[00:00.000 --> 00:05.000]  This news brief brought to you by the International Newsnet.
[00:05.000 --> 00:11.000]  25 people were killed Friday after two powerful car bombs exploded in the Syrian city of Aleppo.
[00:11.000 --> 00:20.000]  At least 175 were wounded. Syrian state TV blamed armed terrorist groups while insurgents accused the regime of President Bursar Assad.
[00:20.000 --> 00:29.000]  Meanwhile, tanks surged into the battered city of Homs, where activists say regime forces have killed more than 400 people since Saturday.
[00:29.000 --> 00:36.000]  Egyptians are preparing for a general strike Saturday, one year after the overthrow of President Hussein Mubarak,
[00:36.000 --> 00:43.000]  to protest the military government's authoritarian modus operandi reminiscent of the overthrown dictator.
[00:43.000 --> 00:49.000]  Tensions have flared after confrontations at a recent soccer match led to the deaths of at least 74 people.
[00:49.000 --> 00:54.000]  15 people have died in the past week in clashes between civilians and security forces.
[00:54.000 --> 01:05.000]  Afghan President Hamid Karzai said Thursday a NATO airstrike killed seven children and one adult in the village of Geyawa, northeast of Kabul.
[01:05.000 --> 01:13.000]  Karzai's allegation was confirmed by district police chief Abdul Hamid Erkin, who said a NATO plane carried out an airstrike on a house Wednesday night,
[01:13.000 --> 01:18.000]  quote, as a result of which seven children and one adult were martyred.
[01:18.000 --> 01:28.000]  Greek workers walked off the job Friday for the second time this week, showing their disapproval of austerity measures approved by Greek leaders the day before.
[01:28.000 --> 01:38.000]  Meanwhile, Europe's economic troika, the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund sent Thursday's deal back to the drawing board.
[01:38.000 --> 01:48.000]  The 48-hour general strike protests cutting the minimum wage by 22%, slashing 150,000 public sector jobs and reducing pensions.
[01:48.000 --> 02:00.000]  Luxembourg's Prime Minister and troika leader Jean-Claude Juncker said the Greek government still has to close a $430 million funding cap before it could qualify for a new bailout.
[02:00.000 --> 02:10.000]  Many Greeks want to go the way of Argentina, which defaulted on IMF loans in 2002, allowing the economy to recover without facing onerous loan conditions.
[02:10.000 --> 02:21.000]  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission voted Thursday to extend licenses to build two nuclear reactors at the Bogto Nuclear Power Plant in Georgia.
[02:21.000 --> 02:26.000]  The first such licenses granted since the Three Mile Island meltdown in 1979.
[02:26.000 --> 02:33.000]  Environmental groups had asked the NRC to delay its decision until they could file a challenge in federal court.
[02:33.000 --> 02:43.000]  The Obama Administration has offered Plant Operator Southern and its partners $8.3 billion in federal loan guarantees as an incentive to build the reactors.
[02:43.000 --> 02:57.000]  The license extension comes less than a year after the Fukushima disaster.
[03:13.000 --> 03:28.000]  Okay, we're back.
[03:28.000 --> 03:52.000]  We've been doing this show for quite a while and at first I had some notion that we could win this fight by going after these guys and bringing them to task.
[03:52.000 --> 04:07.000]  And we're not going to win it that way. If we have some notion that we can go in and give them a reason to be afraid of us, we're not going to do that either.
[04:07.000 --> 04:19.000]  The only thing we can do to win this fight is to generate politics, is to understand how the world they live in works,
[04:19.000 --> 04:27.000]  and what the pressures are on them and then act to increase those pressures.
[04:27.000 --> 04:36.000]  And this is one way of doing it. The grand jury turns out to be a tremendous point of pressure.
[04:36.000 --> 04:41.000]  Prosecutor's going to do everything he can to keep you away from the grand jury.
[04:41.000 --> 04:49.000]  That's why I've set up a routine to compromise the prosecutor.
[04:49.000 --> 05:03.000]  When you come back with a complaint against a district judge for not acting on a complaint against a prosecuting attorney, then he is compromised.
[05:03.000 --> 05:13.000]  And we had exactly this scenario in Travis County in trying to get complaints against the highest judges in Texas to the grand jury.
[05:13.000 --> 05:25.000]  We came to the grand jury with criminal complaints against the district attorney for not presenting complaints against the highest judges in Texas to the grand jury.
[05:25.000 --> 05:38.000]  And when the prosecutor interceded, then I went straight to the head criminal district judge in Travis County and filed with him, and that got their attention.
[05:38.000 --> 05:47.000]  Then that got it to the district clerk and then the prosecutor stood aside and presented my complaints to the grand jury.
[05:47.000 --> 05:55.000]  They didn't indict all these judges, but the thing I was complaining about doesn't happen anymore.
[05:55.000 --> 06:07.000]  And that was my intended outcome to get that fixed. And we got it fixed. I didn't do it because they were worried about me.
[06:07.000 --> 06:17.000]  That only happened because Ron Earl, 25-year prosecuting attorney, not running for office again.
[06:17.000 --> 06:28.000]  He's a Democrat. All these judges are Republicans. He saw a potential opportunity to take them all with him.
[06:28.000 --> 06:40.000]  He used my complaint as political cannon fodder. That's what's going to give us influence over these officials.
[06:40.000 --> 06:46.000]  We create political cannon fodder that one of their enemies will use against them.
[06:46.000 --> 06:55.000]  And the higher up you are in any organization, the more people you have won in your position.
[06:55.000 --> 07:00.000]  So what do you think?
[07:00.000 --> 07:05.000]  Okay, let me unmute you. Okay, there you go. Did you have another question for us or comment?
[07:05.000 --> 07:16.000]  Yes, it was just a follow-up. I remember right a couple of years ago, with the shows there was a former district judge in Brazos County
[07:16.000 --> 07:25.000]  who was talking about grand juries and his case, the names of the grand door of a public record.
[07:25.000 --> 07:29.000]  And that seems like that would be a very helpful thing in approaching a grand jury.
[07:29.000 --> 07:36.000]  They should just have their names so you can get information to them that you'll be blocked by the establishment.
[07:36.000 --> 07:43.000]  Do you guys know how to go about getting the names of grand juries in other counties?
[07:43.000 --> 07:47.000]  Grand juries have to be open record. Okay.
[07:47.000 --> 07:59.000]  Not their addresses, but you have a right to challenge the panel. You can't challenge the panel if you don't know who they are.
[07:59.000 --> 08:14.000]  So if they attempted to secret the names of the grand jurors, they would thwart the intent of specific legislation.
[08:14.000 --> 08:21.000]  So they can't make the claim that they're private if they're secreted.
[08:21.000 --> 08:31.000]  Now, I understand their argument and their reasoning for wanting them to be secret because they don't want the grand jury to be retaliated against.
[08:31.000 --> 08:38.000]  Well, sorry, Bubba. Life is tough. There are other considerations.
[08:38.000 --> 08:50.000]  If we allow the prosecutors to make that claim, then we open the door for the prosecutor to select his grand jury the way he wants it.
[08:50.000 --> 08:56.000]  And we could have the brother of the victim on the grand jury.
[08:56.000 --> 09:06.000]  So we absolutely need a way to vet the grand jury members and make sure they don't have an impeachable interest.
