[00:00.000 --> 00:07.260]  The following news flash is brought to you by The Lowest Star Lowdown.
[00:07.260 --> 00:14.560]  Markets for Monday the 22nd of July 2019 open with Precious Metals, Gold $1,429 an oz, Silver
[00:14.560 --> 00:23.240]  $16.45 an oz, Copper $2.75 an oz, Oil, Texas Crude $55.63 a barrel, Brent Crude $62.47
[00:23.240 --> 00:32.720]  a barrel, and Crypto is an order of market cap, Bitcoin Core $10,566.52, Ethereum $227.26,
[00:32.720 --> 00:46.600]  XRP Ripple $0.33, Lint Coin $100.31, and Bitcoin Cash is at $324.10 a crypto coin.
[00:46.600 --> 00:52.920]  Today in history, the year 1916, the preparedness day bombing, a timed suitcase bomb was detonated
[00:52.920 --> 00:58.240]  on Market Street in San Francisco during the World War I preparedness day parade, killing
[00:58.240 --> 01:05.240]  10 and injuring 40.
[01:05.240 --> 01:10.280]  In recent news, since Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 1325, legalizing Hempon attacks
[01:10.280 --> 01:14.880]  his law back in June, county prosecutors around the state including Houston, Austin and San
[01:14.880 --> 01:19.320]  Antonio have been dropping marijuana possession charges and even refusing to file new ones
[01:19.320 --> 01:23.200]  since they are stipulating that they do not have the time or the laboratory equipment
[01:23.200 --> 01:25.280]  to test the herb for THC.
[01:25.280 --> 01:28.920]  Margaret Moore, the Travis County District Attorney, announced earlier this month that
[01:28.920 --> 01:33.680]  she was dismissing 32 felony possession and delivery of marijuana cases because of the
[01:33.680 --> 01:34.680]  law.
[01:34.680 --> 01:38.080]  Mr. Abbott and other state officials, including the Attorney General, stipulated in a letter
[01:38.080 --> 01:42.600]  to county district attorneys back on Thursday that marijuana has not been decriminalized
[01:42.600 --> 01:48.760]  in Texas and that these actions demonstrate a misunderstanding of how HB 1325 works, as
[01:48.760 --> 01:55.000]  well as other cities too, like the District Attorney in El Paso, Caima Esparza, a Democrat
[01:55.000 --> 01:59.480]  who also stated earlier this month that the law, quote, will not have an effect on the
[01:59.480 --> 02:02.200]  prosecution of marijuana cases in El Paso.
[02:02.200 --> 02:07.280]  However, the issue was succinctly summarized by Mr. Brandon Ball, an assistant public defender
[02:07.280 --> 02:11.280]  in Harris County who stated that, quote, the law is constantly changing on what makes
[02:11.280 --> 02:14.000]  something illegal based on its chemical makeup.
[02:14.000 --> 02:17.880]  It's important that if someone is charged with something, the test matches what they're
[02:17.880 --> 02:19.400]  charged with.
[02:19.400 --> 02:27.920]  A paper by Tulane University identified a five and a half inch American pocket shark.
[02:27.920 --> 02:32.840]  As the first of its kind in the Gulf of Mexico, the specimen being only the second pocket
[02:32.840 --> 02:38.520]  shark ever captured or recorded with the other one being found way back in 1979 in the East
[02:38.520 --> 02:40.000]  Pacific Ocean.
[02:40.000 --> 02:44.280]  According to the university paper, the shark secretes a luminous fluid from a gland near
[02:44.280 --> 02:50.560]  its front fins for the purpose it is hypothesized to lure and prey who may be drawn into the
[02:50.560 --> 02:51.560]  glow.
[02:51.560 --> 03:17.560]  This was Workrody with your lowdown for July 22, 2019.
[03:17.560 --> 03:27.120]  I received my remedy today, came in a box just like they say, I accepted it for value
[03:27.120 --> 03:28.120]  right away.
[03:28.120 --> 03:37.880]  It's not sooner, not later, we are originators, and the pathway seems to get straighter every
[03:37.880 --> 03:38.880]  day.
[03:38.880 --> 03:52.360]  And I can take anything that belongs to me and put it to good use, but I was good for
[03:52.360 --> 03:58.280]  the gender, I wanna work for the good.
[03:58.280 --> 04:04.880]  I know some architect, I know some engineer, they've seen the evidence.
[04:04.880 --> 04:12.880]  Okay, we are back, Randy Kelton with our radio, and we're talking to Ida in New York.
[04:12.880 --> 04:18.640]  Okay, Ida, is that making sense?
[04:18.640 --> 04:19.640]  Yeah.
[04:19.640 --> 04:22.560]  All, it's all about politics.
[04:22.560 --> 04:26.280]  So you look at who you're dealing with.
[04:26.280 --> 04:31.440]  What are their weaknesses?
[04:31.440 --> 04:38.240]  Great officials, their weaknesses always, anything bad about them.
[04:38.240 --> 04:43.760]  And it's not about whether it's horrible or not, it's all about perception.
[04:43.760 --> 04:45.240]  Does it sound bad?
[04:45.240 --> 04:48.560]  As long as it sounds bad, that's all you need.
[04:48.560 --> 04:56.360]  When you have ordinary people seeing this stuff, doesn't matter if it's true or not,
[04:56.360 --> 04:58.400]  perceptions, everything.
[04:58.400 --> 05:03.000]  So when you start filing criminal charges against judges, they know when they run for
[05:03.000 --> 05:11.080]  office again, their opponent is gonna waive these criminal complaints in front of everybody.
[05:11.080 --> 05:21.280]  And the judge is gonna say, oh, they were frivolous, and nobody's gonna buy that.
[05:21.280 --> 05:29.360]  If you were really not corrupt, these charges would never have been filed.
[05:29.360 --> 05:34.440]  So they don't know these dirty rotten rascals like us out here, setting them up for it.
[05:34.440 --> 05:45.920]  So look at the issue you're having has to do with education, and it's really outside
[05:45.920 --> 05:53.560]  my scope to speak to the education issue specifically.
[05:53.560 --> 05:58.800]  But as I was talking to Brett on the break about, you have a right to education, he said,
[05:58.800 --> 06:04.400]  whereas, well, you pay for it, you bought it.
[06:04.400 --> 06:11.440]  Education is delivered by the government from your tax money.
[06:11.440 --> 06:18.240]  And as such, it must be delivered in a way that does not discriminate, you have lots
[06:18.240 --> 06:21.800]  of case law on that.
[06:21.800 --> 06:31.360]  But nobody wants to prosecute this unless it's something that's really politically hot.
[06:31.360 --> 06:42.840]  So the real power, everything is political, but all politics is local, and really powerful
[06:42.840 --> 06:50.560]  politics is not the stuff you hear on the news, but it's the local politics.
[06:50.560 --> 06:57.200]  So how can we make them look bad?
[06:57.200 --> 07:07.640]  Think about that, you sent me some emails, but it wasn't specific enough for me to be
[07:07.640 --> 07:13.800]  able to state anything in particular.
[07:13.800 --> 07:15.800]  I would need to know more.
[07:15.800 --> 07:21.560]  Have you written a timeline of events concerning your issue?
[07:21.560 --> 07:25.440]  Yes, I have.
[07:25.440 --> 07:31.880]  A timeline is the most valuable tool you can have.
[07:31.880 --> 07:37.880]  Everything that happened, when it happened, you don't have to do a lot of argument about
[07:37.880 --> 07:40.520]  why it should have been one way or another.
[07:40.520 --> 07:44.560]  Just this happened, this happened, this happened, this happened, just get it all lined out.
[07:44.560 --> 07:51.440]  I have a niece who had an issue, and I asked her for a timeline, and she gave me a bunch
[07:51.440 --> 07:56.440]  of stuff, and I went through it, and I said, wait a minute, wait a minute, you had this
[07:56.440 --> 08:02.120]  happen, and then you had this other thing happen, there had to be some stuff in between.
[08:02.120 --> 08:06.840]  And she said, oh yeah, this, this, this, and this, and then she filled in those empty blanks,
[08:06.840 --> 08:09.920]  and then I found a number of places.
[08:09.920 --> 08:17.040]  You fill in those empty blanks, and then you get somebody like me look at it, you see,
[08:17.040 --> 08:20.720]  I look at it from point of law.
[08:20.720 --> 08:26.280]  You look at it from your experience of what happened, so you put your experience of what
[08:26.280 --> 08:30.840]  happened, and I look at it from point of law, and I say, wait a minute, wait a minute.
[08:30.840 --> 08:35.000]  In order for these two things to happen, there had to be something in between, then you can
[08:35.000 --> 08:42.400]  fill in all of these spaces of things that you did not necessarily know were important.
[08:42.400 --> 08:50.040]  Once you have a timeline down, you never get things out of sequence.
[08:50.040 --> 08:56.000]  Without a timeline, you tend to go from one emotional high point to the next, to the next,
[08:56.000 --> 08:57.000]  to the next.
[08:57.000 --> 09:04.200]  So if you're going through this scenario, and I ask you a question, you're likely to
[09:04.200 --> 09:12.240]  jump to a different issue and speak to something out of sequence.
[09:12.240 --> 09:17.240]  Recent research has demonstrated that memory doesn't work the way we thought it did.
[09:17.240 --> 09:21.120]  We don't go inside and read memory.
[09:21.120 --> 09:25.040]  We go inside and take out memory.
[09:25.040 --> 09:29.720]  We experience the memory and put it back.
[09:29.720 --> 09:36.880]  If you take out memory and get interrupted before you put it back, you tend to lose part
[09:36.880 --> 09:38.480]  of that memory.
[09:38.480 --> 09:44.240]  That was a phenomenon we discovered, but I didn't, the researchers did.
[09:44.240 --> 09:47.360]  And that's what happens when we tell a story.
[09:47.360 --> 09:53.120]  We tell what happened, but if I'm telling it from an unusual context, then I only tell
[09:53.120 --> 09:59.640]  the part that goes to that context, I take it out, tell the story from a different context
[09:59.640 --> 10:05.440]  and put it back, and I wind up with things out of order.
[10:05.440 --> 10:07.840]  Now all of the memories are still in there.
[10:07.840 --> 10:14.200]  They're just not accessible directly.
[10:14.200 --> 10:21.560]  So we write a timeline, and if you put things in out of sequence, when you go back and read
[10:21.560 --> 10:28.520]  them, when you're not internally experiencing them, then you see the errors.
[10:28.520 --> 10:33.360]  You say, wait a minute, this didn't happen here, it happened over here.
[10:33.360 --> 10:41.040]  You can rearrange it, and the most important thing you can have is a good, accurate timeline
[10:41.040 --> 10:43.320]  of events.
[10:43.320 --> 10:47.240]  From that, we will build a statement of facts.
[10:47.240 --> 10:56.360]  Well, actually, when we build documents, we build the timeline first, and then we build
[10:56.360 --> 10:59.720]  a narrative of what happened.
[10:59.720 --> 11:08.680]  We make up a novel that explains everything that happens, and then we go back and create
[11:08.680 --> 11:11.720]  a statement of facts.
[11:11.720 --> 11:18.520]  The reason we do the narrative first is we figure out how we want to tell this story.
[11:18.520 --> 11:21.720]  Then we go back to the statement of facts.
[11:21.720 --> 11:27.040]  Now the story has to follow the timeline, so everything's in the order it's actually
[11:27.040 --> 11:28.040]  occurred.
[11:28.040 --> 11:35.360]  Then we go back and create this statement of facts that follows our story.
[11:35.360 --> 11:42.400]  Everything we want to convince someone of in our story, we go back and lay in facts
[11:42.400 --> 11:49.120]  that would lead a reasonable person of ordinary prudence to come to the conclusion that we
[11:49.120 --> 11:52.000]  want them to come to.
[11:52.000 --> 11:55.160]  So we follow that down and create a fact.
[11:55.160 --> 11:59.720]  So the guy reads the, you tell him, this is what I'm going to tell you.
[11:59.720 --> 12:05.200]  This is the story, this is the crux of the story, you do an introduction.
[12:05.200 --> 12:12.680]  So now you've told them basically what conclusion you want them to come to, and then you lay
[12:12.680 --> 12:21.160]  in facts, and they're going to weigh these facts relevant to your conclusions, and if
[12:21.160 --> 12:27.840]  you've artfully crafted your facts, they will come to the same conclusions that you will
[12:27.840 --> 12:30.760]  make in your story.
[12:30.760 --> 12:35.480]  So if they read the facts and came to these conclusions, then they read your story where
[12:35.480 --> 12:42.280]  you come to the same conclusion, they're going to think you're really smart.
[12:42.280 --> 12:49.600]  Okay, dirty watt and low down, but life is tough.
[12:49.600 --> 12:58.080]  We can then set up the motions and pleadings and the different things that we do to fill
[12:58.080 --> 12:59.760]  in the blanks.
[12:59.760 --> 13:02.600]  We want to tell this story.
[13:02.600 --> 13:09.600]  How do we get these public officials to give us what we need to support our story?
[13:09.600 --> 13:13.880]  And that will kind of dictate how you go after them.
[13:13.880 --> 13:21.320]  I know this sounds kind of unusual and a little bit complex, but once you start doing it,
[13:21.320 --> 13:24.240]  it will kind of clarify itself.
[13:24.240 --> 13:32.560]  And if you do your job right, you'll never have to get to the end because they will want
[13:32.560 --> 13:36.440]  to fix this problem to get you to go away before you get to the end.
[13:36.440 --> 13:39.360]  Okay, I keep interrupting you.
[13:39.360 --> 13:40.360]  Go ahead.
[13:40.360 --> 13:41.360]  I'm going to shut up now.
[13:41.360 --> 13:48.400]  I wanted to ask you about what I have with the Defendant Council.
[13:48.400 --> 13:55.840]  If they have a file to kind of keep me from getting to the merits or keep the merits from
[13:55.840 --> 13:59.240]  being addressed, how do I handle that?
[13:59.240 --> 14:07.840]  I'm dealing with their affirmative defences and discovery demands.
[14:07.840 --> 14:16.000]  And so what they want is to keep, you know, throwing discovery demands at me to prevent
[14:16.000 --> 14:18.360]  me from addressing the merits.
[14:18.360 --> 14:28.360]  Meanwhile, the judge is also denying my ability to mind due process to speak and also to actually
[14:28.360 --> 14:31.480]  address my arguments in writing.
[14:31.480 --> 14:38.680]  Okay, let me take a step back.
[14:38.680 --> 14:45.080]  When you go into court, you should expect that the court will rule against you out of
[14:45.080 --> 14:51.800]  hand at every turn without regard to the right of things of the rule of law.
