[Music] They can't do what they've been doing. It's under legal ease. Legality. Legal ease is a presumption to is where they presume to assume that they have authority over us and can do whatever they want to us. That's all legality is. Legal ease. Welcome to facts or frauds. Court is calling 2024 CR4295 state versus um Luis Beltron. Can I have parties approach and announce for the record? Yeah, I'll wait for Arling Bay who's a defendant. All right. And are you Mr. Beltron? Yes, your honor. All right. And defense, you said you've adopted his motions. Yes, your honor. All right. So, the first motion is a motion for a special appearance under the the authority of Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 12A for the divine purpose of objecting to the de facto district court's abstract subject matter jurisdiction. nonexparte thirdparty waiverss allowed. So, let's address that motion. Yes, your honor. Um my my client's physician is that um he has been that there is a defect in the abstract subject matter jurisdiction that he has been uh brought into this um improperly because the state would be the plaintiff and they brought him in um and are litigating that and that there's a jurisdictional issue that the court does not have um um in persona or subject matter jurisdiction. All right. Is there a response state? Um judge as a criminal district court. Uh the court does have jurisdiction to preside over any matters. Um the defendant has been charged by indictment with the offense of aggravated robbery and that occurred in Dair County, Texas. And so the court retains jurisdiction over those proceedings. All right. So Mr. Belt Trump. Anytime that there is a criminal case that's deemed uh by the penal code to be a felony, then that comes to a felony criminal court. All right? And then the next question becomes whether or not um a grand jury has been given evidence. You've been indicted. So, they've been presented with information, right? And if it's alleged that the incident occurred in Bear County and it's a felony, then I would have jurisdiction over the case. So if for some reason this was a case that is alleged to happen in another county, let's say it's Hayes County or Harris County, then I wouldn't have any jurisdiction over it. Do you understand? All right. So, with this case, I'm not uh taking any of it to be true because I have to wait till evidence is presented to me. But looking on the face of the indictment, and I'm sure your attorney will tell you an indictment is not evidence of guilt. It's just the means whereby a person is held over for trial, right? And so, when a grand jury indictes a case, they're just saying there's enough evidence to hold you over for trial. They're not saying it's evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. And when and when information is taken to the grand jury or evidence, police reports or whatever it may be in it, it has to be allegations that it happened in Bear County and it it has to be allegations that it's a felony. Now, if this were not alleged to be a felony, then it wouldn't be in this court, even though it would be a criminal case. It would be sent to a misdemeanor court maybe or perhaps even a municipal court. But because aggravated robbery according to the penal code is a felony, it's supposed to be in a felony court. And then if they're saying it happened in Bear County, then it would come to a felony district court, state district court that's in Bear County. And that's where we are. You understand? Is there anything you not understand about my ruling on that? All right. Thank you. And then we have Did Excuse me. Did the court take judicial notice of the indictment in this case? Yes. Make it ruling. Okay. Yes. Um the the next we have new discovery of exparte corpus trusts fraud upon the court that conceals the facts that the charging instrument lacks subject matter controversy. No injury in fact exists. Your honor, I believe what my client meant by that is just kind of coupled with the first paragraph that the court uh does his position was the court didn't have jurisdiction. The court just ruled that they did. um that then the indictment u would not um um be uh valid in this case. So um I think that's what the client is trying to to say to All right. Did I get that right? Yes. Okay. All right. Uh so states you want to address um the issue and what I've and if I'm interpreting this incorrectly let me know. Okay. So you are saying that the offense that there is no subject matter jurisdiction because there's no injury by any party. Yes. All right. So if you can address that. Um your honor, this case was presented to a grand jury. uh that was duly and channeled. They indicted the case. They returned a true bill of indictment. The indictment does comply with uh the penal code and the code of criminal procedure which governs in this case. Uh and it does allege the requisite elements for the the aggravated robbery. And so it's a threat by using a deadly weapon. Um and so that is the harm. The crime was committed against the peace and dignity of the state and there is an alleged complaintant. All right. So Mr. Beltron, do you understand with the charge of an aggravated uh robbery case? Sometimes it's alleged that a person um maybe pulled a knife on somebody and said, "Give me your