[09:06.000 --> 09:10.000]  In order to do that, you have to know who they are.
[09:10.000 --> 09:19.000]  So I would think that if anyone tries to get in the way, then I would go to a grand jury with them.
[09:19.000 --> 09:22.000]  Go ahead.
[09:22.000 --> 09:35.000]  I was just going to ask, would that information be obtained through the court that has convened the grand jury or would that be contained somewhere else for the public to try to get?
[09:35.000 --> 09:46.000]  Yes. You look for the district court to convene the grand jury and you go to that court's coordinator or clerk, whatever they called it.
[09:46.000 --> 09:57.000]  And that clerk is not to be confused with the district clerk, but merely the clerk that keeps the calendar for their particular judge.
[09:57.000 --> 10:06.000]  That's always the one I want to talk to because a lot of times they'll just give it to you without any argument.
[10:06.000 --> 10:16.000]  Okay. And if they don't, then they'll go to the judge himself and then you don't have a county clerk to deal with this.
[10:16.000 --> 10:19.000]  Okay. It's always the district court.
[10:19.000 --> 10:21.000]  Yes. Okay.
[10:21.000 --> 10:37.000]  District judges in panel grand jury. So whenever I go to a jurisdiction, I ask the district clerk, who is the district judge who in panel to current grand jury?
[10:37.000 --> 10:40.000]  And they never have a problem taking that.
[10:40.000 --> 10:46.000]  And then I ask for their coordinator and you generally get around a lot of the garbage.
[10:46.000 --> 10:54.000]  The judges, coordinators or clerks all generally only deal with lawyers.
[10:54.000 --> 11:08.000]  So they tend not to have these attitudes because they do have an attitude for the time I get through chewing out the judge, he'll adjust our attitude for them.
[11:08.000 --> 11:17.000]  This goes to something else you can do and as a private citizen, you can do something almost nobody else can do.
[11:17.000 --> 11:19.000]  You can go into the court.
[11:19.000 --> 11:29.000]  If you have a question for the judge or something or an issue, you go into the court and tell the base, you have instructed judge, you have business with the court.
[11:29.000 --> 11:46.000]  And you ask the judge, you know, I'm hammering him a timer to and they respond the higher level the judge, the more respectful and the more concerned he clearly is.
[11:46.000 --> 11:50.000]  Because he sees you as a threat.
[11:50.000 --> 11:58.000]  We just had the Ohio primary decided by what two or three votes.
[11:58.000 --> 12:14.000]  And he's a district judge in a relatively small county and the smaller the county, the more important every potential voter is because these politicians can look at one voter and count 15.
[12:14.000 --> 12:17.000]  Your fear of influence.
[12:17.000 --> 12:29.000]  15 for the other party is light and switch to the other party is 15 away from him and that's 30 votes.
[12:29.000 --> 12:43.000]  And in a county where you got 2000 people actually voting when you've got, we have a county of 35,000 wise county that I'm from, they get 1500 2000 votes.
[12:43.000 --> 12:51.000]  Okay, that's only 68% is normal 11% high.
[12:51.000 --> 12:59.000]  So we matter the higher up they are, the more you the ordinary citizen matters.
[12:59.000 --> 13:03.000]  They do not want you to know that.
[13:03.000 --> 13:20.000]  If you try to get the grand jury's names and they won't give it to you, then you go to the court that the judge who impaneled the grand jury is go to his court, call his coordinator find out when the judge holds motion hearings.
[13:20.000 --> 13:22.000]  That's the best time.
[13:22.000 --> 13:35.000]  Okay, motion hearings, you know, a lot of the motions are uncontested or they're simple and they take like 30 seconds a piece you'll see on that day you'll see attorneys lined up to get their emotions heard.
[13:35.000 --> 13:38.000]  And he just cranks through them.
[13:38.000 --> 13:40.000]  So it's a lot of breaks.
[13:40.000 --> 13:54.000]  Judges a lot easier to get to when you go in there and give his bailiff a hard time by telling the baby if you have business with the court, tell him your name and you have business court bailiff will say, may I tell him nature's business.
[13:54.000 --> 13:57.000]  No, you may not have business with the court and it's none of yours.
[13:57.000 --> 13:58.000]  You'll sit out.
[13:58.000 --> 14:04.000]  Or if it's not something that'll be continuous, contentious, you might just give him an envelope.
[14:04.000 --> 14:07.000]  You want it sealed.
[14:07.000 --> 14:11.000]  So it's not his business, it's the court's business.
[14:11.000 --> 14:16.000]  And if you ask him what's in it, my business with the court is in it.
[14:16.000 --> 14:19.000]  Not my business with you.
[14:19.000 --> 14:22.000]  Go sit down.
[14:22.000 --> 14:26.000]  It's okay if the bailiff is PO that you that won't hurt you a bit.
[14:26.000 --> 14:27.000]  If you just.
[14:27.000 --> 14:28.000]  Yes.
[14:28.000 --> 14:30.000]  Go ahead.
[14:30.000 --> 14:44.000]  If you just tell the bailiff that you have business with the court without giving him an envelope, will he more than likely go and tell the judge that you're there to present something and without you.
[14:44.000 --> 14:48.000]  Yeah, I do tell him when they say, may I tell him the nature of the business.
[14:48.000 --> 14:50.000]  No, you may not.
[14:50.000 --> 14:53.000]  I have business with the court and it's none of yours.
[14:53.000 --> 14:54.000]  You dismiss.
[14:54.000 --> 14:56.000]  I go sit down.
[14:56.000 --> 14:58.000]  Now the bailiff is fuming.
[14:58.000 --> 15:03.000]  He wants to jerk me over the bar, but it's not his court.
[15:03.000 --> 15:08.000]  So then he's going to run up to the judge and tattle on me.
[15:08.000 --> 15:12.000]  Well, all that's going to do is get the judges curiosity up.
[15:12.000 --> 15:17.000]  So who is this guy here messing with my bailiff?
[15:17.000 --> 15:18.000]  That'll get you in front of him.
[15:18.000 --> 15:20.000]  But let's see.
[15:20.000 --> 15:22.000]  They know you're important.
[15:22.000 --> 15:25.000]  They know you're dangerous to them.
[15:25.000 --> 15:28.000]  Lawyers, hang on lawyers.
[15:28.000 --> 15:32.000]  Yeah, you messed with me, but I'll leave your career.
[15:32.000 --> 15:35.000]  But you're not a lawyer.
[15:35.000 --> 15:40.000]  He has no jurisdiction over you and he knows it.
[15:40.000 --> 15:46.000]  And if you do that to him, he knows that you know it.
[15:46.000 --> 15:49.000]  Now you're dangerous.
[15:49.000 --> 15:51.000]  Now you've got his attention.
[15:51.000 --> 15:55.000]  And for the most part, you don't need to be dangerous to the judge.
[15:55.000 --> 15:57.000]  You just need to get his attention.
[15:57.000 --> 16:00.000]  And this will do it.
[16:00.000 --> 16:04.000]  So if you need to get their attention that way.
[16:04.000 --> 16:07.000]  Okay.
[16:07.000 --> 16:11.000]  Okay. Do you have any other questions before we're about to go to break?
[16:11.000 --> 16:13.000]  We've got another caller?
