 14:21.420]  So one of the things that this overzealous San Antonio municipal court employee told
[14:21.420 --> 14:29.740]  me is she said, you never filed a notice of appeal.
[14:29.740 --> 14:31.980]  And I thought to myself, sure I did.
[14:31.980 --> 14:33.700]  What are you talking about?
[14:33.700 --> 14:38.620]  It was labeled notice of intent to appeal.
[14:38.620 --> 14:41.140]  And for some reason that stuck in my head.
[14:41.140 --> 14:43.340]  I figured I'll look that up later.
[14:44.180 --> 14:51.460]  So I go over to the county clerk for the misdemeanor criminal filing or the misdemeanor criminal
[14:51.460 --> 14:55.900]  filing of the county clerk's office.
[14:55.900 --> 15:01.740]  And I hand it to them and I tell the lady, I'm here to file this.
[15:01.740 --> 15:03.860]  And she says, is it a misdemeanor?
[15:03.860 --> 15:07.900]  I said, yes ma'am, it's a Class C misdemeanor.
[15:08.020 --> 15:13.740]  And she began to say, we don't file those here.
[15:13.740 --> 15:19.220]  The instant that she finished saying that, that those words came out of her mouth, one
[15:19.220 --> 15:25.220]  of the clerks that I have criminal complaints against hopped up out of nowhere and said,
[15:25.220 --> 15:27.420]  yes we do.
[15:27.420 --> 15:37.220]  And I recognized her because she's the one back in June that stepped out of the office
[15:37.260 --> 15:45.180]  right after I dialed 911 and let the Bexar County deputy know that they weren't, they
[15:45.180 --> 15:49.140]  were doing a 3903 rights violation.
[15:49.140 --> 15:51.900]  So I recognized her and she was really helpful.
[15:51.900 --> 15:54.700]  She actually, this was earlier in the morning.
[15:54.700 --> 15:59.100]  I had gone over there and I had figured out they haven't filed a single thing.
[15:59.100 --> 16:03.100]  So then I come back in the afternoon and explained to them, I need you to file this.
[16:03.100 --> 16:08.820]  You may not have a case number, but I need you to get it before a judge.
[16:08.820 --> 16:11.060]  And of course they hemmed and hawed.
[16:11.060 --> 16:14.700]  I got the names of two of the clerks that refused to do it.
[16:14.700 --> 16:21.700]  So at this point, I come back home and I've looked over the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,
[16:21.700 --> 16:26.740]  specifically 25.2 subsection A2.
[16:26.740 --> 16:32.180]  It talks about what has to be done in order to file an appeal.
[16:32.180 --> 16:37.780]  And then it also talks 25.2 subsection C2.
[16:37.780 --> 16:41.780]  It talks about the form and sufficiency of notice.
[16:41.780 --> 16:48.060]  And it says, notice is sufficient if it shows the party's desire to appeal from the judgment
[16:48.060 --> 16:53.340]  or other appealable order and if the state, and then it talks about the state of the appeal.
[16:53.340 --> 17:00.620]  So when you hear the sentence, I hereby give notice of intent to appeal and to the judgment,
[17:00.620 --> 17:05.740]  I have hereby given notice to intend and intent to appeal the judgment entered in the above
[17:05.740 --> 17:12.540]  reference case, does that give you notice and show that the party's desire to appeal
[17:12.540 --> 17:16.100]  from the judgment or other appealable order?
[17:16.100 --> 17:17.100]  What do you think, Brandy?
[17:17.100 --> 17:18.100]  What do you think, Brett?
[17:18.100 --> 17:22.060]  Oh, is that what you asked her or are you asking us that?
[17:22.060 --> 17:25.060]  That's what I'm asking you.
[17:25.060 --> 17:26.060]  Sounds rhetorical.
[17:26.060 --> 17:29.620]  Yes, of course it gives that notice.
[17:29.620 --> 17:30.620]  Yep.
[17:30.620 --> 17:37.100]  So even though I believe that that fits the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, she told
[17:37.100 --> 17:44.300]  me basically that she was only looking for something titled, notice of appeal.
[17:44.300 --> 17:45.300]  And she did.
[17:45.300 --> 17:50.580]  So because it said intent, then she just said you didn't file it?
[17:50.580 --> 17:51.580]  That's what I...
[17:51.580 --> 17:57.780]  I've been through this, somewhere I've got case law on this, thanks to Robert Fox.
[17:57.780 --> 18:01.380]  The title of a document is not controlling.
[18:01.380 --> 18:03.140]  Exactly.
[18:03.140 --> 18:10.220]  And even better, Randy, if you look at 25.2 subsection C2, it specifically addresses the
[18:10.220 --> 18:12.420]  form and sufficiency of notice.
[18:12.420 --> 18:17.780]  My notice was sufficient, I don't care if she can't interpret when she reads things.
[18:17.780 --> 18:22.740]  So here's my question to you guys.
[18:22.740 --> 18:26.020]  I'm going to get in front of a county judge.
[18:26.020 --> 18:31.060]  I'm going to have criminal complaints for the other county judge that refused to hear
[18:31.060 --> 18:37.780]  my petition for writ of mandamus, along with complaints on the two clerks that did this,
[18:37.780 --> 18:45.980]  and the clerk that failed to properly adhere to subsection, or 25.2 subsection A2, because
[18:45.980 --> 18:51.940]  that section says, the trial court shall enter a certification of the defendant's right to
[18:51.940 --> 18:59.260]  appeal each time it enters a judgment of guilt or other appealable order, other than
[18:59.260 --> 19:06.580]  an order appealable under Code of Criminal Procedure 64, that 64 does not apply.
[19:06.580 --> 19:14.660]  So my petition for writ of mandamus and the appeal cover all of the statutory due process
[19:14.660 --> 19:19.660]  errors that this court committed, and then ignored when I raised them in written motions.
[19:20.300 --> 19:30.700]  So my message to the county judge is, I do not expect you to tell me that this appeal
[19:30.700 --> 19:37.900]  is insufficient, because the only thing it's lacking is a certification from the trial
[19:37.900 --> 19:38.900]  clerk.
[19:38.900 --> 19:45.500]  So I expect you to allow this to stand as it is, and oh, by the way, here's a few criminal
[19:45.500 --> 19:48.220]  complaints I would like you to process as well.
[19:49.100 --> 19:54.300]  Am I missing anything from my plan for when I go before a county judge?
[19:54.300 --> 19:56.060]  What do you guys think?
[19:56.060 --> 20:03.980]  Well, what did you raise in your appellate brief as the grounds for your appeal?
[20:05.420 --> 20:09.260]  Did you mention some judicial error that you preserved?
[20:09.900 --> 20:12.700]  Did you challenge jurisdiction from the beginning?
[20:12.700 --> 20:13.820]  What was your grounds?
[20:14.780 --> 20:22.300]  So I challenged subject matter jurisdiction on the basis that the peace officer did not
[20:22.300 --> 20:27.660]  have, I maintained that he did not meet the requirements to be able to enforce any section
[20:27.660 --> 20:28.780]  of the transportation code.
[20:28.780 --> 20:30.300]  They never proved that.
[20:30.300 --> 20:35.580]  And based on that, no subject matter jurisdiction, no jurisdiction as well.
[20:36.540 --> 20:45.660]  In addition, I attempted to enter a plea of raising exceptions to a charging instrument.
[20:45.660 --> 20:47.100]  That was overlooked and ignored.
[20:50.300 --> 20:51.500]  That's good enough right there.
[20:52.220 --> 20:57.980]  I would just point out one little thing about your talking about the officer.
[21:00.140 --> 21:04.540]  Your challenge to subject matter jurisdiction is absolutely correct.
[21:05.100 --> 21:09.180]  However, when you're talking about the officer enforcing the code,
[21:10.380 --> 21:11.740]  that's a different layer.
[21:11.740 --> 21:12.860]  That's a different issue.
[21:14.300 --> 21:21.020]  As it relates to subject matter jurisdiction, nobody filed any primary pleadings.
[21:21.020 --> 21:23.980]  That's where the subject matter jurisdiction is lacking.
[21:23.980 --> 21:33.340]  Now, he, as a witness or as a complainant, supposedly a witness, he may or may not have
[21:33.420 --> 21:39.020]  authority to enforce that code, and that's a different issue because he should never
[21:39.020 --> 21:41.900]  have pulled you over if he didn't have the authority to pull you over.
[21:43.340 --> 21:48.700]  But let's say he was standing on the sidewalk and he witnessed whatever he thinks he witnessed
[21:48.700 --> 21:49.980]  and he wrote it down.
[21:49.980 --> 21:55.820]  He still doesn't have the authority to file primary pleadings, an indictment or an information.
[21:57.740 --> 22:01.820]  So the court can't be vested with jurisdiction by him
[22:01.820 --> 22:03.740]  because he's not authorized to do it.
[22:03.740 --> 22:06.620]  We've got elected prosecutors that are authorized to do that.
[22:06.620 --> 22:07.580]  He's not one of them.
[22:10.620 --> 22:14.460]  Article 5, Section 12, the very last sentence.
[22:14.460 --> 22:14.960]  Yep.
[22:15.020 --> 22:15.520]  Yes.
[22:17.820 --> 22:19.260]  Indictment or information.
[22:19.260 --> 22:23.580]  That's the only way for the court to be vested with jurisdiction.
[22:23.580 --> 22:28.220]  So whether or not he has the authority to enforce that transportation code,
[22:29.020 --> 22:32.860]  that's also true, but it's just a separate issue and it doesn't really go to this.
[22:34.860 --> 22:35.360]  Yeah.
[22:35.980 --> 22:43.020]  Well, the other couple interesting issues I raised, I filed a motion and raised verbally
[22:43.020 --> 22:49.260]  in court during the pretrial, a motion to disqualify the judge due to an interest in
[22:49.260 --> 22:54.860]  the matter, and their interest was a criminal complaint that I filed a copy of on the record
[22:54.860 --> 22:55.420]  with the court.
[22:56.060 --> 23:02.220]  In addition to dialing 911 as they were committing 3903 violations during that hearing.
[23:02.220 --> 23:03.900]  So I also filed the police report.
[23:03.900 --> 23:05.820]  They got a copy regarding that.
[23:06.460 --> 23:16.620]  So there should be enough sufficient information or basis for them dismissing it in the brief.
[23:18.620 --> 23:20.300]  So that's what I have in the brief there.
[23:21.260 --> 23:22.940]  Well, have you looked in this?
[23:22.940 --> 23:29.340]  You were referencing Texas rules of appellate procedure and 25.2.
[23:30.460 --> 23:35.020]  Have you been, did you look at this part here right before it gets to the ABC?
[23:35.020 --> 23:37.420]  It talks about under two.
[23:37.420 --> 23:43.180]  It says that a defendant may appeal only and it goes through certain things.
[23:44.380 --> 23:45.340]  Hold on just a second.
[23:45.340 --> 23:47.020]  We'll have to continue that on the other side.
[23:47.900 --> 23:48.700]  We'll be right back.
[23:50.460 --> 23:53.820]  Do you have a business with five employees or more?
[23:53.820 --> 23:57.740]  How would you like to save hundreds of thousands of dollars in FICA taxes?
[23:57.740 --> 24:01.820]  Do you have a major medical plan that nobody can afford to be on?
[24:01.820 --> 24:07.260]  Or how would you like to save in premium costs on a current major medical plan by
[24:07.260 --> 24:09.100]  lowering the claims cost?
[24:09.100 --> 24:15.900]  The CHAMP plan is a section 125 IRS approved preventative health plan that provides your
[24:15.900 --> 24:23.260]  employees with doctors, medications, emergency care, and Teladoc all at zero cost with zero
[24:23.260 --> 24:23.900]  copay.
[24:23.900 --> 24:29.900]  If you are an employee, you also will get a pay raise by paying less in FICA taxes.
[24:29.900 --> 24:36.140]  As an employer, you will save hundreds of thousands of dollars in matching FICA taxes.
[24:36.140 --> 24:42.460]  The CHAMP plan can help add working capital, market resale value, or pay down lines of credit.
[24:42.460 --> 24:50.380]  Call Scott at 214-730-2471 or dallasmms.com.
[25:13.420 --> 25:18.300]  Thousands have won with our step by step course and now you can too.
[25:18.300 --> 25:24.300]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience.
[25:24.860 --> 25:29.740]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the
[25:29.740 --> 25:33.740]  principles and practices that control our American courts.
[25:33.740 --> 25:39.980]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[25:40.060 --> 25:42.700]  pro se tactics, and much more.
[25:42.700 --> 25:50.700]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ.
[26:09.980 --> 26:29.740]  Okay, we are back.
[26:29.740 --> 26:35.100]  Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking to Joseph in Texas.
[26:35.900 --> 26:41.820]  Okay, when we went out, Brett was talking about the rules of court, but I think-
[26:41.820 --> 26:43.660]  Texas rules of appellate procedure.
[26:43.660 --> 26:48.860]  It was just saying what it is that you could and couldn't appeal.
[26:49.740 --> 26:51.100]  Some little specifics there.
[26:51.740 --> 26:53.260]  So have you taken a look?
[26:53.260 --> 26:54.460]  I guess you probably have.
[26:56.460 --> 26:57.900]  I have looked those over.
[26:57.900 --> 27:01.660]  You're talking about 25.2 subsection.
[27:02.620 --> 27:04.220]  Oh, what is that?
[27:04.220 --> 27:05.900]  Subsection H, is that right?
[27:07.340 --> 27:07.740]  Let's see.
[27:07.740 --> 27:10.540]  It's got A to A.
[27:10.540 --> 27:12.700]  I think you've got it covered with A to A.
[27:14.460 --> 27:20.220]  And then that would- because B has an or in it, I interpret that to mean A, B, or C.
[27:21.820 --> 27:22.460]  Okay, okay.
[27:23.100 --> 27:25.660]  So it's all covered in A to A.
[27:25.660 --> 27:26.860]  That is correct.
[27:26.860 --> 27:33.260]  I think you've raised by written motion filed with the court.
[27:33.260 --> 27:37.740]  They didn't rule on it, but you raised the issue.
[27:40.060 --> 27:44.700]  The fact that they just ignored your challenge to jurisdiction,
[27:47.100 --> 27:49.180]  that could be deemed as a denial.
[27:51.180 --> 27:51.740]  Yeah.
[27:51.740 --> 27:52.240]  No.
[27:53.340 --> 27:54.300]  Oh, wait, wait.
[27:54.300 --> 27:54.940]  No, no.
[27:57.580 --> 28:00.380]  Jurisdiction cannot be presumed.
[28:00.380 --> 28:01.100]  It is threshold.
[28:01.100 --> 28:01.980]  Of course.
[28:01.980 --> 28:04.220]  Judge must prove up jurisdiction.
[28:04.220 --> 28:05.980]  Well, of course.
[28:05.980 --> 28:09.260]  But if he ignores it, I believe it's 10 days.
[28:09.260 --> 28:15.740]  They ignore it, and then it is deemed to be a denial of your motion to dismiss for that.
[28:16.380 --> 28:23.420]  So, yes, it's totally illegitimate that he should just ignore a threshold issue that
[28:23.420 --> 28:25.100]  can't be waived, obviously.
[28:25.100 --> 28:31.020]  But it's unjust for us to look at this rule that says
[28:33.580 --> 28:40.700]  he can only appeal matters that were raised by filing it and ruled on before trial.
[28:41.500 --> 28:48.860]  It's unjust to say that, well, the court just pretty much ignored his threshold issues,
[28:48.860 --> 28:50.860]  and so we're going to not be able to appeal that.
[28:50.860 --> 28:51.360]  Yep.
[28:55.020 --> 28:56.620]  Walker v. Packerbank, again.
[28:57.660 --> 28:59.980]  The threshold issues on the record.
[29:00.620 --> 29:04.940]  They overruled my motions, or they didn't address them.
[29:04.940 --> 29:10.380]  Actually, the ones that they addressed—you're going to love this, Brett—they addressed
[29:10.380 --> 29:18.700]  the threshold issues by way of having their own pretend hearing on the petition for rid of
[29:18.700 --> 29:19.740]  mandamus.
[29:19.740 --> 29:23.340]  That's the municipal court that did that.
[29:24.220 --> 29:24.720]  Whoa.
[29:25.340 --> 29:26.620]  Their own?
[29:26.620 --> 29:28.940]  Wait, as if they were the higher court?
[29:29.980 --> 29:30.540]  Yes, sir.
[29:34.700 --> 29:38.220]  38.26, penal code.
[29:41.260 --> 29:42.780]  Simulating a legal process.
[29:44.140 --> 29:44.640]  Oh, yeah.
[29:45.520 --> 29:51.840]  I don't think I've ever heard of a lower court trying to hear its own mandamus against itself.
[29:52.880 --> 29:53.380]  Yep.
[29:54.560 --> 29:58.880]  And they ruled on it saying, I take this to be a request for a change of venue.
[29:59.520 --> 30:01.600]  That's what the wording in the order says.
[30:01.600 --> 30:08.720]  And they refused—I forget the wording that they used, but they did not address
[30:08.720 --> 30:13.280]  any of the jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction challenges that I raised.
[30:13.840 --> 30:16.560]  They just said, oh, that doesn't matter, essentially.
[30:16.560 --> 30:17.280]  And that was that.
[30:18.000 --> 30:25.920]  So again, gentlemen, when I get in front of a county judge, I don't care if it's civil,
[30:25.920 --> 30:29.760]  I don't care—I don't know if it needs to be civil or criminal, but I'm going to have
[30:29.760 --> 30:32.400]  some of those criminal complaints on hand.
[30:32.400 --> 30:33.920]  I'll ask him to take action.
[30:33.920 --> 30:40.640]  And I'm going to ask that he rule on the motion for default judgment, and he's going
[30:40.640 --> 30:43.520]  to come back and say, I can't do that.
[30:43.520 --> 30:46.080]  We haven't brought the case over from the inferior court.
[30:47.120 --> 30:47.920]  So I'm looking for—
[30:47.920 --> 30:54.160]  Well, in that case, then it's right for assert because, again, no subject matter jurisdiction
[30:54.160 --> 30:54.960]  have an issue.
[30:55.920 --> 31:00.960]  You might find interesting—I did—in the rules of appellate procedure,
[31:00.960 --> 31:05.760]  34.5 is talking about some items that are absolutely required.
[31:05.760 --> 31:12.720]  And Subsection A, Subsection 2 speaks to the indictment or information.
[31:14.080 --> 31:20.720]  When—I know that they don't have that, and they never do.
[31:20.720 --> 31:26.160]  But in order for an appeal to happen, the lower court clerk has to give that indictment
[31:26.160 --> 31:28.320]  or information to the appellate court.
[31:30.960 --> 31:31.760]  What was that rule?
[31:31.760 --> 31:37.200]  34.5, Subsection A, Subsection 2.
[31:38.240 --> 31:39.280]  I think you'll like that.
[31:39.840 --> 31:48.080]  And there's a part in there that says—let's see, I don't know.
[31:48.080 --> 31:49.200]  I have to find it.
[31:49.200 --> 31:58.400]  But there's a part that gives you an opportunity to waive that by saying that you don't need
[31:58.400 --> 31:59.040]  anything else.
[31:59.200 --> 32:03.840]  We can just go ahead and—but, of course, that's not what you're doing.
[32:03.840 --> 32:07.200]  And so they still have to supply that.
[32:07.200 --> 32:10.320]  And they have to supply the findings of fact and conclusions of law.
[32:11.040 --> 32:20.960]  That's—I can't tell you the exact address, but look in 34.5, because it will say that
[32:20.960 --> 32:25.760]  the findings of fact and conclusions of law are presumed by the higher court to be given
[32:25.760 --> 32:31.120]  to them from the lower court so that they can compare that with what you're calling
[32:31.120 --> 32:31.920]  judicial error.
[32:33.520 --> 32:35.120]  Of course, they never have that.
[32:35.120 --> 32:36.880]  They just do what they want because they want to do.
[32:38.480 --> 32:38.720]  Right.
[32:38.720 --> 32:42.800]  When I filed the notice of—what did I call it?
[32:42.800 --> 32:50.400]  The notice of intent to appeal on that same day, I also filed a motion asking for finding
[32:50.400 --> 32:51.760]  of facts and rulings at law.
[32:53.280 --> 32:53.920]  Beautiful.
[32:53.920 --> 32:55.280]  Of course, they haven't replied that.
[32:56.320 --> 32:56.880]  Oh, of course.
[32:58.000 --> 33:00.320]  Because they didn't want to say, because I'm your daddy.
[33:00.320 --> 33:01.600]  And I said so.
[33:04.080 --> 33:05.840]  They figured that'd probably be unprofessional.
[33:07.200 --> 33:10.640]  When you say this might be appropriate for a writ, what kind of writ?
[33:14.000 --> 33:18.880]  Well, so I'm thinking about a writ of certiorari because it challenges subject matter
[33:18.880 --> 33:20.320]  jurisdiction from the beginning.
[33:21.200 --> 33:23.040]  But I've not done it from a municipality.
[33:23.040 --> 33:25.120]  I've only done it from a justice court.
[33:25.120 --> 33:30.080]  I know they have a lot of things in common, but I don't know—I think that particular
[33:30.080 --> 33:35.520]  one, the writ of certiorari from a justice court, is confined to a justice court.
[33:35.520 --> 33:41.120]  There'd have to be some, I don't know, find a different rule that allows it from the
[33:41.120 --> 33:42.960]  municipality, from the city.
[33:46.080 --> 33:53.440]  So I would have ready to hand the judge, you're suggesting, a writ of certiorari if it was
[33:53.440 --> 33:55.600]  applicable in the situation.
[33:56.640 --> 34:00.640]  Yeah, it's actually a petition for a writ of certiorari.
[34:01.760 --> 34:07.120]  What that would mean is that you're petitioning the higher court to issue a writ to the lower
[34:07.120 --> 34:13.600]  court for them to show jurisdiction, that they had jurisdiction in the first place.
[34:15.040 --> 34:18.400]  How would I learn how to write one of those effectively?
[34:18.400 --> 34:22.400]  Is there a good example in the files of the Law Society channel?
[34:23.440 --> 34:26.320]  Well, I did have one succeed from the justice court.
[34:26.320 --> 34:33.520]  So, I mean, I haven't seen other people doing that, so I only have my own as an example.
[34:33.520 --> 34:37.920]  But what I looked at for this was in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
[34:38.560 --> 34:44.560]  And it's, I think it's 500—let me go take a look.
[34:45.120 --> 34:52.960]  This is a Texas—let me pull up that—Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
[35:00.240 --> 35:01.280]  They keep updating it.
[35:01.280 --> 35:02.160]  I'm picking that up.
[35:02.880 --> 35:09.680]  Beyond what I have mentioned so far, is there anything else you would recommend
[35:10.400 --> 35:15.600]  besides the writ, the petition for writ of certiorari, and the criminal complaints,
[35:15.600 --> 35:19.600]  and the motion for default judgment that I'm planning on bringing with me?
[35:20.480 --> 35:23.440]  No, I think you're just—you're nailing it.
[35:23.440 --> 35:24.720]  I think this is really good.
[35:27.280 --> 35:35.440]  Do you have something to—default judgment on the inability to pay?
[35:35.440 --> 35:38.160]  No.
[35:39.600 --> 35:47.120]  You need to file the—ask the—since the trial court defaulted on that, you need to
[35:48.560 --> 35:54.720]  ask for a ruling from the appellate court on your inability to pay motion.
[35:58.960 --> 36:04.720]  Since the trial court didn't rule on it, you have a right to default judgment.
[36:05.440 --> 36:11.440]  Copy that.
[36:12.880 --> 36:15.440]  Okay, so the rule—oh, go ahead.
[36:15.440 --> 36:18.320]  One of the ways they try to keep you from getting into the higher courts is
[36:19.360 --> 36:21.520]  by targeting you at the appellate fee.
[36:23.200 --> 36:28.080]  So you need that in to block them so they don't get to use that as a
[36:28.080 --> 36:30.240]  tool to make it too expensive to fight them.
[36:35.440 --> 36:47.040]  So the rule that you were looking for—that I was looking for a moment ago was the Texas
[36:47.040 --> 36:51.760]  Rules of Civil Procedures 506.4 for JP courts.
[36:52.720 --> 36:58.320]  And I don't know if there's something parallel in the municipal courts.
[36:58.880 --> 36:59.360]  Not sure.
[37:02.720 --> 37:03.840]  I'll give it a look.
