Comey & James Humiliate Trump

Handel on the Law. Marginal Legal Advice.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
You're listenings KFI AM six forty the Bill Handles show
on demand on the iHeartRadio.

Speaker 2 (00:06):
F Okay, think I think we got it?

Speaker 1 (00:11):
You did?

Speaker 2 (00:12):
That's much Okay, good. We had a glitch going on.

Speaker 1 (00:15):
If anybody doubts this is live radio, don't doubt this
is live radio, all right, starting a few minutes late.
Good morning, everybody, Bill Handle here with headsets that are
actually working my headsets.

Speaker 2 (00:27):
You ever seen the movie Scanners where.

Speaker 1 (00:30):
That high pitch goes in and people's heads explode.

Speaker 2 (00:34):
That's what it will.

Speaker 1 (00:35):
Reminded me of this said, reminded me of. Okay, we
have a lot going on today, so let me start.
This is Handle on the first phone numbers eight hundred
five two zero one five three four. I'm a little
bit discombobulated because we're trying to get started this morning
without the glitch. Numbers eight hundred five two zero one

(00:57):
five three four. Eight hundred five two zero one five
three four. That is the number to call, and you
will get right in and well top of the hour
sorta and best time to call. This is Handle on
the law. Marginal legal advice. Okay, now, big case that happened.

(01:20):
If you remember of course you remember, is that the
case against James Comy and Leticia James. James Comy, former
FBI Director, Letitia James, Attorney General of New York, I
think or Manhattan, I think all of New York. In
any case, they were being prosecuted by the Trump administration.

(01:44):
Call me for lying to Congress with one witness that
is the evidence. And Leticia James, she was being she
was actually indicted for fraudulently placing her name on a
credit application, mortgage application saying you live one place, and
they say she lived another place.

Speaker 2 (02:02):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (02:02):
With that being said, what ended up happening is the
prosecutor in charge of the case in Virginia basically said
there's not enough evidence here.

Speaker 2 (02:13):
He's tossed.

Speaker 1 (02:15):
They throw him out, the Trump administration, replacing him with
Lindsay Halligan as the US attorney in Virginia. And Lindsay
Halligan had never ever prosecuted a case in her life.
She was a private attorney, Trump's personal attorney for a
period of time, and she had to practice this indictment

(02:37):
in front of the grand jury, and they got an
indictment against Comy and Leticia by the skin of their teeth. Okay,
Now lawsuit hits and the judge throws out the case
against Letitia James and James Comy based on the fact
that Halligan, who was appointed, can only last one hundred

(02:58):
and twenty days after the court band dates or the
court selects an attorney to prosecute the case selects the
US attorney. Well, the judge said, they're pasted one hundred
and twenty days, you're done, and so she is illegally
the US attorney at that point. Okay, So that being said,

(03:19):
they bring in another prosecutor and indict, call me and
Leticia James again, and the grand jury comes back. In
what is an extraordinary move they're allowed to do but
almost never does or almost never do, is they hand

(03:40):
down a no bill. It's called a no bill much
like this describing me as an attorney no bill. And
what that means is they refuse to indict. They just
won't indict, and so now the indictment now gets tossed.
So what does the administration do. Well, they can refile
and refile and refile over and over again. Now will

(04:03):
they eventually get an indictment? Probably because number one, they
can refile as many times as they want until the
grand jury is over, and I think those are last
a year and a half or a year, depending on
the jurisdiction. And so let's say a no bill comes
down every time, they can do it every two weeks
for the next year. Now, politically, of course, that would

(04:25):
be absolutely suicide, I think, except for the Trump administration,
because they're on a different tacking entirely. So the next
step is, oh, by the way, grand juries, let me
tell you why. It's almost impossible, literally impossible did a
no bill handed down? Because when the attorney, either the

(04:46):
prosecuting attorney, whether it's state, county or it is federal
as in this case, the attorney goes in and says,
this is what ours, our accusation is, and this is
the evidence we have, it can be a shred of
evidence and the grand jury will hand down an indictment.

