PDA

View Full Version : Be Careful of what Your Volunteer For



palani
29th September 2011, 02:57 PM
Interesting. This is an innovative chess game. The opposing side makes the rules on the fly. Kelton provided a business card with the word "Investigator" to a police chief. So in order to act as an "investigator" you must be properly licensed

http://www.cbs19.tv/story/15578241/austin-radio-talk-show-host-sentenced-in-etexas-for-investigating-without-alicense

Austin radio talk show host sentenced in E Texas for investigating without a license


An Austin radio talk show host convicted of acting as an investigations company, without holding the proper license, received a one-year prison sentence Wednesday in Judge Craig Fletcher's court.

Randall D. Kelton, who is known as Randy "Due Process" Kelton on "Rule of Law Radio," also was fined $4,000 for the offense, a class A misdemeanor. A Cherokee County jury found Kelton guilty Tuesday.

The charge stems from an incident on March 23, 2009.

Cherokee County Attorney Craig Caldwell said Kelton went to the area in the county courthouse where the grand jury was meeting and spoke with Rusk Police Chief Joe Evans, who was an investigator for the District Attorney's Office and acting as bailiff at the time.

In the process of that conversation, Kelton wanted to provide information to the grand jury on behalf of personal acquaintance Robert Fox, he said.

"Mr. Evans told Mr. Kelton he wasn't on the agenda for that day so he probably wouldn't be able to present items but Evans would present it to the district attorney and it would be his decision as to what went on then," Caldwell said. "He also handed Evans (a business card) that identified himself in one item on there as an investigator and there wasn't any license number indicated on the card."

Caldwell said once he became aware there was no number on Kelton's card, he began to investigate to see what regulations there were about an investigations company.

He said he later learned that the activity of gathering evidence to be presented to the grand jury, an arm of the Second Judicial District Court, is described as activity of an investigations company, and in order to conduct the activity, a person must have a license.

In a motion to quash information, Kelton claims he was in his right to send notice to the grand jury that he "has reason to believe crimes have been committed" and that "nothing in law restricts (him) from talking to the grand jury foreman when he is sitting on the toilet, eating breakfast, or doing anything else other than sitting in a grand jury hearing in quorum."

Nothing in his complaint alleged that he was paid for investigating, and there was no evidence that he considered himself anything but a journalist, Kelton writes.

Ken Magnuson, a constituent who was asked to attend Kelton's trial at the request of state Rep. Tan Parker, R-Flower Mound, said a lot of Kelton's objections were overruled, and the prosecution was "getting great latitude to question."

Caldwell said Kelton attempted to make arguments, but they didn't address the actual charges brought against him.

"When an individual says they represent themselves, (he) still has to abide by the rules of criminal procedure and the court's operations. If they're outside the rules, they're going to be objected to," he said.

Magnuson said Tuesday he was "fairly certain" the case will be appealed.

vacuum
29th September 2011, 09:14 PM
When you are dealing with these small town good-old-boys gangs, the only thing they understand is force. Unless they understand there will be consequences, they will do things like lock you up for a year just because they can. They need to understand it is a personal matter in such situations.

This prosecution only happened because he was interfering in their territory.

palani
30th September 2011, 03:44 AM
This prosecution only happened because he was interfering in their territory.

No doubt about it. A good rule is "failure to appear is the same as to not exist".

In this case the appearance was by BUSINESS card. The card proclaimed him to be an INVESTIGATOR. I presume the statute law makes this an occupation that is licenseable.

It all could have been avoided had he kept his card to himself. All this means is the system would have to dig deeper to find something to hold him accountable for.

osoab
30th September 2011, 04:24 AM
No doubt about it. A good rule is "failure to appear is the same as to not exist".

In this case the appearance was by BUSINESS card. The card proclaimed him to be an INVESTIGATOR. I presume the statute law makes this an occupation that is licenseable.

It all could have been avoided had he kept his card to himself. All this means is the system would have to dig deeper to find something to hold him accountable for.