[37:03.840 --> 37:06.240]  Is that writ of certiorari that you found success with?
[37:06.240 --> 37:09.120]  Is that in one of your state trooper channels?
[37:10.160 --> 37:10.400]  Yes.
[37:12.240 --> 37:13.200]  I'll go hunt it down.
[37:15.200 --> 37:21.680]  Yeah, and in fact, in that particular case, that same case, I pulled heavily from Texas
[37:21.680 --> 37:31.520]  jurisprudence and laid out how there's a distinction between latent subject matter
[37:31.520 --> 37:36.480]  jurisdiction and activated jurisdiction.
[37:37.760 --> 37:41.360]  It's a distinction that I think some judges don't understand.
[37:41.920 --> 37:46.320]  And so I wanted to really make it crystal clear.
[37:47.360 --> 37:51.120]  When the statutes confer subject matter jurisdiction on a court,
[37:51.120 --> 37:55.200]  that's a general—it's not specific to any case.
[37:55.200 --> 37:57.440]  It's specific to the kind of case.
[37:57.440 --> 38:00.560]  And so in order to activate that, somebody has to file paperwork.
[38:00.560 --> 38:02.880]  And what's on the paperwork has to match that.
[38:07.920 --> 38:08.640]  Does that make sense?
[38:10.240 --> 38:12.720]  Yeah, it'll make sense in the play act.
[38:14.320 --> 38:14.960]  Okay, great.
[38:16.960 --> 38:20.320]  All right, well, we are just about to go to our sponsors.
[38:21.120 --> 38:25.680]  We've got—our phone lines are open.
[38:25.680 --> 38:27.120]  Anybody else wants to call in?
[38:27.120 --> 38:31.440]  It's 512-646-1984.
[38:31.440 --> 38:34.960]  512-646-1984.
[38:34.960 --> 38:37.840]  And Tina, Tina, we see you there.
[38:37.840 --> 38:38.560]  We'll get to you.
[38:40.560 --> 38:44.480]  Would you like to make more definite progress in your walk with God?
[38:44.480 --> 38:47.920]  Bibles for America is offering a free study Bible
[38:47.920 --> 38:51.200]  and a set of free Christian books that can really help.
[38:51.200 --> 38:56.400]  The New Testament Recovery Version is one of the most comprehensive study Bibles available today.
[38:56.400 --> 39:00.960]  It's an accurate translation, and it contains thousands of footnotes that will help you to
[39:00.960 --> 39:03.680]  know God and to know the meaning of life.
[39:03.680 --> 39:08.720]  The free books are a three-volume set called Basic Elements of the Christian Life.
[39:08.720 --> 39:14.640]  Chapter by chapter, Basic Elements of the Christian Life clearly presents God's plan of salvation,
[39:14.640 --> 39:18.160]  growing in Christ, and how to build up the Church.
[39:18.160 --> 39:24.160]  To order your free New Testament Recovery Version and Basic Elements of the Christian Life,
[39:24.240 --> 39:30.880]  call Bibles for America toll free at 888-551-0102.
[39:30.880 --> 39:35.440]  That's 888-551-0102.
[39:35.440 --> 39:39.440]  Or visit us online at bfa.org.
[39:41.280 --> 39:45.440]  Live, free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[39:45.440 --> 39:56.240]  The Bill of Rights contains the first 10 amendments of our Constitution.
[39:56.240 --> 39:59.680]  They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect.
[39:59.680 --> 40:01.280]  Our liberty depends on it.
[40:01.280 --> 40:03.760]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be right back with an
[40:03.760 --> 40:07.040]  unforgettable way to remember one of your constitutional rights.
[40:07.600 --> 40:09.520]  Privacy is under attack.
[40:09.520 --> 40:13.120]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[40:13.120 --> 40:17.920]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish, too.
[40:17.920 --> 40:23.200]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[40:23.200 --> 40:25.680]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[40:25.680 --> 40:29.280]  This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com,
[40:29.280 --> 40:33.360]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[40:33.360 --> 40:35.280]  Start over with Startpage.
[40:36.720 --> 40:39.360]  Imagine your mom and dad are getting ready for bed.
[40:39.360 --> 40:42.400]  They pull back the covers and find a third party there.
[40:42.400 --> 40:45.520]  He announces, I'm with the military and I'm sleeping here tonight.
[40:45.520 --> 40:49.200]  That shocking image of a third party in my parents' bed reminds me what the
[40:49.200 --> 40:51.280]  Third Amendment was designed to prevent.
[40:51.280 --> 40:54.720]  It protects us from being forced to share our homes with soldiers,
[40:54.720 --> 40:57.520]  a common demand in the days of our founding fathers.
[40:57.520 --> 40:59.920]  Third party, Third Amendment, get it?
[40:59.920 --> 41:03.680]  So if you answer a knock at your door and guys in fatigues demand lodging,
[41:03.680 --> 41:07.840]  tell them to dust off their copy of the Bill of Rights and reread the Third Amendment.
[41:07.840 --> 41:12.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[41:22.480 --> 41:26.160]  The Bill of Rights contains the first 10 amendments of our Constitution.
[41:26.160 --> 41:29.600]  They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect.
[41:29.600 --> 41:31.200]  Our liberty depends on it.
[41:31.200 --> 41:34.560]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way
[41:34.560 --> 41:36.960]  to remember one of your constitutional rights.
[41:37.600 --> 41:39.520]  Privacy is under attack.
[41:39.520 --> 41:43.120]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[41:43.120 --> 41:47.920]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[41:47.920 --> 41:49.360]  So protect your rights.
[41:49.360 --> 41:53.200]  Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[41:53.200 --> 41:55.680]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[41:55.680 --> 41:59.280]  This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com,
[41:59.280 --> 42:03.360]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing.
[42:03.360 --> 42:06.640]  Start over with Startpage.
[42:06.960 --> 42:09.760]  Imagine four eyes staring at you through binoculars,
[42:09.760 --> 42:12.560]  a magnifying glass or a pair of x-ray goggles.
[42:12.560 --> 42:16.000]  That imagery reminds me that the Fourth Amendment guarantees Americans
[42:16.000 --> 42:18.480]  freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.
[42:18.480 --> 42:21.680]  Fourth Amendment, four eyes staring at you, get it?
[42:21.680 --> 42:24.640]  Unfortunately, the government is trampling our Fourth Amendment rights
[42:24.640 --> 42:26.000]  in the name of security.
[42:26.000 --> 42:30.480]  Case in point, TSA airport scanners that peer under your clothing.
[42:30.480 --> 42:34.400]  When government employees demand a peep at your privates without probable cause,
[42:34.400 --> 42:37.520]  I say it's time to sound the constitutional alarm bells.
[42:37.520 --> 42:40.800]  Join me in asking our representatives to dust off the Bill of Rights
[42:40.800 --> 42:43.760]  and use their googly eyes to take a gander at the Fourth.
[42:44.400 --> 42:45.760]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[42:45.760 --> 42:48.560]  More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[43:04.560 --> 43:07.760]  Yes, it cares not for the unsightly.
[43:10.240 --> 43:13.440]  These warmongers come by that term rightly.
[43:19.040 --> 43:22.320]  I won't pay for the war with my body.
[43:22.320 --> 43:25.760]  Ain't gonna pay for their car with my money.
[43:25.760 --> 43:29.040]  I won't pay for the fun with my body.
[43:29.040 --> 43:32.480]  Their plans wicked and their logic shoddy.
[43:32.480 --> 43:35.920]  Ain't gonna pay for the war with my body.
[43:35.920 --> 43:39.280]  I won't pay for the boys with my money.
[43:39.280 --> 43:42.240]  Ain't gonna pay for the kids with my body.
[43:43.440 --> 43:45.680]  Their whole agenda smells funny.
[43:46.880 --> 43:50.480]  I wanna fight in a war of my own.
[43:53.440 --> 43:56.880]  That one would be less accidental.
[43:56.880 --> 44:03.920]  Oh, I wanna pay for war of my own.
[44:06.720 --> 44:11.600]  They live in glass houses so I can watch them throw bones.
[44:13.920 --> 44:16.800]  I wanna fight in a war I can win.
[44:16.800 --> 44:20.480]  I could never win the one they laid at me in.
[44:20.480 --> 44:24.080]  That one I lose long before it begins.
[44:24.080 --> 44:31.120]  I wanna pay for a war I can win when I'm fighting in my own war.
[44:34.160 --> 44:36.400]  It's such a peaceful feeling.
[44:40.960 --> 44:49.920]  When I'm paying for my own war, I take time for the healing.
[44:54.880 --> 45:01.920]  Yeah, it's all according to the will of the almighty.
[45:04.560 --> 45:09.200]  I read his book and he says he cares not for the unsightly.
[45:11.520 --> 45:14.560]  These fear mongers come by that dark red.
[45:14.560 --> 45:20.960]  Okay, howdy, howdy, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, U of R radio on this Friday,
[45:21.600 --> 45:31.520]  the fifth day of September 2025, and we're talking to Joseph in Texas and Tina.
[45:31.520 --> 45:32.320]  We see you there.
[45:32.320 --> 45:38.480]  I only mentioned that at the end of the last break as I wanted to make sure you knew we
[45:38.480 --> 45:44.800]  were here so that you didn't fall asleep in case we unmuted you and we didn't wanna hear any snoring.
[45:46.400 --> 45:48.320]  Okay, yeah, we did wanna hear some snoring.
[45:48.320 --> 45:51.200]  You are so bad.
[45:52.640 --> 45:53.360]  I heard that.
[45:56.800 --> 45:58.320]  Okay, go ahead, Joseph.
[46:00.080 --> 46:05.520]  All right, well, I actually, I just wanted to mention briefly before I forget, before
[46:05.520 --> 46:13.440]  I officially sign off, this is your, what do you call yourself when you're part of the press?
[46:15.440 --> 46:17.680]  Would you say that word is, Randy, you've used it before?
[46:18.320 --> 46:21.360]  I'm not sure what you're referring to.
[46:22.080 --> 46:22.880]  Journalist.
[46:22.880 --> 46:27.680]  This is your journalist reporting in from the San Antonio chapter.
[46:28.400 --> 46:28.640]  Yes.
[46:30.320 --> 46:38.000]  All you listeners, you are all my journalists from WTPRN, U of R radio.
[46:41.680 --> 46:45.040]  WTPRN used to stand for We The People Radio Network.
[46:46.000 --> 46:47.440]  That was what we started out with.
[46:48.480 --> 46:49.680]  So you're all our journalists.
[46:50.640 --> 46:57.680]  So you can make up a name tag, grass on the top of it or media, your picture,
[46:58.240 --> 46:59.840]  your name underneath it.
[46:59.840 --> 47:02.560]  I went in court and I've got this hanging around my neck.
[47:03.280 --> 47:05.840]  The judge couldn't even talk to, couldn't look at me.
[47:05.840 --> 47:10.400]  All he could do is stare at that supposed press pass.
[47:10.400 --> 47:12.400]  There are no such thing as press passes anymore.
[47:13.280 --> 47:15.360]  So just make it up.
[47:16.080 --> 47:16.800]  Make some nuts.
[47:19.280 --> 47:25.760]  So this is me reporting in to tell y'all the latest shenanigans that the municipal
[47:25.760 --> 47:26.800]  court has pulled.
[47:27.920 --> 47:32.560]  My plan to combat it, Brett, I highly appreciate the reference to,
[47:33.440 --> 47:34.880]  hold on, don't tell me.
[47:34.880 --> 47:39.600]  It was rule 506 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
[47:39.600 --> 47:40.320]  I will look it up.
[47:40.320 --> 47:41.680]  Yeah, 506.4.
[47:42.640 --> 47:45.440]  And perhaps just as interesting for you is that
[47:46.800 --> 47:51.040]  TRAP, Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 34.5.
[47:54.640 --> 47:55.440]  Yep.
[47:55.440 --> 47:58.560]  Oh, and you know, as you're going back to that,
[47:59.360 --> 48:03.520]  one of the things if you look in, oh, where was it?
[48:03.520 --> 48:08.400]  25.2 subsection E.
[48:09.360 --> 48:13.280]  It speaks directly to trial court clerk's duties.
[48:14.080 --> 48:18.400]  So if anyone, anybody out there ever has to deal with doing an appeal,
[48:18.400 --> 48:23.200]  and you're in Texas, when you look up the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,
[48:23.200 --> 48:28.720]  you should look at 25.2 subsection E because I'm not going to go into it right now.
[48:28.720 --> 48:35.920]  But it details the duties of the trial court clerk and what they must do.
[48:36.800 --> 48:37.920]  So really cool stuff.
[48:38.720 --> 48:42.960]  Brett, you did, before going out on the break, I may have to disconnect here,
[48:42.960 --> 48:49.840]  but I would love to have you go on to that topic that you mentioned of instant jurisdiction.
[48:49.840 --> 48:55.680]  You might have caught Eric's attention with that, and I would love to hear your treatment of it.
[48:56.640 --> 48:57.680]  Did you say instant?
[48:59.520 --> 49:02.160]  I thought you had said instant jurisdiction.
[49:02.160 --> 49:07.760]  You were talking about the jurisprudence and a writ of certiorari before the break.
[49:09.440 --> 49:11.600]  Yes, I was making a distinction between
[49:12.640 --> 49:17.920]  jurisdiction of the court that has or has not been activated.
[49:18.560 --> 49:22.880]  It's dormant until somebody presents the indictment or information.
[49:24.320 --> 49:29.920]  Once somebody presents an indictment or information, then it's going to be activated.
[49:30.720 --> 49:32.080]  The term is activated.
[49:33.920 --> 49:39.200]  The jurisdiction that is statutorily conferred is latent.
[49:40.080 --> 49:45.520]  It's not activated yet until some paperwork gets filed in your case.
[49:48.160 --> 49:53.360]  And then on that paperwork, within the four corners of those primary pleadings,
[49:53.360 --> 50:00.480]  there needs to be something on there that indicates that it is that subject matter
[50:00.480 --> 50:06.640]  over which the court has been statutorily conferred jurisdiction.
[50:07.280 --> 50:10.320]  Does that make sense? They can't just imagine that it's criminal
[50:12.480 --> 50:17.600]  and say, oh, we have jurisdiction because this that I have in my imagination is criminal.
[50:18.640 --> 50:22.000]  We don't go by their imagination. They have to have primary pleadings.
[50:22.000 --> 50:26.480]  And within the four corners of that document, there needs to be some facts that are alleged
[50:26.480 --> 50:32.880]  that go to the jurisdiction of that court matching what the statutes have granted for that
[50:32.880 --> 50:38.640]  particular court. So if that court, you know, municipal or justice, whatever, and they say,
[50:38.640 --> 50:45.520]  okay, they handle criminal misdemeanors, fine only, okay, so then somebody needs to file
[50:45.520 --> 50:51.200]  some primary pleadings, not just anybody, but someone authorized, right, has to file primary
[50:51.200 --> 50:57.360]  pleadings. And in those primary pleadings, they need to allege some facts that go to
[50:58.080 --> 51:03.920]  a crime that's one of these minor misdemeanors. It's fine only. But if they don't have any
[51:03.920 --> 51:09.760]  primary pleadings, nobody has activated the jurisdiction of the court. Yes, they have this
[51:09.760 --> 51:16.320]  latent jurisdiction over that kind of crimes, but nobody lit it up for your case.
[51:21.200 --> 51:21.840]  Does that make sense?
[51:23.440 --> 51:30.880]  Yep. I love it. And with that, this is journalist Joseph from the San Antonio chapter signing off.
[51:30.880 --> 51:32.880]  Have a good night.
[51:32.880 --> 51:34.480]  Okay. Well, thanks for calling.
[51:41.760 --> 51:46.400]  All right. Well, I guess we'll go right on ahead to, Randy didn't have any special comments there.
[51:46.400 --> 51:52.480]  So let's go right on ahead to our next caller, which is Tina. Good evening, Tina. What is on
[51:52.480 --> 52:06.160]  your mind? Well, I wanted to ask about when a clerk signs an order. I have an order in the
[52:06.160 --> 52:15.520]  bankruptcy appellate court in Tennessee and an order came down and it was just signed by the
[52:15.520 --> 52:25.040]  clerk. No judges, no one from the panel of judges, just the clerk. How can that be, you know,
[52:25.680 --> 52:29.520]  legal when, how do we know the judge is even read?
[52:30.640 --> 52:35.120]  Well, some of them, the judges don't need to read it. Some of them are administrative things and
[52:35.920 --> 52:40.720]  you'll find in the statutes or the rules where there are very few, mostly it does need to go
[52:40.720 --> 52:49.360]  before a judge. But I have seen in some situations where a clerk is specifically authorized to sign
[52:49.360 --> 53:02.640]  certain kinds of orders. So let's say it is, I can't think of a good example. Well, okay. So there
[53:02.640 --> 53:13.760]  would be, one of them was with regards to default, that the clerk is authorized specifically. The
[53:13.760 --> 53:19.120]  judge doesn't have to look at the case and see whether or not the opposing party filed anything
[53:19.120 --> 53:27.600]  and whether it was timely. The clerk can do that. And so there will be, in some cases,
[53:28.400 --> 53:35.520]  they, it specifically authorizes the clerk to do that. And so then the clerk could sign for it
[53:35.520 --> 53:42.240]  or use the clerk of court stamp seal, you know, and that would be all that's needed. A judge doesn't
[53:42.240 --> 53:47.600]  have to, you know, judicially preside over something and adjudicate whether or not something went into
[53:47.600 --> 53:52.960]  the file because that doesn't really go to the merits. There doesn't need to be any finding of
[53:52.960 --> 53:58.480]  fact or conclusions of law. So no judge or jury needs to get involved. It's just as simple as the
[53:58.480 --> 54:04.640]  clerk looking at the documents and saying, yep, they failed to file anything within the 21 days.
[54:04.640 --> 54:10.240]  Has it been 21 days? Yep. Have they filed anything? Nope. Okay. I can sign this. And so
[54:12.080 --> 54:18.640]  I would say, sounds like you want to challenge the validity of that. So ask for,
[54:18.640 --> 54:27.440]  I'm sorry. I've already challenged it and asked for findings, facts and conclusions of law,
[54:27.440 --> 54:35.840]  which allows the clerk to interpret and, you know, give basically give legal advice. It's saying that,
[54:37.600 --> 54:43.520]  you know, I forfeit the appellate review because she has not developed an argument demonstrating
[54:43.520 --> 54:49.440]  that the BAP erred in dismissing her appeal. Accordingly, we have firm the bankruptcy
[54:49.440 --> 54:54.080]  court's order and we grant Colebrook's motion to proceed in form of porporis
[54:54.080 --> 55:00.800]  for the purposes of this appeal only. But what are we paying these judges for if they're too lazy
[55:00.800 --> 55:08.560]  to sign an order or to read? I mean, this, how do we know? I don't agree with a clerk deciding
[55:09.120 --> 55:15.760]  what this ruling should be. Right. No, I'm right there with you. That sounds like the clerk is
[55:15.760 --> 55:21.360]  doing something that is specifically judicial in nature. And I don't imagine there would be any
[55:22.080 --> 55:29.360]  legal authority on which she could rely to do that. I would tend to make a records request and ask
[55:29.360 --> 55:35.840]  for the, all the records that they have that show the legal authority that someone in their office
[55:36.480 --> 55:42.400]  could rely on in order to make such a decision. That's how I like to get them to tell me when
[55:42.400 --> 55:47.840]  they say they can't give legal advice or, or we can't give you free law school, all that kind of
[55:47.840 --> 55:56.640]  stuff. I ask for records, public records that show the legal authority on which someone in their
[55:56.640 --> 56:04.240]  office could rely in order to insert here their, their questionable actions.
[56:06.000 --> 56:11.360]  Well, they're basically, what I'm seeing is they're giving their legal opinion,
[56:12.160 --> 56:18.560]  but they always say, we can't give you legal advice, but here they're giving what appears
[56:18.560 --> 56:25.040]  to be a legal opinion and they're a clerk. They're not a lawyer. Yeah. Well, another thing you could
[56:25.040 --> 56:29.120]  do, you could eat, you could go ahead and file a criminal complaint and let them explain it.
[56:29.920 --> 56:32.960]  Let them explain why if they're not impersonating a judge.
[56:34.720 --> 56:40.240]  Oh, I like that criminal complaint, but don't run me off the cliff. Please. Please. Randy
[56:40.240 --> 56:46.400]  does it all the time because he's childish. Okay. Hang on. We have to go to our sponsors,
[56:46.400 --> 56:49.680]  Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rubio Radio. We'll be right back.
[56:50.560 --> 56:56.240]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits? Stop debt
[56:56.240 --> 57:01.440]  collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method. Michael Mears has won six cases in
[57:01.440 --> 57:06.720]  federal court against debt collectors and now you can win too. You'll get step-by-step instructions
[57:06.720 --> 57:12.000]  and plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statues. What to do when
[57:12.000 --> 57:17.520]  contacted by phone, mail or court summons, how to answer letters and phone calls, how to get debt
[57:17.520 --> 57:22.320]  collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the financial tables on them and make them
[57:22.320 --> 57:28.160]  pay you to go away. The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt
[57:28.160 --> 57:33.120]  collectors. Personal consultation is available as well. For more information, please visit
[57:33.120 --> 57:39.840]  ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[57:39.840 --> 57:49.120]  That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt
[57:49.120 --> 57:54.560]  collectors now. I love logos. Without the shows on this network, I'd be almost as ignorant as
[57:54.560 --> 57:59.280]  my friends. I'm so addicted to the truth now that there's no going back. I need my truth fixed. I'd
[57:59.280 --> 58:04.720]  be lost without logos and I really want to help keep this network on the air. I'd love to volunteer
[58:04.720 --> 58:09.200]  as a show producer but I'm a bit of a Luddite and I really don't have any money to give because I
[58:09.200 --> 58:15.040]  spent it all on supplements. How can I help logos? Well, I'm glad you asked. Whenever you order
[58:15.040 --> 58:20.160]  anything from Amazon, you can help logos. You can order your supplies or holiday gifts. First thing
[58:20.160 --> 58:28.240]  you do is clear your cookies. Now go to logosradio.com. Click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it.
[58:28.240 --> 58:34.480]  Now when you order anything from Amazon, you use that link and logos gets a few pesos. Do I pay
[58:34.480 --> 58:39.760]  extra? No. Do you have to do anything different when I order? No. Can I use my Amazon Prime?
[58:39.760 --> 58:46.240]  No. I mean, yes. Wow. Giving without doing anything or spending any money. This is perfect.
[58:46.240 --> 58:50.560]  Thank you so much. You're welcome. Happy holidays, logos.
[59:34.480 --> 59:41.760]  Just took the money from my hand. Ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick again.
[59:41.760 --> 59:48.000]  Okay. We are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Ruevla Radio and Tina, you owe me one.
[59:49.520 --> 59:53.760]  I didn't let you... You'll notice I did not let you run off the cliff.
[59:53.760 --> 59:58.320]  So that makes us up for that snoring comment earlier. Let me unmute you.
[59:58.320 --> 01:00:02.960]  I didn't wake up for that snoring comment. I'm sorry. I get up at five o'clock in the morning.
[01:00:02.960 --> 01:00:09.120]  So by the time 10 o'clock rolls around, I'm dead beat. And you just let me wait till the very end.
[01:00:11.360 --> 01:00:14.720]  But not tonight. So I'll let you off tonight.
[01:00:17.360 --> 01:00:20.720]  Okay, Brett. I am having a terrible time hearing her.
[01:00:22.320 --> 01:00:27.280]  That's okay. She was just blaming you and pointing out your foibles and things like that.
[01:00:27.280 --> 01:00:29.680]  Oh, well, I'm married. I'm used to that.
[01:00:33.680 --> 01:00:40.160]  That's probably why you couldn't hear it. Some automatic setting on your hearing aids.
[01:00:40.160 --> 01:00:42.160]  Had my hearing aids on wife mode.
[01:00:45.040 --> 01:00:51.680]  I'm sure he does. Brett, I liked your idea of filing a criminal complaint. I have not done that,
[01:00:51.680 --> 01:01:00.960]  but part of my heading for the reconsideration, I put demand for said court to give articulation
[01:01:00.960 --> 01:01:08.800]  of facts and conclusions of law of the clerk's authority to act as a judge versus a three-judge
[01:01:08.800 --> 01:01:14.960]  panel. And how is it not an irregularity procedure that a procedural nullity?