(05:09):
Why because the defense, the person that's being attacked, the
person that the grand jury is indicting, has no defense.
That can't even walk in the room. An attorney can't
walk in. He or she who is suspected of a
crime cannot walk in. It's only the prosecutor that makes
the case. The bar is so low that it is,

(05:33):
as I said earlier, almost impossible to not get an indictment,
and they did. There just isn't a whole lot of
There isn't a whole lot of proof there. So in
the meantime, they're trying to indict her for committing fraud
of filling out a mortgage application saying she lived in
one place and lived in the other, and they're going

(05:55):
full blasts for the indictment. In the meantime, what the
president does is Gardens, the former president of Honduras who
got forty five years in prison for accepting millions of
dollars of dry of bribes complicit in four hundred tons
of cocaine being brought into the United States and convicted

(06:17):
and the case was over a four years of over
eight years, and the President pardoned him saying it was
a the conviction was the deep state. It was done
under Biden, and therefore this is a good guy. I mean,
it is just crazy, crazy, crazy, Okay, we got it

(06:37):
all right, first story done and finished phone number eight
hundred five two zero one five three four eight hundred
five two zero one five three four And of course
we do have lines open because this is the first
part of the hour. This is handle on the law
KFI AM six forty Bill handle here. It is a

(06:59):
Saturday morning, off to a little bit of rough start.
But moving on the phone number eight hundred five to
zero one five three four. Lines are open because we
got a rough start. Eight hundred five to two zero
one five three four. That's number to call, and as
you would expect, we have lines open.

Speaker 2 (07:22):
So let's do it.

Speaker 1 (07:24):
Welcome back handle on the law Marginal Legal Advice where
I tell you you have absolutely no case.

Speaker 2 (07:32):
Steven, Hello Steven, Welcome Hello, Bill.

Speaker 1 (07:36):
Yeah, go ahead, you're text for my daughter.

Speaker 3 (07:41):
Okay.

Speaker 4 (07:41):
I just got a text from my daughter saying she
got rear ended in Arizona.

Speaker 3 (07:45):
And my first thing I thought about was your your
referral service?

Speaker 5 (07:49):
Is that in Arizona? Do you recommend I advise her
if anything?

Speaker 1 (07:52):
Yeah, no it is not. But that's not the point.
We're only in southern California. But it doesn't change what
happens under these circumstances. The first question any lawyer will
will have is what she injured as far as the
liability is concerned, because you need liability and you need causation.

(08:14):
Those are the two big ones that are involved, so
liability you have rear ended.

Speaker 2 (08:20):
Was she banged up? Yes, okay seriously, but had I'm
sorry she had? What kind of injuries?

Speaker 6 (08:31):
A cut lip, a sore back, nothing serious, I guess. Okay, okay, fair.

Speaker 1 (08:36):
Enough, fair enough, Okay, yeah, I'm going to suggest a
personal injury lawyer.

Speaker 2 (08:40):
I'll tell you what.

Speaker 1 (08:41):
The insurance company on the other side, they're going to
want to settle, and I'm sure they're going to call
her and her medical bills are paid for, assuming the
other guy has insurance. Medical bills are going to be
paid for. The car is going to be repaired. That's easy, pasy.
The one that is a little bit more difficult is
what does she get for pain and suffering the cut lip?

Speaker 2 (09:01):
That helps because that's subjective. You can actually see a
cut lip. The pain.

Speaker 1 (09:07):
The back pain is completely subjective. I have back pain.
It's an eight out of ten. No, it's not it's
a five out of ten. No, it's a four out
of ten. No, it's a nine out of ten. And
so what will happen is an X ray MRI will
be taken. If it's soft tissue, nothing will show up.
And that doesn't mean that the pain isn't real. That

(09:28):
doesn't mean that there's that it's not real injury. But
the insurance company is going to argue like crazy, effectively
that your daughter's lying.

Speaker 2 (09:40):
Now, I mean that's the bottom line, that.

Speaker 1 (09:42):
You're a that she's a ma lingerer, which means, yeah,
she's making this up.

Speaker 2 (09:47):
But this is where a lawyer kicks in and it's
worth it.