What if his card said "I investigate"?

palani
30th September 2011, 05:32 AM
What if his card said "I investigate"?

An investigator investigates. That in the context of a BUSINESS card ... not a good area to have poorly defined.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/DocViewer.aspx?K2DocKey=odbc%3a%2f%2fTCAS%2fASUPUB LIC.dbo.vwTCAS%2fOC%2fS%2fOC.1702%40TCAS2&QueryText=investigator&HighlightType=1


SUBCHAPTER J. REGISTRATION AND ENDORSEMENT REQUIREMENTS; DUTIES OF REGISTRANT AND ENDORSEMENT HOLDER

Sec. 1702.221. REGISTRATION AND ENDORSEMENT REQUIRED. (a) To perform any activity regulated by this chapter, the individual must:

(1) register in accordance with the requirements of this chapter and related administrative rules;

(2) obtain the proper endorsement under Subsection (b); and

(3) be employed by a company licensed under this chapter.

(b) An individual must obtain the appropriate endorsement in accordance with the requirements of this chapter and related administrative rules if the individual:

(1) is employed as:

(A) an alarm instructor;

(B) an alarm systems installer;

(C) an alarm systems monitor;

(D) an electronic access control device installer;

(E) a level 3 classroom or firearm instructor;

(F) a locksmith;

(G) a dog trainer;

(H) a manager or branch office manager;

(I) a noncommissioned security officer;

(J) a level 4 personal protection instructor;

(K) a private investigator ;

(L) a private security consultant;

(M) a security salesperson; or

(N) an individual whose duties include performing another activity for which an endorsement is required under Subsection (e); or

(2) is an owner who oversees the security-related aspects of the business, officer, partner, or shareholder of a license holder.


Notice that even the OWNER of such an enterprise is not exempt.

Dog trainers are not exempt either.

You might even be engaged in an illegal occupation if you are a branch manager and possess a key to the front door.

Glass
30th September 2011, 10:01 AM
You might even be engaged in an illegal occupation if you are a branch manager and possess a key to the front door.

That's sure what it looks like. Front door key could fit this part.

(2) is an owner who oversees the security-related aspects of the business, officer, partner, or shareholder of a license holder.Bizzaro world.

iOWNme
30th September 2011, 01:16 PM
Damn, of all people they got Kelton on this crap? Im sure he will appeal......

They have had it out for him for years.

palani
30th September 2011, 01:33 PM
Im sure he will appeal.

Appeals employ attorneys and keep the state solvent. For these reasons I am fundamentally opposed to them.

iOWNme
30th September 2011, 04:23 PM
Appeals employ attorneys and keep the state solvent. For these reasons I am fundamentally opposed to them.

As if Randy would hire an attorney to appeal......LOL

Either way this will be interesting to watch play out.

palani
30th September 2011, 04:48 PM
As if Randy would hire an attorney to appeal......LOL

One winning stategy is to get a court appointed attorney. Local guy worked out the details so we are waiting to see how it works. Has to do with their code of conduct.

He filed some paperwork with the clerk and then proceeded to hearing. While in hearing the clerk came in with the paperwork and handed it to "his honor". After glancing through it the black robed cross dresser started stuttering. The defendant told him "You'll have to speak up. I don't understand stutter." This was not a young judge either.

These guys are not interested in the law. They are not interested in fact. They are only interested in paycheck. So if that is their only interest therein lies your attack ... you go after the BAR card.

Glass
30th September 2011, 06:02 PM
you go after the BAR card.

Yep go for the BAR and get their retirement funds.... often disguised as a "Court Fund".

palani
6th October 2011, 05:23 PM
A copy of Randy Kelton's paperwork

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CFUQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jurisimprudence.com%2F!Docume nts%26Research%2FCherokee%2520County%2520Clerk%2FQ uash%2520information.doc&rct=j&q=randy%20kelton%20indictment&ei=UTyOTp2tJIatsAL4mNyqAQ&usg=AFQjCNF4o1ELDZd_QACyTrjKeqSadYhQOg&cad=rja