[01:01:16.320 --> 01:01:19.760]  Well, then you might, if you like the criminal complaint idea, you might
[01:01:20.560 --> 01:01:28.000]  like my next suggestion. You can go and sue them civilly. You might just start
[01:01:28.000 --> 01:01:32.320]  taking it easy and gentle on the first time around and just ask for declaratory judgment.
[01:01:36.000 --> 01:01:39.120]  Is it legitimate for this clerk to sign this kind of an order?
[01:01:41.360 --> 01:01:46.960]  Does this clerk have any legal authority to sign such an order?
[01:01:48.640 --> 01:01:51.840]  Do they have any legal training to interpret any motion?
[01:01:52.560 --> 01:02:00.560]  So, but then to be a little less gentle, not doing a declaratory judgment,
[01:02:00.560 --> 01:02:05.200]  but actually asking for damages. Get that clerk to have to hire an attorney
[01:02:06.640 --> 01:02:12.880]  to pay for defense of that claim that they're impersonating a judge. That's a crime.
[01:02:14.160 --> 01:02:17.920]  So, being a crime, that means it's objectively unreasonable.
[01:02:17.920 --> 01:02:23.840]  The phrase is objectively unreasonable. When they deprived you of your rights to due process,
[01:02:24.960 --> 01:02:26.640]  it was objectively unreasonable.
[01:02:28.320 --> 01:02:34.400]  Okay. And where, in Tennessee, where would I file the criminal complaint?
[01:02:36.160 --> 01:02:40.400]  Because it's in a, I went to the regular bankruptcy
[01:02:40.400 --> 01:02:44.080]  tele-court, then I went to the Sixth Circuit. So this is where it is right now.
[01:02:44.080 --> 01:02:46.160]  So where do I file the criminal complaint?
[01:02:47.920 --> 01:02:50.720]  Randy, do you know in Tennessee who are magistrates?
[01:02:51.840 --> 01:03:02.960]  No. In Tennessee, they have... Okay, I file them with it. My criminal
[01:03:02.960 --> 01:03:08.400]  complaint is always with judges. But if you're filing a criminal complaint against a public
[01:03:08.400 --> 01:03:16.400]  official in Tennessee, there's a special statute, and that is to be filed directly with the grand
[01:03:16.400 --> 01:03:18.800]  jury. Perfect.
[01:03:20.560 --> 01:03:24.880]  Okay. Yeah, so whatever county she's in,
[01:03:24.880 --> 01:03:29.040]  you send it directly to the grand jury. Okay.
[01:03:29.040 --> 01:03:32.720]  That was one of Tennessee's laws that I really liked.
[01:03:36.240 --> 01:03:42.480]  You ought to reference that as advisory when you're raising a ruckus about us not being able to
[01:03:42.480 --> 01:03:48.160]  get to the grand jury. You ought to reference that in Tennessee and say, look,
[01:03:49.120 --> 01:03:51.360]  no, it's not controlling, but it's at least advisory.
[01:03:51.920 --> 01:03:54.320]  Yes, it is. Yeah, you're right. I should do that.
[01:03:56.880 --> 01:04:03.680]  What was that wording you said, Brett, that I should use controlling? You said something I should...
[01:04:07.520 --> 01:04:08.800]  Objectively unreasonable?
[01:04:09.600 --> 01:04:11.600]  That's it. Objectively unreasonable.
[01:04:12.320 --> 01:04:18.960]  I'm going to write this down so I don't forget that, and I'll file a criminal complaint,
[01:04:18.960 --> 01:04:27.120]  see if I can get it to the grand jury. Because what I'm seeing is these bankruptcy judges,
[01:04:27.920 --> 01:04:35.600]  if they don't see any money for the trustee or the bankruptcy judges, they just dismiss it.
[01:04:35.600 --> 01:04:40.480]  It's like, okay, they've deported, I don't know, 50 people out of $2 million.
[01:04:42.400 --> 01:04:47.440]  We... There's nothing for us, so let's not let this carry on. We're just going to dismiss
[01:04:47.440 --> 01:04:54.400]  everybody's adversary proceeding or whatever it is because these people claim they have no money,
[01:04:54.400 --> 01:04:59.440]  even though they live in mansions, but we're just tired of this. We need to just get rid of it.
[01:05:00.400 --> 01:05:06.400]  I see that a lot. They're just like, okay, no, we're done. Because they don't want to
[01:05:06.400 --> 01:05:13.360]  waste the court's time as they deem it, wasting the court's time hearing someone like us say,
[01:05:13.360 --> 01:05:18.640]  hey, this is wrong. Why are you letting these people just file a chapter seven and
[01:05:19.360 --> 01:05:21.920]  let it go through because they claim they have no money?
[01:05:22.720 --> 01:05:26.560]  Yeah. That goes directly to your constitutionally protected right
[01:05:27.760 --> 01:05:30.240]  to petition the courts for redress of grievances.
[01:05:31.040 --> 01:05:34.080]  Oh, I like that. Yes.
[01:05:34.080 --> 01:05:44.640]  Yes. And it's true. Okay. All right, to redress of grievance. Okay. Thank you. This is very good.
[01:05:45.760 --> 01:05:46.400]  I like it.
[01:05:49.440 --> 01:05:55.920]  I'm getting better with... By the way, if anyone needs... I've been very successful at getting
[01:05:56.560 --> 01:06:04.480]  courts to agree to allow me to file informal porporis. Even the bankruptcy court,
[01:06:04.480 --> 01:06:10.640]  they did not want to. They stopped the whole case while they decided whether I could be informal
[01:06:10.640 --> 01:06:15.680]  porporis. And then they said, oh, yes, you can be, but we're just missing your case anyway.
[01:06:15.680 --> 01:06:24.240]  But we grant your... That's exactly what they did. It took them, I think, two or three months. And
[01:06:24.240 --> 01:06:32.160]  they said, we find that you are indigent and da-da-da. And it's because they weren't used to
[01:06:32.160 --> 01:06:40.080]  anyone in a bankruptcy court filing an adversary proceeding asking to waive the filing fees. Well,
[01:06:40.080 --> 01:06:44.960]  you have to pay the filing fees. No, I don't. Here's some laws, here's some rulings. I don't
[01:06:44.960 --> 01:06:53.040]  have to. And here's my statement of indigency. And they finally realized they had to do it.
[01:06:53.680 --> 01:06:58.480]  But on the very same day, in the very same order, we grant your informal porporis status,
[01:06:59.040 --> 01:07:05.280]  but we dismiss your claim, which I find objectionable also.
[01:07:07.280 --> 01:07:09.440]  But if anyone needs anything that... Yeah, of course.
[01:07:09.440 --> 01:07:18.800]  ...the rules I've got on the informal porporis, I think your last caller was trying to do that.
[01:07:19.520 --> 01:07:27.280]  And there's quite a bit of information on how they have to allow... It's talking about how
[01:07:28.240 --> 01:07:32.640]  the courts are not just for the rich and those that can afford justice.
[01:07:32.640 --> 01:07:38.960]  It's supposed to be for all of us. But most of the time, if you don't pay, as Randy has said,
[01:07:38.960 --> 01:07:43.360]  they just want your filing fee. Once you've paid the filing fee, they can... I think,
[01:07:43.360 --> 01:07:49.520]  wasn't it, Randy, you had one, you know, frivolous right after you paid the fee.
[01:07:50.320 --> 01:07:59.040]  And a number of years ago, I filed an appeal. I'd had my informal porporis status granted by the
[01:07:59.040 --> 01:08:05.040]  lower court. When I filed with the appellate court, they said, well, if you don't pay the filing fee,
[01:08:05.040 --> 01:08:10.880]  we're not even going to look at it. And even if you pay the filing fee, we may dismiss it as well.
[01:08:10.880 --> 01:08:16.160]  So that's holding me hostage. That's really holding a knife to my neck saying,
[01:08:16.160 --> 01:08:20.720]  hey, we're not even going to consider you unless you pay the fee. And when you pay...
[01:08:20.720 --> 01:08:26.880]  Yeah. They've told me that too in the appellate court. And then I had to point to them, show them,
[01:08:27.760 --> 01:08:33.760]  hey, your rules tell you that if I was indigent in the lower court, then when it's time to appeal,
[01:08:33.760 --> 01:08:42.000]  you can challenge that. You can't make me start over and prove again that I'm indigent.
[01:08:42.880 --> 01:08:48.560]  I've already been deemed indigent, and that continues through the appeal. I pointed out
[01:08:48.560 --> 01:08:56.720]  the rule. Now, I'm more inclined to just go ahead and file against them, criminally or civilly,
[01:08:56.720 --> 01:09:03.440]  just go ahead and sue them. I'm tired of going and pointing out rules to tell them what they
[01:09:03.440 --> 01:09:08.320]  should have done. It's irritating. It's time consuming. It's frustrating. They don't listen.
[01:09:08.320 --> 01:09:15.200]  They don't learn. I'm tired of it. I'm more inclined now to, you know, if it's a clerk that's
[01:09:15.200 --> 01:09:22.320]  doing that, file criminally and file a professional conduct. There's a special thing for clerks that
[01:09:22.320 --> 01:09:28.240]  they can have their own professional conduct complaint. And it's just appropriate. I mean,
[01:09:29.200 --> 01:09:34.320]  why should we have to continue telling them, oh, no, you shouldn't defraud me.
[01:09:35.120 --> 01:09:39.920]  That was an attempt to take my money when your law, your rules keep you from doing that.
[01:09:40.720 --> 01:09:44.720]  Why should we have to use up our time and get all frustrated with the ones that don't listen?
[01:09:45.520 --> 01:09:48.720]  Right. I agree.
[01:09:52.160 --> 01:09:57.440]  Sorry, soft drink lovers. Even diet drinks can make you fat. The new study shows the
[01:09:57.520 --> 01:10:02.000]  diet soda drinkers gain much more weight than people who avoid the stuff. I'm Dr.
[01:10:02.000 --> 01:10:06.640]  Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be back in a moment with a scoop on supposedly skinny sodas.
[01:10:07.280 --> 01:10:12.800]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:10:12.800 --> 01:10:17.600]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:10:17.600 --> 01:10:22.880]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:10:22.880 --> 01:10:27.520]  Privacy. It's worth hanging on to. This public service announcement is brought to you by
[01:10:27.520 --> 01:10:32.960]  startpage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[01:10:32.960 --> 01:10:37.840]  Start over with StartPage. Artificial sweeteners cut the
[01:10:37.840 --> 01:10:44.000]  calories and help you lose weight, right? Wrong. Researchers at UT San Antonio followed hundreds
[01:10:44.000 --> 01:10:48.960]  of diet soda drinkers for nearly a decade. They found that regularly drinking diet soda
[01:10:48.960 --> 01:10:53.120]  expanded people's waistlines five times more than no soda at all.
[01:10:53.120 --> 01:10:58.000]  The study's authors say artificial sweeteners trigger the appetite, but unlike regular sugars,
[01:10:58.000 --> 01:11:03.360]  don't deliver anything to squelch it. Waking up hunger without satisfying it leads to cravings,
[01:11:03.360 --> 01:11:08.480]  which can result in a larger overall calorie intake. So use natural sweeteners to maintain
[01:11:08.480 --> 01:11:12.880]  a healthy weight, and if you need to shed some pounds, avoid the sweet stuff altogether and
[01:11:12.880 --> 01:11:18.960]  drink water instead. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:11:42.880 --> 01:11:46.400]  I'm an Air Force pilot. I'm a father who lost his son. We're Americans,
[01:11:46.400 --> 01:11:50.720]  and we deserve the truth. Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[01:11:52.400 --> 01:11:56.400]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the rule of law traffic seminar. In today's America,
[01:11:56.400 --> 01:12:00.240]  we live in an us-against-them society, and if we the people are ever going to have a free society,
[01:12:00.240 --> 01:12:04.400]  then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights. Among those rights are the right to
[01:12:04.400 --> 01:12:08.400]  travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity, and most importantly,
[01:12:08.400 --> 01:12:12.800]  the right to due process of law. Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to
[01:12:12.800 --> 01:12:17.200]  learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process. Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie
[01:12:17.200 --> 01:12:21.120]  Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool
[01:12:21.120 --> 01:12:25.200]  available that will help you understand what due process is and how to hold courts to the rule of
[01:12:25.200 --> 01:12:29.840]  law. You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and
[01:12:29.840 --> 01:12:33.520]  ordering your copy today. By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas
[01:12:33.520 --> 01:12:38.080]  Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar,
[01:12:38.080 --> 01:12:42.000]  hundreds of research documents, and other useful resource material. Learn how to fight for your
[01:12:42.000 --> 01:12:45.920]  rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. Order your copy today,
[01:12:45.920 --> 01:12:49.040]  and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[01:12:53.360 --> 01:12:58.240]  Looking for some truth? You found it. logosradionetwork.com.
[01:13:33.520 --> 01:14:02.720]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain,
[01:14:02.720 --> 01:14:09.200]  Rule of Law Radio, and Tina, you kind of technically ran off the cliff.
[01:14:11.760 --> 01:14:13.680]  No, she didn't. She finished her sentence.
[01:14:14.480 --> 01:14:25.440]  I did. And I would like to apply for a review of your comment there, so maybe Brett can
[01:14:26.400 --> 01:14:32.400]  file in it, because we need to review that. And that's a ruling that you've made that's
[01:14:32.400 --> 01:14:41.840]  irregular and incorrect. I wish to go to the next part of this.
[01:14:41.840 --> 01:14:45.520]  I'm having trouble hearing you, and I think right now that was a good idea.
[01:14:50.320 --> 01:14:54.720]  You always blame us. You know, you talk about the others, the last guy that was on,
[01:14:55.440 --> 01:15:00.960]  I could hear him very clearly, but you said you couldn't hear him very well, but I could hear
[01:15:00.960 --> 01:15:05.760]  you and him as clear as day. Yeah, we're having some issues with,
[01:15:05.760 --> 01:15:13.440]  we're using Zoom, and it is not ideal. It's just the way that it handles the volume
[01:15:13.440 --> 01:15:19.600]  levels in a meeting, and so then things are different. What you hear on the air is different
[01:15:19.600 --> 01:15:26.560]  than we hear in our heads. So when we've got these headsets on from Zoom, the levels are
[01:15:26.560 --> 01:15:32.880]  different. And so sometimes, I don't know why, but sometimes we get a particular caller
[01:15:33.680 --> 01:15:40.480]  whose audio, the volume is just really low. And you know, maybe it sounds fine on the stream,
[01:15:41.040 --> 01:15:49.440]  no telling, but we have to just roll with it. Yeah, I guess so. Well, let me ask you
[01:15:49.440 --> 01:15:56.960]  about de novo review. From what I understand, a de novo review or review de novo, they're supposed
[01:15:56.960 --> 01:16:02.800]  to go back to the beginning without taking into account the trial court, and they're supposed to
[01:16:02.800 --> 01:16:11.120]  review it independently, but they never do. They always go back and, oh, we concur with the trial
[01:16:11.120 --> 01:16:16.400]  court. Well, you're not supposed to be taking notice of what they are supposed to be ruling
[01:16:16.400 --> 01:16:23.920]  and putting your own, you know, insertions and laws and statements in there, but I find that they
[01:16:23.920 --> 01:16:29.760]  never ever do. What can you do in that situation? I mean, I've challenged them and I've pointed out
[01:16:30.480 --> 01:16:34.720]  what a true de novo review is, but they still don't care.
[01:16:38.240 --> 01:16:40.240]  What can you do in those circumstances?
[01:16:40.240 --> 01:16:47.760]  What do you think, Randy? Is there anything more effective than just criminal complaints and
[01:16:47.760 --> 01:16:53.920]  judicial misconduct complaints and suing them? Yeah, criminal complaints and suing them. Yeah,
[01:16:53.920 --> 01:16:58.560]  all of these. To say one's more effective than the other, I don't know.
[01:16:59.760 --> 01:17:04.560]  No, I'm saying, is there something that's more effective that's, you know, within their box,
[01:17:04.560 --> 01:17:11.920]  inside their dotted lines of what? Bonds, bonds, bonds. We had Rick Martin on, and he was talking
[01:17:11.920 --> 01:17:20.800]  about bonds and how they're different than insurance. How a bond was like somebody gets
[01:17:20.800 --> 01:17:26.160]  in jail and a bondsman comes and posts a bond for him. So the bondsman puts up this money,
[01:17:27.120 --> 01:17:37.280]  but if the guy don't show up and the bondsman loses his money, he has the right in his contract
[01:17:37.840 --> 01:17:45.520]  to get the money back from the person he bonded out. And apparently bonds for public officials
[01:17:45.520 --> 01:17:51.760]  are the same way. They're not insurance. They're just there in case I get a claim,
[01:17:51.840 --> 01:17:58.400]  the bondsman pays me, and then it's up to the bondsman to get his money back from his client.
[01:18:00.480 --> 01:18:04.080]  Oh, that is so much better than insurance.
[01:18:04.640 --> 01:18:12.400]  Well, that's intriguing. I remain a little on the skeptical side because I don't see
[01:18:12.400 --> 01:18:17.760]  the results of that. I would like to be able to see this is verifiable, this happens.
[01:18:18.560 --> 01:18:22.960]  We just have to try it. You know, I get that. We hear a lot of stuff and
[01:18:24.880 --> 01:18:32.080]  some of it's valid, some of it's not, some of it's we don't understand the context.
[01:18:32.080 --> 01:18:39.440]  But if you're able to get Rick Martin to show us some of, you know, something that's documented,
[01:18:39.440 --> 01:18:44.720]  something that we can look up and see what he filed and see how that went.
[01:18:44.720 --> 01:18:48.640]  I'm not going to wait for Rick. I'm going to go ahead and do it myself. I have an
[01:18:49.200 --> 01:18:56.800]  information request for all their bonds. And then I'll get out for the end for the bonding companies.
[01:18:58.480 --> 01:19:02.960]  And once I get that, then I'll talk to the bonding companies. I'll figure out how this works.
[01:19:04.400 --> 01:19:10.560]  Oh, if this is the way Rick is saying it is, it is going to be such a powerful tool.
[01:19:11.520 --> 01:19:19.600]  That might be why the guy's name is Devine. He is a Supreme Court justice here in Texas.
[01:19:20.160 --> 01:19:27.040]  And he was at one of our meetings and he talked about how he was sued.
[01:19:28.240 --> 01:19:33.200]  And he won the case, but it personally cost him $20,000.
[01:19:35.920 --> 01:19:39.680]  He was not happy when he found out I had sued the Chief Justice.
[01:19:41.040 --> 01:19:47.680]  And in the federal court, that's what got him to talk about this. He was not happy, Amber.
[01:19:48.400 --> 01:19:51.680]  Because apparently, it does come out of their own pockets.
[01:19:53.200 --> 01:19:58.560]  And that's, you know, when he's telling me that, I'm trying not to grin at him from ear to ear,
[01:19:59.680 --> 01:20:07.040]  thinking, oh, Bubba, you should not have told me that. So it does cost him.
[01:20:07.040 --> 01:20:15.360]  Suing them is absolutely powerful. And, you know, when I sued all the highest judges in Texas,
[01:20:15.360 --> 01:20:19.200]  they immediately had the attorney general file a response for them.
[01:20:21.120 --> 01:20:26.080]  I came back with a motion to strike their pleadings and a motion for default judgment.
[01:20:27.680 --> 01:20:33.360]  And they're having to sit back there wondering if I'm actually going to get a ruling in my favor or
[01:20:33.360 --> 01:20:41.840]  not. Because it's always a crap shoot and they know it. And the federal judges, you know, they
[01:20:41.840 --> 01:20:50.080]  don't really care too much about the state judges. So it's kind of like they're playing Russian roulette.
[01:20:51.200 --> 01:20:58.640]  I sued them for $50 million apiece. They got the attorney general to write their pleading
[01:20:58.640 --> 01:21:05.840]  and I sued them in their personal capacity. They had to dismiss this thing with the way they did
[01:21:06.400 --> 01:21:11.040]  in order to keep from giving me a shot at them. But I'm not done yet.
[01:21:12.160 --> 01:21:18.240]  The Court of Appeals dismissed it with prejudice because this case was frivolous.
[01:21:19.680 --> 01:21:24.480]  So I filed criminal charges against them. And that's on the agenda for Monday,
[01:21:24.480 --> 01:21:29.840]  is to get that back going, is now I will file criminal charges against the judge and the clerk
[01:21:29.840 --> 01:21:36.880]  who intercepted my communication with the federal grand jury. I'll file against them with the local
[01:21:38.240 --> 01:21:42.000]  U.S. attorney and then go from there to D.C.
[01:21:44.720 --> 01:21:50.560]  We got tools. We just got to get what we're doing out of their jurisdiction.
[01:21:50.560 --> 01:21:58.320]  We sue them somewhere else. Now, they have to respond, just like any other citizen would.
[01:21:59.280 --> 01:22:07.840]  That I know is something that's really powerful. If we can sue their bond and potentially collect
[01:22:07.840 --> 01:22:14.080]  from their bond, and then they have to pay their bonding company back, oh, that is wonderful.
[01:22:14.960 --> 01:22:21.280]  That is much better than insurance. Well, I'm going to test that out.
[01:22:22.000 --> 01:22:23.360]  Yeah, I agree. It would be great.
[01:22:24.720 --> 01:22:34.880]  And I'm setting them up. I'm setting them up. Dr. Joe got arrested over one of these common
[01:22:34.880 --> 01:22:40.240]  law grand jury things. And he's been in jail, and I couldn't find him for four days.
[01:22:40.400 --> 01:22:46.240]  Well, I went down with a writ of habeas corpus, a petition for writ of habeas corpus,
[01:22:46.960 --> 01:22:53.440]  and the judge refused to hear it for lack of form. 1103 forbids it, so I stepped outside the
[01:22:53.440 --> 01:22:59.040]  courtroom, took out my cell phone, and Bailiff said, you can't get your cell phone in here.
[01:23:00.480 --> 01:23:06.480]  I said, are you going to interfere with the 911 call? And they took a step back.
[01:23:06.560 --> 01:23:13.920]  I got a hold of 911, got an officer down there, and filed a criminal complaint with the sheriff's
[01:23:13.920 --> 01:23:22.160]  department, with this, we saw this sheriff's deputy, and told her, you know, here's the law,
[01:23:22.160 --> 01:23:26.000]  here's what you're required to do. I'm going to expect you to do it. You're to give this some
[01:23:26.000 --> 01:23:30.160]  magistrate. Let me know what magistrate you gave it to, and I'm going to want to see the
[01:23:30.160 --> 01:23:35.760]  warrant for the magistrate issues. She said, well, I have to follow policy. I said, well,
[01:23:35.760 --> 01:23:41.680]  you know, that's up to you. I'm going to follow law, and I'm going to insist that you follow law,
[01:23:42.880 --> 01:23:48.160]  but don't worry about it. And I'll explain why she, I told her not to worry about it when we
[01:23:48.160 --> 01:23:54.480]  come back, ran into them. Do you have a business with five employees or more? How would you like
[01:23:54.480 --> 01:23:59.440]  to save hundreds of thousands of dollars in FICA taxes? Do you have a major medical plan that
[01:23:59.440 --> 01:24:06.080]  nobody can afford to be on? Or how would you like to save in premium costs on a current major
[01:24:06.080 --> 01:24:12.800]  medical plan by lowering the claims costs? The champ plan is a section 125 IRS approved
[01:24:12.800 --> 01:24:19.440]  preventative health plan that provides your employees with doctors, medications, emergency
[01:24:19.440 --> 01:24:26.880]  care, and Teladoc, all at zero cost with zero copay. If you are an employee, you also will get
[01:24:26.880 --> 01:24:33.440]  a pay raise by paying less in FICA taxes. As an employer, you will save hundreds of thousands of
[01:24:33.440 --> 01:24:40.560]  dollars in matching FICA taxes. The champ plan can help add working capital, market resale value,
[01:24:40.560 --> 01:24:50.320]  or pay down lines of credit. Call Scott at 214-730-2471 or dallasmms.com.
[01:24:56.880 --> 01:25:04.320]  Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, four CD course that will show you how in 24 hours,
[01:25:04.320 --> 01:25:11.280]  step by step. If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer,
[01:25:11.280 --> 01:25:17.120]  know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step by step course, and now
[01:25:17.120 --> 01:25:23.760]  you can too. Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning
[01:25:23.760 --> 01:25:29.520]  experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[01:25:29.520 --> 01:25:35.120]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio
[01:25:35.120 --> 01:25:42.800]  classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:25:42.800 --> 01:25:51.840]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:26:12.800 --> 01:26:42.720]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio.