Speaker 1 (09:50):
Now, you'll probably pay a third to the lawyer, but
that third that you pay more than makes up for
what a lawyer should be getting from an ins insurance company.
The other side of this, or there is another side
of this, is the insurance company that represents the driver.

Speaker 2 (10:07):
This is where a lawyer comes in. If it's not
a good enough case.

Speaker 1 (10:11):
If it's an insurance company that fights like crazy, lawyer probably.

Speaker 2 (10:14):
Won't even take it because the insurance.

Speaker 1 (10:16):
Company says, I don't care, we're defending no matter what.

Speaker 2 (10:19):
You go ahead and sue and we're going to trial
on this.

Speaker 1 (10:22):
And very few lawyers would ever take a case like
this and go against an insurance company that is aggressive. Now,
how many insurance companies you think you have out there?
You know, zillions? So she should at least talk to
a lawyer. Or to to find out if there's anything there.
I hope that help said, does okay?

Speaker 2 (10:43):
Uh that Brandt? Hello Brandt, Well.

Speaker 6 (10:47):
It is okay, what are you famili Hey, I've got
an incompetent Caltrans or whoever the Orange County equivalent is
outside my neighborhood, of course. And yeah, they for the
last few weeks they've been doing this project, and you know,
at first it was like the cones are set up
horribly when they're shutting down lanes and it's impossible to

(11:08):
tell where to go to workers crossing live traffic without
looking and almost getting hit and several people in the
neighborhood have experienced that. And then it culminates last night
with one of the metal plates either then for forgetting
to cover up a hole or it just falling off,
and you had about I don't know multiple cars, including
my brother driving across it, you know, damaging their cars

(11:29):
potentially their injuries. We're still kind of waiting to hear
the reports, but I just want to know, like who
do we go after?

Speaker 1 (11:34):
Okay, okay, all right, Yeah, you go after either the
contractor that they hired, which is probably the case sometimes
they and you can't tell whether it is a straight
out city or county job because they do those two
usually some kind of a contractor. So you're going after

(11:57):
the contractor and you're going after the county because usually
it's the county of these jobs. Sometimes city, you know,
sometimes as state Caltrans you get to find out which
one it is, and that's California. That's a California repair
and they maintain the roads and build up roads. So
that's number one. How many of you are there that

(12:19):
have been tagged on.

Speaker 4 (12:20):
This, I don't know.

Speaker 6 (12:22):
It just happened last night, and okay, got it?

Speaker 1 (12:24):
I think yeah, I think all of you if you
all get together and hire a lawyer, you should be
in good shape.

Speaker 2 (12:30):
Individually.

Speaker 1 (12:32):
I mean, you're gonna put in a claim. Uh, they're
going to deny the claim, which they always do, and
then you go forward. You have to the fact is
it happened last night. You're that's wonderful because you have
within six months you have to file a claim.

Speaker 2 (12:45):
That's the law.

Speaker 1 (12:46):
If you don't file a claim, there's a statute of
limitations of let's say three years. And when you're going
after a municipality or any governmental entity, you have to
make the claim within six months and that allows you
to go forward and people blow that one and then
that's old, that's over so and it's ridiculous because it's
the same thing that happens. No, you know, we're gonna

(13:09):
deny and we did nothing wrong. It always happens. I
mean literally, you could have a city arborist come out
cutting down trees and they take someone's leg off with
those chainsaws, and the city will go, oh, no, no,
he's got another leg. He can hop there's no problem
within this leg. I mean, it's almost that bad. So
the trick is I'd look for a lawyer who's gone

(13:31):
after this and you can do some research on this
just throwing those search words, and that is a law firm,
city county. You can find out potholes, incompetent repairs.

Speaker 2 (13:44):
I mean, there's a bunch of ways to go, but
you know there is liability there.

Speaker 1 (13:50):
And do you end up going to court, Yeah, probably
not because you go up the ladder in terms of
settlement steps. So you have appeals all over the place.
But it really does take someone who knows what he
or she is doing. There's there's some experts.

Speaker 6 (14:07):
Frankly, I'd rather just have them switch out the contractor
and then have it improve.