money." Right? I don't know any of the facts about your case. The only thing I can do is look at the indictment. Right? And then sometimes it's alleged that somebody pointed a gun at somebody and said, "Give me your money." The way indictments work is if it is a crime in the penal code and there's a list in the penal code of all the crimes and aggravated robbery is one of those crimes that's listed in the penal code and it sets out what the elements are of that. Now you're saying that there was no injury in fact exists. The only thing the state has to do is prove the elements that are in the indictment and the indictment has to show the offense that is in the penal code. You understand? So um do you understand? You have any questions about the court's ruling? All right. If there's something you don't understand, let me know. All right. And I I understand that sometimes when um people have been to law school, like for example, I haven't really worked on cars. So there's a little stuff I can tell you about being a mechanic, but I really don't know the ins and out of every vehicle. You understand? All right. So number three, defendant is erroneously charged with an abstract offense. See, I don't know. I can't read that word. Something taxation. A district court is criminally attempting to receive an unauthorized colorable no felt immunity third-party benefit in violation of the seventh amendment. All right. Do you want to address that, council? Yes. I believe my client um it's I think it just goes back to um being a u a third party brought in here without um abstract subject matter jurisdiction and um the fact that he was brought into this case. I believe that's it. Is that it? Okay. All right. Uh, state, do you want to respond? Judge, regarding I guess the seventh amendment applying in case or Okay. Um, yes, that is for civil suits. We are in a criminal court and so I would argue that that's does not apply here. All right. So, the seventh amendment applies to jury trials that you're entitled to, and that is in federal civil cases. Here, you do have a right to a jury trial if you want a jury trial. And if you want a jury trial, I'm going to make sure that you have a jury trial. Okay. And then the other issue, let me see. I don't understand. And you say, uh, explain it to me. You're saying district court is criminally attempting to receive an unauthorized colorable no fault immunity. What do you mean by that? Because what I can tell you is I I don't receive anything related to these cases. Of course, as a judge, I'm paid a salary for the work that I do, but I don't receive any funding or extra funding. based upon how I resolve cases. Do you understand? Yes, ma'am. Do you have any question about that? No ma'am. All right. So then number the other one is dishonest services that rises to constitutional tort and national security concerns. Communist activity detected in violation of title 50 USCS841. This court now under federal questioning under title 28 USC 1331 uh light of new evidence investigation hypothetical claims. All right. Uh defense um I'm not sure what my client means by that. I'm going to ask him to explain it. All right. If you could explain that to me, Mr. Beltron. Yes. What I'm trying to say here on is uh how the state of Texas pler and they're the ones that are pursuing to the person prosecuting me which is they're going to third party. Okay. And I'm not I don't third party I'm not sure how that works. I know how civil suits and I know it's criminal at all, but I know that I mean how do they how can I cross-examine the state of Texas? How can I ah so let me explain something to you. Whenever you see cases on the criminal side, it's not individuals versus individual. Usually when you're on the civil side, if it's a marriage, it's individual. If it's civil. All right. here. The reason why it's the state of Texas is because in criminal court, it's not you versus the complainant. Whoever the complainant is in this case that you're accused of committing aggravated robbery against, yes, it's alleged to have happened that you committed aggravated robbery against them. But the state of Texas, the way we were taught in law school, the ta state of Texas takes offense, right? Because whenever an offense is committed against a citizen, it's the offense against the citizen, but it's also the offense against the state of Texas. So, in cases such as these, the state necessarily is not the complainant. They're just bringing the suit or or the the the case because the state of Texas is offended that an offense is alleged to have been committed within the state of Texas within the county of Bear. So that's why the state of Texas is listed and not the complainant. Do you understand? Yes, I understand that. And so how do I cross-examine the state of Texas? the state of Texas, you you don't cross-examine them. The the persons you would cross-examine would be any witnesses the state of Texas would would call to try to prove that you've committed an offense against the sensibilities of the state of Texas. So, for example, for an aggravated robbery, they'll need to call somebody to prove that it happened in Bear County. They'll need to call somebody to prove that it happened on or about whatever date it is. If there's a weapon used, they'll need to call somebody