[14:51.800 --> 15:00.440]  And that's not necessarily a problem because you really don't care what the judge rules.
[15:00.440 --> 15:10.520]  Your only purpose in the trial court is to set the record for appeal.
[15:10.520 --> 15:19.360]  People go to court and they have an expectation that the judge will be fair and honest.
[15:19.360 --> 15:26.880]  And when the judge does not appear to be fair and honest, they feel betrayed and mistreated.
[15:26.880 --> 15:30.600]  And it is a devastating feeling.
[15:30.600 --> 15:36.840]  And it causes depression and frustration, and it debilitates you.
[15:36.840 --> 15:42.360]  Those lawyers know that, and they use that against you.
[15:42.360 --> 15:50.680]  If you are only setting the record, then you don't get distracted, you don't get frustrated
[15:50.680 --> 15:54.600]  and angry, and you don't lose your perspective.
[15:54.600 --> 16:09.480]  So determine what facts, as we spoke yesterday about admins, decide what your causes of action
[16:09.480 --> 16:10.480]  are.
[16:10.480 --> 16:15.200]  If you are in a case where, okay, hold on.
[16:15.200 --> 16:18.680]  You have had your case dismissed, is that correct?
[16:18.680 --> 16:23.320]  I've had partial summary judgment, not dismissal.
[16:23.320 --> 16:25.320]  Okay.
[16:25.320 --> 16:29.880]  Have you requested findings of fact?
[16:29.880 --> 16:36.480]  I'm requesting that now, and I've been told by the defendant that he's moving for complete
[16:36.480 --> 16:44.120]  to, he's anticipating moving for dismissals of my remaining count.
[16:44.120 --> 16:45.120]  We don't worry about that.
[16:45.120 --> 16:47.240]  How long we'll get that out of the other side.
[16:47.240 --> 16:48.240]  We're about to go to break.
[16:48.240 --> 16:55.240]  We'll be right back.
[16:55.240 --> 17:10.320]  It's the 2019 Logos Radio Network annual fundraiser and gun giveaway, sponsored by Central Texas
[17:10.320 --> 17:11.320]  Gun Works.
[17:11.320 --> 17:14.960]  Go to logosradionetwork.com and enter to win.
[17:14.960 --> 17:16.760]  Any amount is appreciated.
[17:16.760 --> 17:18.600]  Anything helps to keep us on the air.
[17:18.600 --> 17:25.040]  From Central Texas Gun Works, the grand prize up for grabs is a Spikes Tactical AR-15.
[17:25.040 --> 17:27.600]  More prizes and sponsors to be announced.
[17:27.600 --> 17:30.800]  Every $25 donation is a chance to win.
[17:30.800 --> 17:36.360]  When you purchase Randy Kelton's e-book, Legal 101, you get four chances to win.
[17:36.360 --> 17:40.080]  Purchase Eddie Craig's traffic seminar and get 10 chances to win.
[17:40.080 --> 17:44.680]  If you've enjoyed the shows on Logos Radio Network, support our fundraiser so we can
[17:44.680 --> 17:49.040]  keep bringing you the best quality programming on Talk Radio today.
[17:49.040 --> 17:51.920]  We also accept Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
[17:51.920 --> 17:56.000]  And remember, every $25 donation is a chance to win.
[17:56.000 --> 18:02.360]  Go to logosradionetwork.com for details and donate today.
[18:02.360 --> 18:05.080]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law Traffic Seminar.
[18:05.080 --> 18:08.800]  In today's America, we live in a us against them society and if we, the people, are ever
[18:08.800 --> 18:12.840]  going to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[18:12.840 --> 18:16.120]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act
[18:16.120 --> 18:20.160]  in our own private capacity, and most importantly, the right to due process of law.
[18:20.160 --> 18:24.000]  Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve
[18:24.000 --> 18:25.880]  our rights through due process.
[18:25.880 --> 18:29.360]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the
[18:29.360 --> 18:33.120]  most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process
[18:33.120 --> 18:35.160]  is and how to hold courts to the rule of law.
[18:35.160 --> 18:39.480]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and
[18:39.480 --> 18:43.040]  ordering your copy today. By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The
[18:43.040 --> 18:47.280]  Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009
[18:47.280 --> 18:50.840]  seminar. Hundreds of research documents and other useful resource material.
[18:50.840 --> 18:54.920]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com.
[18:54.920 --> 19:10.240]  Remember your copy today and together we can have a free society we all want and deserve.
[19:10.240 --> 19:26.760]  Well don't let nothing get to you, only the father can deliver you. So don't let bad
[19:26.760 --> 19:40.880]  things get to you, only the father can deliver you.
[19:40.880 --> 19:47.400]  Okay we are back, Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking to Ada in New York
[19:47.400 --> 19:55.160]  and you're looking at getting the filing of motion to dismiss everything. You really
[19:55.160 --> 20:04.000]  don't care about all that, as long as you have all of the facts and the law on the record.
[20:04.000 --> 20:09.520]  And I can do that, I can request that at this time for all the prior hearings or I can only
[20:09.520 --> 20:14.080]  request that for the last hearing.
[20:14.080 --> 20:21.160]  Every ruling that's been made by the court, you can request findings of fact. If you don't
[20:21.160 --> 20:30.040]  have a final judgment in the case, then I'm not sure exactly how New York works. But generally
[20:30.040 --> 20:36.680]  you can wait till you get a final judgment act as for finding the fact. When you get
[20:36.680 --> 20:49.360]  a ruling, do you get an, what's called a judgment, an argument with case law showing how the
[20:49.360 --> 20:51.800]  judge came to his ruling?
[20:51.800 --> 20:59.680]  No, not in all the prior ones, only in the partial summary judgment when I got findings,
[20:59.680 --> 21:02.040]  I mean conclusions of law findings.
[21:02.040 --> 21:08.040]  Oh, okay, then the last one.
[21:08.040 --> 21:19.280]  Okay, since it's summary, it's not dispositive so you still have time for that. You can do
[21:19.280 --> 21:28.160]  that on appeal. Before, when you get a final judgment in the case, then you can ask for,
[21:28.160 --> 21:32.920]  one thing you should always ask for is reconsideration.
[21:32.920 --> 21:39.240]  Whatever they rule, then you ask for reconsideration and give a brief to show why they should
[21:39.240 --> 21:48.240]  reconsider. You really don't care what they do. This just gives you opportunity to place
[21:48.240 --> 21:55.320]  the law and the facts on the record. The only thing the appeals court can look at is what
[21:55.320 --> 21:58.440]  is in the record.
[21:58.440 --> 22:04.720]  And would you be, you're wanting to put in that document, correct me if I'm wrong, that
[22:04.720 --> 22:09.840]  motion for reconsideration, you're wanting to lay out bullet points that is exactly what
[22:09.840 --> 22:13.760]  you're going to tell the appellate court they did wrong, correct?
[22:13.760 --> 22:22.560]  Yes, that is exactly right. When you're doing a case, you file your motions and pleadings.
[22:22.560 --> 22:28.160]  And that's the first part of your work building a case. But you're always building the case
[22:28.160 --> 22:36.080]  for the court of appeals. So then when the judge makes his ruling, then you file a motion
[22:36.080 --> 22:43.200]  for reconsideration. And in that motion for reconsideration, you tell the judge why he
[22:43.200 --> 22:51.720]  should rule the way you want him to. You give him a brief on the individual issues. Well,
[22:51.720 --> 22:57.800]  the work you put into building that brief, that motion for reconsideration, you're going
[22:57.800 --> 23:01.760]  to use that when you get to the appeal.
[23:01.760 --> 23:02.760]  Yeah.
[23:02.760 --> 23:10.800]  Each step is a lot easier if you ask for reconsideration on every ruling and build your little brief
[23:10.800 --> 23:20.040]  for that. And each step, you're building the documentation you need for appeal. Everything
[23:20.040 --> 23:28.000]  you're doing should be focused on appeal, especially when they get prosaed litigants.
[23:28.000 --> 23:33.640]  They expect prosaed litigants to get upset and jump up and down and rail in righteous
[23:33.640 --> 23:40.680]  indignation. But when you don't do that, when you ask for reconsideration every time,
[23:40.680 --> 23:48.600]  when you ask for findings of fact and conclusions at law, the best way to do that is write
[23:48.600 --> 23:55.240]  your own findings of fact and conclusions at law. You say, these are the facts before
[23:55.240 --> 24:02.800]  this court. And these are the cases that the court should consider. And these are the
[24:02.800 --> 24:09.520]  rulings, the determinations the court should come to. And then you ask the court to either
[24:09.520 --> 24:16.920]  accept your findings of fact or provide their own. What that has the effect of doing is
[24:16.920 --> 24:23.440]  getting your arguments, your facts and law on the record so that they're available to
[24:23.440 --> 24:30.520]  the court of appeals. The court will figure that out really quick. Actually, the lawyers
[24:30.520 --> 24:38.960]  on the other side will figure out what you're doing and make them more likely to want to
[24:38.960 --> 24:47.040]  fix this and make it go away. Because they'll see you're setting them up for appeal. Mostly
[24:47.040 --> 24:55.640]  prosaed don't understand that. And they argue issues. They argue what they think is right.
[24:55.640 --> 25:05.120]  Never argue what you believe is right. I know that sounds counterintuitive. But only argue
[25:05.120 --> 25:13.640]  facts and law. The court has a duty to determine the facts in accordance with the rules of
[25:13.640 --> 25:22.840]  evidence, then apply the law as it comes to him to the facts in the case. That's all
[25:22.840 --> 25:32.560]  he can do. So if you give him a very convincing argument as to why he should rule in your
[25:32.560 --> 25:40.720]  favor, but you don't give him facts and law as it relates to those facts, he might agree
[25:40.720 --> 25:50.440]  with you, but he will have no power to rule in your favor. This goes to one of our rules.
[25:50.440 --> 25:58.800]  Never make a proactive statement of law out of your own mouth. Never tell the judge, why
[25:58.800 --> 26:03.160]  you're supposed to do this. You're supposed to do that. The law says you got to do this.
[26:03.160 --> 26:12.400]  The law says you got to never do that. Say the Supreme Court or the US Supreme or the
[26:12.400 --> 26:18.320]  Supreme Court of the State or the appellate court of the state said this. Whatever you
[26:18.320 --> 26:27.240]  want to tell them, you have to tell them in the verbiage of the courts themselves. If
[26:27.240 --> 26:34.320]  you make that statement out of your own mouth, the court cannot consider it and only consider
[26:34.320 --> 26:45.040]  it out of the mouth of a higher court. That's not as difficult as it sounds because for
[26:45.040 --> 26:53.560]  the most part opposing counsel will give you the case law that you need. When opposing
[26:53.560 --> 27:05.800]  counsel cites case law, make sure you read their cases because cases, they will address
[27:05.800 --> 27:14.840]  the point that is salient to that particular case, but they will also address surrounding
[27:14.840 --> 27:25.400]  issues. They will say in this case we rule this way and our case right now we rule this
[27:25.400 --> 27:32.760]  way and then they'll have a couple more after it. They frame the context of the particular
[27:32.760 --> 27:40.280]  issue. Well, the other side is going to try to distract the court. They're going to try
[27:40.280 --> 27:46.760]  to lead them off, so they'll give them a case that's somewhat off-point. You read their
[27:46.760 --> 27:52.600]  cases and you can see the case that's off-point, but they will also give you references to
[27:52.600 --> 28:00.720]  other cases that are likely to be more on your point. Hardest thing to do in legal research
[28:00.720 --> 28:08.320]  finding the first case is on point. Look at the case law your opponent gives you. Lawyers
[28:08.320 --> 28:19.880]  are notorious for not reading their own cases. Ben drum a IRS lien on his property. The IRS
[28:19.880 --> 28:26.080]  lawyers filed a motion and with some case law in it, we said Ben did you read the case
[28:26.080 --> 28:35.440]  law? He said no, read it. Two days later he come back laughing. The citations the IRS
[28:35.440 --> 28:46.800]  lawyers used were actually in the case. But what it said was in our case law we said this.
[28:46.800 --> 28:53.640]  What they quoted. But in this case we have changed this. This is no longer relevant.
[28:53.640 --> 29:01.040]  Now we say this. Well, they gave him the bad law and in the same case gave him the law he
[29:01.040 --> 29:10.120]  needed. He took their own cases and used it against them. Read their case law. Only make
[29:10.120 --> 29:18.320]  statements of law out of the mouth of the court. And your only purpose is to set the
[29:18.320 --> 29:26.560]  record for appeal. Okay. When I come back I'm going to shut up and I'm going to ask
[29:26.560 --> 29:33.720]  you questions so I can. That's the basics I wanted to go over for you. Now I want to
[29:33.720 --> 29:38.800]  talk about your case and I think you'll better understand the answers that Brett and I gave
[29:38.800 --> 29:49.800]  you. Hang on. We're about to go to our sponsors. I call in number 512-646-1984. Good time to
[29:49.800 --> 29:57.600]  go to our sponsors and help us keep this radio station on the air. We'll be right back.
[29:57.600 --> 30:09.240]  Keep your voice down. The government now has Russian technology that matches identities
[30:09.240 --> 30:14.880]  to voices so it can tell who's doing the talking. I'm Dr. Cameron Albrecht. Back to tell you how
[30:14.880 --> 30:20.920]  it works after this. Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself you'll
[30:20.920 --> 30:26.080]  never get it back again. And once your privacy is gone you'll find your freedoms will start
[30:26.080 --> 30:31.680]  to vanish too. So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information
[30:31.680 --> 30:38.400]  to yourself. Privacy. It's worth hanging on to. This message is brought to you by startpage.com.
[30:38.400 --> 30:46.480]  The private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing. Start over with startpage.
[30:46.480 --> 30:51.200]  Since 2001 when the Patriot Act opened the doors to electronic surveillance big brother
[30:51.200 --> 30:57.200]  is gone crazy vacuuming up all of our data. Now it has a new tactic courtesy of our former
[30:57.200 --> 31:03.280]  communist allies the Russians. It's called voice grid nation and it analyzes and identifies
[31:03.280 --> 31:08.640]  voices courtesy of Russia's speech technology center. When authorities intercept a call
[31:08.640 --> 31:13.320]  the speaker's voice is compared to millions of others like a fingerprint. How long does
[31:13.320 --> 31:18.840]  it take for a match? Three seconds. So watch what you say on the phone comrades whether
[31:18.840 --> 31:23.840]  you say your name or not big brother may know who's talking. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht
[31:23.840 --> 31:33.520]  for startpage.com the world's most private search engine. I lost my son. My uncle. My
[31:33.520 --> 31:38.800]  uncle. My son. On September 11th, 2000. Most people don't know that a third tower fell
[31:38.800 --> 31:44.160]  on September 11th. World Trade Center 7 a 47 story skyscraper was not hit by a plane.
