[00:00.000 --> 00:05.000] This news brief brought to you by the International Newsnet. [00:05.000 --> 00:11.000] Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday his country is open to talks on its nuclear program [00:11.000 --> 00:15.000] and accused the West of seeking pretexts to dodge negotiations. [00:15.000 --> 00:18.000] Ahmadinejad's remarks follow other indications. [00:18.000 --> 00:24.000] Tehran is ready for new talks with the five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany. [00:24.000 --> 00:29.000] The last round of talks held in Turkey last January ended with no resolution. [00:29.000 --> 00:38.000] Dadi Prince, Turkey al-Faisal, warned Wednesday that unless the Middle East becomes a nuclear weapons-free zone, [00:38.000 --> 00:45.000] a nuclear arms race is inevitable and could include his own country, Iraq, Egypt and Turkey. [00:45.000 --> 00:53.000] Turkey said the UN Security Council should impose sanctions against Iran if there's evidence it is pursuing weapons of mass destruction. [00:53.000 --> 00:58.000] But it should also penalize Israel if it fails to reveal its nuclear arsenal. [00:58.000 --> 01:09.000] Pollution in China's southern region of Gangsy sparked panic hoarding of bottled water this week after a mining firm dumped toxic cadmium into a river. [01:09.000 --> 01:18.000] Authorities found waste discharged into the Longjiang River by Jin-Ae mining caused levels of cadmium three times the government's accepted limit. [01:18.000 --> 01:25.000] Even so, the government still sought to reassure people that drinking water supply was safe. [01:25.000 --> 01:31.000] Barack Obama used Tuesday's State of the Union speech to urge tax hikes on the rich, [01:31.000 --> 01:37.000] echoing the Occupy movement and well aware his opponent could be multi-millionaire Mitt Romney. [01:37.000 --> 01:45.000] But experts say Obama's appeals for greater wealth equality come at a time when the American dream is becoming tougher to achieve [01:45.000 --> 01:49.000] after three decades of rising inequality. [01:49.000 --> 01:55.000] Democrat and Republican administrations alike have presided over an ever widening wealth gap. [01:55.000 --> 02:09.000] A recent report by the Brookings Institute and the Pew Charitable Trust finds that between 1979 and 2004, the top 1% enjoyed a 176% increase in after-tax income [02:09.000 --> 02:13.000] and the richest one-fifth saw a 69% rise. [02:13.000 --> 02:18.000] Meanwhile, after-tax income of the poorest one-fifth rose by just 9%. [02:18.000 --> 02:31.000] The report showed that between 1978 and 2005, CEO pay increased from 35 times to 262 times the average workers' earnings. [02:31.000 --> 02:43.000] UN Human Rights Chief Navi Pillay said Wednesday thousands of prisoners, most accused of being loyalists of Muammar Gaddafi, plus many from sub-Saharan Africa, continued to be tortured in Libyan jails. [02:43.000 --> 02:50.000] UN officials say the new government has struggled to take control of detainees held by fighters who overthrew Gaddafi. [02:50.000 --> 03:01.000] Pillay called for Libya's detention centers to be brought under Libya's Justice Ministry and General Prosecutor's Office and for detainees to be screened so they could be freed or receive a fair trial. [03:20.000 --> 03:33.000] Bad boys, what you want, what you going to do? [03:33.000 --> 03:38.000] When should a general come for you? [03:38.000 --> 03:45.000] Tell me, what you gonna do, what you gonna do? [03:45.000 --> 03:54.000] Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do, what you gonna do when they come for you? [03:54.000 --> 04:06.000] Alright folks, good evening. This is the Thursday Night Rule of Law radio show. It is January 26, 2012 with Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens and me, Eddie Craig. [04:06.000 --> 04:12.000] We are gonna conduct our two-hour show tonight and before we get rolling on a couple things Randy's got, [04:12.000 --> 04:28.000] I've been thinking about something that's going on in these courts regarding the traffic stuff and right now one of the issues that we're going over and over and over is lack of notice. [04:28.000 --> 04:40.000] So I got to contemplating the thought that since everything else in the traffic ticket system is an illusion, it's a trick. [04:40.000 --> 04:57.000] I got to thinking since they keep skipping over the right to notice and nobody says anything about the lack of notice, where are they tricking us into waving it? [04:57.000 --> 05:06.000] And I thought about it and I thought about it and I came to the conclusion after reading and rereading everything on a traffic citation. [05:06.000 --> 05:11.000] I want to read you what is down there where your signature block goes. [05:11.000 --> 05:17.000] Now you know the cop will always tell you this is not an admission of guilt, it's just a promise to appear. [05:17.000 --> 05:30.000] So you're signing a promise, okay? So you're making a contractual agreement with the officer that you'll show up in court if he will let you go now. [05:30.000 --> 05:34.000] That's basically what the promise to appear is all about. [05:34.000 --> 05:42.000] However, there's some other language that's in that same agreement. [05:42.000 --> 05:55.000] Not only are you sitting there and agreeing to appear, now this is true on every citation I have ever seen, even way back there this language is on the citation. [05:55.000 --> 05:59.000] And this is what you're actually signing in the statement. [05:59.000 --> 06:21.000] I have received this written notice to appear and I will appear at the city of Austin Municipal Court on or before the date and time designated above in order to enter a plea of guilty, not guilty, or no contest to each violation listed on this ticket. [06:21.000 --> 06:25.000] So this is actually a two-part agreement. [06:25.000 --> 06:32.000] Not only are you agreeing to appear, but you are agreeing to enter a plea. [06:32.000 --> 06:50.000] Now, those that come to the regular classes on Sunday know that if you enter a plea, you have waived your right to notice and you have waived your right to or the court's lack of impersonal jurisdiction. [06:50.000 --> 06:57.000] So you have waived two very important things by entering that plea. [06:57.000 --> 07:13.000] So it would appear that the way they're tricking us into waiving notice and why notice is being ignored throughout the rest of the process is because you signed it away on the ticket. [07:13.000 --> 07:24.000] Now, me and an individual, we discussed this at length and what we came up with is that there's two possibilities at work here. [07:24.000 --> 07:36.000] If my assumption about how they're doing this is correct, then this is an unconscionable, unsustainable contract. [07:36.000 --> 07:40.000] One, it does not disclose that you're waiving any rights. [07:40.000 --> 07:52.000] Okay? So right off the bat, you're being tricked into waiving the right to notice by agreeing to enter a plea. [07:52.000 --> 07:55.000] So that's one possibility. [07:55.000 --> 07:59.000] It's an unconscionable, unsustainable contract. [07:59.000 --> 08:10.000] The other is, is that the duty is on the individual to be aware of the terms of any contract and agreement they go into. [08:10.000 --> 08:26.000] And if they don't insist on full disclosure, then, and the writing is still right in front of them that insinuates what the result will be, then the contract becomes one that's enforceable. [08:26.000 --> 08:35.000] So in either of these cases, the citation must, by default, become a form of negotiation. [08:35.000 --> 08:38.000] Do you agree or don't you agree? [08:38.000 --> 08:41.000] Well, we continue to talk about this at length. [08:41.000 --> 08:50.000] And so the next time someone issues a citation to me, what I'm going to do is line out all of the language after the promise to appear. [08:50.000 --> 09:00.000] I agree to appear and that's all I'm agreeing to the rest of it, I'm lining out and I'm initially, I am now entering into negotiations with the cop. [09:00.000 --> 09:07.000] I agree to that term of the contract, but I will not agree to the second to enter a plea. [09:07.000 --> 09:12.000] So I'm going to line it out and give it back and let him review it and see if he wants to accept it. [09:12.000 --> 09:16.000] Now at this point, one of two things again is going to happen. [09:16.000 --> 09:20.000] He's going to say, you can't do that and if you do it again, I'm going to arrest you. [09:20.000 --> 09:25.000] I'm going to fill out a new citation and you're going to sign it without doing that or you're going to jail. [09:25.000 --> 09:34.000] Well, if they do this, then they have removed the ability to negotiate the terms of the contract. [09:34.000 --> 09:39.000] They're saying that this is now a catch-22 situation. [09:39.000 --> 09:54.000] You will sign accepting all of the terms of the contract without any negotiation and if you refuse to accept all the terms of the contract without negotiation, then we're going to take it to jail anyway. [09:54.000 --> 10:06.000] So the other option being that he doesn't care or doesn't notice that you lined out the second half and he takes the ticket and issues it to you in that state. [10:06.000 --> 10:10.000] Okay? So those are the possibilities. [10:10.000 --> 10:18.000] So Randy, what I would like is for you to comment on that and see what you think about the analysis of that language and the agreement. [10:18.000 --> 10:20.000] Two words. [10:20.000 --> 10:24.000] Ultravirates. [10:24.000 --> 10:34.000] The city has no power to negotiate the issue of entering a plea or not entering a plea. [10:34.000 --> 10:51.000] They're given the power under statute to accept a promise to appear, but they're given no power to negotiate by contract your entering a plea or not entering a plea. [10:51.000 --> 10:55.000] I agree that that does not appear in statute. [10:55.000 --> 10:57.000] I absolutely agree. [10:57.000 --> 11:05.000] Therefore, it is ultravirates, the city has no power to enter into that contract. [11:05.000 --> 11:08.000] Therefore, they're making a difference if you sign or not. [11:08.000 --> 11:12.000] That portion of the contract is unconscionable. [11:12.000 --> 11:16.000] Ah, but let's consider the fact that we're not dealing with statute. [11:16.000 --> 11:21.000] We're dealing with the citation as a separate contractual instrument. [11:21.000 --> 11:23.000] Yeah, it's unconscionable. [11:23.000 --> 11:34.000] It's a contract, and it is an enforceable contract, but that portion of the contract is unconscionable and therefore not enforceable. [11:34.000 --> 11:42.000] You can enter into any contract you want to, but if you enter into an illegal contract, the illegal portion of the contract is unconscionable. [11:42.000 --> 11:52.000] Yeah, but then you're asserting that the higher courts would find it unconscionable rather than asserting the fact that you're required to know the... [11:52.000 --> 11:55.000] Well, but I'm just saying... [11:55.000 --> 12:02.000] You're asserting that the higher court will find a rule in your position too. [12:02.000 --> 12:07.000] They're going to just roll over anything you do. [12:07.000 --> 12:15.000] The only court you're going to get to do that is the civil court when you sue the city, but it's a point of law. [12:15.000 --> 12:28.000] I can enter into that portion of the contract, but if the other side has no power to enforce that portion of the contract, then it's null from the beginning. [12:28.000 --> 12:41.000] Well, but the thing is, they're acting as if they do, and you know when someone goes in, and even though they've appeared, the clerk is telling everyone in virtually every court, [12:41.000 --> 12:49.000] if you don't enter a plea, then you didn't appear, and if you didn't appear, we're going to issue a warrant for your arrest. [12:49.000 --> 12:56.000] Now that's the threat they're handing out to everyone that appears, but doesn't enter a plea. [12:56.000 --> 12:59.000] Well, I would consider that... [12:59.000 --> 13:07.000] Well, I wanted to say tampered with a witness, but no... [13:07.000 --> 13:15.000] I would call 911 and file a complaint against the clerk in any case. [13:15.000 --> 13:19.000] One for giving me legal advice. [13:19.000 --> 13:25.000] Yeah, and one for acting as a magistrate, because I don't see how the clerk has reported to say, we're going to issue a warrant. [13:25.000 --> 13:31.000] Impersonating a judicial officer. [13:31.000 --> 13:41.000] The case here being that they're acting as if all the terms of this statement are enforceable together, not separately. [13:41.000 --> 13:45.000] So that's what got me to thinking about this. [13:45.000 --> 13:49.000] How are they able to wave notice at every turn? [13:49.000 --> 13:53.000] And they can only do that if we allow them to do it. [13:53.000 --> 13:59.000] And if we sign this ticket with this full agreement on it, that appears to be what we're doing. [13:59.000 --> 14:12.000] Well, okay, that's us acting from the presumption that what they're doing is based on some semblance of law. [14:12.000 --> 14:33.000] And it absolutely is not because they are statutorily mandated to issue a contract with you as a promise to appear before a what? [14:33.000 --> 14:38.000] Not a judge, but a magistrate. [14:38.000 --> 14:53.000] And so whatever else is in the appearance is irrelevant before that, because they breach the contract on its face and they intended to breach the contract when they entered into it. [14:53.000 --> 14:59.000] You did not agree to appear before a court of subject matter jurisdiction. [14:59.000 --> 15:05.000] You agree to appear before a magistrate. [15:05.000 --> 15:12.000] And there is no court of subject matter jurisdiction until you've appeared before a magistrate. [15:12.000 --> 15:16.000] And a probable cause hearing has been held. [15:16.000 --> 15:22.000] A finding of probable cause has been made and ordered into