to prove that a weapon was used and they may need to call a complainant to say, "Hey, I'm the person in your indictment." You understand? I understand. All right. Do you have any questions or any confusion? All right. May I ask my client a question before you go on to next? Um, are there any other things in here because some of it is repeats itself. Were those the main points? So the main is there anything else u in your motion that um are different that we need to bring to the court's attention that would be different? All right. Uh so then with regards to that motion that's combined from page one to page six uh then the exparte relief requested will be denied. Now, by denying that, that doesn't mean that if there's a jury trial, your attorney still will not have the opportunity to question whatever witnesses they uh the state calls. Okay. So, uh that will be denied. There is a um there was uh it it appears to me that there was like three separate documents stapled together. Is that the way it was received? Yes. Um there is the the next one which is exhausting administrative relief. My client is um um not wanting to have that heard right. It it deals with effective assist ineffective assistance of counsel. Um right Mr. Bel that's not to be heard right now. And let me explain something to you. I understand that's not to be heard right now, but what I can tell you is attorneys who are appointed to represent uh people uh those are attorneys who are on the uh will for appointments, right? And if this is a first-degree felony just from the face of what I'm looking at and if Miss Gay wasn't qualified according to the qualifications to be on the wheel for first-degree felonies, she would not have been appointed to represent you. Do you understand? I see. And Miss Gay, are you on the first degree will? Yes, I am. All right. So the next document is entitled um court constitutional notice and u that addresses um antirust violations um brought upon the court um actions of the state bar uh all right Do you want to take these one at a time, council? I I guess so, your honor. All right. The first is new discovery of antirust violation lies brought upon the court. Um, elected state bar officials, sedicious organization, are conspiring to fraudulently conceal the ultimate fact sixth amendment misconduct that the state bar of Texas uh, lacks capacity to prosecute a natural person. It is an improper plaintiff. All right. So, with that, I can tell you the state bar of Texas is not prosecuting you. The state bar of Texas is more of an affiliation that attorneys are required to belong to and we actually have to pay state bar dues every year. And when that comes around every year, everybody's like, "Oh my gosh, State Bar News, do Yes. So, um, the State Bar is not participating in this trial." Now, I can tell you as an attorney, your client, your attorney as an attorney in the state as an attorney, anyone who's licensed in Texas, they're required to be a member of the State Bar of Texas and they have to pay dues to the State Bar of Texas. I think it's $265. It may have gone up. All right. So, they're not going to be trying you. Yes, they are. All right. The next one is State Bars, virtually gathered evidence, video, police reports, third party. Uh again, what I can tell you about that is the state bar hasn't gathered any evidence. Um state I think I just put I'm sorry I think I just put that as All right. So do you want that heard or no? All right. And then the next one is so to permanently prevent a false state bar. Anything with regards to the state bar. Do you still want that heard or no? It says objects to state Texas state bar exparte matter waiverss and fictional double jeopardy defective jurisdiction. Do you want that heard? Yes. All right. uh defense. Um my client believes that again that the court um does not have jurisdiction that that um he is concerned about his waiver of his constitutional rights. Um some of this deals with what happens at trial like hearsay evidence being admissible uh uh being admitted wrongfully um and that he is still believes he's a third party and that there's abstract jurisdiction and that that the court um doesn't have the power I'm guessing to rule on evidentary issues such as uh 901 on uh and that uh in other words probable cause is third party fabricated then secretly planted and dressed up to appear that it would has merit but it does not. So he is talking about one jurisdiction and also um uh trying to state his right to object to evidence. All right. State, do you want to address that? Uh, regarding this collection of evidence, I'm not sure. Oh. Oh, no, no, no. So, um, let's address double jeopardy. Double jeopardy defective jurisdiction. So, double jeopardy, if you have not been previously tried for this same offense before, that's what double jeopardy is. [Music] [Applause] Basically, in a nutshell, there are certain uh exceptions to that. But when you mention double jeopardy, double jeopardy is you've been tried for something before and you were found out guilty, right? and now the state is trying to try you for the same thing even though you were previously found not guilty of it or either you had something that was dismissed with prejudice and they're coming back and trying to try you for that same offense. Do you