Speaker 2 (14:11):
But yeah, it's not your call.

Speaker 1 (14:14):
Brand, it's not your call, and there's a contractor there,
and I'm sure with the within the contract, Uh, there's
an exit clause H a exit strategy where if the
contractor is blown out, X number of dollars are paid
to the contractor.

Speaker 2 (14:29):
I believe me. It's a lot more complicated than just.

Speaker 1 (14:32):
Oh, they screwed up and we want them throw it out,
So do the do the research. Unfortunately, I have to
throw that at you because I don't have lawyers that
know what they're doing. Now, I do have lawyers when
it comes to personal injury, and uh, that one is
why I created handle on the law dot com because,

(14:53):
as I just told a caller a few minutes ago,
when there is liability, let's say you've been t bone
and or you've been rear ended, that's liability.

Speaker 2 (15:03):
You got them.

Speaker 1 (15:04):
And let's say you go to a box store and
one of these boxes fall on your head. I've seen that,
or a slip and fall where it's not your fault
and you've been injured, and that's important.

Speaker 2 (15:13):
It can't be your fault.

Speaker 1 (15:15):
And if you've been injured, I'm going to suggest, I'm
you're basically gonna need a lawyer, particularly the worst of injury,
and so I'm going to suggest is contacting handle on
the Law dot Com. This is why I created it,
because there's so many lawyers advertising out there, I mean
all over the place. And which one do you know?
Which ones do you go to? Who do you trust?

(15:35):
Some are great, some are not so great I would
go to. But when you go to handle on the
law dot com, these are lawyers who are vetted. That's starting.
And number two, if there's a problem, I make the
phone call. I call the lawyer and go what the.

Speaker 2 (15:51):
Hell is going on? We have an unhappy camper here.

Speaker 1 (15:54):
So if you've been injured, not your fault, Handle on
the law dot com. Handle on the law dot This
is Handle on the Law.

Speaker 2 (16:04):
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty.

Speaker 1 (16:11):
Kfive AM six forty Bill Handle here Saturday morning, right
up until eleven o'clock and the phone numbers here we
have lines open eight hundred five two zero one five
three four eight hundred five two zero one five three four.
We got off to a little bit of rough start
this morning, and so we were a little bit delayed, which.

Speaker 2 (16:32):
Means the phone calls were a little bit delayed. So
the number eight.

Speaker 1 (16:35):
Hundred five two zero one, five three four And I'll
answer your question in my inimitable bubble style welcome back
handle on the law marginal legal advice where I tell
you have no case. Yo, Mary, you're up, Welcome to
the show.

Speaker 7 (16:57):
Good morning, Thanks for attorney. Yes, my divorce, my former
divorce attorney advised me to do the California judge for
knowingly upholding a summary disillusion divorce document because we are
marriage with long term and a summary dissolusion is document

(17:18):
type of divorce is only supposed to be applicable to
short term marriages. So my question is can we can
we see the judge he advised me to do what
he told me. He specializes only in divorce.

Speaker 2 (17:30):
You're talking about the judge.

Speaker 1 (17:33):
Yeah, okay, Well let me ask you if we can.
How were you Let's start with how were you damaged?
Because it was a summary divorce as opposed to a
full blown divorce. Would you have gotten more in a
full blown divorce? Would you have gotten support? Would Gordon
gotten more assets?

Speaker 5 (17:50):
Absolutely?

Speaker 2 (17:51):
Okay?

Speaker 1 (17:52):
And you're saying that the judge went forward with the
summary divorce in which no property was transferred whatsoever, no
custom city. It was just here you are divorced, boom.
In other words, you filed the divorce a traditional divorce
in which the assets were talked about, and you any

(18:12):
pension plans under quadro all of that. Did you have
those in the original divorce document?

Speaker 7 (18:22):
No?

Speaker 2 (18:23):
Okay? So what what? What were you guys fighting over?

Speaker 5 (18:28):
We were fighting over everything.

Speaker 1 (18:30):
The point is, okay, you you just said there were
no assets to split up. You said there were no okay,
so there were assets involved, got it?

Speaker 7 (18:41):
There were assets, but they weren't put in black and white.