the court. [15:22.000 --> 15:28.000] And all the records forward to the clerk that actually have subject matter jurisdiction. [15:28.000 --> 15:32.000] The proper charging instrument has been filed. [15:32.000 --> 15:35.000] I figured out that there's... [15:35.000 --> 15:39.000] There can't be an examining trial. [15:39.000 --> 15:47.000] The magistrate has no subject matter jurisdiction until he has a charging instrument in his hand, which is the criminal complaint. [15:47.000 --> 15:49.000] Well, not quite now. [15:49.000 --> 15:51.000] Don't refer to the complaint as a charging instrument. [15:51.000 --> 15:53.000] That's not true. [15:53.000 --> 15:56.000] I definitely am not. [15:56.000 --> 16:02.000] Now, this is the way that I've broken it up for the classes and the way that it makes sense to me. [16:02.000 --> 16:16.000] But what they have is when they have a signed complaint, that grants a magistrate just enough authority over the actions to conduct a registration and hold the examining trial. [16:16.000 --> 16:19.000] Let me raise an objection. [16:19.000 --> 16:22.000] Magistration. [16:22.000 --> 16:25.000] Where did you find that? [16:25.000 --> 16:29.000] We know we're referring to the 1517 proceedings. [16:29.000 --> 16:33.000] That's what they're calling it, even though that's not an official statutory name. [16:33.000 --> 16:35.000] That's what... [16:35.000 --> 16:37.000] Must be examining. [16:37.000 --> 16:43.000] Must be an examination that's the only thing a magistrate can do. [16:43.000 --> 16:45.000] I look at really... [16:45.000 --> 16:48.000] That's my touching turn, this magistration. They made it up. [16:48.000 --> 16:51.000] It's not a magistration. It has to be an examination. [16:51.000 --> 16:53.000] Nothing else a magistrate can do. [16:53.000 --> 16:55.000] Nothing. [16:55.000 --> 16:57.000] Okay. [16:57.000 --> 17:26.000] We'll be right back, folks. Thank you. [17:27.000 --> 17:42.000] One man stands apart, ready to deliver real change, voting against every tax increase and every unbalanced budget every time. [17:42.000 --> 17:48.000] A real plan to cut a trillion dollars year one and to balance the budget in three. [17:48.000 --> 17:58.000] Pro-life, pro-right to work, guided by faith and principle. Ron Paul, the one who will restore America now. [17:58.000 --> 18:00.000] I'm Ron Paul, and I approve this message. [18:00.000 --> 18:05.000] Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even losses? [18:05.000 --> 18:09.000] Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mearris Proven Method. [18:09.000 --> 18:15.000] Michael Mearris has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win two. [18:15.000 --> 18:21.000] You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statute, [18:21.000 --> 18:27.000] what to do when contacted by phones, mail, or court summons, how to answer letters and phone calls, [18:27.000 --> 18:34.000] how to get debt collectors out of your credit reports, how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away. [18:34.000 --> 18:39.000] The Michael Mearris Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. [18:39.000 --> 18:41.000] Personal consultation is available as well. [18:41.000 --> 18:49.000] For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mearris banner, or email MichaelMearris at yahoo.com. [18:49.000 --> 19:12.000] That's ruleoflawradio.com, or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors next. [19:12.000 --> 19:35.000] Okay, we're back. [19:35.000 --> 19:51.000] We were talking about the promise to appear as a contract and the continuity of that contract, [19:51.000 --> 19:59.000] and we're breaking this apart into some really fine distinctions. [19:59.000 --> 20:07.000] They'll be great if we can ever get past the front door of the court. [20:07.000 --> 20:20.000] And if we do, then I think it'll be clear that we won't ever get to these more arcane issues because we'll never get past the first issue. [20:20.000 --> 20:36.000] The Magistrate, Article 211, Code of Criminal Procedure, when a magistrate sits for the purpose of examining into a criminal accusation, that is an examining trial. [20:36.000 --> 20:50.000] And all those things they're supposed to do, I don't see how 1517 vidiates Chapter 16. [20:50.000 --> 21:03.000] A whole chapter in the Code of Criminal Procedure intended to define how an examination into a criminal accusation is held. [21:03.000 --> 21:06.000] So, me and Eddie still have an issue over this. [21:06.000 --> 21:09.000] I really have a problem with 1517. [21:09.000 --> 21:13.000] I think 1517 was written to create problems. [21:13.000 --> 21:14.000] Ah, idiots. [21:14.000 --> 21:16.000] Yes. [21:16.000 --> 21:20.000] Okay, do we have any more on that, Eddie? [21:20.000 --> 21:23.000] No, that's pretty much all I've got on it. [21:23.000 --> 21:34.000] Okay, I was going to talk about the American Bar Association standards for the prosecutorial function. [21:34.000 --> 21:37.000] Oh, there it is. [21:37.000 --> 21:47.000] Okay, I got a copy of this from a prosecutor years ago, and I was surprised at what I found in there. [21:47.000 --> 21:55.000] I have just today got it up and working right on the Bar Grievance website. [21:55.000 --> 22:00.000] It's not very pretty because nothing I have up there is formatted. [22:00.000 --> 22:08.000] I've left it this way deliberately so that I can give a webmaster to add cascading style sheets to it. [22:08.000 --> 22:10.000] But it's absolutely readable. [22:10.000 --> 22:14.000] I've turned it into a set of questions. [22:14.000 --> 22:17.000] I was going to go down a few of the questions. [22:17.000 --> 22:27.000] Now, each of these questions reflects the standard that the prosecutor must abide by. [22:27.000 --> 22:29.000] Let's see. [22:29.000 --> 22:31.000] Function of the prosecutor. [22:31.000 --> 22:39.000] Did the prosecutor fail or refuse to prosecute crimes within the prosecutor's jurisdiction? [22:39.000 --> 22:45.000] If he does that, you can grieve him for it. [22:45.000 --> 22:48.000] And they do that all the time. [22:48.000 --> 22:53.000] And we maintain that the prosecutor doesn't have any such authority. [22:53.000 --> 22:58.000] The courts call it prosecutorial discretion. [22:58.000 --> 23:04.000] But the legislature never gave the prosecutor any such discretion. [23:04.000 --> 23:12.000] The institution envisioned that all criminal accusations go before a grand jury. [23:12.000 --> 23:25.000] And they decide whether or not the citizen will stand an answer for the criminal action, not a prosecuting attorney. [23:25.000 --> 23:35.000] So if they fail to prosecute a crime, very first one, 3-1.2. [23:35.000 --> 23:38.000] Second one, 3-1.2. [23:38.000 --> 23:40.000] That was 3-1.2A. [23:40.000 --> 23:48.000] Did the prosecutor, while acting as an administrator of justice, an advocate and an officer of the court, [23:48.000 --> 23:54.000] exercise sound discretion in the performance of his or her function? [23:54.000 --> 24:04.000] Now that, as I read it, is intended to be disarbitrary. [24:04.000 --> 24:07.000] It goes to my opinion. [24:07.000 --> 24:13.000] If I think he failed to exercise sound discretion, I can grieve him for it. [24:13.000 --> 24:30.000] When an advocacy or injustices were brought to the prosecutor's attention, did the prosecutor stimulate efforts for remedial action? [24:30.000 --> 24:37.000] I think I may have missed something here because I think this goes to, let me read you the actual statute I brought that up from. [24:37.000 --> 24:45.000] It is an important function of the prosecutor to seek to reform and improve the administration of criminal justice, [24:45.000 --> 24:54.000] where inadequacies or injustices in the substantive or procedural law come to the prosecutor's attention. [24:54.000 --> 24:59.000] He or she should stimulate efforts for remedial action. [24:59.000 --> 25:12.000] So when the prosecutor runs into the obvious injustices created by 1517, it appears he has to do to try to fix that. [25:12.000 --> 25:14.000] I'll fix that question. [25:14.000 --> 25:22.000] These questions are written with the intention that they reflect the verbative standard. [25:22.000 --> 25:29.000] Okay, I'm just going to kind of go through these to give you an idea of what you can hammer prosecutors for. [25:29.000 --> 25:35.000] Did the prosecutor fail to avoid a conflict of interest with respect to his or her duties? [25:35.000 --> 25:44.000] Did the prosecutor represent you or someone else in the jurisdiction where she or he was employed as a prosecutor? [25:44.000 --> 25:52.000] In some smaller counties, prosecutors also have private practices. [25:52.000 --> 25:57.000] But generally when they do, in their private practices, they stay in civil. [25:57.000 --> 26:05.000] Did the prosecutor participate in a matter in which he or she participated personally and substantially while in private practice [26:05.000 --> 26:18.000] and non-governmental employment, I just got an email about the attorney general and someone else being partners in a law firm [26:18.000 --> 26:27.000] that represented Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo, and JP Morgan. [26:27.000 --> 26:33.000] So they would by this be disqualified from prosecuting them. [26:33.000 --> 26:47.000] If they would have to appoint an attorney pro temp, they would not have the authority to make any kind of decision concerning prosecution. [26:47.000 --> 27:04.000] Last but not least, did the prosecutor negotiate for private employment with any person who is involved as an accused or as an attorney or agent for an accused in a matter in which the prosecutor is participating personally? [27:04.000 --> 27:17.000] Did the prosecutor permit his or her professional judgment or obligations to be affected by his or her own political, financial business property or personal interests? [27:17.000 --> 27:45.000] Did the prosecutor who was related to another lawyer as parent, child, sibling or spouse participate in the prosecution of a person who the prosecutor knew was represented by the other lawyer? [27:45.000 --> 27:58.000] Did the prosecutor recommend the services of a particular defense counsel to accused persons or witnesses or make a referral that was likely to create a conflict of interest? [27:58.000 --> 28:12.000] Or did the prosecutor communicate a comment upon the reputation or abilities of a defense counsel to an accused person or witness who was seeking or might have sought such counsel services? [28:12.000 --> 28:21.000] An attorney cannot directly solicit business from you. [28:21.000 --> 28:24.000] That would be baritrate and that's a felony. [28:24.000 --> 28:27.000] And for a prosecutor to do it, he's forbidden to. [28:27.000 --> 28:33.000] That's why you very seldom ever get a prosecutor to recommend an attorney. [28:33.000 --> 28:59.000] This section on public statements. Did the prosecutor make or authorize the making of an extra judicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communications if the prosecutor knew or reasonably should have known that it would have a substantial likelihood of prejudicing and criminal proceeding? [28:59.000 --> 29:19.000] Did the prosecutor exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor from making an extra judicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under this standard? [29:19.000 --> 29:40.000] Now, every member of the prosecution, the police, they remember the police department, any one of the prosecutors investigators, all of these people are considered part of the prosecutor's team. [29:40.000 --> 29:45.000] And what they do, they do in the name of the prosecutor himself. [29:45.000 --> 29:50.000] Okay, this is Randy Calton, David Stevens, David Craig with Law Radio. [29:50.000 --> 29:55.000] We'll be right back. I'll finish this up on the other side and we will start taking calls. [29:55.000 --> 30:00.000] I call in numbers 5126461984. [30:00.000 --> 30:07.000] A noble lie, Oklahoma City 1995 will change forever the way you look at the true nature of terrorism. [30:07.000 --> 30:11.000] Based on the damage patting to the building, but the government says it's impossible. [30:11.000 --> 30:14.000] The grand jury did not want to hear anything I had to say. [30:14.000 --> 30:18.000] The decision was made not to pursue any more of those individuals. [30:18.000 --> 30:22.000] Some of these columns were ripped up, shredded, tossed around. [30:22.000 --> 30:26.000] The people that did the things they did knew going on well what they were doing. [30:26.000 --> 30:30.000] Expose the cover up now at anoblelive.com. [30:30.000 --> 30:45.000] Have you ever walked into a room to get something and then forget why you went there in the first place? [30:45.000 --> 30:49.000] Amazingly, that memory lapse may be the doorway's fault. [30:49.000 --> 30:53.000] I'm Dr. Catherine Albright, back with the crazy details in a moment. [30:53.000 --> 31:00.000] You'll never get it back again, and once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. [31:00.000 --> 31:05.000] So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. [31:05.000 --> 31:08.000] Privacy. It's worth hanging on to. [31:08.000 --> 31:15.000] This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. [31:15.000 --> 31:18.000] Start over with StartPage. [31:18.000 --> 31:23.000] How many times have you stood in the middle of a room with no idea why you went there? [31:23.000 --> 31:26.000] It may not be forgetfulness, it could be the door. [31:26.000 --> 31:32.000] Saying to say, our brains use doorways as event boundaries to separate activities and file them away. [31:32.000 --> 31:37.000] College students were asked to move objects around a room, then half of them walked through a doorway. [31:37.000 --> 31:41.000] Those who passed through the door had a harder time remembering what they had done, [31:41.000 --> 31:44.000] and even returning to where they got the instructions didn't