[31:44.160 --> 31:50.000]  Although the official explanation is that fire brought down building 7 over 1200 architects
[31:50.000 --> 31:53.800]  and engineers have looked into the evidence and believe there is more to the story. Bring
[31:53.800 --> 31:59.920]  justice to my son. My uncle. My nephew. My son. Go to building what.org. Why it fell.
[31:59.920 --> 32:05.240]  Why it matters. And what you can do. Logos Radio Network welcomes a new show to our
[32:05.240 --> 32:10.960]  lineup for the new year. Scripture Talk with Nana will begin Wednesday January 8th from
[32:10.960 --> 32:17.040]  8 to 10 p.m. Central Time. Our goal is in accord with Matthew 516. Let your light so
[32:17.040 --> 32:23.000]  shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your father which is in heaven.
[32:23.000 --> 32:28.440]  We wish to reflect God's light and be a blessing to all those with a hearing ear. Join Nana
[32:28.440 --> 32:33.360]  and guests for both verse by verse Bible studies and topical Bible studies designed
[32:33.360 --> 32:38.880]  to provoke unto love and good works. Our verse by verse Bible studies will begin in the book
[32:38.880 --> 32:44.480]  of Matthew where we will discuss one chapter per week. Our topical Bible studies will vary
[32:44.480 --> 32:49.920]  each week and will explore sound doctrine as well as Christian character development.
[32:49.920 --> 32:56.960]  So mark your calendar and join us live on LogosRadioNetwork.com Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. starting
[32:56.960 --> 33:03.520]  January 8th for an inspiring and motivating discussion of the Scriptures.
[33:03.520 --> 33:33.360]  Live Free Speech Radio LogosRadioNetwork.com
[33:34.480 --> 33:47.200]  Okay, we are back and Ada, I do have to tell you that I kind of used you. I used you. I haven't,
[33:47.200 --> 33:54.800]  it's been a while since I've went over all of these basic details and I used your questions so I
[33:54.800 --> 34:01.120]  could go back over the basics. I need to do that on occasion. Now I want to talk about your case.
[34:01.120 --> 34:08.240]  Yeah. Frame the case for us so I understand the context before you're at.
[34:08.240 --> 34:21.600]  The events themselves revolve around denying education in a variety of incidents and they
[34:21.600 --> 34:31.760]  were all basically, they came together to involve multiple agents of the institution and these
[34:32.800 --> 34:42.960]  agents ended up basically working in concert to cover up what they had done and keep me from
[34:42.960 --> 34:49.920]  having knowledge that will allow me to pursue them or to know who it was that was doing it.
[34:49.920 --> 34:56.880]  And while I was involved with the institution. Then the...
[34:56.880 --> 35:02.320]  Okay, hold on. What is your standing in this issue?
[35:04.240 --> 35:07.120]  Well, I was the victim and I'm the...
[35:07.120 --> 35:09.920]  No, no. Were you a student, a teacher?
[35:09.920 --> 35:10.480]  Yeah.
[35:11.120 --> 35:12.400]  What was your position?
[35:13.600 --> 35:14.080]  Student.
[35:14.080 --> 35:29.920]  Okay. And the institution denied you, is it a university or is it an institution that gets
[35:29.920 --> 35:30.960]  government support?
[35:32.160 --> 35:33.600]  Yes. Yes.
[35:33.600 --> 35:43.760]  Okay. Then the institution had a duty to provide certain educational opportunities
[35:43.760 --> 35:49.760]  and they denied those opportunities. Is that the circumstance?
[35:49.760 --> 35:55.760]  Not only did they deny, they went beyond that and slandered and blacknailed.
[35:57.760 --> 35:59.280]  Wait, I'm sorry. Say that again?
[36:00.480 --> 36:07.680]  I mean, they didn't only deny, they also deliberately slandered and blacknailed and
[36:07.680 --> 36:13.360]  covered their tracks as much as they could. All of this was a certain sub...
[36:13.360 --> 36:17.440]  Have you charged them with retaliation?
[36:20.000 --> 36:22.560]  No, I charged them with conspiracy only.
[36:24.080 --> 36:34.880]  Okay. If they took action as a result of something that you did, that's criminal.
[36:34.880 --> 36:41.840]  Okay. I would need... Have you written a timeline?
[36:45.040 --> 36:48.160]  Or essentially a statement of facts?
[36:48.960 --> 36:50.320]  Yeah, I've written a statement of facts.
[36:52.320 --> 36:56.320]  Can you send me that? Actually, can you send me your pleadings?
[36:58.160 --> 36:58.400]  Okay.
[36:58.400 --> 37:05.440]  Yeah. Okay. Let me ask you to format them in a certain way or name them.
[37:07.520 --> 37:17.200]  Name each document with your last name, space, the year of the document, dash in numbers,
[37:18.080 --> 37:23.520]  dash month of the document in numbers, dash day of the document in numbers,
[37:24.240 --> 37:26.960]  and then basically what the document's about.
[37:26.960 --> 37:37.840]  If you use that universal date format, when you drop these in a folder, they will organize
[37:37.840 --> 37:46.960]  themselves in chronological order, and that starts your timeline, and then get a court
[37:46.960 --> 37:59.040]  docket showing all the filings in the case, and use that court docket as the basic structure
[37:59.040 --> 38:08.000]  for your timeline. Write out all the stuff that led up to the suit, and then go down the dockets,
[38:08.000 --> 38:14.240]  and the docket will show each document that's filed in the court, and then you add details
[38:14.240 --> 38:18.720]  in between those documents to show what happened between the filings.
[38:20.640 --> 38:28.800]  Randy, a little side question about that. When she's going to do this with the docket,
[38:28.800 --> 38:38.800]  will she find that it is more reliable in being a civil case than what we tend to find in
[38:38.800 --> 38:45.120]  the case? We asked the court clerk to show the docket, and it has something missing or something
[38:45.120 --> 38:50.640]  that was filed at a date that was incorrect, but they really wanted it to be filed at a certain
[38:50.640 --> 38:58.720]  time. We love that kind of stuff. Is she likely to find that kind of in a civil case?
[38:58.720 --> 39:08.960]  No, not likely. The clerks for the civil case, they don't have a dog in the hunt,
[39:09.840 --> 39:13.120]  and they don't have a judge wanting them to have memory issues.
[39:14.480 --> 39:23.440]  The clerks are generally elected, so the only ones that have memory issues are court
[39:23.440 --> 39:29.200]  reporters because they're under contract, but that clerk is an elected official. That judge
[39:29.200 --> 39:35.520]  doesn't have things to say to that clerk. The clerk answers to us, so the clerks generally
[39:36.240 --> 39:43.040]  are not, they're manipulated somewhat, but not a lot by the courts, and the point of a timeline is
[39:43.680 --> 39:49.360]  if anything's been manipulated, why don't you build about the timeline? It jumps out at you.
[39:49.360 --> 39:58.640]  In order for me to understand the case, I need to know what happened and when it happened.
[40:00.560 --> 40:08.960]  I'm going to look at everything that's occurred, and I will see empty spaces where there should be
[40:08.960 --> 40:16.320]  something that you may not know to look for. Because if you're involved in the case,
[40:16.320 --> 40:22.640]  you've got a dog in the hunt, so you tend to be focused on those things that affect you.
[40:23.520 --> 40:28.080]  Right. Where you'll see something that they did, and then you'll know to ask,
[40:28.080 --> 40:31.760]  well, wait a minute, they're saying this, did they have you sign one of these?
[40:32.960 --> 40:39.120]  Exactly. I will look at the legal details in between. Does that make sense, Ada?
[40:39.120 --> 40:49.360]  Yeah. So the main thing is a timeline, and if you use that naming convention,
[40:49.360 --> 40:57.760]  you will be amazed at how it organizes your case for you. You keep everything in order.
[40:58.480 --> 41:02.400]  You can look at the case and you'll look at it and say, wait a minute, wait a minute,
[41:02.400 --> 41:09.280]  there's something in between these two, and then you can go find it and stick it in there.
[41:09.280 --> 41:16.080]  And that will give you a very well-organized case when you get to the court. You won't be missing
[41:16.080 --> 41:23.280]  anything. Do that first. Well, let me look at it, and then I'll have a bunch of questions for you.
[41:23.840 --> 41:31.680]  Because absolutely, every time someone creates me a timeline, I've got all kinds of stuff
[41:31.680 --> 41:38.320]  missing that you forgot about, or that you knew about it and you didn't know it was important.
[41:39.760 --> 41:45.280]  And once you see it start to fit together, your whole case will get a lot easier.
[41:46.720 --> 41:53.440]  Right. So get that for me, and call next week, and we'll go into more detail.
[41:54.800 --> 41:57.600]  I have a quick question about your reconsideration, we just said.
[41:57.600 --> 42:05.760]  When you filed a motion for reconsideration, can you file that together with the appeal
[42:05.760 --> 42:15.120]  to the appellate court? No, a motion for reconsideration actually stops the appeal clock.
[42:17.200 --> 42:23.920]  Really? Okay. Yes, and the clock doesn't start running until the judge either denies it
[42:23.920 --> 42:31.360]  or files it. Either one of them will start the appeals clock running again, but you can give
[42:31.360 --> 42:39.520]  notice of appeal immediately. If a notice of appeal is given prematurely, if there has been a
[42:40.640 --> 42:48.640]  dispositive ruling that disposes of the case, and you file notice of appeal,
[42:48.640 --> 42:55.120]  then you file a motion for reconsideration. Well, a motion for reconsideration stops the
[42:55.120 --> 43:04.480]  appeal clock. So we actually had lawyers complain that our motion for notice of appeal was not
[43:04.480 --> 43:12.160]  timely. And the judge said, of course it's timely. They gave notice of appeal, but they filed a
[43:12.160 --> 43:19.840]  motion for reconsideration. Yeah, well, the notice of appeal sits in the record until it becomes
[43:19.840 --> 43:32.400]  relevant. So you can file it early and not have to worry about missing it. Okay. And then if the
[43:32.400 --> 43:42.080]  defending counsel, they were granted a motion, discovery motion for compelling... Hold on. We're
[43:42.080 --> 43:48.240]  about to run out of time on this segment. Randy Kelsen, Brett Fountain, Wheel of Law Radio.
[43:49.120 --> 43:55.280]  I'm not going to give out the call-in number. We've got kind of a full board. We've got two more,
[43:55.280 --> 44:02.560]  and Tim is kind of long-winded. You know how he... Are you being harassed by debt collectors
[44:02.560 --> 44:07.760]  with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits? Stop debt collectors now with the Michael
[44:07.760 --> 44:13.040]  Meyers proven method. Michael Meyers has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors,
[44:13.040 --> 44:18.320]  and now you can win two. You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win
[44:18.320 --> 44:24.080]  in court using federal civil rights statute. What to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court
[44:24.080 --> 44:28.720]  summons? How to answer letters and phone calls? How to get debt collectors out of your credit
[44:28.720 --> 44:34.480]  report? How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away? The Michael
[44:34.480 --> 44:40.160]  Meyers proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is
[44:40.160 --> 44:45.600]  available as well. For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue
[44:45.600 --> 44:56.320]  Michael Meyers banner, or email MichaelMeyers at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com, or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s
[44:56.320 --> 45:03.200]  at yahoo.com. To learn how to stop debt collectors now, are you the plaintiff or defendant in a
[45:03.200 --> 45:09.840]  lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand
[45:09.840 --> 45:17.120]  four-CD course that will show you how, in 24 hours, debt by step. If you have a lawyer,
[45:17.120 --> 45:21.840]  know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do
[45:21.840 --> 45:29.040]  for yourself. Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too. Jurisdictionary
[45:29.040 --> 45:35.600]  was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience. Even if you're not in
[45:35.600 --> 45:41.120]  a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices
[45:41.120 --> 45:48.000]  that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials,
[45:48.000 --> 45:55.200]  forms for civil cases, prosay tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com
[45:55.200 --> 46:06.800]  and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-E-Z.
[46:25.200 --> 46:50.800]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelsen, Brett Soundton,
[46:50.800 --> 46:59.840]  rule of law radio, and we're talking to Ada in New York, and let's let you drop and call back.
[46:59.840 --> 47:08.000]  Okay, okay, what was your last? Oh, no, New York. Did I say Pennsylvania? New York.
[47:08.640 --> 47:13.680]  I thought she was in Pennsylvania. Ada, are you in New York or Pennsylvania?
[47:13.680 --> 47:23.680]  New York. Yeah, I said New York because your issue is in New Jersey. Okay, so you had another
[47:23.680 --> 47:28.880]  question and I cut you off there. I was asking you. Yeah, you were starting to ask about discovery.
[47:30.320 --> 47:37.600]  Yeah, the discovery motion, the judge basically, you know, rubber stamped and granted him this
[47:37.600 --> 47:44.640]  discovery motion for compelling answers to interrogatories, but I didn't get a chance to
[47:44.640 --> 47:54.480]  argue. I filed a continuous, and he completely, he didn't even put my request for continuance on
[47:54.480 --> 48:02.560]  the record, on the docket, and he basically ran on, gave him what he wanted, and gave...
[48:02.560 --> 48:08.560]  Oh, hold on, hold on. You filed a motion for continuance, and was it timely filed?
[48:10.320 --> 48:11.280]  No, I filed it.
[48:13.360 --> 48:20.560]  No, timely. Did you, did you file it with the, generally they wanted seven or ten days before
[48:20.560 --> 48:33.920]  a hearing? No, I filed the same within two days before you. Okay, then you may not get past that,
[48:33.920 --> 48:41.840]  but it doesn't really matter. Okay, he ruled on discovery that you had to provide.
[48:41.840 --> 48:50.960]  And, okay, interrogatories, you know, probably they have, discovery can be difficult for both
[48:50.960 --> 48:57.440]  sides, because you can say, I don't have enough information to answer this question.
[48:58.640 --> 49:08.560]  I don't recall. Question is in specific. We request clarity. You can beat them up with,
[49:08.560 --> 49:14.320]  discoveries in art form. Did they ask for admissions?