Speaker 5 (18:44):
They weren't put in the document.

Speaker 2 (18:46):
Okay, that's your attorney. That's your attorney.

Speaker 7 (18:49):
Finished, Please can I can I finish?

Speaker 5 (18:52):
Okay?

Speaker 7 (18:53):
To make it real clear, my attorney did look at
the appellate court requirements, and the Pillar Court has made
clear that in order to do as summary disillusion there
are requirements. It's for short term marriages only for people
that don't have assets and so forth. And that's why
my former attorney told me that it was a fraudulently

(19:14):
generated and uphail divorced by the judge and so he
advised me to sue the judge.

Speaker 1 (19:20):
Okay, so let me ask you this. You asked for
assets through the divorce. The judge ignored asking for assets,
and all he said was here's the divorce. Boom, gavel over,
No assets distribution, nothing is just your divorce.

Speaker 2 (19:38):
Is that correct?

Speaker 7 (19:40):
No?

Speaker 5 (19:41):
That is not correct.

Speaker 7 (19:42):
Was he did not get all the assets? He only
looked at one house. It was several houses that were involved.

Speaker 1 (19:49):
Then that probably isn't a summary divorce. Yeah, so your attorney.
Did your attorney file the documents for the assets? Did
your attorneys say these are the assets that have to
be split it up?

Speaker 2 (20:00):
There?

Speaker 1 (20:00):
It is this house, this bank account, this retirement fund, uh,
these stocks? Was that all put in the divorce proceedings
or the divorce paperwork that was filed in front of
the judge.

Speaker 5 (20:14):
No, only only the property.

Speaker 1 (20:17):
Okay, then your attorney, then your attorneys, your attorneys screwed
it up.

Speaker 5 (20:21):
But the whole point is there are rules that's supposed.

Speaker 2 (20:24):
To Okay, but let me ask you a question.

Speaker 1 (20:25):
Hold on a minute, why aren't you going after your
attorney who didn't put in all of your assets.

Speaker 2 (20:30):
Why wouldn't you go.

Speaker 5 (20:31):
After the attorney he did not make the decision.

Speaker 1 (20:35):
I'm not arguing that. Why didn't you go after the
attorney for not putting in all of the assets. I
know you want to go after the judge, and I
don't know why you want to protect your own attorney
who didn't do a good job for you.

Speaker 3 (20:49):
No, let's say the summary.

Speaker 2 (20:51):
Let's say the summary judgment.

Speaker 1 (20:52):
You can overturn the subbery judgment on appeal, probably if
you can prove.

Speaker 7 (20:57):
That the judge it can be appealed. We found that, well,
he actually all the way around, it cannot even be Okay.

Speaker 2 (21:06):
The fraud was there? Fraud committed by your attorney.

Speaker 7 (21:11):
No, I don't think so.

Speaker 2 (21:12):
Okay, so he put the So let's go back.

Speaker 1 (21:14):
He the attorney put down all of the assets, everything
to be distributed.

Speaker 5 (21:19):
All down, he said. The only thing he put down
was down.

Speaker 2 (21:24):
That's my point. The attorney malpracticed.

Speaker 5 (21:28):
No, no, the judge.

Speaker 1 (21:30):
Okay, yeah, attorney that where they split up? No, where
they split up?

Speaker 2 (21:35):
Yes? Uh, summary judgment was anything to be split up?
Did you know? Yes? Yes?

Speaker 1 (21:41):
No, okay, why not? I love those phone calls. I
love those phone calls. By the way, if the judge
wrongly puts down a decision based on uh, you know,
if he wrongly made a summary judgment, which means summary judgment.
Right there nothing to be split up. Whatever that can
be appealed. There's you know, there are ways of doing that.

(22:06):
Oh Dan, Hello Dan, Welcome.

Speaker 4 (22:11):
Hi Bill.

Speaker 3 (22:12):
How are you doing? Yes, sir, My question is if
I have a string of lights across my backyard, they've
been there for over six years and the HOA creates
a new rule that disallows people from doing that, Am
I protected by the statute's limitations?