[16:13.000 --> 16:14.000]  No, that's all.
[16:14.000 --> 16:16.000]  I really appreciate you taking the call.
[16:16.000 --> 16:21.000]  It's been a really great show and I really appreciate you guys being here all the time
[16:21.000 --> 16:24.000]  and speaking the truth and putting information out there
[16:24.000 --> 16:27.000]  that we're really going to help a lot of citizens with taxes.
[16:27.000 --> 16:29.000]  So thank you very much, guys.
[16:29.000 --> 16:31.000]  Okay. And thank you.
[16:31.000 --> 16:38.000]  The reason we're here is to find those few people who will actually take what we put out here
[16:38.000 --> 16:40.000]  and actually put it to use.
[16:40.000 --> 16:42.000]  This is how we'll make these changes.
[16:42.000 --> 16:46.000]  This is Randy Kelsen, Dennis Stevens & Craig, we leave our video.
[16:46.000 --> 16:50.000]  Our caller number is 512-646-1984.
[16:50.000 --> 16:52.000]  Doug, I see you.
[16:52.000 --> 16:54.000]  We'll pick you up when we come back on the other side.
[16:54.000 --> 17:23.000]  We'll be right back.
[17:24.000 --> 17:26.000]  Thank you very much.
[17:54.000 --> 17:58.000]  The one who will restore America now.
[17:58.000 --> 18:27.000]  I'm Ron Paul and I approve this message.
[18:28.000 --> 18:29.000]  Thank you very much.
[18:58.000 --> 19:00.000]  Thank you very much.
[19:28.000 --> 19:33.000]  All right, folks. We are back.
[19:33.000 --> 19:35.000]  This is the rule of law radio.
[19:35.000 --> 19:38.000]  Call in number is 512-646-1984.
[19:38.000 --> 19:42.000]  We've got about an hour and 45 minutes left of the show.
[19:42.000 --> 19:44.000]  So don't wait till the last minute, folks.
[19:44.000 --> 19:46.000]  You've got an issue. Now's the time to get in line.
[19:46.000 --> 19:49.000]  Right now, we're going to go to Doug in Texas.
[19:49.000 --> 19:51.000]  Doug, what can we do for you?
[19:51.000 --> 19:55.000]  Eddie, I don't want to come to your aid.
[19:55.000 --> 19:58.000]  I agree with you 100%.
[19:58.000 --> 20:01.000]  I like your approach.
[20:01.000 --> 20:02.000]  To what?
[20:02.000 --> 20:06.000]  I like your approach better than I like Randy's.
[20:06.000 --> 20:10.000]  I think these people are scoundrels, scum.
[20:10.000 --> 20:13.000]  They are our enemies.
[20:13.000 --> 20:16.000]  And we need to deal with them as such.
[20:16.000 --> 20:22.000]  In other words, if you can get one locked up,
[20:22.000 --> 20:26.000]  they show us absolutely no mercy, charity.
[20:26.000 --> 20:29.000]  Well, I kind of see it as like fishing or hunting
[20:29.000 --> 20:31.000]  with a no limit license.
[20:31.000 --> 20:34.000]  Right. Absolutely right.
[20:34.000 --> 20:38.000]  If I actually use the license to do either one, which I don't.
[20:38.000 --> 20:39.000]  You know, when I...
[20:39.000 --> 20:41.000]  That deer crosses my property, he's fair game,
[20:41.000 --> 20:43.000]  just like any trespasser.
[20:43.000 --> 20:46.000]  And Eddie, when Randy says,
[20:46.000 --> 20:52.000]  well, I don't really actually want to see this judge lose his job, I do.
[20:52.000 --> 20:54.000]  I want to see him.
[20:54.000 --> 20:57.000]  You know, he's probably a sorry SOB.
[20:57.000 --> 21:00.000]  He's raising a little control freak.
[21:00.000 --> 21:02.000]  He's raising a guy's job.
[21:02.000 --> 21:07.000]  Well, you know what I believe will improve America's morale
[21:07.000 --> 21:10.000]  and turn us around 100%.
[21:10.000 --> 21:13.000]  When the only people standing in bread lines
[21:13.000 --> 21:17.000]  are lawyers and politicians,
[21:17.000 --> 21:20.000]  when those are the people standing in the bread lines,
[21:20.000 --> 21:22.000]  then we've accomplished something.
[21:22.000 --> 21:25.000]  Well, I want to put every one of them out of work
[21:25.000 --> 21:28.000]  or I want every one of them convicted so severely
[21:28.000 --> 21:30.000]  they can't get a job and keep it.
[21:30.000 --> 21:33.000]  I'm right there with you.
[21:33.000 --> 21:38.000]  And you know what, the great Roman statesman Cicero said,
[21:38.000 --> 21:42.000]  politicians aren't born, they're excreted.
[21:42.000 --> 21:46.000]  And you know, I believe that 100%.
[21:46.000 --> 21:48.000]  And I'm right with you.
[21:48.000 --> 21:52.000]  And I think Deborah thinks along his lines,
[21:52.000 --> 21:56.000]  give them no mercy, no quarters.
[21:56.000 --> 22:01.000]  They don't give us any.
[22:01.000 --> 22:03.000]  No.
[22:03.000 --> 22:05.000]  I have absolutely no sympathy for him.
[22:05.000 --> 22:09.000]  I feel like I'll be ganged up on.
[22:09.000 --> 22:12.000]  OK, OK, Randy, you will be as long as you have
[22:12.000 --> 22:15.000]  a huge slant of massatitude.
[22:15.000 --> 22:19.000]  We need to do political things.
[22:19.000 --> 22:24.000]  I don't have an aversion to some of these guys
[22:24.000 --> 22:27.000]  being indicted and arrested.
[22:27.000 --> 22:29.000]  But when I go into an issue,
[22:29.000 --> 22:36.000]  I try to develop an intended outcome going in.
[22:36.000 --> 22:42.000]  I generally tend to have something I'm trying to achieve.
[22:42.000 --> 22:47.000]  And generally, whether or not a public official gets indicted,
[22:47.000 --> 22:54.000]  it's not generally relevant to me securing my intended outcome.
[22:54.000 --> 22:57.000]  That's why I say it doesn't matter to me.
[22:57.000 --> 23:03.000]  Now, what I would like, well, that's a whole different animal altogether.
[23:03.000 --> 23:06.000]  I'd like every one of them indicted.
[23:06.000 --> 23:12.000]  That would get me to my intended outcome much more quickly.
[23:12.000 --> 23:15.000]  If every time we filed a complaint,
[23:15.000 --> 23:20.000]  they acted on the complaint the same way they act on the ones
[23:20.000 --> 23:27.000]  they filed against us, then my job would just about be over.
[23:27.000 --> 23:30.000]  But it's not that way.
[23:30.000 --> 23:33.000]  And when I file all the complaints I want to,
[23:33.000 --> 23:37.000]  if it is my purpose to get them indicted,
[23:37.000 --> 23:43.000]  I'm going to spend an awful lot of time terribly disappointed.
[23:43.000 --> 23:45.000]  Make it hard to keep going.
[23:45.000 --> 23:49.000]  I try to keep my eye on the prize
[23:49.000 --> 23:53.000]  and not let the little disappointments
[23:53.000 --> 23:59.000]  in between dissuade me or slow me down.