[49:16.560 --> 49:22.160]  No, these were interrogatories, and I sent them previous to the motion being filed. I sent them
[49:22.160 --> 49:30.000]  objections, and I sent a whole list of objections that, because the defendant, he didn't, you know,
[49:30.000 --> 49:35.600]  he didn't even change the form from his previous cases with somebody else. He put
[49:35.600 --> 49:42.880]  a different jurisdiction. He recited, he said like, you know, I'm the, the other party, he put
[49:42.880 --> 49:47.360]  the other party's name on it, things like that. So, I told him go correct your form, correct
[49:47.360 --> 49:52.640]  your questions, correct your definitions, your definitions and... No, don't ask him to correct
[49:52.640 --> 49:58.880]  them. Just say, I can't answer this question. And let him argue with the judge why you should
[49:58.880 --> 50:05.440]  answer a question that has somebody else's name on it. But he totally ignored what I had to say.
[50:07.600 --> 50:12.400]  Demanded the motion to compel, and the judge just gave him the motion to compel and throughout my
[50:12.400 --> 50:23.200]  objections. Okay, you don't care. This is, yeah, if the judge screws up, the more he screws up,
[50:23.200 --> 50:29.440]  the better. We've got Tim on and at the bottom we've got him. And, you know, I just picked on him
[50:29.440 --> 50:35.040]  saying that Tim was long-winded. Well, he's not really long-winded. But Tim was in a case.
[50:36.480 --> 50:44.880]  And the lawyers were absolutely outrageous. And Tim was real unhappy with how outrageous they are.
[50:44.880 --> 50:53.840]  And I told him, stop, stop, don't worry about it. The worse they screw up, the better. And it reached
[50:53.840 --> 51:03.280]  the point that we filed a petition for writ of mandamus. 12% of the rits of mandamus that are
[51:03.280 --> 51:11.120]  filed are picked up by the courts. They reject the rest of them. And all of those 12 that are picked
[51:11.120 --> 51:19.680]  up by the courts, 3% are ruled in favor of the filer. I was saying 2%, but I just saw a new
[51:19.680 --> 51:32.000]  statistic that said 3%. Tim filed a pro se writ of mandamus. And they ruled in his favor. I don't
[51:32.000 --> 51:44.240]  know if that has ever happened in Fort Worth District Court before. But the lawyers kept screwing up.
[51:45.600 --> 51:52.480]  And he let them screw up. And he was really getting upset about it and wanted to take them on. I
[51:52.480 --> 51:58.000]  tell him, never interfere with somebody when they're screwing up. But they screwed up bad enough
[51:58.000 --> 52:05.360]  that the mandamus was granted in his favor. And I almost couldn't believe it when he got the mandamus.
[52:05.360 --> 52:12.720]  So your whole purpose is to set the record for appeal. The more these lawyers screw up,
[52:12.720 --> 52:18.480]  the more shenanigans they pull, better for you when you get to court of appeals. So don't worry
[52:18.480 --> 52:25.280]  about it. If they demand answers, you can give them interrogatories. You don't have to give them
[52:25.280 --> 52:32.160]  what they want. You can give them something that's incomplete or something that's different
[52:32.160 --> 52:38.640]  than what they want. Then they have to go back to the judge. On a particular question,
[52:38.640 --> 52:45.600]  if it's interrogatory, you can say, I don't understand the interrogatory. It's unclear how
[52:45.600 --> 52:56.000]  to answer this question. Ask for clarity. It's not costing you as much as it's costing them.
[52:56.000 --> 53:03.600]  The whole point about this is drive their costs up through the roof. Have you asked the court to
[53:03.600 --> 53:12.160]  order mediation? If I don't give a definite answer to his interrogatory, can he file something else
[53:12.160 --> 53:18.080]  to penalize me or it will just keep going like that? Yeah. You need to answer in good faith.
[53:20.080 --> 53:24.880]  Yeah. If you answer in good faith but their question doesn't make any sense or it's talking
[53:24.880 --> 53:30.960]  about Mr. Smith, you can answer in good faith without giving them the response they want.
[53:30.960 --> 53:34.880]  You don't have to read between the lines and imagine that that question applies to you.
[53:34.880 --> 53:43.680]  You can, in good faith, say, I don't know of Mr. Smith and I'm not sure what he would say if he
[53:43.680 --> 53:51.280]  were in my shoes. You can just put it in a... The question is applying to me but the definitions
[53:51.280 --> 53:55.200]  are the preliminary instructions and definitions are wrong.
[53:55.200 --> 54:06.000]  We'll say that again. I missed something. The instructions. So the instructions for
[54:06.800 --> 54:14.640]  the beginning of the document where they discuss the definitions of document, of record,
[54:15.360 --> 54:24.320]  and who the interrogatories are applicable to are wrong while the actual questions are about my case.
[54:24.320 --> 54:35.040]  But they also override my certain of my rights. Wait a minute. There are definitions are wrong.
[54:35.760 --> 54:41.280]  You can't answer these until they correct that. You can file an objection that the...
[54:42.960 --> 54:46.800]  If the definitions are wrong, if they're referring to another case,
[54:46.800 --> 54:52.480]  then you can object to that and ask them to correct the document.
[54:54.640 --> 55:00.960]  I did. I asked them to... And they just kept going with the compel motion.
[55:00.960 --> 55:06.720]  Okay. Then if they're asking about somebody else, some other case, you just... Your answer is,
[55:06.720 --> 55:08.560]  I don't know. I don't know about that case.
[55:08.560 --> 55:19.040]  In Texas, it says the responding party. If the responding party is finding out information
[55:19.040 --> 55:25.360]  to put on the interrogatories, if the respondent party is getting their information obtained
[55:25.360 --> 55:34.720]  from some other person, then that party should so state. So you can make the indication in your
[55:34.720 --> 55:42.000]  answer. I don't know. I tried to find whatever goes along with the definitions that were wrong
[55:42.000 --> 55:52.000]  up there, and I don't know anything about that. Okay. Yeah. Let them fix it.
[55:55.280 --> 55:58.640]  He's giving me a timeframe to respond to what he didn't fix.
[55:58.640 --> 56:08.080]  So do I request a stay? Do I... Because I have a deadline to respond to these wrong
[56:08.080 --> 56:16.640]  definitions being imposed on me by this judge. Just give him a definition. Give him an answer.
[56:16.640 --> 56:21.040]  They don't have to be as complete as he wants it. Let him object about it if you don't like it.
[56:21.040 --> 56:32.400]  Okay. If you don't... If a question is unclear, you can ask him to clarify. If a question is...
[56:33.680 --> 56:40.480]  Okay. This goes... You need to study up on interrogatories or discovery. There are
[56:41.600 --> 56:44.800]  treatises out there that will tell you how to handle discovery.
[56:44.800 --> 56:52.000]  Okay. It's too complex for us to do on this short time we have on the show,
[56:52.560 --> 57:01.200]  but look up how to handle discovery. I will. Just got it. It's not hard. They'll give you
[57:01.200 --> 57:07.280]  lots of really cool tools where you can... It's hard to get good discovery because there's so many
[57:07.280 --> 57:20.000]  tricks and traps they can use to get around it. Okay. Get us a timeline and then call back next
[57:20.000 --> 57:28.720]  week. Yes, we'll do. Thanks so much. Okay. Thank you. Now we're going to go to David in Texas.
[57:28.720 --> 57:38.720]  Hello, David. What do you have for us today? Yeah, Randy. I have a case here from the federal court.
[57:39.520 --> 57:50.560]  He gave me an order that said that dismissed with prejudice. One part of the case, I guess,
[57:50.560 --> 58:01.920]  was that dismissed without prejudice concerning to the confinement issue I guess that was in there.
[58:01.920 --> 58:08.160]  Like when they threw me in jail. Okay. Wait a minute. This is way too confusing. I have no idea
[58:09.280 --> 58:16.160]  what you're talking about. Can you frame this issue? Tell us what this is about. You kind of
[58:16.160 --> 58:22.640]  started in the middle of something, but we're about to run out of time on this segment.
[58:23.600 --> 58:32.800]  So we'll pick this up when we come back on the other side. If you find value in what we provide
[58:32.800 --> 58:42.960]  here, we're going to our sponsors. You might check out Fred Graves' jurisdiction area and
[58:42.960 --> 58:52.240]  Eddie's traffic seminar and my legal 101 and also... Would you like to make more definite
[58:52.240 --> 58:58.160]  progress in your walk with God? Bibles for America is offering a free study Bible and
[58:58.160 --> 59:03.280]  a set of free Christian books that can really help. The New Testament recovery version is one of the
[59:03.280 --> 59:08.800]  most comprehensive study Bibles available today. It's an accurate translation and it contains
[59:08.800 --> 59:13.520]  thousands of footnotes that will help you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[59:13.520 --> 59:19.200]  The free books are a three volume set called basic elements of the Christian life. Chapter by
[59:19.200 --> 59:24.480]  chapter basic elements of the Christian life clearly presents God's plan of salvation,
[59:24.480 --> 59:30.960]  growing in Christ and how to build up the church to order your free New Testament recovery version
[59:30.960 --> 59:40.640]  and basic elements of the Christian life. Call Bibles for America toll free at 888-551-0102.
[59:40.640 --> 59:49.280]  That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[59:52.400 --> 59:58.560]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[59:58.560 --> 01:00:04.640]  The following news flash is brought to you by The Lowest Star of Lowdown.
[01:00:06.480 --> 01:00:13.200]  Markets for Monday the 22nd of July 2019 open with precious metals, gold at $1,429 an ounce,
[01:00:13.200 --> 01:00:20.960]  silver $16.45 an ounce, copper $2.75 an ounce, oil Texas crude $55.63 a barrel,
[01:00:20.960 --> 01:00:29.280]  Brent crude $62.47 a barrel, and cryptos in order of market cap, Bitcoin Core $10,566.52,
[01:00:29.280 --> 01:00:41.600]  Ethereum $227.26, XRP Ripple $0.33, Litecoin $100.31, and Bitcoin Cash is at $324.10 a crypto coin.
[01:00:41.600 --> 01:00:52.640]  Today in History, the year 1916, the Preparedness Day bombing, a time suitcase bomb was detonated
[01:00:52.640 --> 01:00:58.400]  on Market Street in San Francisco during the World War I Preparedness Day Parade, killing 10 and
[01:00:58.400 --> 01:01:07.600]  entering 40. Today in History. And recent news, since Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill
[01:01:07.600 --> 01:01:12.800]  1325, legalizing Hempett attacks his law back in June, county prosecutors around the state,
[01:01:12.800 --> 01:01:17.280]  including Houston, Austin, and San Antonio have been dropping marijuana possession charges and
[01:01:17.280 --> 01:01:21.760]  even refusing to file new ones, since they are stipulating that they do not have the time or
[01:01:21.760 --> 01:01:26.880]  the laboratory equipment to test the herb for THC. Margaret Moore, the Travis County District
[01:01:26.880 --> 01:01:31.280]  Attorney, announced earlier this month that she was dismissing 32 felony possession and delivery
[01:01:31.280 --> 01:01:36.080]  of marijuana cases because of the law. Mr. Abbott and other state officials, including the
[01:01:36.080 --> 01:01:40.240]  Attorney General, stipulated in a letter to county district attorneys back on Thursday that
[01:01:40.240 --> 01:01:45.840]  marijuana has not been decriminalized in Texas and that these actions demonstrate a misunderstanding
[01:01:45.840 --> 01:01:52.480]  of how HB 1325 works, as well as other cities, too, like the district attorney in El Paso,
[01:01:52.480 --> 01:01:57.440]  Caima Esparza, a Democrat who also stated earlier this month that the law, quote,
[01:01:57.440 --> 01:02:02.880]  will not have an effect on the prosecution of marijuana cases in El Paso. However, the issue
[01:02:02.880 --> 01:02:07.840]  was succinctly summarized by Mr. Brandon Ball, an assistant public defender in Harris County who
[01:02:07.840 --> 01:02:12.320]  stated that, quote, the law is constantly changing on what makes something illegal based on its
[01:02:12.320 --> 01:02:17.360]  chemical makeup. It's important that if someone is charged with something, the test matches what
[01:02:17.360 --> 01:02:26.480]  they're charged with. A paper by Tulane University identified a five and a half inch American
[01:02:26.480 --> 01:02:32.160]  pocket shark as the first of its kind in the Gulf of Mexico, the specimen being only the second
[01:02:32.160 --> 01:02:37.920]  pocket shark ever captured or recorded with the other one being found way back in 1979 in the
[01:02:37.920 --> 01:02:43.120]  East Pacific Ocean. According to the university paper, the shark secretes a lumus fluid from
[01:02:43.120 --> 01:02:49.840]  a gland near its front fins for the purposes hypothesized to lure and prey who may be drawn
[01:02:49.840 --> 01:03:04.880]  into the glow. This was Ruth Rody with your lowdown for July 22, 2019.
[01:03:19.840 --> 01:03:32.800]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Wheel of Law Radio, and we're talking to David
[01:03:32.800 --> 01:03:38.320]  in Texas. Okay, David, give us a quick synopsis of your case and where you're at.
[01:03:40.160 --> 01:03:43.760]  Oh, yeah. This is the problem with the high grass and weeds and
[01:03:43.760 --> 01:03:50.960]  junk trash. They're just trying to let a couple bucks here with these citations from the municipality.
[01:03:51.760 --> 01:04:03.760]  So I ran it up to the federal court. I sued them federal court. I got one and this one here is for
[01:04:03.760 --> 01:04:14.640]  the JP. I saw that too, him too. What they did is they said that it looked like that on his,
[01:04:15.440 --> 01:04:27.280]  you know, how he didn't follow procedure, free trial procedure to all he did was to walk in
[01:04:27.280 --> 01:04:33.760]  the court. He says, make a plea, that's it. He gets a couple bucks out of him and throws you in jail.
[01:04:36.160 --> 01:04:43.840]  I think that first part there, they dismissed it with prejudice. But then they wrote
[01:04:43.840 --> 01:04:52.080]  behind it there, except for the claims based on his conditions of confinement and state law claims
[01:04:52.080 --> 01:04:58.160]  over which this court lacks jurisdiction, which are dismissed without prejudice.
[01:05:00.000 --> 01:05:07.840]  So what are they saying? Okay, I'm not okay. Confinement. Confinement. Tell me about confinement.
[01:05:09.440 --> 01:05:12.880]  I think they're stipulated about the time I spent in jail.
[01:05:14.800 --> 01:05:19.360]  That's probably how long did you sit in jail and what did you sit in jail for?
[01:05:19.360 --> 01:05:26.320]  Oh, I wasn't charged with anything. I just didn't, I didn't want to give them any money. I didn't
[01:05:26.320 --> 01:05:32.560]  have any money to give them anyway. Well, they couldn't put you in jail unless they charged you
[01:05:32.560 --> 01:05:38.400]  with something. Well, I'm not in charge of anything. I got the court records. The only thing they said
[01:05:38.400 --> 01:05:45.200]  the court record was the citation. That was it. No information, no complaints, no accusatory.