Speaker 2 (22:30):
No? Absolutely not. There's no statute involved.

Speaker 1 (22:34):
The decision is and the HOA can't say that no
more lights hanging across the backyard. You could argue it's
grandfather in but the HOA has pretty unlimited power. If
you look at HOA law in California, the courts give
real deference to the HOA and the the ccnrs. You

(22:57):
have to look at the conditions because everybody gets everybody
gets a document which nobody reads when you buy a condo,
and it's probably eighty pages or one hundred pages, and
it lays out all the rules, and they're crazy.

Speaker 3 (23:12):
This is a new rule there.

Speaker 1 (23:14):
Right now, I understand. Now is the HOA allowed to
do that under the rule. That's what I'm the point
I'm making. I mean, the HOA can make changes, for example,
the speed limit through the community fifteen miles an hour.
Now you know what, we're changing into ten miles an hour,

(23:36):
or we're changing into twenty miles an hour. They can
do that. They absolutely can do that. So the issue
is across your backyard. Could it be seen by any
anybody else? Or is it just arbitrary?

Speaker 2 (23:50):
I'm savers, Yeah, okay, so behind us, Yeah, you see.

Speaker 1 (23:55):
I think you got a tough row there at Tahoe
or is that a tough hoe to row?

Speaker 2 (23:59):
I've always got to confused.

Speaker 1 (24:01):
So it's yeah, I don't think you've got much there.
I think the HOA does the evability to do that
unless you get the neighbors to sign off and say
we're okay with it, and then you're arguing with the
HOA that it isn't bothering anybody.

Speaker 2 (24:15):
And even then I think they have the right to
do that.

Speaker 1 (24:19):
Hoa's are immensely powerful those boards. And the way you
do is you get on the board and you convince
the other board members to go back on that just
change his mind. Which you can. So you get to
do some hoa politicking. How about that? This is Handle

(24:40):
on the Law. I am six forty go handle here
on a Saturday morning right up until eleven o'clock, followed
by Rich Demurrow with the Tech Show, followed by Neil
Savadro with the Fork Report, the Food Show, and Neil
is of course with me Monday through Friday on the

(25:02):
Morning Show.

Speaker 2 (25:04):
A phone number here.

Speaker 1 (25:06):
We still have a few minutes till the end of
the hour, and then we kick it in again for
another couple of hours. Eight hundred five to two zero
one five three four, eight hundred five to zero one
five three four. This is Handle on the Law marginal
legal advice where I tell you you have absolutely no case.

Speaker 2 (25:29):
David, Hello, David.

Speaker 4 (25:33):
Yes, good morning Bill. Birmingham High School closs Birmingham High
School class is sixty eight.

Speaker 2 (25:39):
Oh okay, so we went through to high school together.
That's great, all right.

Speaker 4 (25:45):
So I've been charged with four different counts. I have
a public defender. This started in October November. I want
to fire the public defender because she's been lying to me,
and her manager does not allow me to fire her.
What do I do?

Speaker 2 (26:04):
Okay, First of all, let me ask you.

Speaker 1 (26:06):
You've been charged with four counts of what what do
they charge you with?

Speaker 4 (26:12):
Well, the general heading is grand theft from a person.

Speaker 1 (26:16):
Oh, under what circumstances have you been accused of grand thefting?

Speaker 4 (26:24):
I was in a Trader Jose parking lot working as
a DoorDash delivery person, and I was in the lane,
I wasn't in where the parking spaces were, and a
lady was blocking me. I needed to get to my customer,
so I got out of my car. I knocked on
the lady's window five times, spoke through the window, and

(26:46):
she ignored me. So I grabbed a door handle, not
knowing whether it was going to open, and it did open.
She had her phone camera in her lap and she
took a ten second video of me. So the counts
were she kills me.

Speaker 2 (27:05):
Wait wait wait wait.

Speaker 1 (27:06):
Grand theft means you've stolen something. So far, all I've
heard is she took a video of you.