[01:26:43.120 --> 01:26:50.320]  On this Friday, the fifth day of September 2025, the one I was talking about,
[01:26:51.520 --> 01:26:59.840]  I used the fact that they arrested Dr. Joe as an opportunity to set these guys up.
[01:27:02.080 --> 01:27:08.000]  When I go talk to them, I never really want them to do what I ask them to do.
[01:27:08.720 --> 01:27:17.040]  I haven't went through my legal 101 in a long time, but I've got a set of rules and one of them is
[01:27:17.040 --> 01:27:22.320]  never ask a public official to do anything you actually want them to do.
[01:27:24.160 --> 01:27:30.960]  Because you'd never ask a public official to do anything that the law does not compel them to do.
[01:27:31.680 --> 01:27:39.520]  So what I'm trying to do with Parent County is demonstrate that how every step from arrest to
[01:27:39.520 --> 01:27:52.960]  trial is absolutely illegal and how it got that way. It got that way because these public officials
[01:27:52.960 --> 01:28:02.800]  have conspired one with the other to deny citizens in their right to a Republican form of government.
[01:28:05.920 --> 01:28:17.280]  Yeah, we're a democracy now because the only functional difference between a democracy and
[01:28:17.280 --> 01:28:27.040]  a republic is the power of the individual citizen to maintain the governmental instruments
[01:28:27.040 --> 01:28:34.720]  we have created. And not the power of the people, that's a democracy, the power of the individual.
[01:28:36.240 --> 01:28:42.880]  So I'm the individual and I come down here and ask them to do what the law commands them to do.
[01:28:43.360 --> 01:28:47.280]  And when they don't do what the law commands them to do,
[01:28:48.240 --> 01:28:54.640]  then I have recourse and primarily it is a grand jury. So what I'm doing right now,
[01:28:54.640 --> 01:29:00.160]  what I did last Tuesday is I went down and took some complaints to the grand jury,
[01:29:01.680 --> 01:29:07.600]  gave them the bailiff, he took them in the back, and then this guy in a suit come out.
[01:29:08.560 --> 01:29:14.240]  It turned out he was an assistant district attorney. He had my complaints.
[01:29:16.720 --> 01:29:23.040]  I didn't give those to him. What the heck's he doing with them? Because inside that folder...
[01:29:23.040 --> 01:29:26.960]  Did he intercept something that was intended for the grand jury?
[01:29:26.960 --> 01:29:35.600]  That's the way I saw it. There was a complaint in there against the elected district attorney
[01:29:35.840 --> 01:29:45.600]  for directing his people to secret criminal complaints from the grand jury. Now, I gave him
[01:29:45.600 --> 01:29:52.160]  four verified criminal affidavits against four peace officers who arrested Dr. Joe and took him
[01:29:52.160 --> 01:29:57.840]  straight to jail, held him for four days without being brought before a magistrate,
[01:29:57.840 --> 01:30:04.160]  darn near killed him, denied him his medicine, had taken him to hospital. He was ill from the heat,
[01:30:04.160 --> 01:30:10.880]  from the heat, before they could take him to jail. Then they take him to jail, hold him for
[01:30:10.880 --> 01:30:16.000]  four days, no blood pressure medicine. I finally get a call from him out of the jail, find out
[01:30:16.000 --> 01:30:24.480]  where he's at. He's in the city of Fort Worth jail, and they're taking him to the county jail,
[01:30:24.480 --> 01:30:28.640]  but they have to take him to the hospital, get his blood pressure down so he doesn't stroke out.
[01:30:29.120 --> 01:30:38.480]  So, heck with that. Bright and early next morning, I was at a district judge's court
[01:30:38.480 --> 01:30:45.360]  with a writ of habeas corpus. He refused to hear it because it has wrong heading on it, so I
[01:30:45.360 --> 01:30:50.000]  scratched out the wrong heading and wrote in the right one. She still refused to take it.
[01:30:50.000 --> 01:30:57.120]  I walked out of the courtroom, took out my cell phone, dialed 911. Couldn't get a signal,
[01:30:57.120 --> 01:31:02.800]  so I went downstairs. I finally get a peace officer, and I'm telling the peace officer,
[01:31:02.800 --> 01:31:08.480]  you know, I've got these complaints, and I need you to do with them. Well, first I asked her,
[01:31:08.480 --> 01:31:12.880]  what are you going to do with these, with this complaint? She said, well, I'll give it to my
[01:31:12.880 --> 01:31:19.600]  superiors. I said, well, that's okay, but you also must do exactly what Article 2.13 takes
[01:31:19.600 --> 01:31:25.280]  to the Code of Criminal Procedure commands you to do and give notice to some magistrate. Well,
[01:31:25.280 --> 01:31:29.840]  Mr. Kelton, I have to follow policy. Well, I understand that you have to follow policy,
[01:31:29.840 --> 01:31:37.840]  but I'm a citizen in a republic, and as far as I'm concerned, to the degree that your policy
[01:31:38.800 --> 01:31:46.400]  does not accurately reflect my law, well, you can use your policy for toilet paper.
[01:31:47.840 --> 01:31:54.880]  I'm going to expect you to do exactly what the code commands you to do. If you don't,
[01:31:54.880 --> 01:32:00.240]  then I will take appropriate action, but I don't know, I'm not going to harm you. Don't you have
[01:32:00.240 --> 01:32:05.040]  to worry about it. I'm not after you. You're not after me. She said, no, no, no, no, I'm after
[01:32:05.920 --> 01:32:10.720]  much bigger fish than you. I'm just using Tarrant County.
[01:32:11.840 --> 01:32:13.680]  She asked you, you're not after me?
[01:32:14.560 --> 01:32:21.280]  Yes, she did. Well, I told her I wasn't after her, and she said, you're not after me?
[01:32:21.760 --> 01:32:26.640]  I was talking like, you're going to do what the law commands, or I'm going to come after you.
[01:32:28.320 --> 01:32:34.320]  I'm just going to follow the steps, but I'm not after you guys. I don't care about you guys. I
[01:32:34.320 --> 01:32:42.480]  don't care about Tarrant County. I don't care about Texas. What I need is to be able to demonstrate
[01:32:43.200 --> 01:32:47.440]  that everybody down here in the criminal justice system in Texas is doing it wrong.
[01:32:47.600 --> 01:32:54.960]  They've got this ongoing criminal enterprise going so that I can file criminal charges with
[01:32:57.360 --> 01:33:03.600]  a local grand jury, and when the U.S. attorney intercepts it and blocks it from the grand jury,
[01:33:03.600 --> 01:33:10.000]  then I get to file against the U.S. attorney. I'll file against the U.S. attorney with the
[01:33:10.000 --> 01:33:17.200]  U.S. attorney in D.C., and when he, with the grand jury in D.C., address to the U.S. attorney's
[01:33:17.200 --> 01:33:22.320]  office, because that's the only address we have for a grand jury, and when I don't get my cover
[01:33:22.320 --> 01:33:28.800]  letter back, which I will not get my cover letter back, because in my cover letter, I tell the
[01:33:28.800 --> 01:33:34.240]  foreman of the grand jury that the U.S. attorney has a rubber stamp with your name on it that he
[01:33:34.240 --> 01:33:39.280]  uses to rubber stamp superseding indictments. There's no way he's going to let the foreman
[01:33:39.280 --> 01:33:46.720]  see that. At least I hope that's what he does. So, I get nothing back from the grand jury,
[01:33:46.720 --> 01:33:52.480]  then I presume that he secreted my complaints from the grand jury. The problem with that is,
[01:33:52.480 --> 01:33:59.040]  grand jury, according to Scalia and Williams v. State, is a separate branch of government.
[01:34:00.720 --> 01:34:08.800]  So, I have the executive branch blocking access to the grand jury branch.
[01:34:10.240 --> 01:34:21.600]  So, I sue the president as respondeat superior for Pam Bondi, attorney general, as respondeat
[01:34:21.600 --> 01:34:27.120]  superior for the U.S. attorney who blocked my criminal complaints from the grand jury.
[01:34:28.960 --> 01:34:36.320]  This will give us a chance to get in front of the president, and I'm hoping that you guys out there
[01:34:36.720 --> 01:34:45.360]  listening, I can get some of you doing the same thing. If he gets a dozen criminal complaints,
[01:34:46.800 --> 01:34:55.040]  alleging ongoing criminal conspiracies by public officials, and the argument I want to make to the
[01:34:55.040 --> 01:35:03.440]  president is that grand jury is a fourth branch of government, and it was the genius of our founders.
[01:35:03.440 --> 01:35:13.280]  That's why we still have a country after 250 years. Most democracies last about 200 years,
[01:35:14.480 --> 01:35:23.200]  and Jefferson said, democracies are as violent in their conception as they are in their demise.
[01:35:23.840 --> 01:35:30.240]  All of our founders hated democracies because they understood the problems with democracies.
[01:35:30.240 --> 01:35:37.280]  They did not intend to create one. So, they added something that changed
[01:35:37.280 --> 01:35:43.440]  from a democracy to a republic, and the only thing they added beyond theory
[01:35:44.320 --> 01:35:54.000]  and theoretical concepts was a grand jury. That gave the citizens the power to take
[01:35:54.000 --> 01:36:03.200]  criminal complaints or allegations of wrongdoing to a fourth branch of government that was not
[01:36:03.200 --> 01:36:11.680]  connected to or influenced by the other three, a group that could oversee the rest of them.
[01:36:13.200 --> 01:36:20.400]  You might say, one ring to rule them all, but prosecutors didn't like that idea.
[01:36:20.400 --> 01:36:25.040]  The prosecutors felt like, you know, we're the ones that have to prosecute,
[01:36:25.760 --> 01:36:32.640]  so we should be the ones to make the decision as to whether there was sufficient evidence to
[01:36:32.640 --> 01:36:42.640]  warrant a prosecution. Well, our founders fully understood that, and they said, absolutely not.
[01:36:42.640 --> 01:36:51.120]  They understood that was a prescription for precisely the disaster we have right now.
[01:36:52.960 --> 01:37:00.640]  They put a grand jury in between the public and the government, and prosecutors have done
[01:37:00.640 --> 01:37:06.720]  everything they can to get back control. And I'm calling what they're doing an ongoing.
[01:37:07.360 --> 01:37:12.240]  I don't see any legal authority for them to even start to drive a wedge there.
[01:37:13.600 --> 01:37:23.440]  Absolutely zero. Used to be 2.03, now it's 2A.106. When a prosecuting attorney has it made known to
[01:37:23.440 --> 01:37:28.480]  him that a public official has violated a law relating to his office, he shall reduce complaint
[01:37:28.480 --> 01:37:34.880]  to an information submitted to the grand jury. You bring it up right here, 2.06.
[01:37:34.880 --> 01:37:39.680]  Yeah, but there's also the question of what about if it's not a public official?
[01:37:40.480 --> 01:37:42.320]  What if you're bringing a crime...
[01:37:42.320 --> 01:37:52.880]  This is 2A.106. It used to be 2.03, 2.05, 2.04, 5, and 6. 4, 5, and 6 went to your normal
[01:37:53.440 --> 01:38:03.440]  criminal processes. 2.03, the first one, 2.01 shall be the primary duty of the prosecuting attorney
[01:38:03.440 --> 01:38:10.320]  not to secure conviction, but to ensure that justices shall not seek witnesses or evidence
[01:38:10.320 --> 01:38:13.200]  that show the innocence of the accused or mitigate the guilt of the accused.
[01:38:13.920 --> 01:38:20.240]  That's nice high-minded rhetoric, but it really doesn't tell the prosecutor to do something
[01:38:20.240 --> 01:38:27.760]  specific. It tells him generally how he'll run his office. 2.02, county attorneys handle this,
[01:38:27.760 --> 01:38:35.520]  district attorneys handle this. 2.03, the very first one that says that a prosecuting attorney
[01:38:35.520 --> 01:38:43.760]  must do a certain thing. It says, the Bible remains the most popular book in the world,
[01:38:44.320 --> 01:38:48.080]  yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it.
[01:38:48.720 --> 01:38:54.640]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise the
[01:38:54.640 --> 01:39:01.440]  profound meaning of the scripture. Enter the recovery version. First, this new translation
[01:39:01.440 --> 01:39:08.000]  is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes.
[01:39:08.560 --> 01:39:14.400]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance into the
[01:39:14.400 --> 01:39:19.840]  riches of the word beyond which you've ever experienced before. Bibles for America would
[01:39:19.840 --> 01:39:25.600]  like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking. This comprehensive yet compact
[01:39:25.600 --> 01:39:35.840]  study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102 or by ordering online
[01:39:35.840 --> 01:39:43.920]  at freestudybible.com. That's freestudybible.com. You are listening to the Logos Radio Network,
[01:39:44.480 --> 01:39:46.720]  logosradionetwork.com.
[01:39:52.400 --> 01:39:56.880]  The Bill of Rights contains the first 10 amendments of our constitution. They guarantee
[01:39:56.880 --> 01:40:02.000]  the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect. Our liberty depends on it. I'm Dr.
[01:40:02.000 --> 01:40:06.400]  Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember your First Amendment
[01:40:06.400 --> 01:40:11.920]  rights. Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back
[01:40:11.920 --> 01:40:17.360]  again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:40:17.360 --> 01:40:23.440]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy,
[01:40:23.440 --> 01:40:28.640]  it's worth hanging on to. This public service announcement is brought to you by startpage.com,
[01:40:28.640 --> 01:40:34.640]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with Startpage.
[01:40:36.240 --> 01:40:41.040]  Spar, it's what fighters do. It's also how I remember the five guarantees of the First
[01:40:41.040 --> 01:40:47.120]  Amendment. If you plan to take away my rights, I'm going to spar with you. Spar with an extra P.
[01:40:47.120 --> 01:40:54.080]  S for speech, P for press, another P for petition, A for assembly, and R for religion. Most Americans
[01:40:54.080 --> 01:40:58.880]  are familiar with the First Amendment guarantees of free speech, press, assembly, and religion.
[01:40:58.880 --> 01:41:03.440]  But petition for redress is another matter. We have the right to petition the government for a
[01:41:03.440 --> 01:41:08.000]  redress of grievances. It means that if we're unhappy with what's going on in our government,
[01:41:08.000 --> 01:41:11.200]  we can spell out the reasons without fear of being thrown into jail.
[01:41:11.760 --> 01:41:16.080]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:41:21.520 --> 01:41:25.840]  The Bill of Rights contains the first 10 amendments of our Constitution. They guarantee
[01:41:25.840 --> 01:41:30.720]  the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect. Our liberty depends on it. I'm Dr.
[01:41:30.720 --> 01:41:34.720]  Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember one of your
[01:41:34.720 --> 01:41:40.880]  constitutional rights. Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll
[01:41:40.880 --> 01:41:46.080]  never get it back again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to
[01:41:46.080 --> 01:41:51.520]  vanish too. So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to
[01:41:51.520 --> 01:41:57.040]  yourself. Privacy, it's worth hanging onto. This public service announcement is brought to you by
[01:41:57.040 --> 01:42:03.680]  startpage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with
[01:42:03.680 --> 01:42:10.480]  startpage. When I think of the Second Amendment, I visualize myself wrapping my two arms around
[01:42:10.480 --> 01:42:15.280]  the Bill of Rights in a big old bear hug. It's how I remember that the Second Amendment guarantees
[01:42:15.280 --> 01:42:20.080]  us the right to bear arms, arms that embrace our freedoms and won't let anyone take them away
[01:42:20.080 --> 01:42:26.240]  without a fight. Get it? Two arms, bear hug, bear arms? The late Senator Hubert Humphrey captured
[01:42:26.240 --> 01:42:31.360]  the spirit of the Second Amendment so well when he said, the right of the citizens to bear arms is
[01:42:31.360 --> 01:42:36.240]  just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny, which
[01:42:36.240 --> 01:42:41.520]  now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to always be possible.
[01:42:41.520 --> 01:42:45.520]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:43:01.360 --> 01:43:18.480]  Well, I received my remedy today. Came in a box, just like they say. I accepted it for value right away.
[01:43:18.480 --> 01:43:28.560]  If not sooner, not later. We are originators and the pathway seems to get straighter every day.
[01:43:28.560 --> 01:43:35.760]  And I can take anything that belongs to me and put it to good use.
[01:43:38.320 --> 01:43:42.320]  Okay. We are back. Randy Carlin-Brett, Family and Renewal Radio.
[01:43:43.760 --> 01:43:49.840]  When we went out, I was talking about the duty of the prosecuting attorney to give
[01:43:49.840 --> 01:43:58.080]  notice of crime by a public official. They're playing with the code, with the wording of the
[01:43:58.080 --> 01:44:10.320]  code. This says that 2.03A was repealed by the legislature. But I've got the legislative
[01:44:11.200 --> 01:44:18.240]  text in it. There's nothing in there. The word repealed does not appear in the legislation
[01:44:18.960 --> 01:44:28.800]  at all anywhere. And it was intended that they recodified the code. So it was 2.03.
[01:44:29.360 --> 01:44:37.920]  Now they changed it to 2A. And 2.03 was changed to 2A.106. But it was a stated intent of the
[01:44:37.920 --> 01:44:46.960]  legislature that there be no substantive changes. Well, their prosecutors are trying to sneak in a
[01:44:46.960 --> 01:44:57.440]  substantive change. Okay. It references 2.03A here in article 2A.106 paragraph B.
[01:44:57.440 --> 01:45:03.040]  An attorney representing the state shall notify the grand jury of any act that violated the law
[01:45:03.680 --> 01:45:10.880]  or any neglect or failure of duty by an officer if the attorney learns that the officer has in
[01:45:10.880 --> 01:45:18.160]  act violated a law or neglected or failed to perform a duty and the act violated the law
[01:45:20.640 --> 01:45:27.760]  or the neglect or failure of duty cannot be presented by information. What on earth could
[01:45:27.760 --> 01:45:38.320]  that be? I don't know. Could it be a code enforcement issue? Uniciable code enforcement,
[01:45:38.320 --> 01:45:44.400]  that can't be presented by indictment or information. But that would not be a crime.
[01:45:46.960 --> 01:45:53.520]  Well, maybe if they want to call it a quasi-crime, then it still isn't a neglect of his duty. He
[01:45:53.520 --> 01:46:03.120]  doesn't have to get involved. This doesn't make sense. That's the only way that it makes sense
[01:46:03.120 --> 01:46:08.320]  to me is if you take it away from all of the criminal stuff that we normally are dealing with
[01:46:08.960 --> 01:46:21.840]  and we say it's not a neglect of that state prosecutor's duty if the offense by a public
[01:46:21.840 --> 01:46:27.360]  official is not something that you could bring to a court by indictment or information.
[01:46:28.320 --> 01:46:34.560]  i.e., it's not criminal in nature. It's some code enforcement or quasi whatever they want to call
[01:46:34.560 --> 01:46:41.200]  it, but it's not indictment or information. There's no actual state offense. It might be a
[01:46:41.840 --> 01:46:49.200]  municipal or maybe the grass police came around and said that he's got the wrong kind of bushes
[01:46:49.200 --> 01:46:53.680]  or something. And he's a public official, so there's an offense and it's a public official,
[01:46:53.680 --> 01:46:57.920]  but the state attorney is, it's not a neglect of his duty because he really doesn't need to
[01:46:57.920 --> 01:47:01.760]  get involved. That's the only way it makes sense to me, separate it from crimes.
[01:47:05.280 --> 01:47:15.440]  I don't know that the grand jury has been given the power to investigate anything that is not
[01:47:15.440 --> 01:47:18.480]  an indictable offense.
[01:47:18.480 --> 01:47:19.520]  Right.
[01:47:19.520 --> 01:47:36.720]  2.13, what does it change to? Anyway, I just read it the other day. It's in one of my pleadings.
[01:47:37.680 --> 01:47:46.720]  It used to be 20.13, and it said, it still says the same thing in the new code.
[01:47:47.440 --> 01:47:54.720]  It shall be the duty of the grand jury to investigate into all crimes subject to indictment
[01:47:56.240 --> 01:47:59.360]  that come to their knowledge by way of any member of the grand jury,
[01:47:59.440 --> 01:48:07.360]  prosecuting attorney, or any credible person. All crimes subject to indictment. What crime
[01:48:08.240 --> 01:48:15.120]  subject to indictment would not be presentable by information?
[01:48:20.560 --> 01:48:21.680]  I can't imagine one.
[01:48:21.680 --> 01:48:24.080]  Yeah, I can't think of any.
[01:48:24.240 --> 01:48:32.400]  That sounds like some lawyer finagling so that they don't have to give notice to a grand jury.
[01:48:32.400 --> 01:48:40.080]  However, that doesn't get them out of it. An attorney representing the state shall present
[01:48:40.080 --> 01:48:44.960]  to the court with jurisdiction and information charging an officer with neglect or failure of
[01:48:44.960 --> 01:48:49.600]  duty if the attorney learns that the officer has neglected or failed to perform a duty
[01:48:49.600 --> 01:49:01.200]  imposed by an officer. He must give notice to the court. Once notice has been given to the court,
[01:49:01.200 --> 01:49:03.920]  the court is required to hold an examining trial.
[01:49:07.920 --> 01:49:17.520]  There's no way around this because there can be no, every crime in Texas according to the
[01:49:17.520 --> 01:49:24.160]  Texas Constitution Article 5, 6, and 17 requires an indictment, felonies and misdemeanors.
[01:49:26.080 --> 01:49:33.120]  In the case of misdemeanors, the clerk will forward the misdemeanor indictments to the
[01:49:33.120 --> 01:49:40.160]  district judge and he will certify them to the court of jurisdiction. Every crime has to have
[01:49:40.160 --> 01:49:47.680]  an indictment according to the constitution. If they interpret any law in a way that would
[01:49:49.200 --> 01:49:57.040]  allow a prosecution without an indictment, that would have the effect of rendering the
[01:49:57.040 --> 01:50:05.680]  constitutional provision superfluous. Under DeRusso v. State, they can't do that.
[01:50:06.080 --> 01:50:15.600]  So, this is just to make it even better. I'll make this argument that the prosecuting attorney
[01:50:17.440 --> 01:50:20.720]  had to either give that to a grand jury or give it to some court.
[01:50:22.160 --> 01:50:29.040]  And the court was required to hold an examining trial. Well, if they didn't hold an examining
[01:50:29.040 --> 01:50:39.280]  trial and somehow the court that receives it is required to, well, it's kind of iffy.
[01:50:39.280 --> 01:50:43.840]  If a person is arrested and taken directly to the magistrate and the magistrate does an examining
[01:50:43.840 --> 01:50:52.400]  trial, under 1617, the Code of Criminal Procedure, the magistrate is required to issue an order.
[01:50:53.120 --> 01:50:59.440]  And under 1730, he's to seal all the documents had in the hearing cause his name to be written
[01:50:59.440 --> 01:51:08.080]  across the seal of the envelope and forward it to the court of jurisdiction. And the court is
[01:51:08.080 --> 01:51:15.040]  required, the clerk, forward it to the clerk of the court of jurisdiction and the clerk under 17.31
[01:51:15.680 --> 01:51:21.120]  is required to keep all these papers safe and deliver them up to the next grand jury.
[01:51:22.560 --> 01:51:29.760]  I read that and thought, what in the world is that? Because that didn't differentiate
[01:51:29.760 --> 01:51:34.640]  between felonies and misdemeanors. That was before I found Article 5, Section 17.
[01:51:36.240 --> 01:51:43.520]  That's why 1731 is in there. Both felonies and misdemeanors are directed to a grand jury.
[01:51:44.880 --> 01:51:52.080]  And if someone is indicted and they haven't been arrested,
[01:51:53.120 --> 01:51:58.320]  because charges can be filed against someone and they can be filed with the grand jury and
[01:51:58.320 --> 01:52:02.720]  get an indictment, but the person is still out there running around, you want to have an
[01:52:02.720 --> 01:52:10.560]  indictment in your hand so you can go arrest him. So if that's the case, the grand jury finds a
[01:52:10.560 --> 01:52:19.840]  true bill and they come before the court under 28.103, or 204, Brett? 204.
[01:52:19.840 --> 01:52:23.520]  Brent O'Brien Are you saying that when something comes to their awareness?