[01:05:45.200 --> 01:05:52.320]  Okay, in a municipal, they can, in certain circumstances, they can prosecute on the citation.
[01:05:57.360 --> 01:06:05.360]  Did you have any, okay. This is, I don't have any more near enough information to know how to speak
[01:06:05.360 --> 01:06:13.040]  to this. You're telling me that they dismissed part of it with prejudice, part of it without
[01:06:13.040 --> 01:06:20.400]  prejudice, but I have no idea what the specifics are. So I can't answer questions if I don't know
[01:06:20.400 --> 01:06:30.480]  what's going on. All right. Well, then I'll, I'll sit here and see what I could do because I have
[01:06:31.120 --> 01:06:36.400]  more like this and they let it. Okay. Right, right up, right up a timeline, a
[01:06:36.400 --> 01:06:42.640]  sensuous statement of everything that's going on and email that to me. And I can go down
[01:06:42.640 --> 01:06:53.760]  through that and then I can speak more clearly to the issues because right now I don't know
[01:06:53.760 --> 01:07:00.960]  where they are. You took a municipal court issue to the federal court. I don't know what your
[01:07:00.960 --> 01:07:07.600]  causes of action are, what the claims are, how you get around official immunity and derivative
[01:07:07.600 --> 01:07:13.680]  immunity. There's a whole lot of questions I don't have here. So I don't know what's going on. I will
[01:07:13.680 --> 01:07:19.760]  say though, I think it's just beautiful that you're taking, you're going to the feds with this.
[01:07:20.400 --> 01:07:25.840]  Municipality came at you with grass and weeds arguments and, and you're taking it to the feds.
[01:07:25.840 --> 01:07:31.200]  I just, I love it. Yeah, well, yes, they're not going to want to do this.
[01:07:31.200 --> 01:07:39.120]  The court, state court and all that stuff, but most of your local courts are corrupt anyway,
[01:07:39.120 --> 01:07:43.920]  at least when you get in the fed they give you a fair shake. I wanted to ask you one more thing
[01:07:43.920 --> 01:07:53.200]  here on this subject matter jurisdiction. I've been trying to find some cases so I could file
[01:07:53.200 --> 01:07:59.280]  with this other lawsuit there. Do you have anything off the top of your head that I might,
[01:07:59.280 --> 01:08:04.560]  where am I starting looking? Oh, for, for subject matter jurisdiction?
[01:08:05.840 --> 01:08:11.680]  Yeah, I typed it in like you said in the Google. Okay. Well, yeah, for subject matter jurisdictions,
[01:08:11.680 --> 01:08:16.240]  as a matter of fact, I do have something that goes to such matter jurisdiction.
[01:08:17.120 --> 01:08:26.400]  And I've got Tim from Texas on. Tim, tell him about subject matter jurisdiction in your case.
[01:08:26.400 --> 01:08:31.360]  Uh, what, what, what am I supposed to say?
[01:08:33.440 --> 01:08:37.360]  Oh, you're supposed to say something insightful and articulate.
[01:08:38.160 --> 01:08:44.880]  Uh, well, okay. In, in Tim's case, this was a municipal court case.
[01:08:44.880 --> 01:08:52.880]  In all the way. And we're sued in district court on civil charges.
[01:08:52.880 --> 01:09:01.520]  And eventually by mandamus, they overturned the original administrative process, which they said
[01:09:01.520 --> 01:09:09.120]  that. Okay, hold on, hold on. You're jumping all over the place. Back to subject matter jurisdiction
[01:09:09.120 --> 01:09:22.000]  challenge. We sued the city under declaratory judgment. Declaratory judgment is no claim
[01:09:22.000 --> 01:09:25.680]  that you're not asking for any harm. So there's no immunity.
[01:09:27.840 --> 01:09:36.800]  We, the argument that we made was that the constitution authorizes the legislature to
[01:09:36.800 --> 01:09:46.880]  make law. They also authorized the legislature to create courts as they need them. But nothing
[01:09:46.880 --> 01:09:54.320]  authorized the legislature to delegate its law making authority to a municipal corporation.
[01:09:55.680 --> 01:10:00.400]  So when municipal corporations wrote law, they call them ordinances.
[01:10:02.560 --> 01:10:11.920]  But if an ordinance has the effect of law, it is law. And nothing in the constitution
[01:10:11.920 --> 01:10:17.600]  authorizes the legislature to delegate its authority to write law. Therefore, municipal
[01:10:17.600 --> 01:10:27.920]  ordinances run as they are applied to individuals who are not in contractual privity with the
[01:10:29.280 --> 01:10:38.960]  municipal corporation are if they are enforced against someone who's not in contractual privity,
[01:10:38.960 --> 01:10:47.280]  then they are unconstitutional. If you are a member of the corporation, like an employee,
[01:10:47.840 --> 01:10:56.000]  or if you're under contract with the municipality, where you have agreed to their contractual
[01:10:56.000 --> 01:11:03.760]  covenants, then they apply. But if you're an ordinary citizen and you haven't agreed to the
[01:11:03.760 --> 01:11:10.720]  covenants of the municipality, then they can't apply to you. That would be unconstitutional.
[01:11:10.720 --> 01:11:22.080]  That's the argument that we made. I have a question. Okay. Is there any case law that says that?
[01:11:25.040 --> 01:11:29.840]  No, we made that up. We're trying to get case law. This was Eddie's argument.
[01:11:29.840 --> 01:11:38.080]  As far as we can tell, nobody's ever challenged that issue. Or if they have challenged the issue,
[01:11:38.640 --> 01:11:43.840]  it hasn't got to the courts. It was to be filled out of the courts before there was a
[01:11:43.840 --> 01:11:51.600]  determination on it. It's a first plus issue. That would have been a good one on mine, huh?
[01:11:51.600 --> 01:12:02.640]  It was on yours. Okay. I know there was a constitutional challenge, but it got ignored.
[01:12:04.480 --> 01:12:09.360]  That's what the constitutional challenge was. Ignored?
[01:12:12.080 --> 01:12:19.840]  No. It was a challenge to the constitutionality of the ordinances as they applied to
[01:12:19.840 --> 01:12:29.440]  a ordinary citizen as opposed to a someone in contractual privity with the municipality.
[01:12:32.160 --> 01:12:38.560]  David, if you're interested, send me an email and ask for it. I will cut out that argument and
[01:12:38.560 --> 01:12:47.840]  send it to you. Oh, no. I have your case here on the picture. I've been using those two pages
[01:12:47.840 --> 01:12:53.440]  there on the subject matter jurisdiction. I've been sending those along, but I thought that
[01:12:53.440 --> 01:13:05.040]  there might have been a case law on it. Send me an email asking for my subject matter jurisdiction
[01:13:05.040 --> 01:13:12.160]  folder. I've got a whole bunch of stuff on it. Oh, okay. I'll do that. Could I ask you one more
[01:13:12.160 --> 01:13:24.640]  thing? Sure. Can I take the file? Can I choose a clerk of court in federal under what you say,
[01:13:24.640 --> 01:13:32.560]  12B6 and not state of claim or state for money? And then when I get that ruling back, can I take
[01:13:32.560 --> 01:13:40.400]  that to the... No, wait, wait, wait. This is way too confused. You can't sue a clerk for 12B6.
[01:13:40.400 --> 01:13:46.880]  12B6 is a motion to dismiss for failure state claim, which you can't be had. You have to sue
[01:13:46.880 --> 01:13:54.480]  the clerk for acting outside the scope of her authority. What did the clerk do that you want
[01:13:54.480 --> 01:14:01.600]  to sue the clerk for? Oh, they won't let me file. I have complaints to file. They won't let me file.
[01:14:02.720 --> 01:14:08.080]  That's first amendment violation. Absolutely. You can sue a first amendment violation.
[01:14:08.080 --> 01:14:17.120]  Oh, first amendment. Denied you in your right to petition the court for redress of grievance.
[01:14:19.280 --> 01:14:27.040]  That is one of the oldest. That was in the original Magna Carta signed in 1215 AD
[01:14:28.080 --> 01:14:34.800]  that has been in law ever since. Yeah, I have a copy of that here. So, I can file that in the
[01:14:34.800 --> 01:14:42.080]  federal. And then when I get an order back from the federal, take that up and shove that under
[01:14:42.080 --> 01:14:49.680]  her nose, huh? Exactly. Where you can file criminally against a clerk, too. Yeah, once I get that
[01:14:49.680 --> 01:14:55.920]  federal order, then I could file against her criminally. And then I could probably also sue
[01:14:55.920 --> 01:15:06.240]  her, too, monetarily, right? Yes. That's outside scope. Like outside the scope? It's outside the
[01:15:06.240 --> 01:15:12.000]  scope of her authority. She has no power to deny you access to the courts. That's a criminal act.
[01:15:12.720 --> 01:15:22.160]  And crimes are not within scope. Right. So, I could sue her for money. Yes.
[01:15:22.160 --> 01:15:26.720]  Yeah. Okay. Not saying you'll win, but you can certainly sue.
[01:15:27.680 --> 01:15:34.880]  Oh, I'm not worried about winning. Yes. They sent me back a letter on these bar grievances,
[01:15:35.440 --> 01:15:42.640]  like I had like five of them. And they, I don't know, it was kind of a vague letter
[01:15:43.280 --> 01:15:51.920]  that indicated... They're treating your grievance as an inquiry. That's what
[01:15:51.920 --> 01:15:59.440]  they're doing these days. Is that what it said? Well, that's what Texas is doing anyway.
[01:16:02.160 --> 01:16:05.520]  So, how should I approach this when I file another bar grievance?
[01:16:06.720 --> 01:16:13.760]  Well, you do two things. I suggest two things. One, they're going to send you, along with that,
[01:16:13.760 --> 01:16:19.520]  blah, blah, blah, we treat it like an inquiry and dismiss it. They're going to send you a paper in
[01:16:19.520 --> 01:16:25.280]  the back of that. There's two of them, actually. One's in Spanish. And it just has a place on
[01:16:25.280 --> 01:16:30.640]  there where you basically sign your name on there saying you want that appeal. It's an appeal form.
[01:16:30.640 --> 01:16:36.400]  It goes to a different bunch. So, just stirs up more politics in there, makes them have to look
[01:16:36.400 --> 01:16:42.480]  at it again, makes a different bunch, have to review what the first bunch did. And you can quote
[01:16:42.480 --> 01:16:54.000]  in there that their processes, their Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure 2.10 involve
[01:16:54.000 --> 01:16:59.840]  a misclassification per their definitions, 1.06G.
[01:17:04.000 --> 01:17:10.160]  It's the 2019 Logos Radio Network Annual Fundraiser and Gun Giveaway, sponsored by Central Texas
[01:17:10.160 --> 01:17:16.160]  Gun Works. Go to LogosRadioNetwork.com and enter to win. Any amount is appreciated.
[01:17:16.160 --> 01:17:21.440]  Everything helps to keep us on the air. From Central Texas Gun Works, the grand prize up for
[01:17:21.440 --> 01:17:28.880]  grabs is the Spikes Tactical AR-15. More prizes and sponsors to be announced. Every $25 donation
[01:17:28.880 --> 01:17:35.760]  is a chance to win. When you purchase Randy Kelton's e-book, Legal 101, you get four chances to win.
[01:17:35.760 --> 01:17:40.960]  Purchase Eddie Craig's traffic seminar and get ten chances to win. If you've enjoyed the shows
[01:17:40.960 --> 01:17:46.400]  on Logos Radio Network, support our fundraiser so we can keep bringing you the best quality
[01:17:46.400 --> 01:17:52.400]  programming on Talk Radio today. We also accept Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. And remember,
[01:17:52.400 --> 01:17:59.520]  every $25 donation is a chance to win. Go to LogosRadioNetwork.com for details and donate today.
[01:18:00.640 --> 01:18:05.520]  I love logos. Without the shows on this network, I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends. I'm so
[01:18:05.520 --> 01:18:10.160]  addicted to the truth now that there's no going back. I need my truth pick. I'd be lost without
[01:18:10.160 --> 01:18:15.040]  logos. And I really want to help keep this network on the air. I'd love to volunteer as a show
[01:18:15.040 --> 01:18:19.600]  producer, but I'm a bit of a Luddite and I really don't have any money to give because I spend it
[01:18:19.600 --> 01:18:25.360]  all on supplements. How can I help logos? Well, I'm glad you asked. Whenever you order anything
[01:18:25.360 --> 01:18:30.720]  from Amazon, you can help logos. With order and your supplies or holiday gifts. First thing you do
[01:18:30.720 --> 01:18:38.480]  is clear your cookies. Now go to LogosRadioNetwork.com. Click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it. Now
[01:18:38.480 --> 01:18:44.880]  when you order anything from Amazon, you use that link and logos get a few pesos. Do I pay extra?
[01:18:44.880 --> 01:18:50.880]  No. Do you have to do anything different when I order? No. Can I use my Amazon Prime? No. I mean
[01:18:50.880 --> 01:18:57.360]  yes. Wow. Giving without doing anything or spending any money. This is perfect. Thank you so much.
[01:18:57.360 --> 01:19:07.200]  We are welcome. Happy holidays, Logos. This is the Logos Logos Radio Network.
[01:19:27.440 --> 01:19:39.200]  If I can get everything I want.
[01:19:39.200 --> 01:19:44.240]  I'll give you an arrangement.
[01:19:44.240 --> 01:19:50.400]  If I can get everything I need.
[01:19:50.400 --> 01:20:14.080]  Okay, we are back. I think Brett is still in free fall from diving off the cliff there.
[01:20:14.080 --> 01:20:22.080]  And that was run and tuck and roll. That was real dive right there.
[01:20:22.080 --> 01:20:33.080]  Alright, so with the bargery, with the misclassified bar grievance, my suggestion is that you do two things.
[01:20:33.080 --> 01:20:41.080]  One is, as you respond to that, there's a B-O-D-A appeal.
[01:20:41.080 --> 01:20:51.080]  And then they send you, they go ahead and give you the form. All you got to do, you can even stamp a photo with it and just email it back to them.
[01:20:51.080 --> 01:21:00.080]  You can also fax it. But that's one thing that makes another bunch of people get involved in stirring up trouble and calling the law.
[01:21:00.080 --> 01:21:08.080]  You're up and make him respond and all that. But the other thing you can do is look on that, who signs of that thing?
[01:21:08.080 --> 01:21:16.080]  It'll say, usually they try to make it as nondescript as possible. They'll put an initial or something.
[01:21:16.080 --> 01:21:24.080]  And you can find out who that was and bargery that law. You're for incompetence because they should be able to read.
[01:21:24.080 --> 01:21:32.080]  And that can't, obviously can't read. And that's part of the competence required for their job.