help. [31:44.000 --> 31:51.000] If avoiding doorways improves your memory, maybe those wacky open classrooms of the 1970s were onto something. [31:51.000 --> 32:15.000] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine. [32:15.000 --> 32:22.000] Okay, we're back. Thank you all for being here. [32:22.000 --> 32:29.000] I hope I'm not boring everybody with this. It gets better. [32:29.000 --> 32:34.000] Duty to respond to misconduct. [32:34.000 --> 32:52.000] And in Turkey County, one of the things I'm looking at in order to generate politics, pressure against them, is the assistant county attorney. [32:52.000 --> 32:56.000] Now, she didn't have anything to do with prosecution. [32:56.000 --> 33:01.000] She appeared at one hearing, and it was a bail hearing. [33:01.000 --> 33:05.000] I am going to hammer her big time. [33:05.000 --> 33:12.000] She thinks she's clear of all of this. She absolutely is not. [33:12.000 --> 33:31.000] Did the prosecutor have acknowledged that another person associated with the prosecutor's office was engaged in an action intended to act or refused to act in a manner that was a violation of a legal obligation to the prosecutor's office, or a violation of law, [33:31.000 --> 33:44.000] referring the matter to higher authority in the prosecutor's office, including if warranted by the seriousness of the matter, referral to the chief prosecutor. [33:44.000 --> 34:03.000] On failure, the chief prosecutor to take corrective action did the prosecutor take remedial action, including revealing the information necessary to remedy this violation to other appropriate government officials, not in the prosecutor's office. [34:03.000 --> 34:13.000] She's sitting back there, ignoring what's going on, and I'm going to hammer her big time. [34:13.000 --> 34:18.000] I will treat her as if she personally did everything that was done to me. [34:18.000 --> 34:25.000] And let her go whining back to her boss for getting her into this problem. [34:25.000 --> 34:32.000] Okay, we're going to move on to organization prosecutorial, the prosecution function. [34:32.000 --> 34:43.000] Let's see, was the prosecutor who performed the prosecution a public prosecutor who was a lawyer, subject to the standards of professional conduct and discipline? [34:43.000 --> 34:49.000] This goes to requesting their bar card and requesting their license. [34:49.000 --> 34:58.000] And there absolutely is a license, and the license is issued by the Texas Supreme Court. [34:58.000 --> 35:12.000] So if you ask for it and they don't show it to you, that is reasonable, probable cause to believe they don't have it and grounds for grievance. [35:12.000 --> 35:35.000] Assuring high standards of professional skills, did the prosecutor staff the prosecutor's office with personnel with highly developed professional skills who demonstrated a professional competence in the performance of the prosecutorial duties? [35:35.000 --> 35:43.000] That's everybody. That's the clerks, the secretaries, the investigators, all of them. [35:43.000 --> 35:54.000] One of those, do something you don't like, they're just flunkies, they're just subordinates. [35:54.000 --> 36:07.000] You file against the prosecutor for anything, any one of these does, because it's his duty to ensure that they're highly trained and knowledgeable about their position. [36:07.000 --> 36:28.000] The prosecutor's assistant investigator resources experts, was the prosecutor's office sufficiently funded as to allow the appointment of special assistance from among the trial bar experienced in criminal cases as needed for the prosecution of a particular case or to assist generally? [36:28.000 --> 36:32.000] I don't know if we'd ever get to that one. [36:32.000 --> 36:38.000] I don't understand, but policy guidelines and procedures, this is something I'm going to be asking to see. [36:38.000 --> 36:50.000] Does the prosecutor's office maintain a statement of general policies to guide the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and procedures of the office? [36:50.000 --> 36:58.000] The objectives of these policies as to the discretion procedures should be to achieve a fair, efficient and effective enforcement of criminal law. [36:58.000 --> 37:15.000] In its face, I have a major objection to that one, because it presumes an authority that the prosecutor doesn't have and that of prosecutorial discretion. [37:15.000 --> 37:25.000] That's something the courts made up and just decided to give prosecutors, but our legislature never intended such a thing. [37:25.000 --> 37:28.000] They intended that grand juries have that power. [37:28.000 --> 37:36.000] Anyway, we'll go on. Does the prosecutor's office handbook... [37:36.000 --> 37:41.000] I guess I need to go back over these. I'll read the standard. I didn't write that right. [37:41.000 --> 37:51.000] In the interest of continuity and clarity, such statement of policies and procedures should be maintained in an office handbook. [37:51.000 --> 38:06.000] Handbook should be available to the public except for subject matters declared confidential when it is reasonably believed that the public access to these, to their contents, would adversely affect the prosecution function. [38:06.000 --> 38:11.000] I am absolutely going to start asking for this handbook. [38:11.000 --> 38:18.000] And if they don't have it, then I'd file a bar grievance under 3-2.5. [38:18.000 --> 38:25.000] In training, did the prosecutor's office establish training programs for new personnel and for continuing education of staff? [38:25.000 --> 38:34.000] Anytime somebody fails to do what they're supposed to do, we can assume they weren't properly trained and grieve the prosecutor for that. [38:34.000 --> 38:48.000] Did the prosecutor fail to cooperate with the police in providing the services of the prosecutor's staff to aid in training police in the performance of their function in accordance with law? [38:48.000 --> 38:53.000] The police are members of the prosecutor's team. [38:53.000 --> 38:58.000] And the prosecutor is responsible for what they do. [38:58.000 --> 39:09.000] And this is the one that makes him responsible. So if the police act inappropriately, it was the prosecutor's place to give them proper training. [39:09.000 --> 39:21.000] And I will maintain that he did give them training, whether it was proper or not, that if the police are consistently following a policy that is in violation of law, [39:21.000 --> 39:30.000] we must presume because of this standard that the prosecutor trained them to act the way they act. [39:30.000 --> 39:42.000] And we blame him for it. Relations with courts and bar, did the prosecutor intentionally misinterpret matters of fact or law to the court? [39:42.000 --> 39:51.000] Now I know this probably won't come up often. I mean, what prosecutor would lie to the court? [39:51.000 --> 39:56.000] That's kind of ridiculous. So we won't even spend much time on that one. [39:56.000 --> 40:14.000] Did the prosecutor preserve the appearance as well as the reality of the correct relationship with professional traditions, ethical codes, and applicable law required between advocates and judges? [40:14.000 --> 40:19.000] I think everybody's heard the stories of prosecutors acting out in court. [40:19.000 --> 40:25.000] Someone was just telling me the other day about one prosecutor heating another one in the court. [40:25.000 --> 40:42.000] Relationship with courts and bar, did the prosecutor engage in unauthorized ex parte discussions with or submission of material to a judge relating to a particular case, which is it may come before the judge? [40:42.000 --> 40:45.000] I would maintain that. [40:45.000 --> 41:02.000] When a person's arrested and taken to jail as a matter of policy, held in the jail while the magistrate is presented evidence by a jailer in an ex parte hearing, [41:02.000 --> 41:20.000] I would maintain that the prosecutor trained that jaylor in those policies and directed him to act in that matter to hold that ex parte hearing with the judge where an evidence was presented to the court [41:20.000 --> 41:28.000] in the absence of the accused when the accused was in custody and unable to appear of his own free will. [41:28.000 --> 41:48.000] That should get a grievance every time. Did the prosecutor fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the prosecutor to be directly adverse to the prosecutor's position and not disclosed by defense counsel? [41:48.000 --> 41:57.000] This goes to a relatively standard requirement of lawyers. [41:57.000 --> 42:18.000] A lawyer has a duty when he presents an issue, not only to present the law that covers that addresses his issue positively, but he must also present the law that poses against his issue. [42:18.000 --> 42:30.000] So if there is a case that would negate the issue he's presenting and he fails to bring that case to the tension of the court, he's violated this standard. [42:30.000 --> 42:47.000] Did the prosecutor fail to strive to develop good working relationships with defense counsel in order to facilitate a relationship of ethical resolution of ethical problems? [42:47.000 --> 43:05.000] In particular, a prosecutor should assure defense counsel that if counsel finds it necessary to deliver physical items which may be relevant to a pending case investigation to the prosecutor, the prosecutor will not offer the fact of such delivery by defense counsel as evidence [43:05.000 --> 43:20.000] or a jury for purposes of establishing defense counsel's client's culpability. Did anybody understand that one? [43:20.000 --> 43:22.000] Yeah, I did. [43:22.000 --> 43:39.000] What did that mean? Before you answer, let me read it again. Did the prosecutor fail to strive to develop good working relationships with defense counsel in order to facilitate the resolution of ethical problems? [43:39.000 --> 43:52.000] In particular, did the music come on before I was finished so that we'll have to go to break before I can get this question out? That is absolutely yes. This is Randy Keltham. [43:52.000 --> 44:10.000] Every single day to Craig with a lot of radio will be right back on the other side. [44:10.000 --> 44:24.000] All of the witnesses that saw Tim McVeigh and the Ryder truck report that he was accompanied by other perpetrators. The FBI and federal prosecutors insist that Tim McVeigh alone delivered the Ryder truck bomb to the Murrah Building and detonated it. [44:24.000 --> 44:38.000] The only witness the government produced to place McVeigh at the building that morning, Dana Bradley, who lost her children and one of her legs in the bombing, testified that she saw McVeigh with another man, the fable Jondo number two exiting the Ryder truck. [44:38.000 --> 44:56.000] While at least 15 other witnesses claim to have seen McVeigh with other perpetrators the day of the bombing, no less than 226 witnesses placed him with other men in the days before the bombing, including when he rented the Ryder truck, and in some cases have positively identified the other perpetrators. [44:56.000 --> 45:11.000] For more information, please visit okcbombingtruth.com. [45:26.000 --> 45:37.000] Excellent for daily intake and is perfect to add to your storage shelter. We urge our listeners to please visit us at hempusa.org. And remember, all of our products are chemical free and healthy to eat. [45:37.000 --> 46:01.000] We constantly strive to give you the best service, highest quality and rapid shipping anywhere. And we offer free shipping on orders over $95 in the US. Please visit us at hempusa.org or call 908-6912608. That's 908-6912608. See what our powder, seeds and oil can do for you at hempusa.org. [46:07.000 --> 46:32.000] Okay, we're back. We're in the capital city of Craig. We're on the radio. And we were looking at standard 3-2.8 relations with the courts and bar. [46:32.000 --> 46:39.000] I'm going to read this this time, not from my question, but from the actual standard. [46:39.000 --> 47:04.000] The prosecutors should strive to develop good working relationships with defense counsel in order to facilitate the resolution of ethical problems. In particular, prosecutors should assure defense counsel that if counsel finds it necessary to deliver physical items which may be relevant to a pending case or investigation to the prosecutor, [47:04.000 --> 47:27.000] the prosecutor will not offer the fact of such delivery by defense counsel as evidence before a jury for purposes of establishing defense counsel's client's culpability. However, nothing in this standard shall prevent a prosecutor from offering evidence of the fact of such delivery in a subsequent proceeding [47:27.000 --> 47:38.000] for the purpose of proving it a crime of fraud and the delivery of the evidence. Okay, Eddie, explain it to me. [47:38.000 --> 48:02.000] Well, basically, what I just want to know is, did the prosecuting attorney discuss the ethical issues of producing or not producing certain information or evidence in a way to be fair to both the prosecution and the defense during the course of the trial or proceeding of whatever time that may be? [48:02.000 --> 48:14.000] Well, I'm reading that and I'm wondering, you know, what prompted the committee to put together these standards to write this particular one? [48:14.000 --> 48:22.000] The fact that they knew prosecuting attorneys were shyster snakes that would sell their own mother? [48:22.000 --> 48:47.000] Well, but I'm looking for something more specific. I suspect this goes to a particular problem that they've had and they forbid prosecutors to do this, to offer the fact of such delivery as evidence for purpose in establishing counsel's client's culpability. [48:47.000 --> 49:08.000] I'm not sure what they're getting at, culpability as to what. That next sentence, the however sentence, tends to indicate that they're going to an issue where evidence has been presented and there's something wrong with the evidence. [49:08.000 --> 49:20.000] Sure, I'd