[23:59.000 --> 24:06.000]  That's primarily why I don't get focused on trying to get someone indicted.
[24:06.000 --> 24:16.000]  Well, I think you're being a little bit too...
[24:16.000 --> 24:19.000]  You know, I wouldn't like to see this guy lose his job
[24:19.000 --> 24:23.000]  and I wouldn't like to see that and I'm not really interested in that.
[24:23.000 --> 24:28.000]  I am interested in seeing everybody that's out there
[24:28.000 --> 24:33.000]  that is our adversary, that is our foe,
[24:33.000 --> 24:40.000]  that, you know, makes our little living, flicksing us.
[24:40.000 --> 24:44.000]  I'd like to see them go rot in penitentiary
[24:44.000 --> 24:48.000]  or be executed or whatever, you know,
[24:48.000 --> 24:54.000]  whatever would be most expedient for the taxpayer, I guess,
[24:54.000 --> 25:01.000]  because I'm sick and tired of the little small town,
[25:01.000 --> 25:09.000]  you know, you've got your little balls of candies and this and that and other.
[25:09.000 --> 25:15.000]  I understand Doug, I think we're all frustrated with what's happening
[25:15.000 --> 25:21.000]  and we're all being pushed around by these jackbooted dugs.
[25:21.000 --> 25:26.000]  And I'm especially sensitive to it.
[25:26.000 --> 25:35.000]  When I listen to Alex Jones, I get so angry that I have trouble containing myself.
[25:35.000 --> 25:39.000]  So I have to be careful.
[25:39.000 --> 25:41.000]  I don't get to...
[25:41.000 --> 25:45.000]  If I'm going to have an effect, if I'm going to change things,
[25:45.000 --> 25:49.000]  I don't get to act on what I want all the time.
[25:49.000 --> 25:55.000]  You should come with me sometimes when I take on these public officials.
[25:55.000 --> 25:59.000]  You'll see, I don't cut any slack.
[25:59.000 --> 26:05.000]  I do what needs to be done and I will gladly take them on
[26:05.000 --> 26:09.000]  if it leads toward an outcome.
[26:09.000 --> 26:12.000]  If you go down to the Travis County Courthouse
[26:12.000 --> 26:15.000]  and mention my name, you'll find out.
[26:15.000 --> 26:20.000]  You'll get a bunch of bailiffs all around you really, really fast
[26:20.000 --> 26:23.000]  because I've made them really unhappy.
[26:23.000 --> 26:31.000]  It's not that I'm shy, it's not that I'm anyway intentionally lenient
[26:31.000 --> 26:33.000]  but we have to keep our eye on the prize.
[26:33.000 --> 26:36.000]  We have to know what we're going after
[26:36.000 --> 26:43.000]  and not let these indignities that they would throw at us distract us.
[26:43.000 --> 26:51.000]  Those are red herrings and I will not be led off this trail.
[26:51.000 --> 26:56.000]  I intend to be one of those that once I get on your trail,
[26:56.000 --> 26:58.000]  I'm going to stay on it.
[26:58.000 --> 27:02.000]  You're not going to send me off chasing some minor issue that in the end
[27:02.000 --> 27:04.000]  won't make any difference.
[27:04.000 --> 27:06.000]  Okay, our call-a-board is really building up.
[27:06.000 --> 27:08.000]  We need to move along.
[27:08.000 --> 27:13.000]  We're going to go to Claudio in California.
[27:13.000 --> 27:16.000]  You have been dropping off a lot of Claudio.
[27:16.000 --> 27:18.000]  Yeah, good evening.
[27:18.000 --> 27:20.000]  Ready?
[27:20.000 --> 27:22.000]  Okay, yeah.
[27:22.000 --> 27:26.000]  We tried to pick you up earlier and we lost you as soon as we did.
[27:26.000 --> 27:28.000]  It's been a while.
[27:28.000 --> 27:30.000]  Yeah, it's been a while.
[27:30.000 --> 27:34.000]  Listen, I have a very simple question for you.
[27:34.000 --> 27:42.000]  Are you familiar, have you heard about the federal common law lien?
[27:42.000 --> 27:45.000]  Common law lien.
[27:45.000 --> 27:49.000]  I've heard a lot of talk about common law.
[27:49.000 --> 27:52.000]  And it seems I have heard of the common law lien,
[27:52.000 --> 27:57.000]  but I don't remember enough information to be able to speak.
[27:57.000 --> 27:58.000]  Intelligent, to be honest.
[27:58.000 --> 28:00.000]  Will you explain that to us?
[28:00.000 --> 28:08.000]  Well, basically, the common law lien makes a statement that I have interest in the property
[28:08.000 --> 28:10.000]  when they're going to foreclose on the property.
[28:10.000 --> 28:18.000]  I do a common law lien and I have interest in the property because I put down my down payment.
[28:18.000 --> 28:21.000]  My payments and I made some upgrades on the property.
[28:21.000 --> 28:35.000]  So when I found a common law lien, when they sell the property, they would have to pay me first before the bank pays themselves.
[28:35.000 --> 28:41.000]  You would have to be, I would expect a third party.
[28:41.000 --> 28:44.000]  Not to mention first lien holder.
[28:44.000 --> 28:57.000]  Well, if you are the party that granted the lien to the bank, then you could hardly file your own lien against your own property.
[28:57.000 --> 29:02.000]  And ask for that to stand in front of the bank's lien.
[29:02.000 --> 29:06.000]  Well, both sides in front of it, supposedly.
[29:06.000 --> 29:12.000]  Well, you'd be telling the court, well, you know, they really have,
[29:12.000 --> 29:21.000]  they really have to pay myself before I pay the bank because I put out my own money.
[29:21.000 --> 29:27.000]  So I should be able to draw my money out of it before the bank can draw its money out of the property.
[29:27.000 --> 29:32.000]  But then again, the bank gave you money.
[29:32.000 --> 29:38.000]  So you drew money out of the property already and you issued the lien.
[29:38.000 --> 29:46.000]  So what you borrowed from the bank would act as a tender by set off against your common law lien.
[29:46.000 --> 29:49.000]  Unless there's something else I don't know about.
[29:49.000 --> 29:51.000]  Hang on, Claudio, we're about to go to break.
[29:51.000 --> 29:53.000]  This is Randy Calderon and David Steeve and David Craig.
[29:53.000 --> 30:00.000]  The Wheel of Law Radio will be right back.
[30:00.000 --> 30:06.000]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11th.
[30:06.000 --> 30:08.000]  The government says that fire brought it down.
[30:08.000 --> 30:13.000]  However, 1,500 architects and engineers have concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[30:13.000 --> 30:16.000]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives.
[30:16.000 --> 30:19.000]  Thousands of my fellow force responders have signed.
[30:19.000 --> 30:20.000]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[30:20.000 --> 30:21.000]  I'm a structural engineer.
[30:21.000 --> 30:22.000]  I'm a New York City correction officer.
[30:22.000 --> 30:23.000]  I'm an Air Force pilot.
[30:23.000 --> 30:25.000]  I'm a father who lost his son.
[30:25.000 --> 30:28.000]  We are Americans and we deserve the truth.