[01:52:23.520 --> 01:52:28.880]  John Larkin No. After the grand jury has voted,
[01:52:29.520 --> 01:52:34.880]  they shall come before the court with a quorum of the grand jury present and read the fact of the
[01:52:34.880 --> 01:52:40.720]  indictment to the court and the clerk shall make notes in the minutes of the court.
[01:52:42.480 --> 01:52:48.240]  That's how a true bill becomes an indictment. And the clerk shall make notes in the minutes
[01:52:48.240 --> 01:52:56.240]  of the court unless the person has not been arrested, in which case she shall not make notes
[01:52:56.240 --> 01:53:04.000]  in the minutes of the court, but shall issue a capious. And once the person is arrested,
[01:53:05.120 --> 01:53:08.960]  then she can make notes in the minutes of the court. But when the person is arrested
[01:53:09.760 --> 01:53:17.120]  under 15.16, the officer is required to take the person direct to the magistrate.
[01:53:18.880 --> 01:53:23.440]  And then the magistrate is required to hold an examining trial.
[01:53:24.000 --> 01:53:28.320]  John Larkin The law is very well put together.
[01:53:29.040 --> 01:53:40.160]  They are not following any of that. So I'm trying to set them up. I'm taking each of those steps
[01:53:40.160 --> 01:53:45.120]  and going to these guys and asking them to do that to one of their other public officials.
[01:53:45.120 --> 01:53:47.440]  Brent O'Brien Tina's setting them up too.
[01:53:47.440 --> 01:53:51.680]  John Larkin If Tina's still there, did I forget all about you?
[01:53:51.680 --> 01:53:56.320]  Brent O'Brien I just get blabbing and you know how guys are.
[01:53:56.320 --> 01:53:59.520]  Tina Srebotnjak I know.
[01:54:01.280 --> 01:54:06.240]  But I was listening intently. I would like to know when you're talking about going after the bonds
[01:54:06.800 --> 01:54:13.440]  and finding out about them, who are you writing to? Who are you getting this information from?
[01:54:13.440 --> 01:54:16.720]  John Larkin Yeah, Brett, I cannot understand her.
[01:54:17.680 --> 01:54:19.680]  Brent O'Brien Well, she's asking about the bonds.
[01:54:20.880 --> 01:54:26.880]  Well, Tina, just what happened was there's a guy named Rick Martin, he came on the show,
[01:54:26.880 --> 01:54:32.320]  and the way he describes it, I can't speak to whether this works or whether it's even a good
[01:54:32.320 --> 01:54:45.280]  idea. It sounds intriguing, but the way he describes it is you can, you first
[01:54:48.960 --> 01:54:58.960]  ask for the charter for the county. And his reasoning behind that was that you need to
[01:54:58.960 --> 01:55:05.360]  be able to show that certain public officials are required to have an oath of office.
[01:55:07.040 --> 01:55:14.640]  And then you find out which ones don't have an oath of office, and you file against their bond.
[01:55:15.440 --> 01:55:22.880]  So you figure out who's their bonding agency, and you file against their bond because they
[01:55:22.880 --> 01:55:25.760]  didn't do what they were supposed to do with their oath of office.
[01:55:26.400 --> 01:55:29.600]  Brent O'Brien So this is a, obviously, it's a
[01:55:31.360 --> 01:55:37.520]  kind of a circular attack. It doesn't have anything to do with the merits of your case or anything
[01:55:37.520 --> 01:55:48.400]  that they did wrong, nothing that they specifically, you know, like a buddy of mine is dealing with
[01:55:48.400 --> 01:56:05.200]  a court that is allowing nonjudicial officers to sign writs as if they were the president judge.
[01:56:05.200 --> 01:56:09.760]  So there's a certain, there's a bunch of judges, and then over that there's a group,
[01:56:09.760 --> 01:56:17.040]  and then there's a president judge. And the law requires that such writs have to be signed by the
[01:56:17.040 --> 01:56:21.920]  president judge. They don't care. They'll let anybody in, just any attorney, whatever, somebody
[01:56:21.920 --> 01:56:29.760]  that's running around in the office wearing a suit, they can sign it. And so my buddy is going
[01:56:29.760 --> 01:56:34.880]  after him for that. This is, going after their bonds is not really like that. You're not dealing
[01:56:34.880 --> 01:56:41.440]  with real issues. You're dealing with, you're going to the bonding agency, and you're saying,
[01:56:42.160 --> 01:56:48.720]  you know, I'm making a claim against this bond. So I don't know, we can talk more about that on
[01:56:48.720 --> 01:56:53.600]  the inside. We'll be right back. Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls,
[01:56:53.600 --> 01:56:59.600]  letters, or even lawsuits? Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method. Michael
[01:56:59.600 --> 01:57:05.040]  Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win too. You'll
[01:57:05.040 --> 01:57:10.320]  get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights
[01:57:10.320 --> 01:57:15.840]  statutes, what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, how to answer letters
[01:57:15.840 --> 01:57:20.480]  and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the financial
[01:57:20.480 --> 01:57:26.960]  tables on them and make them pay you to go away. The Michael Mears proven method is the solution
[01:57:26.960 --> 01:57:31.680]  for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well. For more
[01:57:31.680 --> 01:57:37.600]  information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner or email
[01:57:37.600 --> 01:57:47.520]  michaelmears at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com
[01:57:47.520 --> 01:57:54.320]  to learn how to stop debt collectors now. Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the rule of law
[01:57:54.320 --> 01:57:58.320]  traffic seminar. In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society, and if we the people
[01:57:58.320 --> 01:58:02.720]  are ever going to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[01:58:02.720 --> 01:58:06.400]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own
[01:58:06.400 --> 01:58:10.800]  private capacity, and most importantly, the right to due process of law. Traffic courts afford us
[01:58:10.800 --> 01:58:14.800]  the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due
[01:58:14.800 --> 01:58:18.880]  process. Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put
[01:58:18.880 --> 01:58:22.640]  together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due
[01:58:22.640 --> 01:58:27.040]  process is and how to hold courts to the rule of law. You can get your own copy of this invaluable
[01:58:27.040 --> 01:58:31.280]  material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today. By ordering now,
[01:58:31.280 --> 01:58:35.200]  you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie,
[01:58:35.200 --> 01:58:39.680]  video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents, and other useful
[01:58:39.680 --> 01:58:43.040]  resource material. Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from
[01:58:43.040 --> 01:58:48.080]  ruleoflawradio.com. Order your copy today, and together we can have the free society we all want
[01:58:48.080 --> 01:58:58.800]  and deserve. If you are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com.
[01:58:58.800 --> 01:59:09.200]  Well, don't let nothing get to you. Only the Father can deliver you. So don't let bad-minded
[01:59:09.200 --> 01:59:18.320]  people hurt you. And tell Satan, get behind you. Know what I mean, my friend? And all of your
[01:59:18.320 --> 01:59:29.520]  children come.
[01:59:41.280 --> 01:59:43.760]  All right, welcome back to the Rule of Law Radio.
[01:59:44.720 --> 01:59:50.640]  Randy Kelton, I'm Brett Fountain, and we are talking with Tina. And we're just kind of going
[01:59:50.640 --> 01:59:57.840]  over a little bit of what we understood about Rick Martin and his bonds, or his process of how to
[01:59:59.200 --> 02:00:06.720]  get money out of these bonding companies. So like I said, disclaimer, I haven't seen this work.
[02:00:06.720 --> 02:00:14.480]  I, in my experience, this is, I don't really even see the connection here between how do you
[02:00:14.480 --> 02:00:22.560]  actually get the bonding company to pay you. So, I don't know, it seems to me like you'd have to
[02:00:22.560 --> 02:00:28.880]  be able to go through some kind of a judicial process to make a claim like that, but I don't
[02:00:28.880 --> 02:00:34.640]  know. Maybe I'm just missing the obvious, and once we figure out how to do it, that'll be great.
[02:00:37.280 --> 02:00:46.320]  So, Tina, does that sound to you like it, I mean, have I covered
[02:00:48.480 --> 02:00:49.840]  pretty much what you heard?
[02:00:51.680 --> 02:00:55.920]  Yes, and I'd listened to that show, but I have to listen to it again to remember, because
[02:00:55.920 --> 02:01:00.880]  remember, Randy didn't figure out how to get us all to ask questions on the night,
[02:01:00.880 --> 02:01:05.120]  because he had some technical difficulties. And now I've forgotten what my questions were.
[02:01:06.080 --> 02:01:16.320]  But, you know, I have a couple of three judges on my cases that they are required to have a note of
[02:01:16.320 --> 02:01:26.000]  office on file with the Secretary of State. They don't. Now some do, but a lot don't. And
[02:01:27.120 --> 02:01:34.560]  it is required that they do. And it's required that they update them, but they don't.
[02:01:35.200 --> 02:01:42.880]  So, if this is a requirement, we should be able to go after them if they fail
[02:01:43.600 --> 02:01:49.440]  to adhere to that requirement. And yes, we should be able to go after that one,
[02:01:49.440 --> 02:01:55.600]  because they're failing to uphold the law that they swear an oath to uphold.
[02:01:56.720 --> 02:02:02.240]  Yeah, I agree. I mean, it makes sense. They're failing. They're not doing what they swore they
[02:02:02.240 --> 02:02:09.920]  would do. I haven't seen how that process works where you carry it through to completion and get
[02:02:09.920 --> 02:02:18.080]  some money. Because they don't want us to know that. But who do we go to to find out who the
[02:02:18.080 --> 02:02:22.720]  bonding companies are of these judges? Because they're not going to make it easy for us. They're
[02:02:22.720 --> 02:02:28.080]  not going to give us the information. We're going to have to ferret it out. But how do you do that?
[02:02:28.880 --> 02:02:34.480]  Well, I was able to find out that information from a city manager one time.
[02:02:35.680 --> 02:02:42.880]  Oh, okay. I didn't pursue it in this direction that Rick Martin is talking about. And I
[02:02:46.320 --> 02:02:49.520]  don't know if that's the good direction to try to, I mean, it sounds great.
[02:02:50.320 --> 02:02:56.160]  I would like to see this work. I'd like to try. Just don't know how that would work.
[02:02:58.400 --> 02:03:05.920]  Well, in a way, it's the same issue with the state bar where they always say your complaint
[02:03:05.920 --> 02:03:14.000]  doesn't arise to whatever the blah, blah wording they use. But I have found, and I got this from
[02:03:14.800 --> 02:03:21.920]  whoever's in charge of the state bar and attorneys, and I have it somewhere, they said it is a
[02:03:21.920 --> 02:03:31.920]  requirement that attorneys follow the, what is it they call the California,
[02:03:33.920 --> 02:03:37.440]  the rules of conduct and there's another one to follow.
[02:03:37.440 --> 02:03:39.920]  Yeah. Yeah. Rules of professional conduct.
[02:03:40.720 --> 02:03:48.720]  Yes. It's not an option. They're required to follow it. But the state bar doesn't
[02:03:48.720 --> 02:03:54.400]  uphold that. They say, oh no, no, it's no good deal. Well, yes it is. If you are required to do it,
[02:03:55.920 --> 02:03:59.920]  that's a law. You have to do it and you should be punished if you're not.
[02:04:00.720 --> 02:04:05.760]  So I'm going to, when I find a little few spare minutes, I'm going to go after that because I
[02:04:05.760 --> 02:04:12.560]  have the email from the authority that says they are required to uphold, I think it's the California,
[02:04:13.520 --> 02:04:17.920]  oh gosh, I've got the wording and it's gone out of my head. But anyway,
[02:04:18.800 --> 02:04:23.680]  I'll try to post it when I find it. I really want to go after them because there should be
[02:04:23.680 --> 02:04:29.680]  absolutely no excuse for them to lie, cheat and steal. And the state bar says no big deal.
[02:04:31.520 --> 02:04:35.200]  They have laws and rules of professional conduct for a reason.
[02:04:35.920 --> 02:04:41.200]  They have a note of office that they, you know, swear a note to for a reason.
[02:04:42.160 --> 02:04:43.200]  I agree with you.
[02:04:44.880 --> 02:04:53.280]  But not enough of us have the time, as Randy says often, they wear with all the knowledge,
[02:04:54.320 --> 02:05:00.320]  the fortitude to keep going after it because they keep pushing us down and denying us. They
[02:05:00.320 --> 02:05:06.800]  won't even let me see the response to an attorney's complaint. When I filed a complaint
[02:05:06.800 --> 02:05:11.520]  about an attorney, they refused to let me read his response. They said, oh, that's secret.
[02:05:13.040 --> 02:05:17.040]  Really? He can file anything he wants against me and it's secret.
[02:05:20.640 --> 02:05:25.200]  But it's just an ongoing, they put you down, they put you down, they put you down
[02:05:25.200 --> 02:05:30.000]  in the hopes that you will give up because you're exhausted, out of money, out of time.
[02:05:30.560 --> 02:05:40.240]  Yep. What do you say to that, Randy? Being exhausted, they just wear you out.
[02:05:42.560 --> 02:05:43.760]  We've all felt that, right?
[02:05:46.000 --> 02:05:51.440]  You know, instead of letting them do it to you, the approach I'm taking is,
[02:05:52.320 --> 02:05:59.680]  I'm going down there picking the fight. I'm taking it to them. They're not taking anything
[02:05:59.680 --> 02:06:05.840]  to me. They wish I was somewhere else. I walk in the building, they do not want to see me.
[02:06:05.840 --> 02:06:11.920]  First time, a couple of times I walked into the Tarrant County criminal justice building,
[02:06:13.600 --> 02:06:19.680]  one of the bailiffs got real smart with me and I told him to don't act stupid.
[02:06:21.920 --> 02:06:25.920]  They kind of gave me a little bit of a hard time. Last couple of times I went in there,
[02:06:26.720 --> 02:06:32.160]  they could not be nicer. They went out of their way not to have a problem with me.
[02:06:32.160 --> 02:06:37.440]  That tells me I'm getting their attention. I picked the fight with them. They have no idea
[02:06:37.440 --> 02:06:45.440]  what I'm about to do to them and they don't want anything to do with me. That's how I want it.
[02:06:47.040 --> 02:06:52.720]  All of this is teaching. So I'm setting them all up, giving them all opportunity to act ignorant.
[02:06:52.800 --> 02:06:57.200]  They know I'm setting them up, but they got to follow policy.
[02:06:58.240 --> 02:07:04.240]  And when they follow policy, I'm coming after them. They can't even frown at me because
[02:07:04.880 --> 02:07:09.600]  first thing I go after them about is the ones with the pistols on their hips.
[02:07:11.440 --> 02:07:15.040]  You got that pistol, you don't get to frown at me.
[02:07:16.400 --> 02:07:20.720]  You don't get to do anything that I can feel in any way intimidated by.
[02:07:23.040 --> 02:07:31.040]  Besides, I'm offended by these guys. They have more armament on them than I carried in combat.
[02:07:32.560 --> 02:07:38.880]  What the heck is that? And they're trained to treat us like civilians in an occupied country.
[02:07:38.880 --> 02:07:44.800]  So I've kind of got a chip on my shoulder for them and I figured out how to do it.
[02:07:44.800 --> 02:07:49.920]  Don't wait till they start a fight with you. Go pick one with them.
[02:07:49.920 --> 02:07:57.840]  And now I've got them in the exact place they've had you, Tina, for all this time.
[02:07:57.840 --> 02:08:02.000]  And all these people have been charged with crimes that they railroad through the system.
[02:08:03.360 --> 02:08:09.520]  I'm doing my best to turn it back on them and doing my best to put together some
[02:08:09.520 --> 02:08:13.120]  procedures that other people can use to do the same thing.
[02:08:14.240 --> 02:08:18.720]  We start railroading them through the system the way they've been railroading us through the system
[02:08:19.920 --> 02:08:25.760]  These things are change. And that's my story and I'm sticking to it. And as to the bonds,
[02:08:25.760 --> 02:08:32.000]  I'm going to check them out. I'm going to test all of it out. I've got information requests in
[02:08:32.000 --> 02:08:38.800]  for the bonds now. Once I get those bonds, I'll study them and then I'll get a hold of the bond
[02:08:38.800 --> 02:08:46.080]  holders and I'll get them to teach me how to handle them. Then I'll bring it, I'll put together
[02:08:46.080 --> 02:08:53.200]  documentation so you can just kind of go through the steps. I've got my major electronic lawyer
[02:08:53.200 --> 02:08:58.720]  project basically working. So now I'm not doing 12, 14 hours a day, seven days a week.
[02:08:59.360 --> 02:09:05.920]  So now I can get back to the good part. I have the process working. So now I can take these tools
[02:09:05.920 --> 02:09:12.640]  and install them into it and give some online interactive tools where you just go in and answer
[02:09:12.640 --> 02:09:17.680]  the questions, it'll start spitting you out the documents. This is going to get interesting.
[02:09:18.480 --> 02:09:22.320]  That's my story and I'm sticking to it, even if I didn't stay on point.
[02:09:28.960 --> 02:09:32.080]  But yeah, I don't have the answers. I'm like Brett, we don't.
[02:09:32.800 --> 02:09:35.680]  We have some intriguing information, but we don't have the answers yet.
[02:09:43.520 --> 02:09:45.200]  And I can't hear you.
[02:09:45.920 --> 02:09:49.360]  She said maybe we can get Rick Martin back on to give more detail.
[02:09:49.360 --> 02:09:50.080]  Yes, I would like.
[02:09:51.280 --> 02:09:56.160]  Everyone knows that walking is great exercise, but you might not know that the way you walk
[02:09:56.160 --> 02:10:00.800]  could predict how long you're going to live. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be back to tell
[02:10:00.800 --> 02:10:07.200]  you more about walking prognostication in just a moment. Privacy is under attack. When you give
[02:10:07.200 --> 02:10:12.000]  up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. And once your privacy is gone,
[02:10:12.000 --> 02:10:16.480]  you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. So protect your rights,
[02:10:16.480 --> 02:10:22.720]  say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[02:10:22.720 --> 02:10:26.320]  This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com,
[02:10:26.320 --> 02:10:32.320]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing. Start over with Startpage.
[02:10:33.920 --> 02:10:38.320]  New research shows how fast you walk could predict how long you're going to live.
[02:10:38.320 --> 02:10:43.360]  The Journal of the American Medical Association reports that older adults who walk one meter per
[02:10:43.360 --> 02:10:48.480]  second or faster live longer than expected. In case you're wondering, one meter per second is
[02:10:48.480 --> 02:10:53.760]  about two and a quarter miles per hour. A senior's age, gender and walking speed were as good at
[02:10:53.760 --> 02:10:59.200]  predicting life expectancy as more traditional statistical measures. Generally speaking, faster
[02:10:59.200 --> 02:11:04.960]  walkers live longer. Measuring walking speed is quick and inexpensive. It only takes a stopwatch,
[02:11:04.960 --> 02:11:09.440]  some space to walk in a few minutes. Researchers say it could help doctors identify
[02:11:09.440 --> 02:11:14.640]  older patients who need special care. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information
[02:11:14.640 --> 02:11:24.400]  at CatherineAlbrecht.com. I lost my son, my nephew, my uncle, my son on September 11th,
[02:11:24.400 --> 02:11:30.240]  2001. Most people don't know that a third tower fell on September 11th. World Trade Center 7,
[02:11:30.240 --> 02:11:35.760]  a 47-story skyscraper, was not hit by a plane. Although the official explanation is that fire
[02:11:35.760 --> 02:11:41.040]  brought down Building 7, over 1,200 architects and engineers have looked into the evidence and
[02:11:41.040 --> 02:11:46.560]  believe there is more to the story. Bring justice to my son, my uncle, my nephew, my son. Go to
[02:11:46.560 --> 02:11:53.200]  buildingwhat.org. Why it fell, why it matters, and what you can do. Are you looking to have a
[02:11:53.200 --> 02:11:58.000]  closer relationship with God and a better understanding of his word? Then tune in to
[02:11:58.080 --> 02:12:03.600]  logosradionetwork.com on Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. Central Time for Scripture Talk,
[02:12:03.600 --> 02:12:09.600]  where Nana and her guests discuss the scriptures in accord with 2nd Timothy 2.15. Study to show
[02:12:09.600 --> 02:12:14.720]  thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of
[02:12:14.720 --> 02:12:20.480]  truth. Starting in January, our first hour studies are in the Book of Mark, where we'll go verse by
[02:12:20.480 --> 02:12:26.160]  verse and discuss the true gospel message. Our second hour topical studies will vary each week
[02:12:26.160 --> 02:12:31.680]  with discussions on sound doctrine and Christian character development. We wish to reflect God's
[02:12:31.680 --> 02:12:36.720]  light and be a blessing to all those with a hearing ear. Our goal is to strengthen our faith
[02:12:36.720 --> 02:12:42.160]  and to transform ourselves more into the likeness of our Lord and Savior Jesus. So tune in to
[02:12:42.160 --> 02:12:48.240]  Scripture Talk live on logosradionetwork.com Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. to inspire and
[02:12:48.240 --> 02:12:57.040]  motivate your studies of the scriptures. Live free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[02:13:18.240 --> 02:13:40.800]  All right, welcome back to the Rule of Law Radio. Randy Kelton, I'm Brad Fountain and we are talking
[02:13:40.800 --> 02:13:47.760]  with Tina in California. We're talking about some of the different ways that we can
[02:13:49.040 --> 02:13:57.520]  address a situation, all their lawlessness, and how do we deal with feeling so frustrated.
[02:13:58.320 --> 02:14:06.560]  And like Randy says, we gotta take it to them. Is there anything else that's on your mind tonight,
[02:14:06.560 --> 02:14:11.920]  Tina? No, I think you've covered a lot. I mean, there's always something on my mind, but
[02:14:14.400 --> 02:14:22.080]  it's a constant fight, but some days it's fun and some days it's frustrating. But what I really
[02:14:22.080 --> 02:14:29.920]  like is that I have the ability to do this in form of operas and, you know, they can't do anything
[02:14:29.920 --> 02:14:35.280]  about it once they've granted it. It's like, okay, I can file as much as you want and you're just
[02:14:35.280 --> 02:14:41.680]  gonna have to deal with it. And I know they don't like it, but that's tough luck. If they get paid
[02:14:41.680 --> 02:14:47.520]  the hundreds of thousands of dollars to be a judge and they don't even bother to sign their orders
[02:14:47.520 --> 02:14:57.440]  and they can't be bothered, then they're not getting any money out of me. I completely agree with
[02:14:57.440 --> 02:15:05.360]  you. Yeah, but thank you guys for everything. As usual, you're always a fountain of knowledge
[02:15:05.360 --> 02:15:10.880]  and if you don't have the answer, you usually try to find it for us. So I do thank you.
[02:15:12.560 --> 02:15:18.720]  Well, it's our pleasure. All right, well, thanks for calling. Okay, I'll go on the listening line.
[02:15:19.360 --> 02:15:26.320]  All right, next up we have Eric in Massachusetts. Good evening, Eric.
[02:15:27.520 --> 02:15:32.560]  Gentlemen, good to talk to you as always. It's interesting if you'll note,
[02:15:32.560 --> 02:15:37.920]  none of us are calling about complaining about lawyers, are we? We all seem to be complaining
[02:15:37.920 --> 02:15:48.960]  about judges. Funny thing that, huh? Which is why I'm calling. So, you know, I actually
[02:15:48.960 --> 02:15:53.520]  chased the bond thing a little bit with judges and I got, you know, they never provided me,
[02:15:53.520 --> 02:15:58.880]  the state never provided me with who the judges actually are bonded by, what company.
[02:15:59.600 --> 02:16:05.760]  There was something I heard about maybe the state was self-funding or something like that. I don't
[02:16:05.760 --> 02:16:14.640]  know. Well, but they have, that's why Rick Martin was saying, you have to go after the county
[02:16:14.640 --> 02:16:22.400]  charter. Because if you'll remember, when Rick Martin was first describing what we need to do,
[02:16:22.400 --> 02:16:28.000]  he started with the oaths of office. And he only came up with this about the charter when I asked
[02:16:28.080 --> 02:16:34.480]  him, how do you deal with this situation where some of these public officials,
[02:16:36.080 --> 02:16:44.240]  instead of having a bonding company, they don't actually have a bond. The statute says they need
[02:16:44.240 --> 02:16:50.720]  to have a bond, but instead they have some kind of risk management pool, some membership in a,
[02:16:50.720 --> 02:16:54.960]  you know, and I found this from a risk manager. He was telling me that, oh yeah, we've got them
[02:16:54.960 --> 02:17:03.360]  covered in a pool, but that's not the same thing as a bond. So that's why Rick Martin circled back
[02:17:03.360 --> 02:17:08.320]  and said, okay, actually the first thing you need to do is go after the county charter, find out what
[02:17:08.320 --> 02:17:15.760]  the county charter, because apparently when the, I haven't seen this myself, so I'm just kind of
[02:17:15.760 --> 02:17:22.720]  regurgitating what he was saying on this. So he says the county charter will lay out for you
[02:17:23.680 --> 02:17:29.120]  that there's a requirement for a bond. Now I've seen it in the statutes, but
[02:17:30.800 --> 02:17:34.320]  for whatever reason, he's saying go look at the charter and the
[02:17:37.200 --> 02:17:43.040]  bond, if it doesn't exist, then that means they're not even a public official.