[01:21:32.080 --> 01:21:45.080]  So that's a violation of rule number one. Scott Richardson filed a T-Close number of T-Cole complaints, the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement.
[01:21:45.080 --> 01:21:57.080]  And they just blew him off. So he got the sergeant who ruled against him and he filed against the sergeant.
[01:21:57.080 --> 01:22:04.080]  It was great fun. Okay, does that sound like fun, David?
[01:22:04.080 --> 01:22:14.080]  Yeah. What about a lawsuit against these guys that sit on that Bar-Greve's committee? Can a lawsuit against them?
[01:22:14.080 --> 01:22:19.080]  It's possible, but extremely tough.
[01:22:19.080 --> 01:22:23.080]  Oh, I don't care if I win anything. Just shake them up.
[01:22:23.080 --> 01:22:29.080]  Oh, well, yeah, you can.
[01:22:29.080 --> 01:22:36.080]  That would be hard to get to because they're actually acting within scope.
[01:22:36.080 --> 01:22:43.080]  They're looking at your grievance and saying, we don't believe that your grievance is sufficient.
[01:22:43.080 --> 01:22:48.080]  You're saying, well, I believe it is sufficient. In that case, they are within scope.
[01:22:48.080 --> 01:23:01.080]  Now, if you could create a claim of an ongoing pattern of abuse, you might be able to bring them outside of scope.
[01:23:01.080 --> 01:23:05.080]  And that's kind of tough.
[01:23:05.080 --> 01:23:13.080]  Well, if I use Scott Richardson's big stack of Bar-Greve's and maybe some more people may ever file that whole thing.
[01:23:13.080 --> 01:23:19.080]  Yeah, if you can find out who they are, if they have bar cards, then you could Bar-Greve them.
[01:23:19.080 --> 01:23:21.080]  Oh, yeah.
[01:23:21.080 --> 01:23:31.080]  And I've done that. I have done that. I've put in a records request and I said, on such and such a Bar-Greve's code number,
[01:23:31.080 --> 01:23:37.080]  I got a D. Smith answering me, I need you to identify this by their full name and their bar number.
[01:23:37.080 --> 01:23:46.080]  And then, eventually, I got the response back from a records request and I filed a Bar-Greve's against that D. Smith.
[01:23:46.080 --> 01:23:54.080]  A-V-V-O will also give you their number and how many Bar-Greve's since they've had,
[01:23:54.080 --> 01:23:59.080]  because I looked up a number of judges on that site.
[01:23:59.080 --> 01:24:02.080]  Okay, what was the site?
[01:24:02.080 --> 01:24:10.080]  It's A-V-V-O, I believe. It's in blue color.
[01:24:10.080 --> 01:24:13.080]  I don't know. I had a bookmark here.
[01:24:13.080 --> 01:24:21.080]  But I was looking through these judges when I was in court on the county level.
[01:24:21.080 --> 01:24:25.080]  I didn't start with anybody up on the state level yet.
[01:24:25.080 --> 01:24:37.080]  But like you said, you know, you run through their, dig in their background a little bit and see how much you can dig up on them.
[01:24:37.080 --> 01:24:38.080]  There's a lot of stuff.
[01:24:38.080 --> 01:24:45.080]  Send me an email asking for my financial disclosure motion.
[01:24:45.080 --> 01:24:48.080]  That's what it was, yeah.
[01:24:48.080 --> 01:24:51.080]  Oh, you'll like that one. It makes them nuts.
[01:24:51.080 --> 01:24:56.080]  They never respond to it, but it tells them that you're looking behind the curtain.
[01:24:56.080 --> 01:25:01.080]  Oh, you got to start down to the court.
[01:25:01.080 --> 01:25:05.080]  Okay, okay. We've got a whole board full of callers in.
[01:25:05.080 --> 01:25:14.080]  To indeed to move along. Do you have any specific questions?
[01:25:14.080 --> 01:25:18.080]  Hello?
[01:25:18.080 --> 01:25:22.080]  David, did I lose you?
[01:25:22.080 --> 01:25:30.080]  Well, that was odd. Okay, it looks like I lost David.
[01:25:30.080 --> 01:25:36.080]  He shows to still be on, but I couldn't hear him.
[01:25:36.080 --> 01:25:40.080]  David, are you there?
[01:25:40.080 --> 01:25:42.080]  Yeah, it sounds like I lost him. Okay.
[01:25:42.080 --> 01:25:47.080]  Tim, what do you have for us today?
[01:25:47.080 --> 01:25:52.080]  First, I wanted to tell you that David said good night while you were talking.
[01:25:52.080 --> 01:25:57.080]  Oh, okay. Okay, I couldn't hear that.
[01:25:57.080 --> 01:25:59.080]  But he still shows to be on the board.
[01:25:59.080 --> 01:26:04.080]  It sounds like he's got it together pretty good with the things that he has filed.
[01:26:04.080 --> 01:26:07.080]  Yeah, he's having great time going after him.
[01:26:07.080 --> 01:26:09.080]  Yeah, he's not wasting any time.
[01:26:09.080 --> 01:26:13.080]  He's just getting with it. He just needs a few pointers here and there.
[01:26:13.080 --> 01:26:18.080]  Me, I'm kind of just fumbled, you know, all the way.
[01:26:18.080 --> 01:26:25.080]  No, I just was thinking about our opportunity that we may have.
[01:26:25.080 --> 01:26:30.080]  And I was thinking about the dirty hands doctrine.
[01:26:30.080 --> 01:26:38.080]  And so I was looking at what constitutes a prosecutor working within scope.
[01:26:38.080 --> 01:26:46.080]  I was reading a couple of those cases that said there was one guy that had been given a plea deal,
[01:26:46.080 --> 01:26:55.080]  but he said that the prosecutor had elicited lies about his plea deal.
[01:26:55.080 --> 01:27:03.080]  And they said, but there's nothing as long as the attorney was working within the scope of his job,
[01:27:03.080 --> 01:27:06.080]  then there was nothing they could do.
[01:27:06.080 --> 01:27:17.080]  Okay, yes, whether or not you can bring them out of scope depends on how you frame your claim.
[01:27:17.080 --> 01:27:23.080]  If you claim that what the prosecutor did was criminal,
[01:27:23.080 --> 01:27:30.080]  they cannot claim that criminal behavior is within scope.
[01:27:30.080 --> 01:27:36.080]  So a lot of it will go to how you frame the claim against them.
[01:27:36.080 --> 01:27:45.080]  An example of scope and crime is the jail guard out of El Paso,
[01:27:45.080 --> 01:27:51.080]  picks up a 19-year-old girl from one jail, transporting her to another jail,
[01:27:51.080 --> 01:27:57.080]  and decides to stop for a little recreation in between and rapes her.
[01:27:57.080 --> 01:28:02.080]  She sues him. He claims that he was transporting her,
[01:28:02.080 --> 01:28:06.080]  and at the time he was acting within scope.
[01:28:06.080 --> 01:28:12.080]  And the court said that rape is not within scope.
[01:28:12.080 --> 01:28:19.080]  Crime is not within scope of anyone's official capacity.
[01:28:19.080 --> 01:28:28.080]  So if you claim that the prosecutor exerted or purported to exert as though he didn't have,
[01:28:28.080 --> 01:28:36.080]  or that the prosecutor elicited false testimony and reduced that false testimony to a government document,
[01:28:36.080 --> 01:28:42.080]  and then filed that government document, that's tampering with a government document,
[01:28:42.080 --> 01:28:49.080]  and perjury, aggravated perjury, those are not within scope.
[01:28:49.080 --> 01:28:54.080]  So what's real important is how you frame your claim.
[01:28:54.080 --> 01:29:01.080]  Remember we talked about suing the city for declaratory judgment.
[01:29:01.080 --> 01:29:06.080]  And when I was doing that, you were kind of new, so you probably don't remember this part.
[01:29:06.080 --> 01:29:17.080]  I said we're suing the city for declaratory judgment, because in declaratory judgment they have no immunity.
[01:29:17.080 --> 01:29:21.080]  We framed that carefully to get outside their immunity.
[01:29:21.080 --> 01:29:25.080]  The courts ignored that part and ruled the way they wanted to,
[01:29:25.080 --> 01:29:32.080]  but it didn't matter because the court in the case was tossed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
[01:29:32.080 --> 01:29:36.080]  Now we go back to this prosecutor.
[01:29:36.080 --> 01:29:43.080]  Tim goes to court, oh, for 20 seconds before we run off the cliff.
[01:29:43.080 --> 01:29:46.080]  I was about to run off the cliff.
[01:29:46.080 --> 01:29:51.080]  Only Brett runs off the cliff, not me.
[01:29:51.080 --> 01:29:55.080]  Hang on, go on to our sponsors.
[01:29:55.080 --> 01:30:02.080]  We'll be right back.
[01:30:02.080 --> 01:30:06.080]  Could your pharmacy release your prescription information to marketers?
[01:30:06.080 --> 01:30:09.080]  Believe it or not, it's not only possible, it's probably been done.
[01:30:09.080 --> 01:30:16.080]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be back with loopholes that make it legal for companies like CVS to share your personal health information.
[01:30:16.080 --> 01:30:18.080]  Privacy is under attack.
[01:30:18.080 --> 01:30:22.080]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:30:22.080 --> 01:30:27.080]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:30:27.080 --> 01:30:32.080]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:30:32.080 --> 01:30:35.080]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[01:30:35.080 --> 01:30:38.080]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com,
[01:30:38.080 --> 01:30:42.080]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[01:30:42.080 --> 01:30:45.080]  Start over with StartPage.
[01:30:45.080 --> 01:30:50.080]  Your pharmacy may be sharing your medical information without your knowledge or consent.
[01:30:50.080 --> 01:30:55.080]  For example, CVS pharmacies are likely to disclose your personal health information to business associates.
[01:30:55.080 --> 01:31:01.080]  A loophole in the law allows it if parties agree to execute a contract to, quote, safeguard the data.
[01:31:01.080 --> 01:31:04.080]  Business associates could range from marketers to insurance companies,
[01:31:04.080 --> 01:31:09.080]  and while they might keep information locked up, there's no telling how it might come back to bite you.
[01:31:09.080 --> 01:31:12.080]  Ask your pharmacy to disclose how it shared your previous data,
[01:31:12.080 --> 01:31:15.080]  and requesting writing that it not be sold, rented, or shared.
[01:31:15.080 --> 01:31:20.080]  And most importantly, take your future prescriptions to establishments that guarantee real privacy.
[01:31:20.080 --> 01:31:22.080]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[01:31:22.080 --> 01:31:25.080]  More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:31:30.080 --> 01:31:36.080]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11th.
[01:31:36.080 --> 01:31:38.080]  The government says that fire brought it down.
[01:31:38.080 --> 01:31:43.080]  However, 1,500 architects and engineers have concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[01:31:43.080 --> 01:31:46.080]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives,
[01:31:46.080 --> 01:31:49.080]  and thousands of my fellow first responders have died.
[01:31:49.080 --> 01:31:50.080]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[01:31:50.080 --> 01:31:51.080]  I'm a structural engineer.
[01:31:51.080 --> 01:31:52.080]  I'm a New York City correction officer.
[01:31:52.080 --> 01:31:53.080]  I'm an Air Force pilot.
[01:31:53.080 --> 01:31:55.080]  I'm a father who lost his son.
[01:31:55.080 --> 01:31:57.080]  We're Americans, and we deserve the truth.
[01:31:57.080 --> 01:32:01.080]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[01:32:01.080 --> 01:32:05.080]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law traffic similar.
[01:32:05.080 --> 01:32:07.080]  In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society,
[01:32:07.080 --> 01:32:10.080]  and if we, the people, are ever going to have a free society,
[01:32:10.080 --> 01:32:12.080]  then we're going to have to stand in and defend our own rights.
[01:32:12.080 --> 01:32:15.080]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place,
[01:32:15.080 --> 01:32:17.080]  the right to act in our own private capacity,
[01:32:17.080 --> 01:32:19.080]  and most importantly, the right to due process of law.
[01:32:19.080 --> 01:32:22.080]  Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity
[01:32:22.080 --> 01:32:25.080]  to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process.
[01:32:25.080 --> 01:32:27.080]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig,
[01:32:27.080 --> 01:32:28.080]  in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio,
[01:32:28.080 --> 01:32:31.080]  has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available
[01:32:31.080 --> 01:32:33.080]  that will help you understand what due process is
[01:32:33.080 --> 01:32:35.080]  and how to hold the courts to the rule of law.
[01:32:35.080 --> 01:32:37.080]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material
[01:32:37.080 --> 01:32:40.080]  by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today.
[01:32:40.080 --> 01:32:42.080]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book,
[01:32:42.080 --> 01:32:45.080]  The Texas Transportation Code, The Law vs. the Lie,
[01:32:45.080 --> 01:32:47.080]  video and audio of the original 2009 seminar.
[01:32:47.080 --> 01:32:50.080]  Hundreds of research documents and other useful resource material.
[01:32:50.080 --> 01:32:52.080]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material
[01:32:52.080 --> 01:32:54.080]  from ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:32:54.080 --> 01:32:57.080]  Order your copy today and together we can have the free society
[01:32:57.080 --> 01:32:59.080]  we all want and deserve.
[01:33:01.080 --> 01:33:04.080]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network.
[01:33:04.080 --> 01:33:11.080]  LogosRadioNetwork.com
[01:33:34.080 --> 01:33:36.080]  Okay, we are back.
[01:33:36.080 --> 01:33:38.080]  Randy Kelston, Rule of Law Radio.
[01:33:38.080 --> 01:33:41.080]  And we're talking to Tim in Texas.
[01:33:41.080 --> 01:33:46.080]  And we're talking about scope.
[01:33:46.080 --> 01:33:53.080]  And it's all about how you frame your claim.
[01:33:53.080 --> 01:34:00.080]  What keeps you in court is not what you can prove up.
[01:34:00.080 --> 01:34:04.080]  What keeps you in court is not what you can prove up,
[01:34:04.080 --> 01:34:07.080]  but the nature of your claim.
[01:34:07.080 --> 01:34:18.080]  Okay, so if you've got a prosecutor who has misrepresented
[01:34:18.080 --> 01:34:25.080]  both the city, or excuse me, he's misrepresented the city,
[01:34:25.080 --> 01:34:30.080]  I guess in the court by offering an administrative hearing,
[01:34:30.080 --> 01:34:35.080]  whether it was negligent or actual fraud,
[01:34:35.080 --> 01:34:42.080]  can just because say you had a violation.
[01:34:42.080 --> 01:34:45.080]  That's the whole reason why you're in court.