[30:28.000 --> 30:31.000]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[30:31.000 --> 30:39.000]  We all know smoking is bad, but new evidence shows babies whose fathers smoked around the time of their conception
[30:39.000 --> 30:43.000]  have an increased risk of developing childhood cancer.
[30:43.000 --> 30:47.000]  I'm Dr. Cameron Albright, back with details in a moment.
[30:47.000 --> 30:49.000]  Privacy is under attack.
[30:49.000 --> 30:52.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[30:52.000 --> 30:57.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:57.000 --> 31:03.000]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[31:03.000 --> 31:05.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[31:05.000 --> 31:12.000]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[31:12.000 --> 31:16.000]  Start over with StartPage.
[31:16.000 --> 31:17.000]  Smoking kills.
[31:17.000 --> 31:20.000]  It's no secret and we've all heard the health warnings.
[31:20.000 --> 31:23.000]  But did you know that tobacco could also kill your unborn child?
[31:23.000 --> 31:29.000]  Australian researchers found that although mother smoking did not increase their children's risk of getting cancer,
[31:29.000 --> 31:35.000]  kids whose fathers smoked around the time of their conception were more likely to develop acute lymphoblastic leukemia,
[31:35.000 --> 31:39.000]  or ALL, the most common form of childhood cancer.
[31:39.000 --> 31:42.000]  And the more dad smoked, the greater the risk.
[31:42.000 --> 31:48.000]  If dad smoked a pack a day, his baby was 44% more likely to be diagnosed with a disease.
[31:48.000 --> 31:53.000]  So Papas, consider what you're doing to your unborn kid before you light up.
[31:53.000 --> 32:21.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[32:21.000 --> 32:40.000]  I won't let you pull the work over my eyes.
[32:40.000 --> 32:51.000]  We must refuse your news also from your lies.
[32:51.000 --> 32:55.000]  Look here, we're back, we're in a place where every student did a great deal of radio,
[32:55.000 --> 32:58.000]  and we're talking to Cardio in California.
[32:58.000 --> 33:06.000]  Cardio, how would the common law survive that claim?
[33:06.000 --> 33:11.000]  Well, supposedly the guy came up with it.
[33:11.000 --> 33:19.000]  He said it stopped foreclosure, two foreclosures on the extracts in Florida.
[33:19.000 --> 33:21.000]  Well, yeah, I'm sure it would.
[33:21.000 --> 33:25.000]  And that's a maneuver, but it won't.
[33:25.000 --> 33:30.000]  If all you're using before is a maneuver to stop the foreclosure.
[33:30.000 --> 33:37.000]  A notice of lean is a legal notice.
[33:37.000 --> 33:47.000]  And what the other side would have to do is go in and show that the lean that was noticed wasn't valid.
[33:47.000 --> 33:56.000]  So because the lean is there, I'm sure they didn't want to try to pass it until they had a judicial ruling on it.
[33:56.000 --> 34:05.000]  But what they're likely to get is an association of temporary government document.
[34:05.000 --> 34:14.000]  The other side is likely to come in and say, hey, this guy filed a lean himself against his own property.
[34:14.000 --> 34:18.000]  He leaned himself.
[34:18.000 --> 34:32.000]  This is after he gave us a lean on the property in return for consideration and now he's coming in and saying that even though he's already received his consideration,
[34:32.000 --> 34:39.000]  that he has a prior claim on the property to us and they're going to call that fraud.
[34:39.000 --> 34:53.000]  And I've heard a lot of these patriot tricks and traps that they put out there that yes, it stops them, that IRS OID thing.
[34:53.000 --> 35:04.000]  It stopped the IRS computers for a while because the OID was meant for something else other than what these people were using it for.
[35:04.000 --> 35:10.000]  And it wasn't programmed into the computer to look for this kind of use.
[35:10.000 --> 35:12.000]  And they finally figured it out.
[35:12.000 --> 35:15.000]  And then he went back after everybody.
[35:15.000 --> 35:16.000]  Okay.
[35:16.000 --> 35:19.000]  You know, they had a lot of trouble.
[35:19.000 --> 35:21.000]  That one was really devastating.
[35:21.000 --> 35:25.000]  I would be concerned over a lean like this one.
[35:25.000 --> 35:28.000]  Could I email it to you when you go?
[35:28.000 --> 35:29.000]  Yes.
[35:29.000 --> 35:31.000]  Yeah, I'd like to see that.
[35:31.000 --> 35:38.000]  Because that's kind of on the surface, it kind of scares me of what could come out of it.
[35:38.000 --> 35:41.000]  I'm trying to scare the trustee, not you.
[35:41.000 --> 35:42.000]  Yeah.
[35:42.000 --> 35:47.000]  Well, have you pulled all the documents that were filed in the case?
[35:47.000 --> 35:48.000]  No, no, no.
[35:48.000 --> 35:52.000]  I just heard about this last night about what this morning about two o'clock in the morning.
[35:52.000 --> 36:01.000]  Oh, okay. No, go out of here to Canary Quarters office and pull all the documents and get the names that are on the documents,
[36:01.000 --> 36:09.000]  especially the assignments or any affidavit attesting to authority to foreclose.
[36:09.000 --> 36:20.000]  Then call the entity that the signator claims to be an employee and get a hold of personnel.
[36:20.000 --> 36:24.000]  And tell them that you want to talk to this person's secretary.
[36:24.000 --> 36:29.000]  Now, personnel don't know anything about all this robo-signing crap.
[36:29.000 --> 36:33.000]  So they're not going to be paying attention to that kind of stuff.
[36:33.000 --> 36:38.000]  So you ask for this person's secretary and they're going to go check and they're going to say,
[36:38.000 --> 36:43.000]  you hope we don't have a person for that need working for us.
[36:43.000 --> 36:47.000]  Well, when did he get terminated?
[36:47.000 --> 36:51.000]  And they say, well, we never had somebody by that name.
[36:51.000 --> 36:53.000]  Now you've got your robo-signer.
[36:53.000 --> 37:03.000]  Now you have probable cause to go to the court with the signed document and say your honor.
[37:03.000 --> 37:07.000]  This person signed as an employee of this company.
[37:07.000 --> 37:09.000]  I just talked to personnel.
[37:09.000 --> 37:12.000]  Here's a transcript of the recording.
[37:12.000 --> 37:17.000]  And their personnel department tells me this person never worked for this company.
[37:17.000 --> 37:21.000]  Therefore, this document is an error.
[37:21.000 --> 37:28.000]  And you ask the court to correct the error by rendering the document void.
[37:28.000 --> 37:35.000]  And if there was a foreclosure based on that document, the foreclosure is void.
[37:35.000 --> 37:37.000]  Exactly.
[37:37.000 --> 37:42.000]  I would absolutely do that first and look at the assignments.
[37:42.000 --> 37:45.000]  When was the assignment made?
[37:45.000 --> 37:50.000]  Especially the substitute trustees who did the foreclosure.
[37:50.000 --> 37:56.000]  Was the assignment made prior to the initiation of the foreclosure?
[37:56.000 --> 38:00.000]  We just got two cases out of Oklahoma two weeks ago.
[38:00.000 --> 38:05.000]  A case out of Alabama last week on this issue.
[38:05.000 --> 38:09.000]  Same as the Ibanez case out of Massachusetts.