[02:17:43.040 --> 02:17:45.040]  They haven't stepped into that office, right?
[02:17:45.040 --> 02:17:56.240]  Yeah, you know, I actually, I have gotten some of the bonds for cities, cities or towns in my state,
[02:17:57.040 --> 02:18:02.960]  so requested those and they, those were provided for me. Now I've purchased bonds before
[02:18:03.600 --> 02:18:11.280]  for the purposes of filing a, an appeal. So a couple of my variants
[02:18:11.920 --> 02:18:19.040]  cases where I was fighting a variance that was granted to a developer, I required,
[02:18:19.040 --> 02:18:23.680]  I was required to purchase a bond. And I disagree with what you just said about
[02:18:24.240 --> 02:18:29.040]  a pool of money, because that's really kind of what the bond is. It's to
[02:18:31.280 --> 02:18:38.000]  reimburse any financial harm. So a pool of money would kind of still do the same thing.
[02:18:38.640 --> 02:18:44.160]  Bonding companies are basically insurance companies, which again is a pool of money
[02:18:44.880 --> 02:18:53.600]  for the purposes of protecting a wide group of people, as opposed to a bond when you
[02:18:54.800 --> 02:19:04.480]  get released out of jail. So that's a bond is, you know, if you don't, if you go over the border,
[02:19:04.480 --> 02:19:10.320]  you leave or what is the country or whatever. Well, then whoever puts up that bond has to
[02:19:10.320 --> 02:19:16.080]  pay the a hundred thousand dollars or million dollars or whatever that bond is, right? It's
[02:19:16.080 --> 02:19:22.720]  just, it's not exactly the same indemnification, but it's like, well, if that person leaves,
[02:19:22.720 --> 02:19:26.480]  somebody loses a million dollars or a hundred thousand dollars, $50,000.
[02:19:26.480 --> 02:19:33.440]  Yeah, they are similar. I think there's a difference in standing though. Who can
[02:19:34.320 --> 02:19:37.760]  can trigger that or invoke the, the disbursement?
[02:19:38.800 --> 02:19:46.160]  Well, the thing, the thing that got my interest is he was saying that the bond
[02:19:46.160 --> 02:19:54.800]  is not exact, not insurance, that the bonding company agreed to indemnify anybody who was harmed,
[02:19:55.440 --> 02:20:02.960]  but that the, the person holding the bond had to reimburse the bonding company if they were out
[02:20:02.960 --> 02:20:09.520]  money. And that's what got my attention because the bond made sure I got paid.
[02:20:10.720 --> 02:20:15.920]  But just like a bondsman, if you skip bond on a bondsman, he can come back after you
[02:20:15.920 --> 02:20:19.920]  for the money he lost because you didn't abide by your side of the contract.
[02:20:21.680 --> 02:20:29.920]  If the bonds that these judges have to hold are similar, then we might as well be suing the judge.
[02:20:29.920 --> 02:20:37.440]  Now it comes out of his pocket. And that goes along with what the Supreme Court justice here
[02:20:37.440 --> 02:20:44.240]  in Texas told us is that he was sued for 20,000, sued by somebody and it cost him $20,000.
[02:20:45.040 --> 02:20:50.960]  Personally, he had to hire his own lawyer. He won the suit, but it cost him 20 grand.
[02:20:53.040 --> 02:20:57.760]  He had, and I'd mentioned to him that I'd sued the chief justice and he was not
[02:20:57.760 --> 02:21:05.680]  happy about that at all. He really didn't like to be sued. And that was good news.
[02:21:07.920 --> 02:21:14.640]  So even if they win, they lose. For me, that was perfect. If the bond is something they
[02:21:14.640 --> 02:21:22.880]  have to reimburse, that's even better. I can actually support that to some extent.
[02:21:22.960 --> 02:21:30.320]  So again, in one of my variance cases, I purchased a bond so that I could proceed
[02:21:31.040 --> 02:21:37.680]  with my variance case in the appeals court. The bond was, let's say, $25,000. I gave the
[02:21:37.680 --> 02:21:44.720]  bonding company $500 and proved that I had the ability to pay the $25,000. It came down to that.
[02:21:45.120 --> 02:21:56.080]  And then at the end of the case, the appeals court said, we are not going to award legal fees.
[02:21:57.920 --> 02:22:09.840]  The lower court was given by the defense, we would like legal fees and we'd like damages based on
[02:22:09.840 --> 02:22:17.200]  these increased construction costs. However, the increased construction costs were not
[02:22:17.200 --> 02:22:24.720]  signed. So the judge said no to that, but agreed to the legal fees. And then I had to argue again
[02:22:24.720 --> 02:22:31.280]  at the appeals court, hey, you guys said no legal fees, she awarded legal fees. And therefore,
[02:22:31.280 --> 02:22:38.080]  nothing is entitled to them for that. I can actually post that audio before the appeals
[02:22:38.080 --> 02:22:43.840]  court. And that becomes some of the discussion, supporting what Randy is saying, because the
[02:22:43.840 --> 02:22:49.200]  appeals court is asking me, well, who gets reimbursed? Why are you doing this money
[02:22:49.840 --> 02:22:59.440]  rather than the bond company? So it is exactly what, for my situation, many situations,
[02:22:59.520 --> 02:23:09.840]  is what Randy is saying, where a bond company is providing money on my behalf, guaranteeing
[02:23:09.840 --> 02:23:17.680]  that money on my behalf. I just don't want to put that money up. So the bond company steps in and
[02:23:17.680 --> 02:23:26.000]  indemnifies, in this case, the defendant. But then I had to overturn that, which is an interesting
[02:23:26.000 --> 02:23:32.560]  situation. I don't know that a degree is just the same with judges or people in the cities.
[02:23:32.560 --> 02:23:39.280]  So most tax assessors have to have a $50,000 bond or a $100,000 bond in case they commit crime.
[02:23:40.080 --> 02:23:46.400]  So the real question about the bond is, if your bonding company had to pay, say,
[02:23:46.400 --> 02:23:53.760]  $10,000 or $15,000, would they have recorded? Do you have a business with five employees or more?
[02:23:53.760 --> 02:23:58.560]  How would you like to save hundreds of thousands of dollars in FICA taxes? Do you have a major
[02:23:58.560 --> 02:24:04.880]  medical plan that nobody can afford to be on? Or how would you like to save in premium costs
[02:24:04.880 --> 02:24:12.320]  on a current major medical plan by lowering the claims cost? The CHAMP plan is a Section 125 IRS
[02:24:12.320 --> 02:24:18.720]  approved preventative health plan that provides your employees with doctors, medications,
[02:24:18.720 --> 02:24:25.840]  emergency care, and Teladoc all at zero cost with zero copay. If you are an employee,
[02:24:25.840 --> 02:24:32.000]  you also will get a pay raise by paying less in FICA taxes. As an employer, you will save
[02:24:32.000 --> 02:24:38.320]  hundreds of thousands of dollars in matching FICA taxes. The CHAMP plan can help add working
[02:24:38.320 --> 02:24:50.400]  capital, market resale value, or pay down lines of credit. Call Scott at 2147302471 or dallasmms.com.
[02:25:08.400 --> 02:25:12.880]  Should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[02:25:13.600 --> 02:25:20.080]  Thousands have won with our step by step course. And now you can too. Jurisdictionary was created
[02:25:20.080 --> 02:25:26.080]  by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience. Even if you're not in a
[02:25:26.080 --> 02:25:31.520]  lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices
[02:25:31.520 --> 02:25:37.200]  that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar,
[02:25:37.280 --> 02:25:45.680]  tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com
[02:25:45.680 --> 02:25:50.880]  and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ.
[02:26:07.680 --> 02:26:14.880]  Oh,
[02:26:28.480 --> 02:26:32.880]  yeah, Tina will be glad to know that I jumped in just so I could dive off the cliff.
[02:26:33.760 --> 02:26:40.080]  But yeah, this is the understanding I had was like in your case, Eric,
[02:26:41.360 --> 02:26:49.760]  if the court had given the lawyers attorney fees and you had in the bond, your bonding company had
[02:26:49.760 --> 02:26:58.480]  to identify these lawyers. Could the bonding company then come to you to get what they had to
[02:26:58.480 --> 02:27:09.840]  expand back from you? Yes, absolutely. So in my case, I actually had to indemnify
[02:27:10.560 --> 02:27:17.040]  the bonding company first. And then I had to sue or I had to appeal the decision
[02:27:17.920 --> 02:27:28.160]  into the appeals court. And that is the point at which the judge judges in the appeals court said,
[02:27:28.560 --> 02:27:35.440]  well, why do we pay you, Mr. Porter versus the bonding company? The bonding company paid
[02:27:36.000 --> 02:27:41.200]  the money. Yes, they did pay the money. However, I had to then indemnify them.
[02:27:43.280 --> 02:27:50.800]  So in my case, I had to indemnify the bonding company because they provided the money to the
[02:27:50.800 --> 02:28:00.240]  court and or to the defendant in my situation. Okay, that is exactly what I wanted to hear.
[02:28:01.360 --> 02:28:08.480]  Yeah. So if you sue that judge and he's got a bond, the bond doesn't help him. It merely
[02:28:08.480 --> 02:28:19.200]  indemnifies you. He's still on the hook. Perfect. I'm not, you know, I don't know that I necessarily
[02:28:19.200 --> 02:28:24.080]  agree with that because it's there as long as they're under their official
[02:28:24.080 --> 02:28:29.600]  capacity. Now, if you sue them in their unofficial capacity, I would agree with that.
[02:28:30.560 --> 02:28:36.720]  Well, you can't see if you can sue them in their official capacity. They are already indemnified
[02:28:36.720 --> 02:28:44.960]  by the state. All states do that. The only time you can actually sue them personally is in their
[02:28:44.960 --> 02:29:01.440]  individual capacity. And in Texas, we have article 5.53. I don't know where you're going.
[02:29:01.440 --> 02:29:11.280]  There is a constitutional prohibition that forbids the state to provide any emolument
[02:29:12.000 --> 02:29:16.640]  to a public official that is not included in their contract.
[02:29:18.560 --> 02:29:25.840]  So when I sued all these judges in their personal capacity, claiming that they acted outside the
[02:29:25.840 --> 02:29:34.080]  scope of their authority, they got the attorney general to file a response for them. And I came
[02:29:34.080 --> 02:29:40.320]  back and said that violated Texas Constitution because I sued them in their personal capacity
[02:29:40.320 --> 02:29:48.800]  and by providing them counsel, you provide them with a public emolument not authorized,
[02:29:48.800 --> 02:29:55.280]  not included in their contract. Yeah, but then you gave them an argument that they
[02:29:55.280 --> 02:30:00.080]  really didn't want to address and they had no exit. So they had to just call you frivolous.
[02:30:00.720 --> 02:30:08.320]  Never back a bulldog in the corner without giving him a way out. I violated my own rules. I was
[02:30:08.320 --> 02:30:14.800]  having too much fun beating him up, but I'm not done with him yet. The court of appeals
[02:30:14.800 --> 02:30:20.480]  threw out my 150 page suit with one sentence, this case is frivolous, dismissed with prejudice.
[02:30:21.280 --> 02:30:32.880]  Satifact Jack. So now I'm back after him. I want a ruling. I'm going to do a petition for
[02:30:32.880 --> 02:30:41.280]  declaratory judgment. And I want the court to rule in line with Walker v. Packer
[02:30:42.960 --> 02:30:48.640]  that says that a judge has no discretion in properly applying the law to the facts.
[02:30:48.640 --> 02:30:54.800]  Failing to do so is an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion
[02:30:55.760 --> 02:31:01.440]  in most every state I've looked at, except New Mexico, is a criminal act.
[02:31:02.880 --> 02:31:13.040]  And a criminal act is outside of scope. And if it's outside of scope, the agency may not
[02:31:13.040 --> 02:31:24.240]  provide indemnification for them on their own. That was where I went at it. But if they got
[02:31:24.320 --> 02:31:34.000]  bonds, then that don't help them. And that's where I want to find out. So I start going after
[02:31:34.000 --> 02:31:41.520]  their bond. As far as the judge is concerned, or the prosecutor is concerned, I'm trying to reach
[02:31:41.520 --> 02:31:51.040]  right into his pocket. But at the end of the day, everything's political, but it's always about the
[02:31:51.120 --> 02:31:57.200]  money. So thank you, Eric. That's exactly what I wanted to hear.
[02:31:59.680 --> 02:32:04.960]  OK. I'm posting the audio right now on the page, so you can listen to that discussion,
[02:32:06.160 --> 02:32:10.800]  my 15 minutes of oral argument, which immediately jumps straight into,
[02:32:12.000 --> 02:32:19.920]  why do we owe you money, Mr. Porter? So unfortunately, it's a bit of a lengthy
[02:32:19.920 --> 02:32:28.160]  discussion, unnecessarily long, but 5, 10 minutes. But whatever. So in retrospect,
[02:32:28.160 --> 02:32:36.480]  maybe I am agreeing with you, because the bonding for, let's say, a tax person in a city
[02:32:38.320 --> 02:32:44.240]  is if they do something wrong, like steal money. So that's the $50,000 or $100,000 bond or whatever
[02:32:44.240 --> 02:32:50.800]  is them stealing that money. So that would be in their individual capacity.
[02:32:52.560 --> 02:32:59.840]  That's perfect. That's just like a bail bond. He puts up this money to indemnify the state.
[02:33:01.600 --> 02:33:05.520]  So if the guy doesn't show his bonding company will indemnify the state,
[02:33:05.520 --> 02:33:10.000]  but then he can still go back after that guy to get his money back. That's perfect.
[02:33:10.400 --> 02:33:17.360]  Yeah. It means if I sue a judge and I win, I get paid,
[02:33:19.760 --> 02:33:25.120]  whether he's got it or not. And then it's up to the bonding company to get it out of the judge.
[02:33:27.680 --> 02:33:29.280]  That is such good news.
[02:33:32.320 --> 02:33:39.200]  But that was not why I called. It was just a good side. Randy, you're really hard to understand.
[02:33:39.200 --> 02:33:48.400]  You're very much robotic and broken up. So maybe that's easier to understand to me.
[02:33:53.920 --> 02:33:59.200]  Brett? He was asking, am I understandable? Is it easier to understand me?
[02:34:01.040 --> 02:34:03.920]  Oh, I'm sorry. Brett's a little bit easier to understand.
[02:34:04.560 --> 02:34:08.720]  No, because I'm both on the same system. That's why I'm wondering.
[02:34:10.400 --> 02:34:13.760]  He's now robotic too. This was not the way it was before
[02:34:15.200 --> 02:34:18.640]  the break. He sounded perfectly normal.
[02:34:19.760 --> 02:34:23.920]  Well, then I wonder if you have on your end a reduced bandwidth.
[02:34:25.600 --> 02:34:26.960]  I'm calling on a normal phone.
[02:34:30.080 --> 02:34:31.520]  Do you have a good signal?
[02:34:31.520 --> 02:34:34.240]  No. Yeah, it hasn't changed.
[02:34:37.200 --> 02:34:38.480]  I think it's something you guys did.
[02:34:40.960 --> 02:34:48.400]  It's hard to say. And Debra's not here to go over our system. But I don't know.
[02:34:50.560 --> 02:34:56.800]  Everyone knows she's our sound person. Debra's insanely good at that.
[02:34:57.600 --> 02:35:04.640]  We were going to do a remote show once. And we walked into this room. And she walked in
[02:35:04.640 --> 02:35:11.280]  and looked around. And she said, no, no, no, this will not do. These windows have to have
[02:35:11.280 --> 02:35:17.520]  curtains on them. And that backdrop, that backdrop, she couldn't look at the room
[02:35:18.400 --> 02:35:26.320]  and know what the sound would be like in the room. And noises I don't hear makes her crazy.
[02:35:26.800 --> 02:35:33.840]  Super ears. So anyway, she's not here to bail us out.
[02:35:36.240 --> 02:35:40.160]  Okay, so I don't know how to fix that. Okay, where else do we want to go?
[02:35:42.560 --> 02:35:47.280]  Feedback on Telegram is Brett is breaking up as well. But
[02:35:47.280 --> 02:35:51.760]  Eric is fine. So let me just ask my question and we can have a discussion based on
[02:35:52.400 --> 02:35:59.520]  this next question. So about 10 months ago, I asked you and we started talking about,
[02:36:00.160 --> 02:36:11.760]  I had a state case that got removed to federal court and really seemed to dislike this judge.
[02:36:11.760 --> 02:36:19.760]  Her rulings are pretty favorable for the defendant. But in this situation,
[02:36:20.720 --> 02:36:28.640]  I tried to remand it back to the state. That didn't do any good. So I had a partner in a property,
[02:36:29.440 --> 02:36:35.600]  and it was just him and I. And then he set up a trust. And the trust was him and his wife,
[02:36:35.600 --> 02:36:47.440]  as the executors or whatever. And I filed the lawsuit against him and his wife. And the judge
[02:36:47.920 --> 02:36:56.080]  has said, no, you're just going to sue the husband, not the wife. And I cannot understand
[02:36:56.080 --> 02:37:02.160]  how she can make that ruling. So when the property was sold, which is the damages I suffered from,
[02:37:02.160 --> 02:37:10.400]  I was forced to sell this property. When that happened, the husband and wife both had to sign
[02:37:11.360 --> 02:37:17.760]  the document to sell the property. Additionally, a year earlier, we had taken out a loan. Again,
[02:37:17.760 --> 02:37:23.920]  his wife had to sign it. So I don't understand how the judge is saying, no, you're only going
[02:37:23.920 --> 02:37:29.440]  to be allowed to sue the husband and you need to rewrite your filing. Otherwise I'm going to
[02:37:29.440 --> 02:37:34.800]  dismiss the complaint. What are your opinions and thoughts on that? And what should I do?
[02:37:34.800 --> 02:37:42.400]  I would be asking for finding the facts and conclusions of law. Where does the judge get that?
[02:37:52.960 --> 02:37:57.600]  No, the wife was not a part of when we entered into the partnership.
[02:38:05.200 --> 02:38:06.560]  We're in federal court now.
[02:38:11.760 --> 02:38:16.960]  Is it community property? That would be the state, the property is in the state.
[02:38:18.720 --> 02:38:24.960]  It's because the suits in the Fed, the property in the state and who owns that property. If you're
[02:38:24.960 --> 02:38:33.120]  a community property state, when the husband accrued the property, the wife accrued interest
[02:38:33.120 --> 02:38:41.600]  in the property. So she would be as engaged in the property as he was. Would you like to make
[02:38:41.600 --> 02:38:47.440]  more definite progress in your walk with God? Bibles for America is offering a free study
[02:38:47.440 --> 02:38:53.040]  Bible and a set of free Christian books that can really help. The New Testament recovery version
[02:38:53.040 --> 02:38:58.080]  is one of the most comprehensive study Bibles available today. It's an accurate translation
[02:38:58.080 --> 02:39:02.960]  and it contains thousands of footnotes that will help you to know God and to know the meaning of
[02:39:02.960 --> 02:39:08.800]  life. The free books are a three-volume set called Basic Elements of the Christian Life.
[02:39:08.800 --> 02:39:14.720]  Chapter by chapter Basic Elements of the Christian Life clearly presents God's plan of salvation
[02:39:14.720 --> 02:39:21.200]  growing in Christ and how to build up the church. To order your free New Testament recovery version
[02:39:21.200 --> 02:39:30.880]  and Basic Elements of the Christian Life, call Bibles for America toll free at 888-551-0102.
[02:39:30.960 --> 02:39:39.520]  That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[02:39:42.640 --> 02:39:48.800]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com.
[02:39:52.560 --> 02:39:57.520]  The Bill of Rights contains the first 10 amendments of our Constitution. They guarantee the specific
[02:39:57.520 --> 02:40:02.560]  freedoms Americans should know and protect. Our liberty depends on it. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht
[02:40:02.560 --> 02:40:07.040]  and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember one of your constitutional rights.
[02:40:07.600 --> 02:40:13.040]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[02:40:13.040 --> 02:40:18.800]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. So protect your
[02:40:18.800 --> 02:40:24.560]  rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy, it's worth
[02:40:24.560 --> 02:40:29.840]  hanging on to. This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com, the private
[02:40:29.840 --> 02:40:37.520]  search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing. Start over with Startpage. Imagine your mom
[02:40:37.520 --> 02:40:42.320]  and dad are getting ready for bed. They pull back the covers and find a third party there.
[02:40:42.320 --> 02:40:46.560]  He announces, I'm with the military and I'm sleeping here tonight. That shocking image of
[02:40:46.560 --> 02:40:51.280]  a third party in my parents' bed reminds me what the third amendment was designed to prevent.
[02:40:51.280 --> 02:40:54.640]  It protects us from being forced to share our homes with soldiers,
[02:40:54.640 --> 02:40:59.840]  a common demand in the days of our founding fathers. Third party, third amendment? Get it?
[02:40:59.840 --> 02:41:03.600]  So if you answer a knock at your door and guys in fatigues demand lodging,
[02:41:03.600 --> 02:41:07.840]  tell them to dust off their copy of the Bill of Rights and reread the third amendment.
[02:41:07.840 --> 02:41:11.920]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[02:41:22.240 --> 02:41:26.000]  The Bill of Rights contains the first 10 amendments of our constitution.
[02:41:26.000 --> 02:41:29.440]  They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect.
[02:41:29.440 --> 02:41:33.520]  Our liberty depends on it. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be right back with an
[02:41:33.520 --> 02:41:36.800]  unforgettable way to remember one of your constitutional rights.
[02:41:37.440 --> 02:41:42.960]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[02:41:42.960 --> 02:41:47.760]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[02:41:47.840 --> 02:41:53.120]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[02:41:53.120 --> 02:41:57.760]  Privacy. It's worth hanging on to. This public service announcement is brought to you by
[02:41:57.760 --> 02:42:03.280]  StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[02:42:03.280 --> 02:42:05.120]  Start over with StartPage.
[02:42:06.800 --> 02:42:11.280]  Imagine four eyes staring at you through binoculars, a magnifying glass, or a pair of
[02:42:11.280 --> 02:42:15.920]  x-ray goggles. That imagery reminds me that the fourth amendment guarantees Americans
[02:42:15.920 --> 02:42:20.800]  freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Fourth amendment, four eyes staring at you.
[02:42:20.800 --> 02:42:24.640]  Get it? Unfortunately, the government is trampling our Fourth Amendment rights in the
[02:42:24.640 --> 02:42:30.400]  name of security. Case in point, TSA airport scanners that peer under your clothing.
[02:42:30.400 --> 02:42:34.240]  When government employees demand a peep at your privates without probable cause,
[02:42:34.240 --> 02:42:39.360]  I say it's time to sound the constitutional alarm bells. Join me in asking our representatives to
[02:42:39.360 --> 02:42:43.680]  dust off the Bill of Rights and use their googly eyes to take a gander at the fourth.
[02:42:43.680 --> 02:42:48.480]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[02:43:44.000 --> 02:43:45.680]  I'm
[02:43:47.840 --> 02:43:48.800]  Cinco Nueve.
[02:43:51.520 --> 02:43:58.560]  Is that right, Greg? Don't get me lied. I mean, you know, 5th of September,
[02:43:59.280 --> 02:44:07.440]  2025, and we're talking to Eric in Massachusetts. Okay, Eric, I was doing over that over the break.