[01:34:45.080 --> 01:34:51.080]  And they try to avoid a trial by jury because the possibility
[01:34:51.080 --> 01:34:54.080]  you have enough friends in that town and they'll find you innocent
[01:34:54.080 --> 01:34:56.080]  just because they like you.
[01:34:56.080 --> 01:34:59.080]  That's where politics comes into play.
[01:34:59.080 --> 01:35:03.080]  So they offer an administrative hearing which is legal
[01:35:03.080 --> 01:35:05.080]  as long as they have adopted it into the ordinance,
[01:35:05.080 --> 01:35:09.080]  but fortunately our city has.
[01:35:09.080 --> 01:35:15.080]  But something happens when the lawyer switched it from
[01:35:15.080 --> 01:35:19.080]  a prosecution to an administrative hearing?
[01:35:19.080 --> 01:35:24.080]  Yeah, the lawyer was no longer a prosecutor.
[01:35:24.080 --> 01:35:26.080]  Right, exactly.
[01:35:26.080 --> 01:35:32.080]  So now she's a lawyer for the county, I mean for the city,
[01:35:32.080 --> 01:35:38.080]  and the courts in this case ruled that they had immunity,
[01:35:38.080 --> 01:35:42.080]  but there's no law to support that.
[01:35:42.080 --> 01:35:44.080]  Who had the immunity?
[01:35:44.080 --> 01:35:47.080]  The lawyers for the city.
[01:35:47.080 --> 01:35:52.080]  I don't know of any law supporting such a thing.
[01:35:52.080 --> 01:35:54.080]  Music is still rolling.
[01:35:54.080 --> 01:35:58.080]  Oh, somebody forgot to fade out the faders.
[01:35:58.080 --> 01:36:01.080]  Brad, did you forget the faders?
[01:36:01.080 --> 01:36:03.080]  Sorry about that.
[01:36:03.080 --> 01:36:05.080]  I must have.
[01:36:05.080 --> 01:36:10.080]  Were you talking about, you said that they ruled that they were immune?
[01:36:10.080 --> 01:36:16.080]  You talking about where they dismissed our civil case against them?
[01:36:16.080 --> 01:36:18.080]  Yes.
[01:36:18.080 --> 01:36:23.080]  Okay, well, they did that because they said that we had filed
[01:36:23.080 --> 01:36:30.080]  the declaratory judgment against the city which automatically releases them.
[01:36:30.080 --> 01:36:35.080]  That's what the paper said from the court, and it's even going slow now.
[01:36:35.080 --> 01:36:41.080]  Yeah, it immunized the city employees, not the lawyers.
[01:36:41.080 --> 01:36:45.080]  Well, the lawyers wrapped themselves in that,
[01:36:45.080 --> 01:36:50.080]  and I don't see any law that wraps the lawyers in that.
[01:36:50.080 --> 01:36:57.080]  Well, I think it was 116.011A or something.
[01:36:57.080 --> 01:37:03.080]  Yeah, but that did not name the lawyers, that city employees.
[01:37:03.080 --> 01:37:05.080]  Okay.
[01:37:05.080 --> 01:37:09.080]  The lawyers tried to group themselves in as city employees
[01:37:09.080 --> 01:37:13.080]  because they knew the judge is a lawyer and he would try to protect the lawyers.
[01:37:13.080 --> 01:37:14.080]  That's what they do.
[01:37:14.080 --> 01:37:17.080]  But when we get out of those lower courts, into the higher courts,
[01:37:17.080 --> 01:37:20.080]  that kind of garbage is not going to fly.
[01:37:20.080 --> 01:37:25.080]  And here we're preparing a suit against them.
[01:37:25.080 --> 01:37:30.080]  And I was talking to Tim yesterday about this.
[01:37:30.080 --> 01:37:36.080]  We had a criminal prosecution in progress.
[01:37:36.080 --> 01:37:45.080]  And Tim came in and the lawyer took him in the back and played Let's Make Ideal.
[01:37:45.080 --> 01:37:49.080]  And Tim wasn't having any part of making the deal.
[01:37:49.080 --> 01:37:58.080]  And I think the lawyer was pretty certain that since Tim had been in this town for what?
[01:37:58.080 --> 01:38:00.080]  50 years?
[01:38:00.080 --> 01:38:03.080]  No, 27 years.
[01:38:03.080 --> 01:38:06.080]  Oh, is that all? Oh, okay.
[01:38:06.080 --> 01:38:08.080]  He knew everybody.
[01:38:08.080 --> 01:38:14.080]  Everybody knew him, that it was unlikely that they would get this maximum penalty
[01:38:14.080 --> 01:38:19.080]  that the lawyer was trying to get if he went in front of a jury.
[01:38:19.080 --> 01:38:25.080]  So she's trying to figure out a way to get what she wants
[01:38:25.080 --> 01:38:29.080]  and not have to be shackled with a jury.
[01:38:29.080 --> 01:38:33.080]  She offers him this administrative hearing.
[01:38:33.080 --> 01:38:38.080]  Well, what I was asking the other day was,
[01:38:38.080 --> 01:38:48.080]  did the lawyer go to the city council and get their permission to offer an administrative hearing?
[01:38:48.080 --> 01:38:53.080]  And we have no indication that she did.
[01:38:53.080 --> 01:39:01.080]  That means she took it upon herself to offer Tim an administrative hearing.
[01:39:01.080 --> 01:39:09.080]  When the American Bar Association standards for the prosecution function
[01:39:09.080 --> 01:39:20.080]  forbids the prosecutor from having a conference with an unrepresented defendant.
[01:39:20.080 --> 01:39:28.080]  So she acts in a way that's in direct violation of the American Bar Association standards for the prosecution function.
[01:39:28.080 --> 01:39:37.080]  And she takes it upon herself to offer an administrative hearing without talking to her employer.
[01:39:37.080 --> 01:39:45.080]  And that administrative hearing was not something that the city was authorized to do.
[01:39:45.080 --> 01:39:55.080]  Because in order to be authorized to do that, there was an ordinance that had to be passed first and it had not been passed.
[01:39:55.080 --> 01:40:02.080]  And that's what the court of appeals ruled as to why they did not have subject matter jurisdiction.
[01:40:02.080 --> 01:40:24.080]  I have one question where you say anything else. You said that because the appeals court ruled in favor of the district court also stating that the process was made the attorneys as employees immune.
[01:40:24.080 --> 01:40:35.080]  Okay, so now that because we didn't take it to the higher court and we just let it fly, that is now case law.
[01:40:35.080 --> 01:40:37.080]  No, it isn't.
[01:40:37.080 --> 01:40:41.080]  Well, a district court ruling is not case law.
[01:40:41.080 --> 01:40:45.080]  It's not district court ruling. That was an appeal court ruling.
[01:40:45.080 --> 01:40:50.080]  The appeals court didn't rule on it.
[01:40:50.080 --> 01:40:55.080]  They didn't remand it back to district court.
[01:40:55.080 --> 01:41:06.080]  Jim, the district court, we filed a mandamus that only went to subject matter jurisdiction. They only ruled on subject matter jurisdiction.
[01:41:06.080 --> 01:41:12.080]  Not the mandamus. I'm not talking about the mandamus. I'm talking about our civil case.
[01:41:12.080 --> 01:41:27.080]  Your civil case was ruled on by a district judge. District judge don't make law. Appellate courts make law. Appellate court did not rule on that because it was dismissed.
[01:41:27.080 --> 01:41:36.080]  Then why does it say Pixler versus City of Newark on case text?
[01:41:36.080 --> 01:41:41.080]  Because that was the designation of the case.
[01:41:41.080 --> 01:41:49.080]  Jim, does case text show a ruling by the court of appeals?
[01:41:49.080 --> 01:41:55.080]  Well, if they didn't show a ruling at all, they wouldn't show the case, would they?
[01:41:55.080 --> 01:41:59.080]  Yes, they would show the case.
[01:41:59.080 --> 01:42:01.080]  Okay.
[01:42:01.080 --> 01:42:05.080]  Every case will be shown.
[01:42:05.080 --> 01:42:15.080]  Well, if you look into the case, you'll show that the plaintiffs dismissed the case without a ruling.
[01:42:15.080 --> 01:42:23.080]  No, that's not the same case. It was my case against them.
[01:42:23.080 --> 01:42:28.080]  Jim, I don't know what you're talking about here. Your case against them.
[01:42:28.080 --> 01:42:31.080]  Yeah. You don't know what we did?
[01:42:31.080 --> 01:42:37.080]  The only thing that was dismissed was their case against you.
[01:42:37.080 --> 01:42:46.080]  The court of appeals ruled that there was no subject matter jurisdiction on...
[01:42:46.080 --> 01:42:51.080]  Tim, Tim, you keep twisting all this stuff around.
[01:42:51.080 --> 01:42:54.080]  Okay, let's start at the beginning.
[01:42:54.080 --> 01:42:59.080]  There was a set of criminal complaints against you.
[01:42:59.080 --> 01:43:04.080]  They changed the criminal to an administrative hearing.
[01:43:04.080 --> 01:43:18.080]  We filed a mandamus. The court ruled that the administrative hearing was void because the city had no jurisdiction.
[01:43:18.080 --> 01:43:28.080]  The district court dismissed your claim against the city.
[01:43:28.080 --> 01:43:34.080]  You... We appealed that to the court of appeals.
[01:43:34.080 --> 01:43:38.080]  I'm sorry. You didn't actually appeal that.
[01:43:38.080 --> 01:43:45.080]  You appealed the administrative portion. I'm sorry. I'd have to go back and reread them.
[01:43:45.080 --> 01:43:53.080]  We did appeal the dismissal of your claim against the city.
[01:43:53.080 --> 01:44:00.080]  When the city dismissed their appeal, you dismissed your appeal.
[01:44:00.080 --> 01:44:06.080]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area of nutrition.
[01:44:06.080 --> 01:44:11.080]  People feed their pets better than they feed themselves, and it's time we changed all that.
[01:44:11.080 --> 01:44:17.080]  Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[01:44:17.080 --> 01:44:25.080]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need.
[01:44:25.080 --> 01:44:31.080]  Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject.
[01:44:31.080 --> 01:44:34.080]  We have come to trust Jevity so much.
[01:44:34.080 --> 01:44:40.080]  We became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[01:44:40.080 --> 01:44:48.080]  When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio.
[01:44:48.080 --> 01:44:52.080]  As you realize the benefits of Jevity, you may want to join us.
[01:44:52.080 --> 01:45:03.080]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and increase your income. Order now.
[01:45:03.080 --> 01:45:10.080]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary,
[01:45:10.080 --> 01:45:18.080]  the affordable, easy-to-understand four-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[01:45:18.080 --> 01:45:25.080]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:25.080 --> 01:45:30.080]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:45:30.080 --> 01:45:37.080]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:45:37.080 --> 01:45:46.080]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:46.080 --> 01:45:55.080]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:45:55.080 --> 01:46:04.080]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:25.080 --> 01:46:35.080]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio.
[01:46:35.080 --> 01:46:43.080]  On this Friday, the 7th day of February 2020, and we're talking to Tim in Texas,
[01:46:43.080 --> 01:46:50.080]  Tim, the only thing the Court of Appeals ruled on was the mandamus.
[01:46:50.080 --> 01:46:55.080]  Everything else before the Court of Appeals was dismissed.
[01:46:55.080 --> 01:46:56.080]  Okay.
[01:46:56.080 --> 01:47:01.080]  So there are no rulings on anything but the mandamus.
[01:47:01.080 --> 01:47:11.080]  And we're going to go back after them, but the only thing we're going to go after them for is what we already have rez judicata on.
[01:47:11.080 --> 01:47:12.080]  Okay.
[01:47:12.080 --> 01:47:21.080]  We're saying that they didn't have subject matter jurisdiction, and the Court of Appeals has ruled they did not have jurisdiction.
[01:47:21.080 --> 01:47:24.080]  That is not something they can argue.
[01:47:24.080 --> 01:47:31.080]  And if you don't have jurisdiction, you don't have immunity, period.
[01:47:31.080 --> 01:47:38.080]  The reason why I said what I've said about that, because I'm sitting here looking at this, is Fix River versus City of Newark.
[01:47:38.080 --> 01:47:43.080]  And it has a memorandum opinion, and this is all it says, and then you can comment after this.
[01:47:43.080 --> 01:47:46.080]  It says, and one issue per se, excellent.
[01:47:46.080 --> 01:47:54.080]  Phillip T. Fixler appeals to the trial court's grant of the appellee's plea to the jurisdiction and dismissal of Fixler's counterclaims against them.
[01:47:54.080 --> 01:47:58.080]  We affirm.
[01:47:58.080 --> 01:48:18.080]  And then it uses all of the discussion, standard of review, claims against the Newark employees, and they mention all of the laws that I said that, and we were going after the actual attorneys.
[01:48:18.080 --> 01:48:27.080]  And so they affirmed that what the district court had said was proper.
[01:48:27.080 --> 01:48:32.080]  So doesn't the case now?
[01:48:32.080 --> 01:48:35.080]  That may be a problem.
[01:48:35.080 --> 01:48:36.080]  Yeah.
[01:48:36.080 --> 01:48:42.080]  That was the whole point. I was bringing it out.
[01:48:42.080 --> 01:48:45.080]  Gave me a headache.
[01:48:45.080 --> 01:48:54.080]  Sorry, but you know, my brain every once in a while.
[01:48:54.080 --> 01:48:56.080]  That was pretty good.
[01:48:56.080 --> 01:48:58.080]  We'll have to look at it.
[01:48:58.080 --> 01:49:09.080]  But the hand doctrine, you know, whether or not they can say, well, your honor, we were only here because he had junk vehicles there.
[01:49:09.080 --> 01:49:11.080]  It was an honest mistake.
[01:49:11.080 --> 01:49:24.080]  But the judge from Denton who sanctioned me did say why when he asked, why are you trying to recuse this judge again?
[01:49:24.080 --> 01:49:27.080]  I said, because he ruled wrong.
[01:49:27.080 --> 01:49:29.080]  He said, okay, you made a mistake.
[01:49:29.080 --> 01:49:38.080]  He says file suit against the ones who, you know, actually the attorneys.
[01:49:38.080 --> 01:49:43.080]  Of course, he's just throwing words out there, you know, I mean, they don't have any way to them.
[01:49:43.080 --> 01:49:46.080]  But I remembered him saying it.
[01:49:46.080 --> 01:49:52.080]  So that's that's the only issue that I really have is, you know,
[01:49:52.080 --> 01:50:00.080]  Evan Evans, the head administrative judge of the district that ruled against you was really not happy.
[01:50:00.080 --> 01:50:03.080]  No, that was not, that was not Evans.