Speaker 4 (27:15):
That's what I'm gonna tell you. So I opened the
door partially, and but I backed away from the car.
When you open the door, you have to back away
from the car, and then the video ends. Her accusation
was that her purse fell onto the ground when I
opened the door, the purse was laying on the floor
by her brake pedal, that I stole the purse. It

(27:37):
was fifteen hundred dollars in an envelope in the purse.
I took that that I grabbed her and peter up.

Speaker 2 (27:44):
Okay, and you go, and none of this happened? Correct?
Say that again, none of this happened? Is that correct?

Speaker 4 (27:51):
It's all a lie?

Speaker 1 (27:53):
Okay, Well, they have video of the parking lot, which
is kind of interesting, and I'm.

Speaker 4 (27:58):
Still don't they don't they don't have surveillance video, all right?

Speaker 7 (28:02):
Do they?

Speaker 2 (28:02):
Are there any witnesses present at all?

Speaker 4 (28:06):
There was a male bystander who came to her assistance.
I told him to go away because I had nothing
to do.

Speaker 2 (28:13):
So is he willing?

Speaker 1 (28:14):
Is he willing to testify that her story is correct
against yours?

Speaker 4 (28:20):
No, he's he's gone away.

Speaker 1 (28:22):
So she's so at this point, okay, So at this
point what you have is her story versus your story?

Speaker 2 (28:30):
Right?

Speaker 4 (28:31):
Yes?

Speaker 2 (28:32):
Okay, Well, it's gonna be hard to.

Speaker 1 (28:33):
Prove because she has to the prosecution has to prove
what she is saying is true.

Speaker 2 (28:39):
And it's he said, she said, so that's kind of difficult.

Speaker 1 (28:42):
Now let's go to the uh the attorney uh and
her superior saying you cannot get you have to stay
on the case.

Speaker 7 (28:50):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (28:50):
It's a judge's call.

Speaker 1 (28:52):
And you go in front of the judge and say,
your honor, I don't believe I'm getting proper representation. I
would like another attorney assign to me. And the judge
makes that decision. And you can do that. And especially
if the attorney doesn't go in and represent you, if
you have to go in and say and the public
defender won't even represent me, I can't even get representation.

(29:15):
I think you have the I think you can get
another attorney, another PD to represent you.

Speaker 2 (29:21):
To address the judge, yeah, oh, absolutely address the judge.

Speaker 1 (29:25):
Oh yeah, you address the judge and you can ask
the clerk of the court. How you address the judge?
Is it a letter to the judge? Want you have
is an emotion of some kind you file? Is it
just you walk in and you say, your honor, my
attorney is not representing me or will not leave, and
I'm not getting proper representation or we are not getting along.

(29:50):
You have to find out what works on that one,
because that's that's an interesting one. My attorney doesn't represent me.
It's kind of an interesting case.

Speaker 2 (30:01):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (30:02):
Hey, this morning, as I started the show, which I
normally do in the mornings, I had a bagel with
locks on it smoke salmon, and as I'm looking at
my phone, I can actually see the glass sort of
waving because of my breath, and all of a sudden,
I know I have really bad breath.

Speaker 2 (30:23):
So what can I do about it?

Speaker 1 (30:25):
Well, I can take a mint and suck on a
mint and the bad breath goes away in my mouth
for a little while, but the bad breath still comes out.
Why because the smoke salmon goes into my stomach and
it still does its thing with the acids and the
burning and the churning, and bad breath quite often starts

(30:45):
in your stomach.

Speaker 2 (30:46):
And no mint in.

Speaker 1 (30:47):
The world that takes care of that. And this is
why Zelman's is around. Zelman's mintye mouth does take care
of that, takes care of both issues, both your mouth
and in your You pop two or three in your mouth.
It's covered with a nice strong MINTI flavor and or
they also have spearmint now and then you bite into

(31:08):
or swallow the capsule and it gets to work in
your gut.

Speaker 2 (31:11):
And man, what a difference that makes.

Speaker 1 (31:13):
So let me suggest you go to the website. Go
to see Zelmans dot com, z E L M I
n S. Zelmans dot com, zelmans dot com.

Speaker 2 (31:24):
This is Handle on the Law. You're listening to Bill
Handle on demand from kf I A M six forty