have to look at some case law in that one to really understand it. Okay, I'm going to get down. I've got a couple of more here. I'm getting to the one I'd like to best. [49:20.000 --> 49:44.000] Standard three dash three dash point nine. Okay, proper disposition of criminal charges. Did the prosecutor fail to act with reasonable diligence and propness in prosecuting and accused? I suspect we could grieve every prosecutor on every criminal prosecution on this one. [49:44.000 --> 50:03.000] Did the prosecutor intentionally use procedural devices for delay for which there is no legitimate basis? Was the prosecutor punctual in attendance in court and in the submission of all motions, briefs and other papers? [50:03.000 --> 50:22.000] Have you ever had a prosecutor, Eddie, not be punctual? Not be punctual, not be smart, not be a lot of things. In filing motions, how often do we hear that somebody comes to court and a prosecutor hands them a motion? [50:22.000 --> 50:40.000] Not very often. You're always going to jail. This is kind of a common tactic. I hear this all the time. A guy goes to court and the day of the court, they're handing these motions. [50:40.000 --> 50:56.000] Definitely not notice. They're saying, well, they have to have noticed at least one day before. Well, that may be what the statute says, but it doesn't go to the intent of the bar standard. [50:56.000 --> 51:11.000] Prop disposition of criminal charges. Did the prosecutor, without attempting to get more funding for additional staff, carry a workload that, by reason of its excessive size, interfered with the rendering of quality representation? [51:11.000 --> 51:36.000] Or endangered the interest of justice in the speedy disposition of charges or that led to the breach of professional obligations? I think they all do that. And that's because they bypass the magistrate who would make a determination of probable cause and also bypass the grand jury who would do the same thing [51:36.000 --> 51:47.000] and eliminate a lot of these things. Prosecutor really doesn't care if you're guilty or not. All he wants is a deal. So he essentially takes everything that comes to it. [51:47.000 --> 52:13.000] Okay, 3-3.1. Does the prosecutor investigate suspectly legal activity when it is not adequately dealt with by other agencies? Now, when I go to a prosecutor with criminal accusations against a public official, I tend to have went to other agencies [52:13.000 --> 52:31.000] and tried to get them to act so I can say nobody's done their job. And always the prosecutor refuses. Did the prosecutor inviduously discriminate against or in favor of any person on the basis of race, religion, sex, sexual preference? [52:31.000 --> 52:51.000] Ethnicity? I've got a new bottom plate. It's getting in my way. Ethnicity in exercising discretion to investigate or prosecute or use other improper considerations in exercising such discretion. [52:51.000 --> 53:16.000] And I would go to or use other improper considerations in exercising such discretion. When you take a criminal accusation to a prosecuting attorney against a public official, they consistently use improper considerations in exercising their discretion. [53:16.000 --> 53:35.000] I consistently maintain that they did not exercise prosecutorial discretion, but rather exercised co-price. In that they decided who they wanted to prosecute and they did not want to prosecute. [53:35.000 --> 53:54.000] And that's not even a discretion that the courts granted them. Did the prosecutor knowingly use illegal means to obtain evidence or to employ or instruct or encourage others to use such means? [53:54.000 --> 54:17.000] Did the prosecutor discourage or obstruct communication between prospective witnesses and defense counsel? A prosecutor should not advise any person or cause any person to be advised to decline to give to the defense information which such person has the right to give. [54:17.000 --> 54:37.000] Did the prosecutor fail to secure the attendance of persons or interviews by use of any communication which has the appearance or color of a subpoena or similar judicial process unless the prosecutor is authorized by law to do so? [54:37.000 --> 55:02.000] That does not read right. Let me pull up the statute. A prosecutor should not secure attendance of persons for interviews by use of any communication which has the appearance or color of a subpoena or similar judicial process unless the prosecutor is authorized by law to do so. [55:02.000 --> 55:16.000] So that probably happens, but I haven't come across where a prosecutor tells you that you've been subpoenaed when you haven't. [55:16.000 --> 55:28.000] Did the prosecutor promise not to prosecute for prospective criminal activity except for such activity as part of an officially supervised investigation? [55:28.000 --> 55:33.000] I'm sorry, that doesn't mean that either. And my pop-ups don't work. [55:33.000 --> 55:45.000] Let me move down to 3-3.11. [55:45.000 --> 55:59.000] 3-3.11 is one I happen to have committed to memory because I really kicked the prosecutors behind in court with it one time. [55:59.000 --> 56:05.000] Kept me out of jail too. This wasn't the first time I've been faced with jail. [56:05.000 --> 56:19.000] OK, relations with victims and prospective witnesses. Did the prosecutor compensate a witness other than an expert for giving testimony? [56:19.000 --> 56:35.000] But it is not improper to reimburse an ordinary witness for reasonable expenses of attendance upon court, attendance for depositions, pursuant to statute or court rule, or attendance for procedure and prosecutor interviews. [56:35.000 --> 56:47.000] Payment through witnesses may be for transportation and loss of income provided there is no attempt to conceal the fact of the reimbursement. [56:47.000 --> 56:59.000] With victims and prospective victims' witnesses, did the prosecutor fail to advise a witness who is to be interviewed for his or her rights against self-incrimination? [56:59.000 --> 57:13.000] And the right to counsel whenever the law so requires or so advises a witness when the prosecutor knew or had reason to believe that the witness may be the subject of a criminal prosecution? [57:13.000 --> 57:23.000] Or so advises a witness for the purpose of influencing the witness in favor of or against testifying? [57:23.000 --> 57:33.000] OK, did the prosecutor fail to provide victims and witnesses who requested information about the status of cases in which they are interested? [57:33.000 --> 57:43.000] Now this goes to the Victim's Rights Amendment to the Constitution. This is the latest amendment to the Constitution established victims' rights. [57:43.000 --> 58:00.000] And if you have been the victim of violence and the accused is looking at parole or parole hearing or close to being released, they have a requirement to give you notice. [58:00.000 --> 58:11.000] Does somebody speed these things up to short? We seem to be coming quickly, or is it just that we're having a lot of fun in here? [58:11.000 --> 58:22.000] OK, we're going to go to the top of the hour. I seem to have a couple of callers up. We'll start taking your calls when we come back. [58:22.000 --> 58:30.000] There's a couple of more things I want to go through quickly. We're really getting to some of the really good part. [58:30.000 --> 58:40.000] And we really need to understand what the prosecutor is required to do so we can start beating him up a little bit and maybe get him to do the right thing. [58:40.000 --> 59:01.000] This is Randy Kelton, David Stevens, David Craig, who's about radio. Our call in number 512-646-1984. Give us a call. We'll start taking your calls probably after the next segment. We'll be right back. [59:01.000 --> 59:11.000] We'll be right back. [59:31.000 --> 01:00:00.000] We'll be right back. [01:00:01.000 --> 01:00:14.000] A federal class action lawsuit against JP Morgan Chase claims the bank routinely fabricates documents to deceive bankruptcy judges. [01:00:14.000 --> 01:00:28.000] The office of the United States trustee and others into believing Chase is the beneficiary in bankruptcy cases and Photoshop's documents to quote, create the illusion it has standing in tens of thousands of bankruptcy cases. [01:00:28.000 --> 01:00:37.000] The case is Ernest Michael Bannackie versus JP Morgan Chase Bank, U.S. District Court, Central District of California. [01:00:37.000 --> 01:00:50.000] Four people were killed Thursday and more than 30 injured, including three Britons involved in reconstruction work after a suicide car bomber struck a convoy in Laxargar, capital of Helmand Province in Afghanistan. [01:00:50.000 --> 01:00:57.000] Six months ago, British forces handed over security of the city to the Afghan police and army. [01:00:57.000 --> 01:01:10.000] Japan is set to launch a $13 billion bailout of the owner of its stricken Fukushima nuclear power plant after the utility dropped its resistance to an injection of public funds. [01:01:10.000 --> 01:01:19.000] The proposed 1 trillion yen would effectively nationalize Tokyo Electric Power Company and one of the world's biggest bailouts outside the banking sector. [01:01:19.000 --> 01:01:28.000] TEPCO faces future cleanup, the commissioning and compensation costs estimated at over $100 billion. [01:01:28.000 --> 01:01:40.000] The Japanese government's worst case scenario during the Fukushima nuclear crisis last year warned tens of millions of people, including residents of Tokyo, might be forced to leave their homes. [01:01:40.000 --> 01:01:43.000] Officials kept this report secret, fearing widespread panic. [01:01:43.000 --> 01:01:51.000] The emergence of the document adds to complaints the government would have held too much information about the world's worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl. [01:01:51.000 --> 01:01:57.000] It also cast doubt about whether the government could have handled an evacuation on an extraordinary scale. [01:01:57.000 --> 01:02:04.000] Workers ultimately brought the reactors under control, but at the time it was unclear whether those emergency measures would succeed. [01:02:04.000 --> 01:02:17.000] The report said if meltdown spiraled out of control, evacuation orders should be issued for residents within a 105-mile radius and voluntary evacuations should be available to everyone living within 155 miles. [01:02:17.000 --> 01:02:21.000] That would have included the Tokyo area with a population of 35 million. [01:02:21.000 --> 01:02:35.000] Reporters without borders' latest press freedom index places the U.S. 47th in the world, falling 27 places since 2010. [01:02:35.000 --> 01:02:42.000] The nonprofit noted, quote, more than 25 reporters were subjected to arrests and beatings at the hands of police during Occupy protests last fall. [01:02:42.000 --> 01:02:56.000] Josh Stearns of the non-profit group Free Press says the rating is disturbing because, quote, an election year is sure to spark new conflicts between police and press covering rallies, protests and political events. [01:02:56.000 --> 01:03:03.000] More details on this story. Visit INN.org. [01:03:03.000 --> 01:03:13.000] You are listening to the Logos Radio Network. LogosRadioNetwork.com [01:03:34.000 --> 01:03:53.000] And we're going to do at least one more segment here to get into the juicing stuff. We're past the more administrative processes and down to how prosecutors should conduct themselves. [01:03:53.000 --> 01:04:06.000] Okay, we're going to keep going. Did the prosecutor fail to provide victims and witnesses who requested information about status of their cases in which they are interested in? [01:04:06.000 --> 01:04:18.000] Interested in. That means in which they have a legal interest and not just what do they happen to have a personal interest in. [01:04:18.000 --> 01:04:36.000] Did the prosecutor fail to seek to ensure that victims and witnesses who might need prosecutions against intimidation or protections against intimidation were advised of and afforded protections were feasible? [01:04:36.000 --> 01:04:50.000] Did the prosecutor fail to ensure that victims and witnesses are given notice as soon as practical of scheduling changes which will affect the victims or witnesses required attendance at judicial proceedings? [01:04:50.000 --> 01:04:55.000] I'm going to jump over the rest of this witness part. [01:04:55.000 --> 01:05:14.000] There was some more interesting stuff kind of running out of time here. Decision to charge. Did the prosecutor take reasonable care to ensure that the investigators working at their direction or under their authority are adequately trained in the standards governing the issuance of arrest and search warrants? [01:05:14.000 --> 01:05:32.000] And inform investigators that they should seek the approval of the prosecutor in close or difficult cases. Do the prosecutor establish standards and procedures for evaluating complaints to determine whether criminal proceedings should be instituted? [01:05:32.000 --> 01:05:42.000] That I would like to see. I've never seen any standards that the prosecutor has, and I certainly intend to be asking him for them. [01:05:42.000 --> 01:05:46.000] Conditions with grand jury. [01:05:46.000 --> 01:06:01.000] Did the prosecutor fail to appropriately explain the law or express an opinion on the legal significance of the evidence while giving due deference to his status as an independent legal body? [01:06:01.000 --> 01:06:13.000] Did the prosecutor make statements or arguments in an effort to influence grand jury action in a matter which would be impermissible at trial before a pedigree? [01:06:13.000 --> 01:06:21.000] I think that one is probably the one they breach the most. [01:06:21.000 --> 01:06:30.000] But we being outside, we can't tell that because we don't get to hear what goes on in there. [01:06:30.000 --> 01:06:40.000] Did the prosecutor ensure that all communications and presentations to the grand jury should be on the record? [01:06:40.000 --> 