[38:09.000 --> 38:14.000]  Which was really the precursor to these two cases.
[38:14.000 --> 38:22.000]  Saying that in the Ibanez case, it was the purchaser of the property at auction.
[38:22.000 --> 38:29.000]  Who went to the Massachusetts Land Court and asked for quiet title.
[38:29.000 --> 38:36.000]  And they looked at the paperwork and they said, when the foreclosure process began,
[38:36.000 --> 38:42.000]  the substitute trustee had not yet been appointed.
[38:42.000 --> 38:48.000]  Therefore, you purchased from the substitute trustee what he had to sell.
[38:48.000 --> 38:51.000]  Which was nothing.
[38:51.000 --> 38:56.000]  And that's exactly what the Oklahoma case went to.
[38:56.000 --> 39:03.000]  The Alabama case was a case where the person had already been evicted.
[39:03.000 --> 39:12.000]  And he went back and challenged the subject matter jurisdiction of the eviction court.
[39:12.000 --> 39:18.000]  And the Alabama case said because the trustee was not assigned trustee soon enough,
[39:18.000 --> 39:22.000]  when the foreclosure process began.
[39:22.000 --> 39:27.000]  And it was actually so, but when the notice of acceleration was sent.
[39:27.000 --> 39:32.000]  It was sent by trustee, he was not yet trustee.
[39:32.000 --> 39:36.000]  So that voided everything after that.
[39:36.000 --> 39:43.000]  That therefore, the UD court did not have subject matter jurisdiction.
[39:43.000 --> 39:51.000]  And since the matter went to subject matter jurisdiction, it would not support an appeal.
[39:51.000 --> 39:57.000]  So they couldn't even appeal the decision.
[39:57.000 --> 39:59.000]  So look for those issues.
[39:59.000 --> 40:01.000]  Look for the assignment.
[40:01.000 --> 40:07.000]  I have a questionnaire on assignments that I don't quite have ready to post up yet,
[40:07.000 --> 40:13.000]  but it's walks right down everything that must be in the assignment right out of the code.
[40:13.000 --> 40:19.000]  And I hope to have that up pretty soon where you could just download this questionnaire
[40:19.000 --> 40:23.000]  and then go down and look at the assignment and see if it meets all these requirements.
[40:23.000 --> 40:30.000]  If it fails to meet a single one, it's over for these guys.
[40:30.000 --> 40:40.000]  And you can then, especially if you can get the local district court to rule that the document is in error
[40:40.000 --> 40:44.000]  and correct the court, the public record.
[40:44.000 --> 40:49.000]  It's generally done in an ex parte hearing, the other side's not there.
[40:49.000 --> 40:55.000]  If you give it to him and the judge can only look at the four corners of the document,
[40:55.000 --> 41:03.000]  then you give him evidence to show that the document as it's presented doesn't meet law.
[41:03.000 --> 41:09.000]  He can rule to avoid the document because it technically doesn't harm the other side.
[41:09.000 --> 41:13.000]  They can always come back in correct documentation.
[41:13.000 --> 41:24.000]  The problem is if they have already taken action based on that documentation, now they got a problem.
[41:24.000 --> 41:33.000]  Okay, send me that. I would very much like to look at it because if it's workable, that would please me greatly.
[41:33.000 --> 41:38.000]  If it's not workable, I'd be afraid that people will get clobbered over it.
[41:38.000 --> 41:41.000]  Where would I send it to?
[41:41.000 --> 41:50.000]  To randyatruleoflawradio.com.
[41:50.000 --> 41:53.000]  Okay, very good. I read that now.
[41:53.000 --> 42:00.000]  Now that you mentioned quiet title, I've heard that some people are going, are suing for quiet title.
[42:00.000 --> 42:05.000]  And basically they're suing the original partisan data trust.
[42:05.000 --> 42:09.000]  Can you hear that?
[42:09.000 --> 42:20.000]  Yes, the data trust, there's a lot of, you know, I hear about quiet titles and I always want to hear what's the nature of the claim for quiet title.
[42:20.000 --> 42:27.000]  Well, the nature of the claim on the quiet title, I got superior title over them.
[42:27.000 --> 42:30.000]  Okay, how do they get there?
[42:30.000 --> 42:43.000]  Well, we're dealing with a voluntary deed of trust that the holder of the warranty deed issued to the holder of the deed.
[42:43.000 --> 42:49.000]  Now, how do we go back and say that that deed is void?
[42:49.000 --> 42:59.000]  Well, I want to go back to myself and tell them it's void because the original lender is already paid off.
[42:59.000 --> 43:09.000]  But it is in the contract that he has the right to sell the document, sell the promissory note and transfer the lien.
[43:09.000 --> 43:10.000]  Okay.
[43:10.000 --> 43:23.000]  So while he's been paid off, the lien is not necessarily invalid unless it was not transferred at time of sale.
[43:23.000 --> 43:38.000]  If it stayed in his name or was transferred to a servicer for the purpose of servicing the note, but the servicer wasn't the holder of the security instrument.
[43:38.000 --> 43:42.000]  Now they have bifurcation, now they have a problem.
[43:42.000 --> 43:53.000]  That's why I'm saying that what would be the nature of the claim, we have to get very specific.
[43:53.000 --> 44:01.000]  We'll go back to you on the other side and then in Michigan I see you will take the new feedback.
[44:01.000 --> 44:04.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[44:04.000 --> 44:15.000]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand four CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step.
[44:15.000 --> 44:19.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[44:19.000 --> 44:23.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[44:23.000 --> 44:28.000]  Thousands have won with our step by step course and now you can too.
[44:28.000 --> 44:34.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience.
[44:34.000 --> 44:43.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[44:43.000 --> 44:52.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics and much more.
[44:52.000 --> 45:01.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ.
[45:01.000 --> 45:06.000]  The Oklahoma City bombing, top 10 reasons to question the official story.
[45:06.000 --> 45:10.000]  Reason number one, John Doe number two and other accomplices.
[45:10.000 --> 45:18.000]  On the day of the bombing nearly all of the witnesses that saw Tim McVeigh and the writer truck report that he was accompanied by other perpetrators.
[45:18.000 --> 45:25.000]  FBI and federal prosecutors insist that Tim McVeigh alone delivered the writer truck bomb to the Murr Building and detonated it.
[45:25.000 --> 45:33.000]  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,
[45:33.000 --> 45:39.000]  testified that she saw McVeigh with another man, the fable John Doe number two, exiting the writer truck.
[45:39.000 --> 45:45.000]  While at least 15 other witnesses claim to have seen McVeigh with other perpetrators the day of the bombing,
[45:45.000 --> 45:53.000]  no less than 226 witnesses placed him with other men in the days before the bombing, including when he rented the writer truck.
[45:53.000 --> 45:57.000]  And in some cases have positively identified the other perpetrators.
[45:57.000 --> 46:23.000]  For more information, please visit okcbombingtruth.com.
[46:23.000 --> 46:45.000]  Okay, we're back.
[46:45.000 --> 46:55.000]  Thank you.
[46:55.000 --> 47:02.000]  One thing I was going to mention is I have a friend here in Texas who's in a foreclosure issue.
[47:02.000 --> 47:04.000]  She was a personal friend for a long time.
[47:04.000 --> 47:09.000]  And we live in a small county, Wise County, north of Fort Worth.