[01:50:03.080 --> 01:50:04.080]  Not that day.
[01:50:04.080 --> 01:50:06.080]  I'm talking about the second time.
[01:50:06.080 --> 01:50:08.080]  The one who sanctioned me.
[01:50:08.080 --> 01:50:11.080]  The guy from Denton.
[01:50:11.080 --> 01:50:14.080]  You know, you've been in trouble with him before.
[01:50:14.080 --> 01:50:16.080]  I can't remember his name.
[01:50:16.080 --> 01:50:20.080]  So that's a little impressed me.
[01:50:20.080 --> 01:50:22.080]  He had an odd name.
[01:50:22.080 --> 01:50:24.080]  Okay, I remember that guy.
[01:50:24.080 --> 01:50:25.080]  Yeah.
[01:50:25.080 --> 01:50:27.080]  But I have to dig out his name.
[01:50:27.080 --> 01:50:30.080]  He was a real scoundrel when he was in Denton.
[01:50:30.080 --> 01:50:32.080]  Yeah, he is.
[01:50:32.080 --> 01:50:34.080]  He was the one I went before.
[01:50:34.080 --> 01:50:43.080]  And when he said, asked me if I bushwhacked him with criminal complaints against the district attorney.
[01:50:43.080 --> 01:50:47.080]  And he said, Mr. Carlton, don't you own a suit?
[01:50:47.080 --> 01:50:52.080]  I said, well, yes, your honor, last count own 35.
[01:50:52.080 --> 01:50:54.080]  Why are you wearing one in my courtroom?
[01:50:54.080 --> 01:50:58.080]  I said, well, judge, I'm a shipment, shipments together now.
[01:50:58.080 --> 01:51:04.080]  So I'm here on a, I'm here on a scoople and only got one.
[01:51:04.080 --> 01:51:07.080]  I didn't want to be confused with all these suits.
[01:51:07.080 --> 01:51:10.080]  And I pointed at the lawyers out there.
[01:51:10.080 --> 01:51:16.080]  They got lots of scooples, judge, and all of them for sale or rent.
[01:51:16.080 --> 01:51:23.080]  And they just ducked his head, put his head in his hand and said, oh, I walked right into that one.
[01:51:23.080 --> 01:51:24.080]  Yeah.
[01:51:24.080 --> 01:51:31.080]  Anyway, I want to go because Brett's got something I want him to address before we run out of time.
[01:51:31.080 --> 01:51:32.080]  Okay.
[01:51:32.080 --> 01:51:34.080]  You'll like this.
[01:51:34.080 --> 01:51:35.080]  All right.
[01:51:35.080 --> 01:51:36.080]  Okay.
[01:51:36.080 --> 01:51:40.080]  Okay, Brett.
[01:51:40.080 --> 01:51:49.080]  All right, well, and Browses, Browses County, a friend of mine that's, that's dealing with that issue down there.
[01:51:49.080 --> 01:51:59.080]  Just might remember, he's being accused of a felony and, and he had the lawyer get excited about what if I put a paper clip in the wrong place?
[01:51:59.080 --> 01:52:02.080]  You're going to bar grave me and all that stuff.
[01:52:02.080 --> 01:52:06.080]  Sort of Dahma Cleese is dagger at my throat.
[01:52:06.080 --> 01:52:07.080]  Yeah.
[01:52:07.080 --> 01:52:08.080]  Mr. drama.
[01:52:08.080 --> 01:52:14.080]  So he's a court appointed counsel and he has to be removed and the judge removed him.
[01:52:14.080 --> 01:52:16.080]  You know, he was court appointed.
[01:52:16.080 --> 01:52:22.080]  He was hired and paid thousands and thousands of dollars and the judge still cut him loose.
[01:52:22.080 --> 01:52:28.080]  And then my friend was unable to find another lawyer that he could afford.
[01:52:28.080 --> 01:52:36.080]  And, and then finally the judge, well, judge wanted him to put his house up for a loan and all that.
[01:52:36.080 --> 01:52:40.080]  Well, you can have to, you have an unencumbered asset.
[01:52:40.080 --> 01:52:43.080]  You need to pay the lawyer.
[01:52:43.080 --> 01:52:46.080]  My friend couldn't get anybody to give him a loan.
[01:52:46.080 --> 01:52:49.080]  And so the judge did a court appointed counsel.
[01:52:49.080 --> 01:52:52.080]  Well, now this guy is in here.
[01:52:52.080 --> 01:52:54.080]  You should hear the sparks fly.
[01:52:54.080 --> 01:52:55.080]  Yeah.
[01:52:55.080 --> 01:53:00.080]  To type a alpha male kind of guys in there and they're both at each other's throat.
[01:53:00.080 --> 01:53:02.080]  No, you listen, I've got something to say.
[01:53:02.080 --> 01:53:05.080]  No, you're, I'm, I've been doing this for a lot of years.
[01:53:05.080 --> 01:53:08.080]  Well, I'm the client and I've got a question.
[01:53:08.080 --> 01:53:11.080]  And are you going to uphold my rights or not?
[01:53:11.080 --> 01:53:13.080]  Yes or no?
[01:53:13.080 --> 01:53:17.080]  They were at it.
[01:53:17.080 --> 01:53:32.080]  And this guy is in a position where the lawyer, the new lawyer is in a position where you've described before that the judge is going to have to throw this out to protect the lawyer from the client.
[01:53:32.080 --> 01:53:35.080]  And I'm hoping that's what's about to happen here.
[01:53:35.080 --> 01:53:42.080]  So this lawyer certainly knows that he has barred grieved the previous lawyer.
[01:53:42.080 --> 01:53:44.080]  You think he knows?
[01:53:44.080 --> 01:53:53.080]  The lawyer wanted to be removed because he's afraid he would be barred grieved, but he got removed, but he got barred grieved anyway.
[01:53:53.080 --> 01:53:54.080]  Yeah.
[01:53:54.080 --> 01:53:58.080]  And then absolutely barred him for life.
[01:53:58.080 --> 01:54:05.080]  Absolutely. This new lawyer knows the last one was barred grieved.
[01:54:05.080 --> 01:54:07.080]  So he gets appointed.
[01:54:07.080 --> 01:54:12.080]  Now he's got a, I guess the judge doesn't like this lawyer.
[01:54:12.080 --> 01:54:15.080]  He's probably paying him back for something.
[01:54:15.080 --> 01:54:19.080]  And the lawyer is trying to specifically picked him.
[01:54:19.080 --> 01:54:21.080]  You know how they have the rotation pool?
[01:54:21.080 --> 01:54:23.080]  The judge is not supposed to be picking them.
[01:54:23.080 --> 01:54:27.080]  This judge gets this lawyer off the pool.
[01:54:27.080 --> 01:54:30.080]  He probably is mad at him over something.
[01:54:30.080 --> 01:54:33.080]  But that's a point we make.
[01:54:33.080 --> 01:54:35.080]  You start hammering these lawyers.
[01:54:35.080 --> 01:54:42.080]  Now this lawyer is looking at his practice being disrupted.
[01:54:42.080 --> 01:54:44.080]  So now he's on the dive.
[01:54:44.080 --> 01:54:50.080]  Now he goes to the judge and say, look, judge, you forced this guy on me.
[01:54:50.080 --> 01:54:52.080]  You have to protect me.
[01:54:52.080 --> 01:54:54.080]  That's what happened in my case.
[01:54:54.080 --> 01:55:01.080]  They dismissed the case to protect my lawyer from me.
[01:55:01.080 --> 01:55:07.080]  That was great fun.
[01:55:07.080 --> 01:55:11.080]  That's where the prosecutor, whether my lawyer come to me and he said,
[01:55:11.080 --> 01:55:13.080]  the prosecutor said, she knows who you are.
[01:55:13.080 --> 01:55:15.080]  And if you start filing criminal charges,
[01:55:15.080 --> 01:55:18.080]  she's going to charge you with tampering with the government document.
[01:55:18.080 --> 01:55:19.080]  And I looked at her.
[01:55:19.080 --> 01:55:22.080]  She's standing up by the bench right next to the judge.
[01:55:22.080 --> 01:55:24.080]  She said that, did she?
[01:55:24.080 --> 01:55:25.080]  So you tell her to get over here.
[01:55:25.080 --> 01:55:26.080]  And I pointed at her.
[01:55:26.080 --> 01:55:28.080]  You get over here.
[01:55:28.080 --> 01:55:31.080]  I pulled out 30 criminal complaints out of my case.
[01:55:31.080 --> 01:55:33.080]  I said, here, give these to her.
[01:55:33.080 --> 01:55:36.080]  He held up both hands with his palms out.
[01:55:36.080 --> 01:55:37.080]  I'm not going to touch him.
[01:55:37.080 --> 01:55:38.080]  I'm not going to touch him.
[01:55:38.080 --> 01:55:41.080]  Take him, you chicken.
[01:55:41.080 --> 01:55:45.080]  Right in front of the judge.
[01:55:45.080 --> 01:55:49.080]  Judge grabs the gavel, recesses for lunch.
[01:55:49.080 --> 01:55:52.080]  Before I could get my burrito,
[01:55:52.080 --> 01:55:58.080]  the lawyer called me and told me to judge dismissed the case.
[01:55:58.080 --> 01:56:00.080]  And he was ecstatic.
[01:56:00.080 --> 01:56:05.080]  So I said, did he dismiss it with prejudice?
[01:56:05.080 --> 01:56:09.080]  And there's this long pause.
[01:56:09.080 --> 01:56:12.080]  Well, no, when you get back in there and get this thing back on,
[01:56:12.080 --> 01:56:13.080]  I want to dismiss with prejudice.
[01:56:13.080 --> 01:56:15.080]  Oh, Mr. Kelton.
[01:56:15.080 --> 01:56:18.080]  Ah, just Josh.
[01:56:18.080 --> 01:56:19.080]  But he was ecstatic.
[01:56:19.080 --> 01:56:25.080]  I'm betting that's the first case he ever won.
[01:56:25.080 --> 01:56:27.080]  He gets his bar card.
[01:56:27.080 --> 01:56:31.080]  He gets out in the business and he finds that instead of being
[01:56:31.080 --> 01:56:34.080]  the good guy and the Perry Mason,
[01:56:34.080 --> 01:56:38.080]  that he's screwing one client after another.
[01:56:38.080 --> 01:56:41.080]  And then he gets the client and steps right in the middle of him
[01:56:41.080 --> 01:56:45.080]  and he gets his first win.
[01:56:45.080 --> 01:56:49.080]  The guy in Brazos County.
[01:56:49.080 --> 01:56:52.080]  Now he's got the lawyer on the ropes.
[01:56:52.080 --> 01:56:54.080]  The judge appointed him.
[01:56:54.080 --> 01:57:01.080]  The only way he can protect this lawyer is to get your guy off the hook.
[01:57:01.080 --> 01:57:07.080]  And almost certainly they're not going to let this go to a jury
[01:57:07.080 --> 01:57:12.080]  because there's no way a jury will indict over this.
[01:57:12.080 --> 01:57:15.080]  So we got one minute left.
[01:57:15.080 --> 01:57:17.080]  I'm going to go to Shane.
[01:57:17.080 --> 01:57:20.080]  Shane, got a minute and a half.
[01:57:20.080 --> 01:57:23.080]  I'm sorry we're so late, but what do you got?
[01:57:23.080 --> 01:57:24.080]  No problem, Randy.
[01:57:24.080 --> 01:57:25.080]  Randy, just real quick.
[01:57:25.080 --> 01:57:28.080]  I'm going for my big motion here in a few days.
[01:57:28.080 --> 01:57:33.080]  The David P case filed a motion for sanctions against me
[01:57:33.080 --> 01:57:37.080]  and it wants to charge me for a victitious litigator.
[01:57:37.080 --> 01:57:41.080]  And he's trying to get my 341 meeting dismissed.
[01:57:41.080 --> 01:57:44.080]  And I have my P C case dismissed.
[01:57:44.080 --> 01:57:48.080]  Okay, have you looked up the requirements for a victitious
[01:57:48.080 --> 01:57:53.080]  and not a fictitious litigant, for a vexatious litigant?
[01:57:53.080 --> 01:57:55.080]  Vaxatious?
[01:57:55.080 --> 01:57:57.080]  No, thanks for telling me.
[01:57:57.080 --> 01:57:58.080]  I'll look it up.
[01:57:58.080 --> 01:57:59.080]  Vexatious.
[01:57:59.080 --> 01:58:05.080]  I think you have to file three suits and have had to have them dismissed
[01:58:05.080 --> 01:58:09.080]  for alleging that they were frivolous.
[01:58:09.080 --> 01:58:11.080]  That's generally what it is.
[01:58:11.080 --> 01:58:13.080]  It may be a little different in New York,
[01:58:13.080 --> 01:58:15.080]  but that's what it requires.
[01:58:15.080 --> 01:58:19.080]  So look up the requirements for a vexatious litigant.
[01:58:19.080 --> 01:58:21.080]  Thanks for telling me that.
[01:58:21.080 --> 01:58:23.080]  I'll look it up first thing tomorrow,
[01:58:23.080 --> 01:58:26.080]  but I guess it gets through five days.
[01:58:26.080 --> 01:58:29.080]  I think Thursday or Friday of next week.
[01:58:29.080 --> 01:58:31.080]  Okay, good.
[01:58:31.080 --> 01:58:35.080]  If you haven't lost three cases and declared frivolous,
[01:58:35.080 --> 01:58:36.080]  they can't get it.
[01:58:36.080 --> 01:58:39.080]  Okay, thank you all for listening.
[01:58:39.080 --> 01:58:42.080]  We'll be back next week.
[01:58:42.080 --> 01:59:11.080]  Good night.
[01:59:12.080 --> 01:59:17.080]  Call us toll free at 888-551-0102
[01:59:17.080 --> 01:59:21.080]  or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:21.080 --> 01:59:23.080]  This translation is highly accurate
[01:59:23.080 --> 01:59:26.080]  and it comes with over 13,000 cross references,
[01:59:26.080 --> 01:59:30.080]  plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:59:30.080 --> 01:59:33.080]  This is truly a Bible you can understand.
[01:59:33.080 --> 01:59:36.080]  To get your free copy of the New Testament recovery version,
[01:59:36.080 --> 01:59:41.080]  call us toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:59:41.080 --> 01:59:45.080]  That's 888-551-0102
[01:59:45.080 --> 01:59:51.080]  or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:51.080 --> 01:59:53.080]  Looking for some truth?
[01:59:53.080 --> 01:59:54.080]  You found it.
[01:59:54.080 --> 02:00:11.080]  LogosRadioNetwork.com