[02:44:08.400 --> 02:44:17.760]  Okay, if it's a, if it's a community property state, then he entered into a contract. She was
[02:44:17.760 --> 02:44:25.360]  entered into a contract with you. If it's not a community property state, then you enter into,
[02:44:25.360 --> 02:44:32.800]  he entered, you enter a contract with this guy. And then this guy takes his contract,
[02:44:32.880 --> 02:44:41.040]  his value in the contract, and he moves it into a trust. So whether or not the wife would be
[02:44:41.040 --> 02:44:47.840]  engaged in that would depend on her position in the trust. If she wasn't merely the beneficiary
[02:44:47.840 --> 02:44:56.320]  of the trust, then she would have no liability for the trust. So what position was, was, did she
[02:44:56.320 --> 02:45:03.840]  hold in the trust? She held the same position as him, which is, is it executor or the,
[02:45:04.960 --> 02:45:08.240]  the person who controls the trust? That's the trustee.
[02:45:09.520 --> 02:45:16.720]  Trustee. Trustee or managing director. A trustee can assign a managing director.
[02:45:16.720 --> 02:45:23.840]  The way people hide things and hide their themselves behind a trust
[02:45:25.360 --> 02:45:29.680]  is they create a trust where they are not the benefactor.
[02:45:31.280 --> 02:45:35.360]  And they are not the trustee and they are not the beneficiary on paper.
[02:45:36.880 --> 02:45:39.040]  They don't have anything to do with the trust.
[02:45:39.760 --> 02:45:48.080]  But they have, they are, they have a private contract that makes them the managing director
[02:45:48.080 --> 02:45:55.600]  of the trust. So under the contract, they can direct the trustee in what to do.
[02:45:56.880 --> 02:46:05.280]  So you've got this trust running over here. That must say you have a bunch of property put in it
[02:46:05.280 --> 02:46:12.800]  and you don't name yourself as the beneficiary. I'm sorry, as the benefactor. You just put all
[02:46:12.800 --> 02:46:19.200]  that property in there and maybe have somebody else transfer it to them and have them put it in.
[02:46:20.160 --> 02:46:27.280]  So you have somebody put value into the trust and then they resign from the trust. So you're
[02:46:27.280 --> 02:46:33.520]  gone. And then you have a beneficiary who can be anybody because I wouldn't get anything from it
[02:46:33.520 --> 02:46:40.640]  anyway. But they have nothing to do with the trust. They're just the ones who would supposedly
[02:46:40.640 --> 02:46:47.040]  profit from the trust. And then you have a trustee who controls the trust. And then you have this
[02:46:47.040 --> 02:46:55.120]  managing director in the background. This goes to the private and the public. The trust is the public.
[02:46:55.360 --> 02:47:01.040]  The managing director contract, that's in the private. Nobody ever sees that unless the trustee
[02:47:01.040 --> 02:47:07.760]  doesn't do what the managing director wants the trustee to do. Then the trustee can pull out that
[02:47:07.760 --> 02:47:16.160]  managing director contract, fire the trustee and replace the trustee. And then it goes back into
[02:47:16.160 --> 02:47:23.200]  the private. So if anybody looks at the trust and searches it out, they'll find a benefactor,
[02:47:23.280 --> 02:47:27.760]  they'll find a benefactor, the beneficiary and the trustee. They will not find
[02:47:27.760 --> 02:47:36.320]  the managing director. Does that make sense? Yes. That's how they do these trusts to kind of hide
[02:47:36.320 --> 02:47:45.280]  their assets. But this one sounds like it's different. How her liability would not be would
[02:47:45.920 --> 02:47:54.320]  pretty well depend on her ability to manage the trust or have say in what the trust does.
[02:47:57.920 --> 02:48:04.480]  I can't speak to that because I think they're 50-50. Basically, it was a property that they
[02:48:04.480 --> 02:48:10.960]  owned that they wanted to give to their children. Oh, wait, wait, wait, wait. You've got a trust with
[02:48:10.960 --> 02:48:16.640]  two people in it and they're married. That's not a trust. That's nothing.
[02:48:21.280 --> 02:48:27.120]  They're going to call that an alter ego. I don't know what to tell you, Randy. I mean,
[02:48:27.120 --> 02:48:35.120]  I assume it's done correctly. It's done by a lawyer. But even so, you can't have a trust with,
[02:48:35.920 --> 02:48:42.240]  let's say I'm the owner of this trust and I'm the trustee of the trust.
[02:48:43.200 --> 02:48:49.760]  The courts are going to say the trust is not really a trust. You're an alter ego. It's like if you
[02:48:49.760 --> 02:48:58.640]  set up a corporation and you own the corporation, you're the CEO of the corporation and you don't
[02:48:58.640 --> 02:49:03.520]  have other stockholders, they're going to say that's not a corporation. That's an alter ego.
[02:49:04.480 --> 02:49:10.720]  They put out this process for corporations, for people who incorporate, to try to protect
[02:49:10.720 --> 02:49:16.480]  themselves. But they protect their shareholders. But since they only got one shareholder,
[02:49:17.680 --> 02:49:24.880]  the trustee, the corporation did exactly what the one shareholder told it to do. So whatever it did,
[02:49:25.280 --> 02:49:38.160]  the one shareholder was responsible. So they went to the courts, adopted this for trusts the same way.
[02:49:40.320 --> 02:49:47.040]  If there is only one person in the trust or a couple is essentially one person, a married
[02:49:47.040 --> 02:49:52.160]  couple, then it's not a trust. It's just an alter ego and it won't protect them at all.
[02:49:52.880 --> 02:50:00.720]  It shouldn't. Let's assume that I'm not explaining it correctly and that the lawyer did it correctly
[02:50:00.720 --> 02:50:06.880]  and the purposes of the trust was for them to take a rental property that they own
[02:50:07.920 --> 02:50:13.920]  and put it into or two front rental properties, put them into the trust so that when they die,
[02:50:13.920 --> 02:50:18.080]  that gets passed on to their children. Let's assume it was done correctly
[02:50:18.960 --> 02:50:24.320]  and I don't know how to explain it correctly. That would be an irrevocable trust.
[02:50:27.360 --> 02:50:33.280]  I'm not really the trust guy, but I understand those things. We did that with my mother.
[02:50:34.800 --> 02:50:41.360]  We took her property and put it into a trust. That way she doesn't own the property. If someone's
[02:50:41.360 --> 02:50:46.880]  old, you have to do this two years before they pass away. You move their property into a trust
[02:50:47.760 --> 02:50:53.680]  and this is if you have a whole family and the trust defines what each person, what their
[02:50:53.680 --> 02:51:01.840]  ownership in it is just like a will, but the property is actually moved out of their ownership.
[02:51:01.840 --> 02:51:07.200]  So if they go into a folks home or something, she no longer owns this property so the state
[02:51:07.200 --> 02:51:15.520]  can't swallow it and there is no probate because she has no property. It's all in the trust. She
[02:51:15.520 --> 02:51:24.880]  has complete control over the property but she just doesn't own it. So that's probably what they
[02:51:24.880 --> 02:51:33.120]  did was an irrevocable trust and it may be that the judge said you could only sue one because
[02:51:34.480 --> 02:51:42.560]  suing both of them for the exact same things would force her to incur unnecessary debt
[02:51:42.720 --> 02:51:49.360]  as you were making exactly the same claim against the one piece of property.
[02:51:50.240 --> 02:51:51.280]  That makes sense.
[02:51:54.720 --> 02:52:01.200]  I'm not the expert on trust. All I'm doing here is what sounds rational and reasonable.
[02:52:03.200 --> 02:52:09.760]  That if you sued her or didn't sue her, how would that affect your ability to collect
[02:52:09.760 --> 02:52:12.480]  on the trust property?
[02:52:18.480 --> 02:52:30.640]  I don't know that I'm trying to sue the trust. In part I am. I'm trying to sue them for damages
[02:52:30.640 --> 02:52:38.320]  against me. This has to do with real property though. Say that again?
[02:52:39.280 --> 02:52:47.040]  This has to do with how does the property have anything to do with it if you're suing him for
[02:52:48.720 --> 02:52:49.280]  damages?
[02:52:53.040 --> 02:53:00.480]  Because the property was put into the trust and so they acted as trustees and
[02:53:01.600 --> 02:53:05.520]  So are you calling the transfer into the trust fraudulent?
[02:53:06.160 --> 02:53:11.040]  No, they just had a fiduciary duty to not hurt me.
[02:53:11.920 --> 02:53:16.480]  They as individuals and then the trust had a fiduciary duty to not hurt me.
[02:53:19.040 --> 02:53:26.080]  Well if the two people, if they're a married couple and they are the owners of the trust,
[02:53:27.280 --> 02:53:33.680]  it's just an alter ego. They're both in the same position. So to sue one of them is to
[02:53:33.680 --> 02:53:37.680]  sue both of them. Did you have a different claim against the wife?
[02:53:39.920 --> 02:53:43.600]  Not really, but will that not allow me to cross-examine her?
[02:53:50.400 --> 02:53:56.160]  You've got one source that didn't trust the contract with the husband
[02:53:56.160 --> 02:54:03.920]  is your source of damages. Remember, it's through that contract.
[02:54:09.920 --> 02:54:12.080]  Even if it had to do with this property and
[02:54:13.760 --> 02:54:19.360]  the property was put into a trust and the husband and wife were equal owners of the trust,
[02:54:20.240 --> 02:54:25.040]  I don't see how soon the wife would increase.
[02:54:26.160 --> 02:54:32.320]  You wouldn't be able to get separate damages from the husband and the wife unless the wife
[02:54:32.960 --> 02:54:36.960]  did something separate from the husband. Is that the case?
[02:54:38.560 --> 02:54:45.120]  No, I don't think she would have fiduciarily harmed me like the husband would have.
[02:54:45.120 --> 02:54:52.960]  Okay, then you're not living, you have a claim against the husband for the
[02:54:54.640 --> 02:55:02.000]  contract. Although the wife's, if it's a community property state and she has assets,
[02:55:02.800 --> 02:55:12.080]  her assets would be as vulnerable as the husband's. But I can't see how you would get a claim against
[02:55:12.080 --> 02:55:20.480]  her unless you can point at something she did. What would she be defending against?
[02:55:21.680 --> 02:55:28.880]  She signed up for the trust, so the property that he and I owned together
[02:55:29.840 --> 02:55:35.520]  got put into a trust, she became a trustee and then at that point-
[02:55:35.520 --> 02:55:40.320]  Wait a minute, did they put the whole property in the trust or just their half?
[02:55:41.280 --> 02:55:41.920]  Their half.
[02:55:44.080 --> 02:55:51.680]  So I don't see how you are there and I don't see how she encouraged any liability unless
[02:55:51.680 --> 02:55:57.600]  she did something to harm you or she acted in concert inclusion with her husband to do
[02:55:57.600 --> 02:56:06.960]  something to harm you. Well, in the trust document, it basically stated that the trust,
[02:56:07.840 --> 02:56:14.640]  the trust would not sell me that property under any circumstance and that is the fiduciary harm.
[02:56:16.800 --> 02:56:24.640]  Oh, so was there a contractual agreement that would allow you to purchase the property?
[02:56:27.520 --> 02:56:31.280]  There was neither contractual agreement to purchase it or not purchase it,
[02:56:31.360 --> 02:56:38.560]  but if you're intentionally selling it to harm me or by selling it, it will harm me,
[02:56:39.680 --> 02:56:42.560]  whereas what does it matter whether it's being sold to me or someone else?
[02:56:43.440 --> 02:56:48.320]  Well, the fact that it will harm you is not necessarily a claim.
[02:56:50.480 --> 02:56:55.600]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters or even lawsuits?
[02:56:55.600 --> 02:57:00.800]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method. Michael Mears has won six
[02:57:00.800 --> 02:57:06.000]  cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win two. You'll get step-by-step
[02:57:06.000 --> 02:57:11.040]  instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statues,
[02:57:11.040 --> 02:57:16.800]  what to do when contacted by phone, mail or court summons, how to answer letters and phone calls,
[02:57:16.800 --> 02:57:21.360]  how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the financial tables on them
[02:57:21.360 --> 02:57:27.520]  and make them pay you to go away. The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to
[02:57:27.520 --> 02:57:32.400]  stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well. For more information,
[02:57:32.400 --> 02:57:37.600]  please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner or email
[02:57:37.600 --> 02:57:47.520]  michaelmears at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com
[02:57:47.520 --> 02:57:53.040]  to learn how to stop debt collectors now. I love logos. Without the shows on this network,
[02:57:53.120 --> 02:57:57.520]  I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends. I'm so addicted to the truth now that there's no going
[02:57:57.520 --> 02:58:03.120]  back. I need my truth fixed. I'd be lost without logos and I really want to help keep this network
[02:58:03.120 --> 02:58:07.280]  on the air. I'd love to volunteer as a show producer but I'm a bit of a Luddite and I really
[02:58:07.280 --> 02:58:13.040]  don't have any money to give because I spent it all on supplements. How can I help logos? Well,
[02:58:13.040 --> 02:58:18.000]  I'm glad you asked. Whenever you order anything from Amazon, you can help logos. You can order
[02:58:18.080 --> 02:58:25.200]  your supplies or holiday gifts. First thing you do is clear your cookies. Now go to logosradionetwork.com.
[02:58:25.200 --> 02:58:30.320]  Click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it. Now when you order anything from Amazon,
[02:58:30.320 --> 02:58:36.320]  you use that link and logos gets a few pesos. Do I pay extra? No. Do you have to do anything
[02:58:36.320 --> 02:58:43.120]  different when I order? No. Can I use my Amazon Prime? No. I mean yes. Wow, giving without doing
[02:58:43.120 --> 02:58:49.920]  anything or spending any money. This is perfect. Thank you so much. We are welcome. Happy holidays,
[02:58:49.920 --> 02:58:52.720]  Logos.
[02:59:19.920 --> 02:59:34.720]  If I can't get everything I want, I need to get a range, yeah.
[02:59:37.520 --> 02:59:44.720]  If I can't get everything I need, I need to get a range, yeah.
[02:59:44.720 --> 03:00:02.000]  Okay, we are back. The question was about suing the wife. I don't
[03:00:04.560 --> 03:00:07.520]  see how you would have a claim against the wife.
[03:00:08.080 --> 03:00:16.400]  Unless there's something I don't know. Well, yeah, and that's the discussion that we're having.
[03:00:17.120 --> 03:00:27.280]  So again, he and I purchased the property together. X number of years later, he and his wife
[03:00:27.280 --> 03:00:37.440]  put that half into a trust. As a trust, they put in their trust agreement under no circumstances
[03:00:38.080 --> 03:00:44.000]  will they sell the property to me. Unbeknownst to me, I didn't know that they did this, right?
[03:00:44.800 --> 03:00:51.200]  Now that it's come out in court, you know, look, there... Do they have the right to do it?
[03:00:51.200 --> 03:00:58.320]  Is there any contractual restriction? Is there a covenant, anything in there that allowed one
[03:00:58.320 --> 03:01:06.720]  of the parties to buy out the other? The husband and wife? No, we don't. No, no, no. You and your
[03:01:06.720 --> 03:01:13.120]  partner, was there a provision that said, and a lot of times this is in contracts, that if one
[03:01:13.120 --> 03:01:23.120]  party decides to sell their portion, the other party has the opportunity for first offer.
[03:01:23.760 --> 03:01:31.520]  Yeah, I see that clause in there a lot. Understood. That clause is inherent,
[03:01:31.520 --> 03:01:38.240]  it's called a fiduciary duty to not harm the other party. So if I want to buy it,
[03:01:39.840 --> 03:01:46.800]  I have the right to buy it if I can show that by not buying it and trying to
[03:01:47.520 --> 03:01:54.560]  get another property is going to cost me money. It's going to harm me. The only reason...
[03:01:55.520 --> 03:02:01.920]  Isn't that the same? Couldn't you use that same argument? If you're not, if you don't already own
[03:02:01.920 --> 03:02:08.160]  half of it, anybody else who, because they can't sell the whole thing, they can only sell their
[03:02:08.160 --> 03:02:14.480]  half, so it doesn't really affect the other person who owns half. And anybody else could say,
[03:02:14.480 --> 03:02:18.480]  oh my goodness, I'm being harmed because you're going to let this go to the person who
[03:02:18.480 --> 03:02:22.480]  already owns half of it, and I'm going to have to go buy another property and that's going to cost
[03:02:22.480 --> 03:02:28.800]  me more. You know what I'm saying? If that's the argument, it seems like any potential buyer would
[03:02:28.800 --> 03:02:37.200]  have that same argument. They're not really harmed, it's just they would be harmed if they,
[03:02:38.480 --> 03:02:42.080]  comparing what they can do with what they wish they would be able to do.
[03:02:43.680 --> 03:02:50.800]  I was the highest bidder, so he wanted to sell the property to somebody else and I said,
[03:02:50.880 --> 03:02:54.560]  I'm not willing to sell at that price, I'm willing to pay more than that.
[03:02:56.080 --> 03:03:02.400]  At which point he said, no way, I'm never going to sell it to you, my family's never going to
[03:03:02.400 --> 03:03:09.760]  sell it to you. Okay, there's the fiduciary harm. He went out, he found a buyer, I was willing to
[03:03:09.760 --> 03:03:19.200]  pay more than that buyer, and he refused to sell it to me at that price. So he acted in his own
[03:03:19.760 --> 03:03:28.240]  emotions instead of in the interest of the trust, but I don't know how you can bring that to your
[03:03:28.240 --> 03:03:36.880]  harm. What do you think, Rudy? Am I missing something? Is he being harmed? I can't see how,
[03:03:36.880 --> 03:03:45.440]  I don't see how you can, his half is his property unless there is a contractual restriction.
[03:03:46.320 --> 03:03:48.320]  He's out of whatever he wants to.
[03:03:52.160 --> 03:03:57.760]  He has an obligation that if he's going to force me to sell it, which is what he was doing,
[03:03:57.760 --> 03:04:02.240]  he has an obligation to sell it to the highest bidder, which is what he said.
[03:04:02.240 --> 03:04:06.320]  Wait a minute, wait a minute, new information, he was forcing you to sell.
[03:04:09.360 --> 03:04:10.080]  Say that again?
[03:04:10.080 --> 03:04:15.280]  He said he was forcing you to sell it.
[03:04:17.520 --> 03:04:19.280]  It's really hard to understand you, Randy.
[03:04:21.280 --> 03:04:24.080]  But can you maybe understand me better?
[03:04:25.760 --> 03:04:37.280]  Yeah, Randy said, it sounds like you're saying that this other guy was forcing you to sell your
[03:04:37.280 --> 03:04:43.040]  half. He was? How can that be forced?
[03:04:55.200 --> 03:05:02.000]  Seems like any owner can only sell whatever they own, they can't sell something they don't own,
[03:05:02.000 --> 03:05:10.560]  so if it's shared and they're selling their portion, if they own 50% or 25% or whatever
[03:05:10.560 --> 03:05:14.880]  it is, they can only sell that much. They can't sell the 100%.
[03:05:20.080 --> 03:05:25.280]  Right. He was crazy.
[03:05:25.760 --> 03:05:39.360]  So I don't know how to properly explain it in a sense. Essentially, it was my opinion
[03:05:40.720 --> 03:05:47.680]  that he would be willing to bankrupt both of us. He was in the process of choking the business,
[03:05:48.560 --> 03:05:53.200]  so he was pulling all the money out that he could, so we weren't able to operate.
[03:05:55.600 --> 03:05:57.360]  Was that in violation of the contract?
[03:06:02.240 --> 03:06:03.440]  There was no contract.
[03:06:07.040 --> 03:06:08.880]  But that's not how we operated.
[03:06:09.600 --> 03:06:16.320]  Was he pulling funds out that were above his portion of the contract?
[03:06:17.840 --> 03:06:23.440]  He was just pulling money out without really giving me notice.
[03:06:24.240 --> 03:06:24.960]  That's fraud.
[03:06:30.400 --> 03:06:32.880]  This is a straight-up theft. Have you charged him with that?
[03:06:34.320 --> 03:06:34.820]  No.
[03:06:38.400 --> 03:06:44.320]  So that would be a claim against him. Now you recorded that, you'd have a claim.
[03:06:45.200 --> 03:06:51.600]  And you might be able to get the whole property based on fraud and based on
[03:06:53.200 --> 03:07:02.320]  treble indemnity. Indemnity, is that the right word, Brett? Treble damages. Yeah, punitive.
[03:07:06.880 --> 03:07:13.200]  So it got to the point where he was choking the business
[03:07:15.120 --> 03:07:19.360]  taking money out and saying, you know, he was telling me, I'm taking this money out.
[03:07:20.160 --> 03:07:21.920]  I didn't have a say in the matter anymore.
[03:07:25.200 --> 03:07:29.840]  How was that? Was that somehow contractual, or is that just by v-opt?
[03:07:31.920 --> 03:07:34.640]  He controlled the checking account.
[03:07:36.160 --> 03:07:39.440]  Then you had him for fraud or in a fraud or embezzlement?
[03:07:42.320 --> 03:07:42.820]  What's that?
[03:07:43.780 --> 03:07:46.180]  You either had him for fraud or embezzlement.
[03:07:48.740 --> 03:07:56.180]  If he's taking funds out of the business and those funds, the portion of those funds belong to you,
[03:07:57.060 --> 03:07:58.340]  then he's stealing from you.
[03:08:03.300 --> 03:08:10.180]  He always took enough. He always made it so that the money taken out was even
[03:08:11.140 --> 03:08:16.580]  but he never left. There was never enough money left over for us to do repairs and what have you.
[03:08:17.140 --> 03:08:18.180]  So he was choking.
[03:08:19.300 --> 03:08:28.100]  Okay, so he's not contributing to the maintenance of the building. Is there any kind of agreement,
[03:08:28.100 --> 03:08:36.420]  either explicit or implicit, that the both of you would maintain the building?
[03:08:36.420 --> 03:08:37.460]  Maintain the building.
[03:08:39.860 --> 03:08:41.620]  Yeah, I mean, that's what we did.
[03:08:43.940 --> 03:08:47.700]  Now that's okay. Brett, that sounds like he has a claim.
[03:08:52.180 --> 03:08:53.860]  What was that? What would that claim be?
[03:08:55.140 --> 03:09:01.060]  Well, that he's decreasing the value of your property by extracting so much
[03:09:02.420 --> 03:09:04.660]  of the funds that you can't maintain the property.
[03:09:06.900 --> 03:09:08.740]  And will cause you to lose property value.
[03:09:15.540 --> 03:09:15.860]  Okay.
[03:09:19.940 --> 03:09:22.500]  Again, I want to go back to fiduciary duty.
[03:09:26.260 --> 03:09:30.100]  Okay, fiduciary duty. That's it. I'm going to have something.
[03:09:30.980 --> 03:09:36.980]  A trustee has a fiduciary duty, but I'm going to have to look that up.
[03:09:38.740 --> 03:09:42.980]  One party would have a fiduciary duty to the other party.
[03:09:44.100 --> 03:09:49.060]  Not to act in a way that harmed the other party. That's what this guy's doing.
[03:09:51.860 --> 03:09:55.540]  A top cybersecurity expert has a warning for America.
[03:09:55.540 --> 03:09:59.060]  If you build an electrical smart grid, the hackers will come,
[03:09:59.060 --> 03:10:01.940]  and they could cause a catastrophic blackout.
[03:10:01.940 --> 03:10:05.620]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, back with the shocking details in a moment.
[03:10:06.260 --> 03:10:11.860]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[03:10:11.860 --> 03:10:16.260]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[03:10:16.900 --> 03:10:22.260]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[03:10:22.260 --> 03:10:24.660]  Privacy. It's worth hanging on to.
[03:10:24.660 --> 03:10:27.700]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com,
[03:10:27.700 --> 03:10:31.780]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[03:10:31.780 --> 03:10:33.780]  Start over with StartPage.
[03:10:35.780 --> 03:10:40.260]  Governments love power, so it's only natural they'd want to control the power going into
[03:10:40.260 --> 03:10:45.460]  your home too with a smart grid. So they're installing a national network of smart meters
[03:10:45.460 --> 03:10:49.940]  to remotely monitor electric use for efficiency and avoid grid failure.
[03:10:49.940 --> 03:10:55.220]  But cybersecurity expert David Chalk says not so fast. If we make the national power grid
[03:10:55.220 --> 03:11:00.740]  controllable through the web, hackers will have a field day. Working remotely, they could tap in
[03:11:00.740 --> 03:11:06.340]  and black out the entire nation, leaving us vulnerable to our enemies. I've long opposed
[03:11:06.340 --> 03:11:12.020]  smart meters for privacy and health reasons. The catastrophic failures caused by hackers?