[47:09.000 --> 47:19.000]  I went to check the court records because I wanted to see if he had any Robocyner through any of those kind of problems.
[47:19.000 --> 47:22.000]  Well, he didn't have any Robocyner problems.
[47:22.000 --> 47:25.000]  He didn't have any notary problems.
[47:25.000 --> 47:33.000]  He didn't have any document problems at all because there weren't any.
[47:33.000 --> 47:43.000]  Nothing. No lien, no assignments, no nothing.
[47:43.000 --> 47:49.000]  So Monday morning he's going to have a lien on that property.
[47:49.000 --> 47:56.000]  They're in bankruptcy and the bank is trying to foreclose.
[47:56.000 --> 48:08.000]  And he's hired an attorney and apparently the attorney didn't bother to check and see if the bank actually had a lien against the property.
[48:08.000 --> 48:24.000]  And in doing the research, it's very clear in Texas law that a lien does not take effect until it is properly filed with the county registrar's office.
[48:24.000 --> 48:31.000]  So they may have a side lien in their hand, but it hasn't been properly filed.
[48:31.000 --> 48:39.000]  So I'm going to go in Monday and lead up and then have him go instead of suing.
[48:39.000 --> 48:41.000]  We don't need to sue at this point.
[48:41.000 --> 48:50.000]  We go to the attorney and tell the attorney to claim the property is unsecured.
[48:50.000 --> 49:00.000]  As far as the bank is concerned, and then let them come and see my lien on the property.
[49:00.000 --> 49:16.000]  Well, I didn't make a claim on my lien, but if they don't show the property is unsecured as far as the bank is concerned and I'll file a claim against my lien.
[49:16.000 --> 49:23.000]  The lien will stand first in line, first in time, the lien won't stand at all because there isn't one.
[49:23.000 --> 49:28.000]  So absolutely check the court record.
[49:28.000 --> 49:33.000]  Do you have any other questions or comments, Claudia?
[49:33.000 --> 49:48.000]  Yeah, one more little question or comment. What about when you have an issue on the federal court using the Constitution to get your due process?
[49:48.000 --> 49:52.000]  You argue the Constitution, you may as well handle my house.
[49:52.000 --> 49:53.000]  Okay.
[49:53.000 --> 49:54.000]  Maybe not.
[49:54.000 --> 49:57.000]  What was the nature of the claim?
[49:57.000 --> 50:06.000]  It was about the process of no foreclosure because the Constitution says that if they're going to deprive you out of your property, it's got to be done through the process.
[50:06.000 --> 50:14.000]  What you have to do, Claudio, is use the court's decisions on what constitutes due process.
[50:14.000 --> 50:16.000]  Don't cite the Constitution.
[50:16.000 --> 50:22.000]  Cite the case law relative to the right of due process as it fits your circumstances.
[50:22.000 --> 50:23.000]  Good.
[50:23.000 --> 50:26.000]  The right of notice, the right of service.
[50:26.000 --> 50:28.000]  Wait a minute, wait a minute.
[50:28.000 --> 50:39.000]  You have to, in order to invoke the federal authority on due process, you have to go through a constitutional violation.
[50:39.000 --> 50:47.000]  Due process is a constitutional violation under the Fed, but you don't have to claim a constitutional article to make that stick.
[50:47.000 --> 50:51.000]  The right of due process is a federally protected right.
[50:51.000 --> 50:52.000]  Right.
[50:52.000 --> 50:59.000]  You know, yeah, a due process never really has to be, you don't claim Constitution.
[50:59.000 --> 51:08.000]  You claim the statute or the, you know, whatever the statute is establishing the due process, all you have to do is claim that.
[51:08.000 --> 51:14.000]  So while you're making the constitutional claim, you don't have to call it constitutional.
[51:14.000 --> 51:16.000]  Why would that be?
[51:16.000 --> 51:23.000]  If it, if it's a Supreme Law of the land, why would you?
[51:23.000 --> 51:25.000]  It used to be, it's not anymore.
[51:25.000 --> 51:27.000]  No, no, no, that's not the case here.
[51:27.000 --> 51:29.000]  That, that's not how that works.
[51:29.000 --> 51:37.000]  The, the Constitution makes, it makes it a violation to deny due process.
[51:37.000 --> 51:47.000]  So you show the law and the due process violation, it's already a constitutional violation per se by its nature.
[51:47.000 --> 51:50.000]  So you don't have to go back and claim Constitution.
[51:50.000 --> 51:57.000]  You can just show that the law has been violated and it denied you due process.
[51:57.000 --> 51:59.000]  Am I making sense here?
[51:59.000 --> 52:06.000]  The due process is by its very nature constitutional.
[52:06.000 --> 52:08.000]  Okay. So how do I enforce it?
[52:08.000 --> 52:12.000]  Okay. I got, I got this gentleman's point of view.
[52:12.000 --> 52:20.000]  You just say this law said they were supposed to do this and they didn't do this.
[52:20.000 --> 52:33.000]  And the argument, the way I make it is that I acted in good faith reliance on standing law.
[52:33.000 --> 52:39.000]  I only dealt with licensed professionals who were subject to government oversight.
[52:39.000 --> 52:50.000]  So I had a reasonable expectation that they would follow law because one of the things the courts have said is that before you make this claim,
[52:50.000 --> 53:01.000]  you have to show that you exercise due diligence at the time to ensure that everything was done right.
[53:01.000 --> 53:11.000]  So they don't want you setting somebody up for a federal claim on purpose knowing it's a federal claim you're setting them up for and then coming after them for it.
[53:11.000 --> 53:19.000]  So you have to do due diligence in order to ensure that everything was done correctly.
[53:19.000 --> 53:28.000]  Well, you did do due diligence because you only dealt with licensed professionals who were subject to government oversight.
[53:28.000 --> 53:43.000]  Therefore, you had a reasonable expectation that they would follow all of the laws put in place to protect you from mistreatment.
[53:43.000 --> 53:54.000]  And if they violated one of those laws, then they denied you in the protection of the law and that's the due process violation.
[53:54.000 --> 54:13.000]  But you have no liability because you did your due diligence and only dealt with licensed professionals.
[54:13.000 --> 54:27.000]  And you can expect them to abide by every rule, statute, rule and regulation affecting the function of their business or affecting their function.
[54:27.000 --> 54:38.000]  So you have a right to expect that. You don't have to hire a private investigator and have the private investigator investigate every single thing the other side does.
[54:38.000 --> 54:49.000]  You had your legislators put consumer protection laws in place so that you would not have to.
[54:49.000 --> 55:11.000]  So anyway, the way all you do to make the due process claim is state the statute, rule and regulation that either requires them to do a certain thing they did not do or forbids them from doing the thing that they did do.
[55:11.000 --> 55:22.000]  Simply showing that they did that thing and it caused you harm either direct or indirect. That's enough to make the due process claim.
[55:22.000 --> 55:33.000]  I wouldn't like to hear the young man's point of view where he says just hand them over to the house. Why do you say that? I just want to hear your point of view.
[55:33.000 --> 55:50.000]  Because the courts will not recognize the Constitution as something you have any standing under whatsoever. They've already ruled time and time again over that hell just in the last couple of years they've been handing down even more case law on that subject.