understand? State has he been tried before for this same offense? No, judge. There has been no actions on the indictment um that is or the indictments that are pending against him and as far as I know he's not been charged by any other jurisdiction regarding this and there has never been anything pre-indictment that was dismissed with prejudice with regards to these cases. All right. Does that address that issue for you? Yes, ma'am. All right. Then the next one, deceitful corporate veil and trumped up judiciary immunity is fadedly pierced. I do not forfeit my privileges and immunities under the fourth and 14th amendment. Uh what I can tell you is during a jury trial when the state calls their witnesses, your attorney will have a chance to cross-examine those witnesses, the rules of evidence do apply. If she finds that there is some question that is objectionable and should not be uh answered, then she will stand up, make an objection. Normally the objections may be hearsay entering the province of the jury uh assuming facts not in evidence. It could be relevancy. It could be 44B. It could be any of a number of objections that she can make. Once she makes those objections, I will make a ruling and my ruling will make will decide whether or not the the witness can answer that question and whether or not the jury can consider it. Do you understand? Yes, sir. All right. Does that address that issue? Yes, ma'am. I think the other issues um deal on the second page deal with state bar and I think the courts addressed that. Okay. Um the other one is uh the gross advertising negligence of the DA's office and um defendant being uh sued. Oh, who's being sued? The defendant. All right. So, um sir, there are different type of suits. There are civil suits. So, technically, somebody can be sued civily for something. Sometimes with criminal cases, people will say, "Oh, it's a it's a suit." Technically, it is sort of a suit, but it's again the state of Texas versus whoever the defendant is. You understand? Yes, sir. All right. Uh do you have any questions about anything else? Okay. And then the first the next page, page six, it has postcript. Is there something in there that needs to be addressed? I think it says here um it has to do with cross-examination. And then he say the plaintiff is in harmless artificial corporation. Are you talking about yourself or the state? State state of Texas. Okay. All right. So whether or not it's a fishing exped uh expedition or corporate entrapment or Ponzi scheme, that'll be something that will be decided during the jury trial. Okay. Yes, ma'am. All right. All right. Is there any other motion that needs to be heard? Anything else? any other jurisdictional arguments that worries that we have not talked about in the judge has already ruled anything other than No. All right. Is there anything that you don't understand about the the jury trial process? All right. So, I will still give you a choice. If you want a jury trial, you can have a jury trial. If you want a bench trial, if the state agrees to the bench trial, then we can have a bench trial. As I've told you before, if the state presents evidence that proves you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that means each and every element, I'll find you guilty. If they don't, I'm going to find you not guilty. You understand? All right. So, if you still want a jury trial, you're uh Norma, is he already scheduled for jury trial? All right. So, uh, council, you're still requesting a jury trial. All right, Norman, if you can put them on the, uh, jury trial, please. And Miss Galloway, if you'll confer with the defense on a jury trial date. So, they're going to get a jury trial date. Okay. Thank you. Oh, you're welcome. Hi. Well, that's just about it. So, so thanks for watching and we'll see you again real soon. And thanks for hanging out with us on Facts or Frauds. Make sure you hit the thumbs up button, you're subscribed, and ring that bell. Also, leave a comment in the comment section. Tell me what you think. Fact. Fact. Actually, I wish you could see the studio floor right now. There's nowhere more fascinating after a show. Everyone's so busy like like bees or white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. And a huge thank you to all of our Facts or Frauds channel members. [Music] If you'd like to become a member, click on the link in the description or click join right next to subscribe. There's electricians all rolling up their cables. Whoops. Sorry, guys. And there's the sound technicians unplugging all the microphones. Okay, if I keep mine on for a minute, Na'vi, stand up. Now, if you're still hanging out, thank you. I appreciate you all. Why not hit that thumbs up button, make sure you subscribed, ring the bell, and leave a comment in the comment section. Tell me what you think. Until next time, I'll see you soon. [Music] And of course, there's lots of the producers friends all excited, waiting to meet the stars, and generally getting in everybody's way. Just like our producer. Oh, we don't mind. Oh, and not forgetting the prop guys. They're busy striking the set. That's an interesting little point there. Striking. That's a word we all use in the biz for dismantling the set. Taking it apart, unscrewing things, releasing safety catches, that sort of thing. Yes.