[03:11:12.020 --> 03:11:13.540]  There's nothing smart about that.
[03:11:14.100 --> 03:11:18.980]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[03:11:20.500 --> 03:11:25.940]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11th.
[03:11:25.940 --> 03:11:31.380]  The government says that fire brought it down. However, 1,500 architects and engineers concluded
[03:11:31.380 --> 03:11:35.940]  it was a controlled demolition. Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives.
[03:11:35.940 --> 03:11:39.940]  Thousands of my fellow first responders are dying. I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[03:11:39.940 --> 03:11:42.340]  I'm a structural engineer. I'm a New York City correction officer.
[03:11:42.340 --> 03:11:44.980]  I'm an Air Force pilot. I'm a father who lost his son.
[03:11:44.980 --> 03:11:49.300]  We're Americans, and we deserve the truth. Go to RememberBetween.com
[03:11:49.300 --> 03:11:51.540]  and RememberBuilding7.org today.
[03:12:19.860 --> 03:12:23.700]  has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what
[03:12:23.700 --> 03:12:28.340]  due process is and how to hold courts to the rule of law. You can get your own copy of this invaluable
[03:12:28.340 --> 03:12:32.580]  material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today. By ordering now,
[03:12:32.580 --> 03:12:36.500]  you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie,
[03:12:36.500 --> 03:12:40.980]  video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents and other useful
[03:12:40.980 --> 03:12:44.340]  resource material. Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from
[03:12:44.340 --> 03:12:49.380]  ruleoflawradio.com. Order your copy today and together we can have the free society we all want
[03:12:49.380 --> 03:13:03.380]  and deserve. You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com.
[03:13:14.900 --> 03:13:19.940]  I see tools of ingenuity, to use against the workers of iniquity.
[03:13:21.460 --> 03:13:29.540]  Tools of massive capability, available for all eternity. They come from natural divinity,
[03:13:29.540 --> 03:13:38.420]  with steadfast roots in authenticity. I see tools to regain dignity, to rebuild the credibility.
[03:13:39.300 --> 03:13:44.820]  And I say, truth and nature must be justice, I believe.
[03:13:46.740 --> 03:13:53.380]  Okay, howdy, howdy, Randy Kelton, Brent Fountain, Rule of Law Radio. On this Friday, the fifth day
[03:13:53.380 --> 03:14:01.700]  of September 2025, and Deborah came in and saved us and fixed our issue, I think. Can you hear us
[03:14:01.700 --> 03:14:05.860]  okay, Eric? Much, much better. All right.
[03:14:09.700 --> 03:14:15.940]  Okay, where were we? Okay, I'm thinking that you have a claim that he deliberately
[03:14:17.620 --> 03:14:24.420]  owed too many, too much funds out of the property, so as to force the property to deteriorate
[03:14:24.980 --> 03:14:29.700]  and thereby cost you money. He must be really PO'd at you.
[03:14:31.700 --> 03:14:39.780]  Yes. That will serve you well, that he's acting
[03:14:40.580 --> 03:14:44.180]  intentionally. This is a deliberate act on his part to harm you.
[03:14:45.860 --> 03:14:52.260]  Well, again, I feel that putting in the trust document that under no circumstance
[03:14:53.220 --> 03:15:01.380]  will the trust or his children sell the property to me, or one of my companies,
[03:15:01.380 --> 03:15:08.500]  or one of my family members, or anybody associated with me is intentionally spiteful,
[03:15:08.500 --> 03:15:17.780]  and intentionally trying to cause me harm. Well, he can be spiteful, and it won't cause you harm.
[03:15:17.860 --> 03:15:24.500]  What it can do is cause you not to lose some gain that you otherwise would have gotten,
[03:15:24.500 --> 03:15:31.060]  and that he can do. But what he can't do is suck all the funds out of the property
[03:15:31.060 --> 03:15:38.100]  and force the property to deteriorate. That costs you money, and that's not something he can do.
[03:15:39.620 --> 03:15:43.860]  Well, all right, so he said, I need to get the most money for this property,
[03:15:43.860 --> 03:15:50.980]  right? So at no point would he give me a price for the property, what he thought it was worth,
[03:15:50.980 --> 03:15:55.860]  what he would be willing to sell it to. But it got to a point where he needed the money,
[03:15:56.740 --> 03:16:06.420]  so he accepted or was willing to accept a price from an offer. And I said, I'm not willing to
[03:16:06.420 --> 03:16:12.100]  sell it at that price, but I'm willing to buy it for that price or more. So I'm going to buy
[03:16:12.100 --> 03:16:18.340]  the property from you, at which point he lost his mind and then started screaming at me.
[03:16:20.100 --> 03:16:23.940]  Okay, well, that's enough to sue. Now you have a claim.
[03:16:25.220 --> 03:16:26.340]  And what is that claim?
[03:16:27.140 --> 03:16:31.620]  The claim that he intentionally undermined the property and lowered the value of the property
[03:16:32.580 --> 03:16:40.740]  maliciously and intentionally just because he's upset at you. And by drawing all the funds out,
[03:16:40.740 --> 03:16:43.860]  not leaving enough to maintain the property, he's damaged you
[03:16:45.380 --> 03:16:48.500]  because lowered your property value. Now you have a claim.
[03:16:49.860 --> 03:16:53.620]  Okay, you're focused on that, which I appreciate, and that's very useful for me.
[03:16:54.260 --> 03:16:59.220]  But I need you to get back into my court, and can I make hay, as you like to say,
[03:17:00.020 --> 03:17:06.340]  with him not willing to sell me the property when I'm the highest bidder?
[03:17:06.900 --> 03:17:11.220]  Well, what you may be able to do if you get a large enough claim against him,
[03:17:12.260 --> 03:17:23.060]  if he can't pay the claim, then you move the court to grant you an increased
[03:17:26.260 --> 03:17:34.020]  percentage of ownership in the property. Once you get the increased ownership in the property,
[03:17:34.020 --> 03:17:35.940]  then you get control and you get say.
[03:17:37.060 --> 03:17:38.660]  Well, we already sold the property.
[03:17:39.860 --> 03:17:40.180]  Oh.
[03:17:40.180 --> 03:17:48.900]  The reason, listen to what I'm saying, the reason I sold it is he was clearly exhibiting signs of
[03:17:48.900 --> 03:17:50.260]  just irrationality.
[03:17:51.700 --> 03:17:55.620]  Okay, did you sell it for less money than you could have had you,
[03:17:56.340 --> 03:18:05.380]  or did, by being forced to sell it, did you lose income that you otherwise would have received?
[03:18:06.820 --> 03:18:07.540]  Massively.
[03:18:08.580 --> 03:18:09.860]  Then that's your claim.
[03:18:13.380 --> 03:18:15.380]  Is that what you'd call benefit of the bargain?
[03:18:16.180 --> 03:18:16.420]  Yes.
[03:18:16.420 --> 03:18:26.260]  Explain that to me. Is it the monthly rent, or is it that we sold it at a rate lower than what I
[03:18:26.260 --> 03:18:26.820]  could have gotten?
[03:18:27.940 --> 03:18:35.780]  Well, you entered into a contract with him to, for joint ownership of this property and joint
[03:18:35.780 --> 03:18:43.700]  share in the profits. And if you can show where you had a reasonable expectation that you'd make
[03:18:43.700 --> 03:18:48.900]  a certain amount of profit over a given amount of time, and he changed his mind in the middle,
[03:18:50.500 --> 03:18:52.820]  and he denied you the benefit of the bargain.
[03:18:58.340 --> 03:18:58.660]  Okay.
[03:19:00.740 --> 03:19:03.780]  If I buy a house, I'm going to pay a whole lot of money for it. And if it's a rental,
[03:19:05.540 --> 03:19:11.540]  I'm not going to get my money back tomorrow. I'm going to get my money back down the road
[03:19:12.420 --> 03:19:22.100]  through constant passive income. You went into this agreement based on long-term income.
[03:19:23.140 --> 03:19:29.620]  He changes his mind in the middle. It should cost him, not you. You should be able to sue
[03:19:30.260 --> 03:19:34.820]  for the profits that you did not make, that you had a right to.
[03:19:39.060 --> 03:19:39.300]  Okay.
[03:19:40.260 --> 03:19:46.420]  His by his erratic and irrational behavior forced you into a position where you had no option.
[03:19:47.460 --> 03:19:51.220]  You had to sell it, and therefore you lost all this profit you would have accrued.
[03:19:54.580 --> 03:19:54.900]  Right.
[03:19:57.220 --> 03:20:04.500]  And well, additionally, he also, we didn't go into the agreement where he wasn't going to
[03:20:04.580 --> 03:20:10.900]  sell it to me. But obviously, at some point, he decided he was never going to sell it to me
[03:20:10.900 --> 03:20:25.380]  and memorialized it into a trust document. And that's really the harm.
[03:20:26.340 --> 03:20:32.180]  Just pulled out O'Connor's causes of action. There's one in here.
[03:20:34.980 --> 03:20:37.940]  Go ahead. I'll find it.
[03:20:39.140 --> 03:20:45.140]  Okay. I mean, that's really the damage. And I can, I mean, you guys bring up a good point of,
[03:20:45.940 --> 03:20:50.180]  well, they can't, you can't force them to sell it to you or you still,
[03:20:50.180 --> 03:20:59.220]  he can't force you to sell it. But the threat of him further decreasing the property value
[03:20:59.700 --> 03:21:08.500]  and the threat of him getting litigious and, you know, taking me to court to force me to sell the
[03:21:08.500 --> 03:21:19.620]  property, which I wouldn't be able to financially defend. Again, he was on, he was going on the
[03:21:19.620 --> 03:21:25.540]  path where he's intentionally harming the property or he needed money so much that he intentionally
[03:21:25.540 --> 03:21:32.980]  harmed the property. Additionally, a year earlier, he made us take a loan. So we had a
[03:21:35.540 --> 03:21:42.660]  loan that came due and he wasn't willing to pay that loan off. So he forced us to take a loan
[03:21:42.660 --> 03:21:48.580]  that we didn't need to take because he refused to pay it off and he could have paid it off.
[03:21:49.460 --> 03:21:55.300]  And he just sold me the property. So we took a loan. We had this loan that we didn't need to
[03:21:55.300 --> 03:22:03.940]  take. He had the ability to pay it off, but he chose not to. And again, put us both in harm or
[03:22:03.940 --> 03:22:12.980]  intentionally harmed me as well as himself. So his spite for me was so great. He cost, he decreased
[03:22:12.980 --> 03:22:17.940]  the value of his own trust, which is again, another fiduciary duty that he violated.
[03:22:18.900 --> 03:22:24.500]  He was willing to decrease the value of his own trust and his own personal wealth.
[03:22:27.940 --> 03:22:31.860]  He has a right to decrease the value of his own property,
[03:22:32.580 --> 03:22:37.460]  but what he doesn't have the right to do is decrease the value of your property.
[03:22:40.740 --> 03:22:45.300]  But not if it's in a trust, he doesn't. He has a fiduciary duty as a trustee.
[03:22:45.300 --> 03:22:46.740]  The fact that he put his...
[03:22:46.740 --> 03:22:50.580]  Yeah, but you can't claim standing in that. You weren't in the trust.
[03:22:52.820 --> 03:22:57.460]  Tortures interfering with existing contract. I was looking at quantum merit, but that didn't
[03:22:57.460 --> 03:23:02.660]  quite fit. Plaintiff had a valid contract. Defendant willfully and intentionally
[03:23:02.660 --> 03:23:08.020]  interfered with the contract. Interference proximately caused plaintiff's injury.
[03:23:08.020 --> 03:23:10.900]  Plaintiff incurred actual damage or loss. That's it.
[03:23:10.900 --> 03:23:19.460]  But he tortures, and generally tortures interference with the contract as a third party.
[03:23:20.660 --> 03:23:29.060]  But here, one of the parties to the contract interfered with your portion of the contract.
[03:23:30.820 --> 03:23:33.700]  Let's see, elements can be found in the following... Oh, we've got a whole
[03:23:33.700 --> 03:23:39.780]  kind of case locked here. Plaintiff had a valid contract. You had a valid contract with him.
[03:23:40.660 --> 03:23:45.780]  Defendant willfully intentionally interfered with the contract. He created a situation
[03:23:45.780 --> 03:23:48.740]  to where you could no longer profit from the contract.
[03:23:50.420 --> 03:23:55.700]  Do you have a business with five employees or more? How would you like to save hundreds of
[03:23:55.700 --> 03:24:01.220]  thousands of dollars in FICA taxes? Do you have a major medical plan that nobody can afford to be
[03:24:01.220 --> 03:24:07.860]  on? Or how would you like to save in premium costs on a current major medical plan by lowering the
[03:24:07.940 --> 03:24:15.620]  claims cost? The CHAMP plan is a section 125 IRS approved preventative health plan that provides
[03:24:15.620 --> 03:24:23.220]  your employees with doctors, medications, emergency care, and Teladoc all at zero cost with zero
[03:24:23.220 --> 03:24:30.340]  copay. If you are an employee, you also will get a pay raise by paying less in FICA taxes. As an
[03:24:30.340 --> 03:24:36.820]  employer, you will save hundreds of thousands of dollars in matching FICA taxes. The CHAMP plan
[03:24:36.820 --> 03:24:43.460]  can help add working capital, market resale value, or pay down lines of credit. Call Scott
[03:24:43.460 --> 03:24:56.420]  at 214-730-2471 or dallasmms.com. Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[03:24:57.060 --> 03:25:02.580]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand,
[03:25:02.580 --> 03:25:09.860]  four CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step. If you have a lawyer,
[03:25:09.860 --> 03:25:14.740]  know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for
[03:25:14.740 --> 03:25:22.020]  yourself. Thousands have won with our step by step course, and now you can too. Jurisdictionary was
[03:25:22.020 --> 03:25:28.500]  created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience. Even if you're not in a
[03:25:28.500 --> 03:25:33.860]  lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices
[03:25:33.860 --> 03:25:40.820]  that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials,
[03:25:40.820 --> 03:25:48.020]  forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com
[03:25:48.020 --> 03:25:53.540]  and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ.
[03:26:18.500 --> 03:26:21.540]  So
[03:26:40.820 --> 03:26:47.540]  the people come down from the hills
[03:26:48.580 --> 03:26:52.100]  into the city they will shuffle
[03:26:56.100 --> 03:27:00.180]  many long nights many strong thrills
[03:27:03.780 --> 03:27:07.540]  land of comfort land of scuffle
[03:27:10.180 --> 03:27:16.340]  it's hard to lose and it's hard to hold
[03:27:18.980 --> 03:27:23.540]  far back as they remember they've been told
[03:27:25.220 --> 03:27:28.340]  they got to learn
[03:27:38.420 --> 03:27:43.220]  okay we are back randy kelton brit fountain rule of law radio we're talking to eric massachusetts
[03:27:43.860 --> 03:27:50.100]  and now i'm looking through causes of action and that's the best one do eric do you have
[03:27:50.100 --> 03:28:00.100]  any litigation guides i think i do have o'connor's causes of action go go to the front on the on the
[03:28:00.740 --> 03:28:08.980]  the inside of the front page just go down those causes of action you'll hit on one that you know
[03:28:09.780 --> 03:28:15.780]  that's that'll wind up being dead on and i think this torturous interference is kind of unusual
[03:28:15.780 --> 03:28:23.540]  to do torturous interference with a business partner but that sounds exactly like what this guy
[03:28:23.540 --> 03:28:35.140]  did yeah i there's fiduciary duty in there somewhere too well it's true there is fiduciary
[03:28:35.140 --> 03:28:41.300]  duty and he he failed in his fiduciary duty but it wasn't to you well no fiduciary i don't think
[03:28:41.300 --> 03:28:49.140]  is the right term if he was in charge of this trust and he transferred from personal ownership
[03:28:49.140 --> 03:28:54.980]  to put it in the trust then okay at that point he does have a fiduciary duty to the trust
[03:28:54.980 --> 03:29:01.540]  yeah to the trust but eric was not harmed in that yeah eric that fiduciary was harmed yeah
[03:29:02.340 --> 03:29:09.060]  other the other way is here yeah fiduciary duties is a nice thing but i don't see where you have
[03:29:09.060 --> 03:29:17.300]  that in this trust you did have a a duty of good faith and fair dealing and that's what he breached
[03:29:18.580 --> 03:29:27.380]  fiduciary duty would be the trustee would have a fiduciary duty to the beneficiary but nobody else
[03:29:27.940 --> 03:29:35.220]  i believe partners have a fiduciary duty to each other to not know they have a duty but it's not
[03:29:35.220 --> 03:29:41.620]  fiduciary they have a fiduciary it's where someone has a duty to a third party
[03:29:42.980 --> 03:29:49.540]  this is a duty of good faith and fair dealing yeah now that sounds like it fits
[03:29:49.540 --> 03:29:50.580]  sounds like it fits
[03:29:53.140 --> 03:29:56.820]  yeah a policeman has a fiduciary duty to me a third party
[03:30:00.340 --> 03:30:07.540]  if you're if i've got a trucking company i have a fiduciary duty to the public that i won't harm
[03:30:07.540 --> 03:30:13.140]  them but i don't have a fiduciary duty to my employees i have a contractual duty to them
[03:30:13.140 --> 03:30:23.780]  okay fiduciary generally goes to third party it's your claim is essentially the same it's just
[03:30:24.340 --> 03:30:31.540]  the the word that you're using is legally it's very specific and it doesn't go to this issue
[03:30:33.140 --> 03:30:40.820]  okay so even though he put it in the trust and before he put it in the trust he
[03:30:40.820 --> 03:30:48.660]  he memorialized in the trust that under no circumstance would the property be sold to me
[03:30:50.420 --> 03:30:56.340]  uh that to me is is good faith and now that's something he can do that's his
[03:30:57.060 --> 03:31:05.860]  he's only doing with his property what he wants to yeah he could ride into the trust that you
[03:31:05.860 --> 03:31:11.140]  could only sell it to a woman or you could only sell it to somebody that's crippled
[03:31:12.180 --> 03:31:19.300]  he could he could do that it's that's it's a private contract kind of a level it's not
[03:31:19.300 --> 03:31:26.420]  something that's uh subject to like government scrutiny or something to see if it will be
[03:31:26.420 --> 03:31:31.860]  if he can do what he wants with his property
[03:31:33.700 --> 03:31:42.340]  uh but i mean he owns it as a partnership so if it if he can't do anything with the property that
[03:31:42.340 --> 03:31:50.740]  would harm you except that he did by scaring you otherwise if he were to stay within limits
[03:31:50.740 --> 03:32:00.260]  he would be able to only sell his 50 but you can't but again by selling his 50 to somebody else
[03:32:01.460 --> 03:32:08.180]  or as you stated he's decreasing the property value by per se embezzling or taking money
[03:32:08.180 --> 03:32:14.500]  without my authorization that's well no no this not embezzlement this is good faith and fair
[03:32:14.500 --> 03:32:23.940]  dealing he's taking money that technically is his it's the if he's not taking more than 50 percent
[03:32:23.940 --> 03:32:31.300]  of of the funds in the property then he's not taking your funds but by taking all of his funds
[03:32:31.300 --> 03:32:37.620]  out he's not acting in good faith and fair dealing because now he's going to cause the property to
[03:32:37.700 --> 03:32:45.540]  deteriorate and the value of your property will decrease so thereby he's taking money out of your
[03:32:45.540 --> 03:32:54.820]  pocket that gives you the claim against him and the fact that that he acted he failed to
[03:32:55.860 --> 03:33:00.580]  to provide good faith and fair dealing is evident in his
[03:33:00.580 --> 03:33:08.580]  his trust where he's forbid the trust to sell the property to you that shows bad faith on his part
[03:33:10.020 --> 03:33:10.980]  now you got a claim
[03:33:14.100 --> 03:33:17.620]  so it's bad faith for him to be unwilling to sell it to me
[03:33:19.140 --> 03:33:24.820]  that's not anything you can adjudicate not unless you had some agreement not some buyout agreement
[03:33:24.820 --> 03:33:33.220]  but if i if he's saying i need to get the most money for this property
[03:33:33.940 --> 03:33:39.860]  he now you can't you can't adjudicate that yeah you can't hold him to what he said he wants
[03:33:46.820 --> 03:33:54.020]  but you can't hold him for you know for deliberately trying to force you in a position
[03:33:54.020 --> 03:33:55.620]  of where you had to sell the property
[03:34:00.420 --> 03:34:02.420]  and that sounds exactly like what he did
[03:34:04.580 --> 03:34:10.020]  he acted maliciously and intentionally and that should get you trouble damages that should get
[03:34:10.020 --> 03:34:18.260]  you a pretty good either payback or get him to make a deal if he gets you take him on if he
[03:34:18.260 --> 03:34:25.860]  gets a lawyer you bar grieve his lawyer into the stone age increase his lawyer fees
[03:34:29.460 --> 03:34:33.780]  and when he winds up not being able to get a lawyer you may be able to win it
[03:34:36.580 --> 03:34:37.140]  so the
[03:34:40.660 --> 03:34:46.500]  what is the malice again let's let's discuss that the malice
[03:34:49.060 --> 03:34:53.140]  say that again i didn't get quite get that yeah explain let's let's discuss the malice you said
[03:34:53.940 --> 03:35:02.180]  you're showing malice yeah he uh well he shows malice by the provisions he put into his trust
[03:35:03.380 --> 03:35:10.740]  so he shows bad feelings toward you and now you can show that he extracted extra funds out
[03:35:10.740 --> 03:35:17.380]  didn't leave enough funds in the the business to maintain the property so it caused the the only
[03:35:17.380 --> 03:35:21.780]  way you could keep the property value from decreasing was add more money yourself
[03:35:24.340 --> 03:35:27.620]  so he failed to act with good faith and fair dealing
[03:35:33.620 --> 03:35:39.940]  and by so doing interfered with your contract forced you to sell the properties so
[03:35:40.900 --> 03:35:42.660]  he forced you to cancel the contract
[03:35:42.660 --> 03:35:50.980]  let me look up good faith and fair dealing if it's even in here
[03:35:54.580 --> 03:35:57.700]  it's probably not in this on causes of action
[03:35:58.260 --> 03:36:03.220]  good faith and fair dealing is a principle to support a cause of action
[03:36:03.220 --> 03:36:19.060]  it seems like i can present it it correctly i just have to use it in a different i have
[03:36:19.060 --> 03:36:29.460]  to view it differently than my initial reaction yeah it's just fiduciary is just the wrong term
[03:36:29.460 --> 03:36:37.700]  it's fiduciary goes to somewhat different just the same principle different term okay
[03:36:42.500 --> 03:36:50.900]  again he rather than selling to me he caused us to get an additional
[03:36:52.580 --> 03:36:58.820]  uh loan oh you know what i mean so we had to pay off a loan at which point he could have sold to
[03:36:58.820 --> 03:37:03.060]  me he would have been able to pay off that loan he chose not to do that
[03:37:06.100 --> 03:37:10.180]  or sell at that well i guess he was willing to sell at that point he just wasn't willing to sell
[03:37:10.180 --> 03:37:18.340]  to me at that point so i that that he has a right to do but he doesn't have a right to put you in
[03:37:18.340 --> 03:37:29.700]  a position to where you have to sell right but he doesn't have the he he forced us
[03:37:30.580 --> 03:37:37.140]  to take a loan so we had a loan that was due i had the money he had the money but he didn't
[03:37:37.140 --> 03:37:42.180]  want to he didn't want to pay for that he didn't want to pay off the loan he wanted to get another
[03:37:42.180 --> 03:37:51.620]  loan again decreasing the value of the property and those are all claims you can bring against him
[03:37:53.220 --> 03:37:57.940]  so it's an unnecessary cost we had this unnecessary cost of a loan
[03:38:00.100 --> 03:38:07.300]  that i i wouldn't want i've taken on but he his unwillingness to sell to me
[03:38:08.020 --> 03:38:13.700]  or find a buyer caused us to take that because he refused to pay off the loan
[03:38:15.940 --> 03:38:20.180]  so he refused to uphold his end of the contract
[03:38:22.340 --> 03:38:25.380]  of a loan contract yeah that's breach
[03:38:29.540 --> 03:38:36.020]  okay we are out of time randy kelton brett fountain weevil radio thank you all for listening and good
[03:38:36.020 --> 03:38:40.340]  night