01:06:45.000] Okay, quality and scope of evidence before a grand jury. [01:06:45.000 --> 01:07:00.000] Did the prosecutor make statements or arguments to the grand jury and or present evidence to the grand jury which were not appropriate or authorized under law for presentation to a grand jury? [01:07:00.000 --> 01:07:16.000] Did the prosecutor present witnesses to summarize admissible evidence available to the prosecutor which the prosecutor would not be able to present at trial? [01:07:16.000 --> 01:07:25.000] Fail to inform the grand jurors that they have a right to hear any available witnesses, including eyewitnesses. [01:07:25.000 --> 01:07:40.000] We as citizens should have a lot of leeway to question grand juries about the behavior of the prosecutor before them. [01:07:40.000 --> 01:07:53.000] You know, in Houston it wasn't long ago that the grand jury had the bailiff throw a prosecutor out and ordered the bailiff to either arrest him or arrest him if he didn't leave. [01:07:53.000 --> 01:07:56.000] And that should have got a grievance. [01:07:56.000 --> 01:08:04.000] Did the prosecutor knowingly fail to disclose to the grand jury evidence which tends to negate guilt or mitigate the offense? [01:08:04.000 --> 01:08:08.000] I may not get down to 3-3.11. [01:08:08.000 --> 01:08:17.000] But that was one in the case where the prosecutor talked to a witness. [01:08:17.000 --> 01:08:25.000] He brought one witness in this case who supposedly saw the incident and when I got the witness on the stand, [01:08:25.000 --> 01:08:31.000] I elicited the, I asked him first if he had been drinking that night and he said, oh no, no, no. [01:08:31.000 --> 01:08:41.000] And when I, and I told him to Mr. Starr, I have your criminal history here and Mr. Starr, you have been a bad boy. [01:08:41.000 --> 01:08:51.000] I started questioning him about the number of DUIs and it started from one or two and we finally got up to 10. [01:08:51.000 --> 01:09:04.000] The only witness the prosecutor brought as whole street from witnesses was a guy who had 10 DUIs and would absolutely say anything they wanted. [01:09:04.000 --> 01:09:11.000] So I asked the prosecutor if he considered himself an ethical attorney. [01:09:11.000 --> 01:09:17.000] And that brings up a point of a change in the standards. [01:09:17.000 --> 01:09:26.000] These used to say it is unethical conduct for a prosecutor to admit it was state to standard. [01:09:26.000 --> 01:09:32.000] They've since taken that unethical conduct language out of the standards. [01:09:32.000 --> 01:09:37.000] But I got him on the stand and asked him if he considered himself an ethical attorney. [01:09:37.000 --> 01:09:39.000] He said, yes, Ms. Carlton, I do. [01:09:39.000 --> 01:09:48.000] I said, did you talk to all of the, any other witnesses concerning this incident? [01:09:48.000 --> 01:09:49.000] He said, no, I did not. [01:09:49.000 --> 01:09:50.000] Well, why didn't you? [01:09:50.000 --> 01:09:53.000] Well, Mr. Carlton, I didn't believe you or you didn't believe me, huh? [01:09:53.000 --> 01:09:55.000] Well, you consider yourself an ethical attorney. [01:09:55.000 --> 01:09:57.000] She just said, yeah. [01:09:57.000 --> 01:10:04.000] I said, are you familiar with the American Bar Association Standards to Prosecutor of Function Standard 3-3.11? [01:10:04.000 --> 01:10:07.000] No, Mr. Carlton, I'm not familiar with every single paragraph. [01:10:07.000 --> 01:10:10.000] Well, let me familiarize you with it then. [01:10:10.000 --> 01:10:24.000] It says it is unethical conduct for a prosecuting attorney to refrain from pursuing evidence solely because that evidence may show the innocence of the accused and mitigate the guilt of the accused. [01:10:24.000 --> 01:10:29.000] Now, Mr. Hale, do you consider, still consider yourself an ethical attorney? [01:10:29.000 --> 01:10:34.000] And his old bald head glowed like a tomato. [01:10:34.000 --> 01:10:41.000] And I thought, if I have to go to jail, this is worth it. [01:10:41.000 --> 01:10:43.000] But I didn't have to go to jail. [01:10:43.000 --> 01:10:44.000] Okay, I'm going to go back down. [01:10:44.000 --> 01:10:47.000] That's what this one goes to. [01:10:47.000 --> 01:11:02.000] Did the prosecutor seek to compel a witness's testimony before the grand jury without informing the witness that he or she may be charged and that the witness should seek independent legal advice concerning his or her rights? [01:11:02.000 --> 01:11:27.000] Did the prosecutor compel the appearance of a witness before the grand jury whose activities are the subject of the inquiry if the witness states in advance that if called, he or she will exercise the constitutional privilege not to testify unless the prosecutor intends to judicially challenge the exercise of the privilege or to seek a grant of immunity according to law? [01:11:27.000 --> 01:11:39.000] This was a tactic they would use to taint the grand jury, to influence the grand jury, to indict the person. [01:11:39.000 --> 01:11:51.000] Did the prosecutor intentionally interfere with the independence of the grand jury, preempt a function of the grand jury or abuse processes of the grand jury? [01:11:51.000 --> 01:11:58.000] This is the one that I intend to use against the U.S. attorneys. [01:11:58.000 --> 01:12:14.000] If you attempt to provide evidence to a federal grand jury, the prosecuting attorney will threaten to charge you with tampering with the jury. [01:12:14.000 --> 01:12:21.000] And the last one that told me that I told him to take your best shot. [01:12:21.000 --> 01:12:29.000] He'll charge me with tampering with the jury, I'll charge him with tampering with the witness and we'll see how this works out in the end. [01:12:29.000 --> 01:12:41.000] Well, he didn't, but the case that I was helping someone with got terminated when they fired the IRS agent, so I didn't have to pursue. [01:12:41.000 --> 01:12:59.000] The prosecutor used the grand jury in order to obtain tangible documentary or testimonial evidence to assist the prosecutor in preparation for trial of a defendant who has already been charged by indictment or information. [01:12:59.000 --> 01:13:03.000] This goes to superseding indictments. [01:13:03.000 --> 01:13:09.000] Now, this is a really big issue, especially in the federal system. [01:13:09.000 --> 01:13:29.000] If you know anyone who has been charged with a superseding indictment, what you should do is have that person request from the court recorder, the recorder for the grand jury, [01:13:29.000 --> 01:13:46.000] the billing that they made to the court for their time of recording the grand jury proceedings on the day of the superseding indictment. [01:13:46.000 --> 01:14:10.000] And the reason you do that is to be sure that the grand jury actually met that day because the U.S. attorney has a rubber stamp with the foreman's name on it and they regularly rubber stamp superseding indictments. [01:14:10.000 --> 01:14:22.000] Did the prosecutor use the grand jury for the purpose of aiding or assisting in any administrative inquiry? [01:14:22.000 --> 01:14:25.000] Apparently, they're not authorized to do that. [01:14:25.000 --> 01:14:37.000] That's where they use the power of the grand jury who has more power to subpoena witnesses than a normal court would to secure evidence they can use somewhere else. [01:14:37.000 --> 01:14:40.000] Okay, first appearance and preliminary hearing. [01:14:40.000 --> 01:14:57.000] Did the prosecutor at a pre-trial hearing attempt to communicate with the accused when no waiver of counsel had been entered, except for the purpose of aiding in obtaining counsel or in arranging for pre-trial release in the accused? [01:14:57.000 --> 01:15:06.000] Did the prosecutor fail to cooperate in good faith in arrangements for release under the prevailing system of pre-trial release? [01:15:06.000 --> 01:15:18.000] Did the prosecutor seek to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of important pre-trial rights such as the right to a preliminary hearing? [01:15:18.000 --> 01:15:26.000] Did the prosecutor seek a continuous solely for the purpose of looting the preliminary hearing by securing an indictment? [01:15:26.000 --> 01:15:34.000] Did the prosecutor seek delay in the preliminary hearing after an arrest had been made if the accused is in custody? [01:15:34.000 --> 01:15:42.000] Did the prosecutor fail to be president of preliminary hearing where such hearing was required by law? [01:15:42.000 --> 01:15:45.000] Disclosure of evidence. [01:15:45.000 --> 01:15:50.000] Standard 3-3.11 Disclosure of evidence by the prosecutor. [01:15:50.000 --> 01:16:11.000] Did the prosecutor intentionally fail to make timely disclosure to the offense at the earliest feasible opportunity of the existence of all evidence or information which tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigate the offense charged or which would tend to reduce the punishment of the accused? [01:16:11.000 --> 01:16:20.000] Did the prosecutor fail to make reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request? [01:16:20.000 --> 01:16:31.000] Did the prosecutor intentionally avoid pursuit of evidence because he or she believes it would damage the prosecutor's case or aid the accused? [01:16:31.000 --> 01:16:41.000] Did the prosecutor intentionally have changed the wording of that to make it a little less clear that what it used to be? [01:16:41.000 --> 01:16:49.000] This is Randy Kelton, David Stephen, David Craig, a little on the radio. The rest of this is kind of administrative. That's just a whole bunch more. [01:16:49.000 --> 01:16:55.000] So when we come back, we're going to go to the callers. We've held you up long enough. We'll be right back on the other side. [01:16:55.000 --> 01:17:02.000] Peace in California at the Earl and Wisconsin. [01:17:02.000 --> 01:17:11.000] Capital Corn and Bullion is a family-owned and operated business that has helped many families and friends in protecting their assets, and we would like to do the same for you. [01:17:11.000 --> 01:17:24.000] In addition to coins and bullion, we now offer Patriot Saves, ammunition, Berkey water products, gift certificates, wristbands, and our new Silver Pool, a new way to guarantee silver by prepaying at a lost price. [01:17:24.000 --> 01:17:33.000] We can even help you set up a metals IRA account. Call us at 512-646-6440 for more details. [01:17:33.000 --> 01:17:40.000] As always, we buy, sell, and trade precious metals and cater to those with all sizes of coin collections. [01:17:40.000 --> 01:17:54.000] We're located at 7304 Burnett Road, Suite A, about a half a mile north of Canaan, next to the Ikiban Sushi and the Genie Car Wash. We're open Monday through Friday, 10 to 6, Saturdays, 10 to 5. [01:17:54.000 --> 01:18:11.000] Visit us at CapitalCornandBullion.com or call 512-646-6440. [01:18:25.000 --> 01:18:32.000] Finally, residential, mobile, and business telephones and plans that are private and never lock you into a long-term contract. [01:18:32.000 --> 01:18:39.000] When a low price, residential and business plans started only $14.99, and mobile plans started just $39.99. [01:18:39.000 --> 01:18:44.000] Plus, every month you pay your bill, FreedomTelephones.com contributes to your favorite programs. [01:18:44.000 --> 01:18:56.000] Don't wait. Support the cause and get the highest quality and the lowest prices by calling 1-800-600-5553. That's 800-600-5553. [01:18:56.000 --> 01:19:15.000] FreedomTelephones.com, portable, private, perfect. [01:19:26.000 --> 01:19:31.000] I was blindsided, but now I can see you again. [01:19:31.000 --> 01:19:38.000] You put the fear in my pockets, took the money from my head, ain't gonna fool me. [01:19:38.000 --> 01:19:41.000] Okay, we're back, and we'll catch you in a few seconds. [01:19:41.000 --> 01:19:49.000] We've got radium, and I'm gonna start to stop here. I'm down to the part 5 of the trial. [01:19:49.000 --> 01:20:00.000] About 2.30 to the way through, I would suggest that anyone who's looking at facing a prosecutor or dealing with a prosecutor, [01:20:00.000 --> 01:20:04.000] to go to BarGrievens.net. [01:20:04.000 --> 01:20:13.000] And on the left-hand side, there's a link to the American Bar Association Standards for Prosecutorial Function. [01:20:13.000 --> 01:20:19.000] Click on that and just walk down through the questions the way I have tonight. [01:20:19.000 --> 01:20:26.000] It will familiarize you with the requirements that are on prosecutors. [01:20:26.000 --> 01:20:37.000] And while you're doing that, take notes on where I have tripped and stumbled in converting these things to questions. [01:20:37.000 --> 01:20:49.000] Each question that I have, if you do a mouse rollover, you'll get a pop-up window that has the statute in it that I got the question from. [01:20:49.000 --> 01:20:53.000] You heard me read a couple of those when my question was screwed up. [01:20:53.000 --> 01:21:02.000] But I would certainly appreciate no tensions on anywhere I have messed that up in producing it so I can do corrections. [01:21:02.000 --> 01:21:07.000] Okay, now we're going to go to callers. [01:21:07.000 --> 01:21:12.000] We're going to go to Vince in California. [01:21:12.000 --> 01:21:14.000] Vince, what do you have for us tonight? [01:21:14.000 --> 01:21:18.000] Hey, good evening, Randy. Eddie's going to be pretty familiar with what I'm calling about. [01:21:18.000 --> 01:21:24.000] Eddie, I think it's funny, every time I call you guys, Ron Paul's in the debate on TV. [01:21:24.000 --> 01:21:27.000] Maybe you should call us more often. [01:21:27.000 --> 01:21:34.000] Well, I'd rather not have to, but I have to, and I have a case tomorrow that I'm appearing on. [01:21:34.000 --> 01:21:40.000] I had switch plates on my car. It's a misdemeanor. I got caught. I have a bench trial tomorrow. [01:21:40.000 --> 01:21:45.000] I made a general appearance, and I fled not guilty. [01:21:45.000 --> 01:21:48.000] I've got a lot of things stacked against me I've learned. [01:21:48.000 --> 01:22:01.000] But when I got home tonight, you guys were talking about proper notice and the citation not avoiding your right to proper notice. [01:22:01.000 --> 01:22:07.000] And that's actually a tactic that Eddie has been hammering on lately and one I was going to use. [01:22:07.000 --> 01:22:15.000] So is lack of full disclosure an argument against that? [01:22:15.000 --> 01:22:22.000] Lack of full disclosure. Go back to the, go through the standards. [01:22:22.000 --> 01:22:29.000] There was a section there on what the prosecution is supposed to reveal in the prosecutorial team. [01:22:29.000 --> 01:22:36.000] Everybody on the prosecutor's side is part of the prosecutorial team. [01:22:36.000 --> 01:22:41.000] Okay. So when you say go back through the standards you're referring to on your bar grievance website? [01:22:41.000 --> 01:22:52.000] Yeah, the bar, the American Bar Association standards. I don't know of any standards adopted by the state for the prosecutorial function. [01:22:52.000 --> 01:23:02.000] They apply the same bar standards to prosecutors as they do to lawyers in at the state level. [01:23:02.000 --> 01:23:10.000] But these bar association standards established minimum contact. [01:23:10.000 --> 01:23:24.000] So since they don't have it in the state, we can, under full faith and credit, we can say that this has been defined by the feds as improper conduct or unethical conduct. [01:23:24.000 --> 01:23:31.000] So we can bring this issue and they can argue whether they should apply to them or not. [01:23:31.000 --> 01:23:42.000] But I do look at that and that'll give you some really powerful tools to use. When I brought in the American Bar Association standards for the prosecutorial function, [01:23:42.000 --> 01:23:48.000] I got the impression that the judge had never heard of them before. [01:23:48.000 --> 01:23:49.000] Interesting. [01:23:49.000 --> 01:23:56.000] Now, it really got his interest and he really perked up when I talked about those. [01:23:56.000 --> 01:24:05.000] Okay, I'll definitely check that out. I don't see how that relates to the citation though. Can you tell the police officer issuing a citation? [01:24:05.000 --> 01:24:18.000] The police officer is a member of the prosecutorial team. If there's anything the prosecutor should have told you if he was standing there, the police officer had to do that. [01:24:18.000 --> 01:24:23.000] Any new address to the notice issue? [01:24:23.000 --> 01:24:30.000] Okay, well, the notice issue is many fascinated in what they're doing. [01:24:30.000 --> 01:24:42.000] Normally what has to occur in order for notice to be properly fulfilled is both sides are required to notify each other of any filings made, [01:24:42.000 --> 01:24:57.000] anything entered into the record, any hearings that occur, basically anything that intends to be brought up in the entire process of trial or preceding trial, so on and so forth. [01:24:57.000 --> 01:25:15.000] Here in Texas, for instance, not only are we entitled to a copy of the complaint itself under 45.018, we are entitled to a copy of the indictment or information under Chapter 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in 1.05. [01:25:15.000 --> 01:25:16.000] Okay. [01:25:16.000 --> 01:25:36.000] Now, 25.04 Code of Criminal Procedure here in Texas attempts to deny us in our right of proper notice. Now, in order for notice to be fulfilled, there has to be a pleading, the pleading has to be filed, and the pleading has to be served. [01:25:36.000 --> 01:25:54.000] Okay. And in this case, you've got your complaint, your charging instrument, which in the case here in Texas, 27.01 says the primary pleading of the state in any criminal prosecution is the indictment or information. [01:25:54.000 --> 01:26:11.000] So you're entitled to a copy of all of those things here in Texas, and I'm pretty sure that you would be entitled to exactly the same in California. You're entitled to know the nature in charge against you and to have a written copy thereof. [01:26:11.000 --> 01:26:25.000] And you're entitled to have it in enough time in advance of any proceeding that you have opportunity to review it and gather the information necessary to refute it. [01:26:25.000 --> 01:26:27.000] Okay. [01:26:27.000 --> 01:26:39.000] If none of that's been done, then notice has not been fulfilled. The problem is, is you may have waived notice by entering that plea. [01:26:39.000 --> 01:26:52.000] You've waived impersonal jurisdiction by entering the plea. You waived impersonal jurisdiction by making a general appearance instead of a special appearance. Don't ever make a general appearance. [01:26:52.000 --> 01:27:01.000] Now, the question is, did you wave notice by signing that plea form? If you did, you're done. [01:27:01.000 --> 01:27:07.000] I never signed a plea form. [01:27:07.000 --> 01:27:14.000] Then how did someone enter a plea on your behalf of one way or the other? [01:27:14.000 --> 01:27:20.000] That's a good question. I'm pretty sure I've never signed one. I will look. I'll double check, but by memory, I don't think I did. [01:27:20.000 --> 01:27:22.000] Did you sign anything? [01:27:22.000 --> 01:27:33.000] The only thing I signed was they had a fact sheet about representing yourself and asking if you were aware of a whole bunch of different procedures. [01:27:33.000 --> 01:27:43.000] You better go back and read that sheet real careful. Don't ever sign a document these people put in front of you. Don't ever do that. [01:27:43.000 --> 01:27:45.000] I know. [01:27:45.000 --> 01:27:57.000] Okay. Let me think there for a moment. I think this ties together. One of the things that we talked about, Eddie, was police officers acting as an attorney. [01:27:57.000 --> 01:28:01.000] In other words, only an attorney can bring suit for the state. [01:28:01.000 --> 01:28:07.000] Only an attorney can represent the state. No matter how they slash it, the state is still a legal fiction. [01:28:07.000 --> 01:28:11.000] Whether they're calling it a political body doesn't matter. [01:28:11.000 --> 01:28:20.000] And there is not a state in the union where a legal entity can be represented by anything other than a walk-in-talk-in bar card. [01:28:20.000 --> 01:28:23.000] Right. [01:28:23.000 --> 01:28:32.000] Okay. It occurred to me that possibly is the police officer acting in an administrative capacity when he's issuing that citation? [01:28:32.000 --> 01:28:35.000] No. [01:28:35.000 --> 01:28:36.000] Okay. [01:28:36.000 --> 01:28:42.000] The citation is documentation of the execution of his executive function. [01:28:42.000 --> 01:28:43.000] Okay. [01:28:43.000 --> 01:28:53.000] Now, once it's in the judge's hands, is the judge an administrative judge, a judicial judge, or a civil judge? [01:28:53.000 --> 01:28:56.000] This is Superior Court. [01:28:56.000 --> 01:28:58.000] That doesn't answer my question. [01:28:58.000 --> 01:29:07.000] Well, I know, but yeah, I'll have to look into that. What effect will that have? [01:29:07.000 --> 01:29:12.000] It has a complete effect on what jurisdictional venue you're operating under. [01:29:12.000 --> 01:29:13.000] Okay. [01:29:13.000 --> 01:29:27.000] The problem is, is when they go for an administrative determination of guilt or a legislative determination of guilt without a judicial finding of guilt. [01:29:27.000 --> 01:29:39.000] By definition, that is a bill of attainer action or a bill of pains and penalties action, and they are forbidden by every constitution. [01:29:39.000 --> 01:29:40.000] Right. [01:29:40.000 --> 01:29:42.000] I've got that in my paperwork. [01:29:42.000 --> 01:29:44.000] Can I say on the other side, I've got like two more things. [01:29:44.000 --> 01:29:45.000] Yeah. [01:29:45.000 --> 01:29:47.000] Hang on and we'll pick you up on the other side. [01:29:47.000 --> 01:29:48.000] Okay. [01:29:48.000 --> 01:29:50.000] All right, folks, this is Rule of Law Radio. [01:29:50.000 --> 01:29:53.000] Calling number is 512-646-1984. [01:29:53.000 --> 01:29:55.000] We've got about a half an hour left, so get in line. [01:29:55.000 --> 01:30:00.000] We'll be right back on the other side of the break. [01:30:00.000 --> 01:30:06.000] This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11. [01:30:06.000 --> 01:30:08.000] The government says that fire brought it down. [01:30:08.000 --> 01:30:13.000] However, 1,500 architects and engineers concluded it was a controlled demolition. [01:30:13.000 --> 01:30:16.000] Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives. [01:30:16.000 --> 01:30:19.000] And thousands of my fellow first responders have died. [01:30:19.000 --> 01:30:20.000] I'm not a conspiracy theorist. [01:30:20.000 --> 01:30:21.000] I'm not a structural engineer. [01:30:21.000 --> 01:30:22.000] I'm a New York City correctional. [01:30:22.000 --> 01:30:23.000] I'm an Air Force pilot. [01:30:23.000 --> 01:30:25.000] I'm a father who lost his son. [01:30:25.000 --> 01:30:28.000] We are Americans and we deserve the truth. [01:30:28.000 --> 01:30:31.000] Go to RememberBuilding7.org today. [01:30:31.000 --> 01:30:39.000] Were you aware that sitting about your weight on an online dating site could make you a felon? [01:30:39.000 --> 01:30:46.000] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be back to tell you how a federal anti-hacking law could put us all behind bars. [01:30:46.000 --> 01:30:48.000] Privacy is under attack. [01:30:48.000 --> 01:30:52.000] When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. [01:30:52.000 --> 01:30:57.000] And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. [01:30:57.000 --> 01:31:02.000] So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself. [01:31:02.000 --> 01:31:05.000] Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. [01:31:05.000 --> 01:31:12.000] This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. [01:31:12.000 --> 01:31:16.000] Start over with StartPage. [01:31:16.000 --> 01:31:21.000] Have you ever created a pseudonym on a website or made yourself sound a little better on match.com? [01:31:21.000 --> 01:31:26.000] You may not have known it, but under a federal anti-hacking law, you are actually committing a felony. [01:31:26.000 --> 01:31:27.000] No joke. [01:31:27.000 --> 01:31:36.000] Under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, doing something as innocuous as spudging your weight on a Facebook profile could get you arrested and prosecuted as a cyber criminal. [01:31:36.000 --> 01:31:47.000] And after the 80s, the law has been broadened four times and now applies to any violation of any internet service agreement, such as knowingly providing false information about yourself. [01:31:47.000 --> 01:31:52.000] Hey, can we use this law to hold politicians to their political promises? [01:31:52.000 --> 01:31:57.000] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine. [01:32:22.000 --> 01:32:45.000] Alright folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio. [01:32:45.000 --> 01:32:49.000] Okay, we're going to go ahead and finish up with Vince. [01:32:49.000 --> 01:32:55.000] Vince, you're still there? Or do we need to unmute you? [01:32:55.000 --> 01:32:59.000] Alright, sounds like we may need to unmute him. [01:32:59.000 --> 01:33:01.000] Let's see. [01:33:01.000 --> 01:33:08.000] Debra, can you get to him? My caller page is being real slow. [01:33:08.000 --> 01:33:09.000] I got him. [01:33:09.000 --> 01:33:10.000] Okay. [01:33:10.000 --> 01:33:11.000] Vince, you there? [01:33:11.000 --> 01:33:15.000] I'm here, testing, one, two. [01:33:15.000 --> 01:33:16.000] Alright, we got you. Go ahead. [01:33:16.000 --> 01:33:17.000] You got it? [01:33:17.000 --> 01:33:20.000] Yeah, what were your other two issues? [01:33:20.000 --> 01:33:38.000] Okay, so I called in to Don and Shannon the other night and what they mentioned was the Administrative Procedures Act and how any government agency that's not created by a legislature, you have to exhaust all administrative remedies before any judicial action is taken. [01:33:38.000 --> 01:33:45.000] And they sent me a pretty interesting motion to dismiss based on that. What are your thoughts on that in this case? [01:33:45.000 --> 01:33:48.000] Who sent you an interesting motion to dismiss? [01:33:48.000 --> 01:33:52.000] Don and Shannon on Agenda 21. [01:33:52.000 --> 01:33:57.000] Okay, well the first thing is, is this an administrative proceeding? [01:33:57.000 --> 01:34:05.000] Well, in your case, you switch license plates. That's a criminal action, correct? [01:34:05.000 --> 01:34:12.000] Well right, but they're citing me for violating vehicle codes, which are part of the Department of Motor Vehicle Code. [01:34:12.000 --> 01:34:18.000] Okay, but it's got a criminal assigned offense level to it. [01:34:18.000 --> 01:34:19.000] Okay. [01:34:19.000 --> 01:34:24.000] Alright, which means it has to be tried by a judicial officer. [01:34:24.000 --> 01:34:36.000] Okay, it's only administrative if the offense itself is outlined in statute one as administrative only and two is a non-criminal sanction. [01:34:36.000 --> 01:34:40.000] Got it. Okay, so I'll strike that whole line of thought. [01:34:40.000 --> 01:34:45.000] Okay, then and only then is it possible for it to be administrative. [01:34:45.000 --> 01:34:46.000] Okay. [01:34:46.000 --> 01:34:49.000] Okay, another thing then. [01:34:49.000 --> 01:34:58.000] Yesterday I filed a motion for continuance. I was reading through the court rules and they stipulate that, let me pull this page up here real quick. [01:34:58.000 --> 01:35:10.000] They stipulate that notice of motion, time for service, all moving papers must be filed and served on the opposing party at least 15 court days before the time appointed for the hearing. [01:35:10.000 --> 01:35:17.000] Well, they only gave me nine court days between the arraignment and the hearing. [01:35:17.000 --> 01:35:24.000] Okay, then again, notice has not been served. Notice is neither sufficient nor timely. [01:35:24.000 --> 01:35:25.000] On their part. [01:35:25.000 --> 01:35:26.000] Correct. [01:35:26.000 --> 01:35:30.000] But if you don't raise it, then you wave it. [01:35:30.000 --> 01:35:35.000] Yeah, now here's the thing. Okay, this is something I tell everybody. [01:35:35.000 --> 01:35:40.000] Don't ever destroy a single piece of paper you get from these people in the mail. [01:35:40.000 --> 01:35:43.000] Nothing, including the envelope. [01:35:43.000 --> 01:35:45.000] Do you have the envelope? [01:35:45.000 --> 01:35:48.000] Yes, I do and I don't know if I mentioned it. [01:35:48.000 --> 01:35:51.000] And can you read the postmark on the envelope? [01:35:51.000 --> 01:35:53.000] No, I'm sure I can. Let me find it here. [01:35:53.000 --> 01:35:58.000] Okay, when you guys open mail from the courts, open it carefully. [01:35:58.000 --> 01:36:03.000] Do not destroy the postmark. Do not lose that envelope. [01:36:03.000 --> 01:36:06.000] That is your proof of mailing date. [01:36:06.000 --> 01:36:13.000] That is your proof that it was not done within X number of days of when it was required. [01:36:13.000 --> 01:36:17.000] Don't ever destroy the paperwork. [01:36:17.000 --> 01:36:21.000] Don't write on it. Don't tear it up. [01:36:21.000 --> 01:36:28.000] Right. No, I've got it and it's postmark January 17, which is, you know, 10 calendar days. [01:36:28.000 --> 01:36:32.000] So I filed a motion for continuance based on just that. [01:36:32.000 --> 01:36:37.000] Should I use more leverage? I mean, should I ask for dismissal based on that or what? [01:36:37.000 --> 01:36:39.000] And the minimum was 14 days? [01:36:39.000 --> 01:36:44.000] 15 court days. So that means, you know, three weeks without holidays. [01:36:44.000 --> 01:36:50.000] Well, if the prosecutor under the standards is required to give you proper notice. [01:36:50.000 --> 01:36:53.000] So grieve the prosecutor. [01:36:53.000 --> 01:36:56.000] Okay. [01:36:56.000 --> 01:36:57.000] Okay. [01:36:57.000 --> 01:37:02.000] You're also going to need the following motion to the challenge of the jurisdiction for lack of notice. [01:37:02.000 --> 01:37:11.000] The problem is, is if notice is never completed, jurisdiction is never obtained. [01:37:11.000 --> 01:37:12.000] Okay. [01:37:12.000 --> 01:37:16.000] One thing about those envelopes. [01:37:16.000 --> 01:37:18.000] Don't use them to put your coffee cup on. [01:37:18.000 --> 01:37:20.000] No. [01:37:20.000 --> 01:37:21.000] No. [01:37:21.000 --> 01:37:23.000] It was bad. I can tell you it's bad. [01:37:23.000 --> 01:37:25.000] It's a safe place. [01:37:25.000 --> 01:37:29.000] Okay. So and bar grieve the prosecutor. [01:37:29.000 --> 01:37:30.000] Okay. [01:37:30.000 --> 01:37:31.000] Yeah. [01:37:31.000 --> 01:37:36.000] But you file a motion listing every instance where notice has been a factor. [01:37:36.000 --> 01:37:42.000] They haven't served you with a copy of the, of the complain or charging instrument in a timely manner. [01:37:42.000 --> 01:37:45.000] They didn't serve it in a way that complies with law. [01:37:45.000 --> 01:37:51.000] For instance, here in Texas, they want to say that they can stick it in the court record and that's notice. [01:37:51.000 --> 01:37:52.000] It's not. [01:37:52.000 --> 01:37:54.000] They have to serve it. [01:37:54.000 --> 01:37:56.000] They can give it to you in open court. [01:37:56.000 --> 01:37:58.000] They can hand deliver it. [01:37:58.000 --> 01:38:04.000] They can send it to you by mail, but they can't just stick it in the court record and say it was served. [01:38:04.000 --> 01:38:05.000] Right. [01:38:05.000 --> 01:38:06.000] Okay. [01:38:06.000 --> 01:38:13.000] Now, because I've already appeared generally, and I was, I was just looking up what a special appearance actually means. [01:38:13.000 --> 01:38:18.000] Apparently in some cases in some states at least that you can make a special appearance. [01:38:18.000 --> 01:38:21.000] Waving jurisdiction for procedural matters. [01:38:21.000 --> 01:38:26.000] So when I returned to the court, based on what you just told me, would this be a special appearance then? [01:38:26.000 --> 01:38:29.000] You can't go to a special appearance if you've made a general. [01:38:29.000 --> 01:38:30.000] It's, it's dead. [01:38:30.000 --> 01:38:31.000] It's done. [01:38:31.000 --> 01:38:35.000] You cannot make a special appearance after the fact. [01:38:35.000 --> 01:38:36.000] Hmm. [01:38:36.000 --> 01:38:38.000] Okay. [01:38:38.000 --> 01:38:42.000] Once you've weighed the infrasom, you can't take it back. [01:38:42.000 --> 01:38:43.000] Okay. [01:38:43.000 --> 01:38:47.000] There is one, well, that's just two special appearances you can make. [01:38:47.000 --> 01:38:52.000] One is a challenge to subject manageristic, and that can always be broad. [01:38:52.000 --> 01:38:57.000] And the other is a claim of double jeopardy. [01:38:57.000 --> 01:38:58.000] Okay. [01:38:58.000 --> 01:39:01.000] Waves either one of those. [01:39:01.000 --> 01:39:02.000] Okay. [01:39:02.000 --> 01:39:04.000] Well, neither one of those applies in this case. [01:39:04.000 --> 01:39:05.000] Yeah. [01:39:05.000 --> 01:39:06.000] Yeah. [01:39:06.000 --> 01:39:07.000] Okay. [01:39:07.000 --> 01:39:09.000] Well, you guys have been a big help. [01:39:09.000 --> 01:39:12.000] That's all I've got this evening then. [01:39:12.000 --> 01:39:13.000] Okay. [01:39:13.000 --> 01:39:14.000] Yeah. [01:39:14.000 --> 01:39:15.000] All right. [01:39:15.000 --> 01:39:16.000] Well, thanks for what you do. [01:39:16.000 --> 01:39:17.000] Yes, sir. [01:39:17.000 --> 01:39:19.000] Thanks for calling in. [01:39:19.000 --> 01:39:20.000] All right. [01:39:20.000 --> 01:39:22.000] Now that takes care of Vince. [01:39:22.000 --> 01:39:24.000] Now we have Earl in Wisconsin. [01:39:24.000 --> 01:39:26.000] Earl, what can we do for you? [01:39:26.000 --> 01:39:28.000] Hi there. [01:39:28.000 --> 01:39:30.000] Well, I'm not sure anymore. [01:39:30.000 --> 01:39:38.000] I, my son got in a domestic abuse charge on him and they also charged him with false imprisonment. [01:39:38.000 --> 01:39:44.000] And at his, well, he went, they didn't even take him to jail. [01:39:44.000 --> 01:39:48.000] They took him for a psyche valve because he was kind of shook up. [01:39:48.000 --> 01:40:01.000] And when he did go to court, he didn't feel his public pretender was asking enough questions [01:40:01.000 --> 01:40:06.000] or interfering with the district attorney's questioning of his spouse enough. [01:40:06.000 --> 01:40:17.000] And he tried to fire his public pretender right there on the spot and they took a recess. [01:40:17.000 --> 01:40:25.000] His public pretender asked his significant other a few questions and then dismissed her [01:40:25.000 --> 01:40:27.000] from the courtroom. [01:40:27.000 --> 01:40:37.000] And an officer came in and a short time later, they took my son away and he's been sitting [01:40:37.000 --> 01:40:44.000] in shadow county jail ever since and held for, I guess he, I didn't get a copy of what [01:40:44.000 --> 01:40:47.000] he said at the time he was in the courtroom alone. [01:40:47.000 --> 01:40:49.000] I don't know why they wouldn't give the copies. [01:40:49.000 --> 01:40:57.000] I did go and get copies of all the court records and the, you know, the. [01:40:57.000 --> 01:40:59.000] Hey, hey, Earl, Earl, Earl. [01:40:59.000 --> 01:41:00.000] Yeah. [01:41:00.000 --> 01:41:04.000] Can you please get off the speakerphone because we can hardly understand what you're saying. [01:41:04.000 --> 01:41:05.000] Oh, I'm sorry. [01:41:05.000 --> 01:41:06.000] Yes. [01:41:06.000 --> 01:41:07.000] Hello. [01:41:07.000 --> 01:41:09.000] Is that better? [01:41:09.000 --> 01:41:11.000] No, you're still on the speakerphone. [01:41:11.000 --> 01:41:12.000] Hello. [01:41:12.000 --> 01:41:13.000] Okay. [01:41:13.000 --> 01:41:14.000] Thank you. [01:41:14.000 --> 01:41:23.000] Well, okay, my son, what happened was I guess my son tried to bring up his constitutional [01:41:23.000 --> 01:41:24.000] rights and other things. [01:41:24.000 --> 01:41:32.000] I haven't seen what exactly was he said at that time when he was alone in the courtroom. [01:41:32.000 --> 01:41:36.000] For some reason, they didn't give me that part of it or I can't find it. [01:41:36.000 --> 01:41:43.000] But anyways, they held him for a psyche valve and they were supposed to release him after [01:41:43.000 --> 01:41:45.000] he was in a threat and he was found. [01:41:45.000 --> 01:41:53.000] He asked him to, uh, when he fired his, uh, public defender, he asked for a 90 day extension [01:41:53.000 --> 01:42:02.000] to either seek, uh, other counsel or, or prepare, uh, to defend himself. [01:42:02.000 --> 01:42:05.000] And they told him he wasn't allowed to do that. [01:42:05.000 --> 01:42:10.000] And then he said, they, I don't know what he all said, but then they decided to hold [01:42:10.000 --> 01:42:13.000] him and see if he was competent. [01:42:13.000 --> 01:42:17.000] And he did have the, I just heard that he had the evaluation. [01:42:17.000 --> 01:42:20.000] They find him competent to stand trial. [01:42:20.000 --> 01:42:27.000] I don't know if they'll accept him, uh, if they'll allow him to represent himself though. [01:42:27.000 --> 01:42:30.000] But they don't have, that's not an option they have. [01:42:30.000 --> 01:42:35.000] If they're attempting to do that, then he should follow against the judge, move to disqualified. [01:42:35.000 --> 01:42:38.000] You just a contract complaining to judge. [01:42:38.000 --> 01:42:41.000] That parts in constitution. [01:42:41.000 --> 01:42:43.000] That's a guarantee. [01:42:43.000 --> 01:42:50.000] Or actually it's a restriction against the, the governmental entities from denying your [01:42:50.000 --> 01:42:52.000] right to represent yourself. [01:42:52.000 --> 01:42:55.000] Uh, uh-huh. [01:42:55.000 --> 01:43:00.000] But this is, there's more here. [01:43:00.000 --> 01:43:05.000] We probably do better if we could talk to your son. [01:43:05.000 --> 01:43:07.000] Is he in jail now? [01:43:07.000 --> 01:43:08.000] Yes, sir. [01:43:08.000 --> 01:43:09.000] He's, he's in jail now. [01:43:09.000 --> 01:43:15.000] You're not going to be able to turn that on or interfere with my phone, with the phone. [01:43:15.000 --> 01:43:16.000] Yes, sir. [01:43:16.000 --> 01:43:25.000] They said he was going to, they were, they were supposed to release him after he, um, um, [01:43:25.000 --> 01:43:33.000] um, had the test, but they, uh, for some reason they, I, as far as I know, he is still there. [01:43:33.000 --> 01:43:34.000] It's a couple hours. [01:43:34.000 --> 01:43:39.000] Maybe it's, maybe it's corpus yesterday. [01:43:39.000 --> 01:43:40.000] Okay. [01:43:40.000 --> 01:43:41.000] Hold on. [01:43:41.000 --> 01:43:42.000] Hold on. [01:43:42.000 --> 01:43:43.000] Hold on. [01:43:43.000 --> 01:43:44.000] We're about to go to break up. [01:43:44.000 --> 01:43:46.000] This sounds like he needs to do the habeas corpus. [01:43:46.000 --> 01:43:47.000] This is Randy Telsen. [01:43:47.000 --> 01:43:48.000] Debbie T. [01:43:48.000 --> 01:43:49.000] Debbie Craig. [01:43:49.000 --> 01:43:53.000] We have the radio, uh, going to break. [01:43:53.000 --> 01:43:55.000] We're coming into our last segment. [01:43:55.000 --> 01:43:56.000] We're talking to Earl. [01:43:56.000 --> 01:43:57.000] We'll go to Doug next. [01:43:57.000 --> 01:43:58.000] We'll be right back. [01:43:58.000 --> 01:44:03.000] Hey, did you hear Ron Paul's announced he's running for president in 2012? [01:44:03.000 --> 01:44:05.000] He just run Paul's. [01:44:05.000 --> 01:44:06.000] Really? [01:44:06.000 --> 01:44:07.000] Okay. [01:44:07.000 --> 01:44:08.000] Put down the cell phone for one minute. [01:44:08.000 --> 01:44:11.000] Your friends really don't care about your Twitter updates on what you had for breakfast. [01:44:11.000 --> 01:44:14.000] Oh, but I love to make those little smiley faces with punctuation marks. [01:44:14.000 --> 01:44:15.000] Of course you do. [01:44:15.000 --> 01:44:16.000] Now listen closely. [01:44:16.000 --> 01:44:19.000] You need to go down to Brave New Books and learn as much as you can about Ron Paul and [01:44:19.000 --> 01:44:21.000] his message before it's too late. [01:44:21.000 --> 01:44:24.000] They have all of his books and many of the books he talks about. [01:44:24.000 --> 01:44:27.000] They also have t-shirts, bumper stickers, and yard signs so that you can show your support [01:44:27.000 --> 01:44:29.000] for him during the campaign. [01:44:29.000 --> 01:44:30.000] Brave New Books? [01:44:30.000 --> 01:44:32.000] Did they have Harry Potter and Twilight? [01:44:32.000 --> 01:44:36.000] No, but they do carry a large selection of survival and preparedness books to protect [01:44:36.000 --> 01:44:38.000] your family in time of emergency. [01:44:38.000 --> 01:44:40.000] That sounds like that show on the Discovery Channel. [01:44:40.000 --> 01:44:44.000] Yeah, there's even a wilderness survival expert that teaches classes called Earth Skills [01:44:44.000 --> 01:44:48.000] School that you can sign up for on the website bravenewbooksstore.com. [01:44:48.000 --> 01:44:49.000] What are you doing? [01:44:49.000 --> 01:44:53.000] I'm tweeting all my friends that they should go to bravenewbooksstore.com or down to the [01:44:53.000 --> 01:44:54.000] bookstore in person. [01:44:54.000 --> 01:44:55.000] Where's it located? [01:44:55.000 --> 01:44:56.000] 1904 Guadalupe Street. [01:44:56.000 --> 01:44:57.000] There, it's sent. [01:44:57.000 --> 01:44:59.000] I even made a smiley face. [01:44:59.000 --> 01:45:00.000] Great. [01:45:00.000 --> 01:45:04.000] Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? [01:45:04.000 --> 01:45:11.000] Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand four CD [01:45:11.000 --> 01:45:15.000] course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step. [01:45:15.000 --> 01:45:19.000] If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. [01:45:19.000 --> 01:45:23.000] If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. [01:45:23.000 --> 01:45:28.000] Thousands have won with our step by step course and now you can too. [01:45:28.000 --> 01:45:35.000] Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience. [01:45:35.000 --> 01:45:40.000] Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the [01:45:40.000 --> 01:45:44.000] principles and practices that control our American courts. [01:45:44.000 --> 01:45:50.000] You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, [01:45:50.000 --> 01:45:53.000] pro se tactics and much more. [01:45:53.000 --> 01:46:00.000] Visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ. [01:46:23.000 --> 01:46:36.000] Okay, we're back. [01:46:36.000 --> 01:46:41.000] We're talking to Earl in Wisconsin. [01:46:41.000 --> 01:46:45.000] Earl, this is a matter that goes to Rehabius Corpus. [01:46:45.000 --> 01:46:52.000] And what I suggest you do before you go any farther is go to my website judicial.org. [01:46:52.000 --> 01:46:57.000] Jurisimprudence.com. [01:46:57.000 --> 01:46:59.000] Juris? [01:46:59.000 --> 01:47:01.000] Juris, J-U-R-I-S. [01:47:01.000 --> 01:47:04.000] J-U-R-I-S. [01:47:04.000 --> 01:47:12.000] Imprudence, I-M-P-R-U-D-E-N-C.com. [01:47:12.000 --> 01:47:19.000] Click on the top frog on the left and it will open up a Rehabius Corpus. [01:47:19.000 --> 01:47:23.000] Read that through. [01:47:23.000 --> 01:47:29.000] That walks through due process and that will give you a real good idea of what they're [01:47:29.000 --> 01:47:34.000] supposed to be doing and what you can do when they don't. [01:47:34.000 --> 01:47:36.000] And then call us back. [01:47:36.000 --> 01:47:40.000] If you have time to read it tonight, then call us back tomorrow. [01:47:40.000 --> 01:47:46.000] If not, call us back next week and we'll talk about what you can do. [01:47:46.000 --> 01:47:50.000] All right, all right, yep, thank you, sir. [01:47:50.000 --> 01:47:51.000] You are welcome. [01:47:51.000 --> 01:47:55.000] We're going to go to Doug in Ohio. [01:47:55.000 --> 01:47:58.000] Doug, what do you have for us tonight? [01:47:58.000 --> 01:48:00.000] Can you hear me, Randy? [01:48:00.000 --> 01:48:03.000] No, I can't hear a word you say. [01:48:03.000 --> 01:48:04.000] Ah, okay. [01:48:04.000 --> 01:48:05.000] I lied. [01:48:05.000 --> 01:48:07.000] Okay, good. [01:48:07.000 --> 01:48:13.000] All right, I spoke to your colleague, David, tonight and he said to call in and ask you, [01:48:13.000 --> 01:48:21.000] uh, for closure action and he said to ask you about suing either the lender or the attorney [01:48:21.000 --> 01:48:23.000] firm in federal court. [01:48:23.000 --> 01:48:24.000] Okay. [01:48:24.000 --> 01:48:27.000] Where are you in foreclosure? [01:48:27.000 --> 01:48:33.000] Are you, I have a, I take it if you're in foreclosure, they haven't sold the property yet. [01:48:33.000 --> 01:48:34.000] Correct. [01:48:34.000 --> 01:48:35.000] Okay. [01:48:35.000 --> 01:48:40.000] We're in discovery phase and I've had a paralegal assisting me. [01:48:40.000 --> 01:48:43.000] I'm not a litigator. [01:48:43.000 --> 01:48:44.000] Okay. [01:48:44.000 --> 01:48:45.000] Are you, wait a minute. [01:48:45.000 --> 01:48:46.000] Hold on. [01:48:46.000 --> 01:48:48.000] Is Ohio a judicial state? [01:48:48.000 --> 01:48:49.000] Yes. [01:48:49.000 --> 01:48:52.000] So you're in an action in the state court? [01:48:52.000 --> 01:48:53.000] Correct. [01:48:53.000 --> 01:48:54.000] Good. [01:48:54.000 --> 01:48:55.000] Okay. [01:48:55.000 --> 01:49:02.000] We need to look, first thing you do is, okay, question. [01:49:02.000 --> 01:49:10.000] Is the entity that's making a claim? [01:49:10.000 --> 01:49:20.000] Are they claiming to represent the entity with whom you entered into a contract originally? [01:49:20.000 --> 01:49:21.000] No. [01:49:21.000 --> 01:49:24.000] Is it the originator of the note? [01:49:24.000 --> 01:49:25.000] No. [01:49:25.000 --> 01:49:32.000] It's Wells Fargo and the original group was, that I signed the note and the mortgage with [01:49:32.000 --> 01:49:36.000] was FMF capital and then that was passed. [01:49:36.000 --> 01:49:37.000] Okay. [01:49:37.000 --> 01:49:41.000] So when did you enter into a contract with Wells Fargo? [01:49:41.000 --> 01:49:43.000] Never as far as I know. [01:49:43.000 --> 01:49:45.000] So who are these people? [01:49:45.000 --> 01:49:52.000] What authority do they have to come to you to demand that you pay on anything? [01:49:52.000 --> 01:49:53.000] Yeah. [01:49:53.000 --> 01:49:54.000] Right. [01:49:54.000 --> 01:49:55.000] Okay. [01:49:55.000 --> 01:49:56.000] A question to ask. [01:49:56.000 --> 01:49:58.000] That's the first place to go. [01:49:58.000 --> 01:50:04.000] And sometimes it's hard to wrap your head around this because you know you have a mortgage [01:50:04.000 --> 01:50:12.000] and you know you owe from this mortgage, but do you owe Wells Fargo? [01:50:12.000 --> 01:50:22.000] Now, Wells Fargo made a claim through, well, some law firm made a claim that you owe this [01:50:22.000 --> 01:50:27.000] money based on this particular loan agreement. [01:50:27.000 --> 01:50:36.000] Well, how do you know that this is not a bogus law firm that went down to the county recorders' [01:50:36.000 --> 01:50:44.000] office and found this note in the county recorders' office and then went and checked on it and [01:50:44.000 --> 01:50:46.000] found that you were behind on the note. [01:50:46.000 --> 01:50:53.000] And they came in and said, we're representing the holder's note and we want you to pay us. [01:50:53.000 --> 01:50:58.000] How do you know they didn't just make all that up? [01:50:58.000 --> 01:51:01.000] Yes, I don't. [01:51:01.000 --> 01:51:10.000] So the first thing is do not stipulate to anything. [01:51:10.000 --> 01:51:14.000] Don't stipulate even to the existence of a note. [01:51:14.000 --> 01:51:16.000] I don't know what you're talking about. [01:51:16.000 --> 01:51:17.000] I don't know about any note. [01:51:17.000 --> 01:51:20.000] Well, you have this loan against your property. [01:51:20.000 --> 01:51:22.000] I don't know anything about a loan against my property. [01:51:22.000 --> 01:51:24.000] Well, okay, I have a mortgage. [01:51:24.000 --> 01:51:26.000] I don't know anything about a mortgage. [01:51:26.000 --> 01:51:32.000] If you want to collect on one, you have to know about it and show me your proof. [01:51:32.000 --> 01:51:41.000] When I come to you and I make a claim, you have no duty to disprove my claim until I have [01:51:41.000 --> 01:51:50.000] given enough evidence to generate a prima facie evidence of standing. [01:51:50.000 --> 01:51:58.000] Prima facie evidence of standing cannot be brought out of the mouth of the person making the claim. [01:51:58.000 --> 01:52:08.000] They have to document the claim, especially when it is a law firm claiming to act as an agent for a principal. [01:52:08.000 --> 01:52:12.000] The agency cannot be proven out of the mouth of the agent. [01:52:12.000 --> 01:52:17.000] It must be proven out of the mouth of the principal, so you don't seem to bank. [01:52:17.000 --> 01:52:23.000] If you're in a state court, have you answered the original pleading? [01:52:23.000 --> 01:52:25.000] Correct. [01:52:25.000 --> 01:52:27.000] We've had a couple hearings. [01:52:27.000 --> 01:52:38.000] Okay, you need to file a counterclaim and actually a cross complaint. [01:52:38.000 --> 01:52:40.000] Is that right? [01:52:40.000 --> 01:52:43.000] Okay, no, a cross complaint. [01:52:43.000 --> 01:52:46.000] You're going to bring in a third party. [01:52:46.000 --> 01:52:52.000] You're going to cross complain against the law firm. [01:52:52.000 --> 01:52:59.000] The counter complaint would be against the alleged plaintiff that would be Wells Fargo. [01:52:59.000 --> 01:53:01.000] Okay. [01:53:01.000 --> 01:53:15.000] You cross complain against the law firm bringing the issue, challenging the standing or the agency of the law firm to represent Wells Fargo. [01:53:15.000 --> 01:53:29.000] The law firm has a duty before they make a claim to test the veracity of their client as they may not depend on the veracity of the statements made by their client. [01:53:29.000 --> 01:53:38.000] Because when you offer, when the lawyer makes the claim, the lawyer is responsible for the claim. [01:53:38.000 --> 01:53:47.000] So he has to test the standing of his client before he asserts the standing of his client in court. [01:53:47.000 --> 01:53:54.000] The first one we did was in Minnesota this way and the law firm came back and they were really excited. [01:53:54.000 --> 01:53:57.000] They were not happy campers. [01:53:57.000 --> 01:54:06.000] Because what we did was we put them in a position to where we didn't sue Wells Fargo, and this one happened to also be Wells Fargo. [01:54:06.000 --> 01:54:09.000] We sued them. [01:54:09.000 --> 01:54:18.000] So they're looking at it and saying, well, what if Wells Fargo can't prove that they actually hold a note? [01:54:18.000 --> 01:54:20.000] They didn't sue Wells Fargo to sue us. [01:54:20.000 --> 01:54:23.000] We're the ones that'll get screwed here, not them. [01:54:23.000 --> 01:54:32.000] So now they're dependent on whether or not their principal can prove up their position and this is exactly where you want them. [01:54:32.000 --> 01:54:35.000] This is the elephant in the corner. [01:54:35.000 --> 01:54:54.000] And if you listen to my Wednesday night call-in show and some of my presentations, you're probably aware that I've done a lot of research on all the scummy, scoundrel-y things the banks have done. [01:54:54.000 --> 01:54:58.000] But we aren't bringing up any of those yet. [01:54:58.000 --> 01:55:05.000] You don't want to even talk about any of that stuff until they've proved up their position. [01:55:05.000 --> 01:55:09.000] So what we do is we go in and we sue the attorney. [01:55:09.000 --> 01:55:12.000] We demand that they show agency. [01:55:12.000 --> 01:55:27.000] And the only way they can do that is prove up that their client has standing as the true holder of the note and the deed of trust. [01:55:27.000 --> 01:55:37.000] And that the holder has capacity to sue in that they have a by-law. [01:55:37.000 --> 01:55:44.000] Once they do that, or the courts are corrupt and we'll expect the courts to rule in their favor. [01:55:44.000 --> 01:55:51.000] So we'll let them through the meal, kick them around a while, bargain them a time or two, cost them a lot of money. [01:55:51.000 --> 01:55:55.000] And then the courts are going to rule in their favor no matter what. [01:55:55.000 --> 01:56:03.000] Okay, when the court rules in their favor, then we come back and we say, oh, this is the note you were talking about. [01:56:03.000 --> 01:56:11.000] So you're the no good rotten scoundrel who committed all this fraud and then we go to the fraud and the note. [01:56:11.000 --> 01:56:16.000] But we don't go to that until they've proved up they have standing to get to it. [01:56:16.000 --> 01:56:20.000] And this right now is the major issue. [01:56:20.000 --> 01:56:24.000] Okay, now all this will be taking place in the state level where I am currently. [01:56:24.000 --> 01:56:34.000] Oh yeah, we just filed a counter complaint in the state, unless you don't think you can get justice from the state court. [01:56:34.000 --> 01:56:47.000] If you don't trust the state court, you can always, okay, you have, if you file the suit, you have to make your choice of venue then. [01:56:47.000 --> 01:56:58.000] If you would rather be in the federal court, then you filed your countersuit under Fairdeck Collections Practices Act. [01:56:58.000 --> 01:57:08.000] You will have in Ohio a state regulation, a state statutes that reflect Fairdeck Collections Practices Act. [01:57:08.000 --> 01:57:14.000] Every state has one and they're generally more restrictive than the federal. [01:57:14.000 --> 01:57:22.000] But if you don't think you can trust the state court, then you file under FDCPA and remove immediately. [01:57:22.000 --> 01:57:26.000] They're making the filing under FDCPA, they can't get it back. [01:57:26.000 --> 01:57:34.000] Have you went to the county clerk in the registrar's office and pulled everything that's been filed in the case? [01:57:34.000 --> 01:57:38.000] Uh, no, not everything. [01:57:38.000 --> 01:57:44.000] Okay, okay, do so, pull everything and get all the signatures off, off of them. [01:57:44.000 --> 01:57:57.000] If anybody signs as a representative of a bank or a servicer, call the company and ask for this person, ask for personnel and ask for this person's secretary. [01:57:57.000 --> 01:58:02.000] And if they tell you, well, we don't have a person by this name working for our company. [01:58:02.000 --> 01:58:04.000] Gotcha, Bubba. [01:58:04.000 --> 01:58:08.000] Now you've got reasonable probable cause, believe me, that's Robothiner. [01:58:08.000 --> 01:58:20.000] You take that document to the court and ask the court to rule that the document is insufficient and is void and then engage their whole case right there and throw them out out in the street. [01:58:20.000 --> 01:58:22.000] Okay, we're running out of time. [01:58:22.000 --> 01:58:30.000] Call back in tomorrow, we'll have more time for questions and we'll hit on a subject that I can talk on all night. [01:58:30.000 --> 01:58:35.000] Randy Kelce and Debbie Stevens, Eddie Craig with Log Radio. [01:58:35.000 --> 01:58:39.000] We'll be back tomorrow for our four hour info marathon. [01:58:39.000 --> 01:58:42.000] So be sure to listen in. [01:58:42.000 --> 01:58:44.000] We're going to have a lot of fun. [01:58:44.000 --> 01:58:51.000] And Eddie and Debbie will be back Monday on Eddie's traffic show. [01:58:51.000 --> 01:58:56.000] So tune in, tell your friends, and we'll see you tomorrow. [01:58:56.000 --> 01:59:01.000] Good night. [01:59:26.000 --> 01:59:31.000] We'll be back. [01:59:56.000 --> 02:00:00.000] Visit us online at bfa.org.