[55:50.000 --> 56:10.000]  What it comes down to is this concept. The Constitution now only means what the courts have ruled that it means. So you are relegated to using their determinative opinions as to how to apply the constitutional provision.
[56:10.000 --> 56:23.000]  Therefore, your objective is to use the courts decision to point out how your violation occurred, not the Constitution itself. That's what they're trying to say has happened.
[56:23.000 --> 56:28.000]  And they will not recognize it if you couch it any other way.
[56:28.000 --> 56:44.000]  And that's appropriate because the Constitution doesn't grant the individual anything so that he could say the Constitution gave me this and you took it away from me.
[56:44.000 --> 56:58.000]  The Constitution is restrictive document. It says you can't do these things. You can't violate these rights or these due process rights.
[56:58.000 --> 57:15.000]  Or if you do, you create the harm. Well, we can't go after our claim under the restriction forbidding them to do something. We have to claim what they did.
[57:15.000 --> 57:23.000]  The Constitution is a restrictive document. It is the statute that implements the restrictions.
[57:23.000 --> 57:35.000]  It is the statute that tells them what they can do and what they can't do. And if they violate one of these, it becomes a violation of that restriction.
[57:35.000 --> 57:49.000]  So you would claim it under these statutes, not under the Constitution. But it doesn't hurt us at all because everything that we would claim in the Constitution is codified in the law.
[57:49.000 --> 58:01.000]  So it's just a matter of how we structure our complaint. You always need to make a claim based on violation of a legal element.
[58:01.000 --> 58:09.000]  That's why you can't make it in the Constitution because it's not really a statute. Does that make sense?
[58:09.000 --> 58:19.000]  Yeah, it does. But I'm not happy with it. Okay. Okay.
[58:19.000 --> 58:25.000]  Okay. Do you have any other questions? No, thank you very much, Randy. And have a good night. And God bless you.
[58:25.000 --> 58:29.000]  Okay. Thank you, Claudio. Okay. This is Randy Kelton.
[58:29.000 --> 58:39.000]  We're about to go to the top of the hour break. We've got one hour left. I see Dale in Michigan and Marshall in Oregon.
[58:39.000 --> 59:01.000]  You'll pick me up when we come back on the other side. I'll call in number. It's 512-646-1984. Give us a call. Get in line. We're going to run out of time here. We'll be right back.
[59:01.000 --> 59:17.000]  Okay.
[59:17.000 --> 59:38.000]  Enter the recovery version. First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes. Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance into the riches of the word beyond which you've ever experienced before.
[59:38.000 --> 01:00:01.000]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking. This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll-free at 1-888-551-0102 or by ordering online at freestudybible.com. That's freestudybible.com.
[01:00:01.000 --> 01:00:12.000]  This news brief brought to you by the International Newsnet.
[01:00:32.000 --> 01:00:53.000]  Bankruptcy hearings for the Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee revealed this week more than 8,000 previously unreported instances of alleged sexual abuse of children. The charges cover 60 years and implicate over 100 alleged offenders, including nuns, church workers and 75 priests.
[01:00:53.000 --> 01:01:08.000]  A U.S. Marine Corps spokesman said Thursday the commander of a group of Marines who were photographed in Afghanistan with a Nazi SS flag had decided not to punish them. The spokesman said the commander concluded they were acting out of ignorance.
[01:01:08.000 --> 01:01:19.000]  The photo reportedly taken in 2010 ricocheted around the Internet after it was posted this week. Last month video emerged of Marines urinating on the corpses of dead Afghans.
[01:01:19.000 --> 01:01:39.000]  The hacker group Anonymous released a video Friday threatening to begin a reign of terror against Israel in the latest round of cyber warfare between pro-Palestinians and pro-Israeli hackers. The video posted on YouTube blamed Israel for committing crimes against humanity and criticizing its treatment of Palestinians.
[01:01:39.000 --> 01:01:55.000]  The clip's computer-generated narrator said, quote, through the use of media deception and political bribery, you have amassed the sympathies of many, adding, in fact, your only goal is to better the lives of a select few while carelessly trampling the liberties of the masses.
[01:01:55.000 --> 01:02:10.000]  The video also makes reference to a possible Israeli strike on Iran, claiming Israel has, quote, taken steps to ensure a nuclear holocaust, and that Israel would not be allowed to attack a sovereign country based upon a campaign of lies.
[01:02:10.000 --> 01:02:32.000]  Mali's political parties this week called on the government to hold a forum for peace and reconciliation as a way to end a Tureg rebellion. The uprising has forced 55,000 people from their homes, the majority fleeing the fighting in the north of the country, while others seek shelter from ethnic tension and violent demonstrations in cities in the south.
[01:02:32.000 --> 01:02:41.000]  The UN High Commission for Refugees said it has sent emergency teams to countries bordering Mali to help meet the needs of 20,000 refugees.
[01:02:41.000 --> 01:02:53.000]  In Mali's south, numerous businesses belonging to Turegs have been looted. President Amadou Turey has called on Malians not to confuse the insurgents with Tureg civilians.
[01:02:53.000 --> 01:03:06.000]  Turey noted the rebellion has been led by some 300 Turegs, while 1,300 in Mali's army have remained loyal to the government. The rebels have overwhelmed government garrisons thanks to an infusion of Libyan weapons.
[01:03:23.000 --> 01:03:38.000]  Mali's political parties this week called on the government to hold a forum for peace and reconciliation as a way to end a Tureg rebellion.
[01:03:38.000 --> 01:03:54.000]  Mali's political parties this week called on the government to hold a forum for peace and reconciliation as a way to end a Tureg rebellion.
[01:03:54.000 --> 01:04:20.000]  Mali's political parties this week called on the government to hold a forum for peace and reconciliation as a way to end a Tureg rebellion.
[01:04:20.000 --> 01:04:25.000]  Yeah, you did.
[01:04:25.000 --> 01:04:30.000]  Randy?
[01:04:30.000 --> 01:04:34.000]  Randy?
[01:04:34.000 --> 01:04:37.000]  Well, that isn't voting well.
[01:04:37.000 --> 01:04:56.000]  Claudio, are you still there? Yeah, mayor. Okay. He asked me if what he said was entirely correct and what I told him on break was this. You cannot count it as a constitutional violation. You just can't count it that way.
[01:04:56.000 --> 01:05:12.000]  You've got to count it as a violation of a protected right under such and such, and then you have to go to the law and the case law on it. If you go directly to a constitutional article, they will throw you out of court.
[01:05:12.000 --> 01:05:18.000]  Okay, I understand that. Well, basically, I want to enforce my constitutional rights.
[01:05:18.000 --> 01:05:32.000]  You don't have any. Okay, what you have is statutorily protected rights that came out of the auspices of what the Constitution says the government can't do to you.
[01:05:32.000 --> 01:05:45.000]  And they reduced that to statute. They do not allow the Constitution to be treated as law. If they did, you could bring it to court and introduce it as proof of the law. Could you not?
[01:05:45.000 --> 01:05:47.000]  Yes, I can.
[01:05:47.000 --> 01:05:52.000]  Can you do that? Right now, I don't know.
[01:05:52.000 --> 01:06:05.000]  No, you can't. You try to say I wish to bring to the court's attention articles such and such out of such and such and such and such section. They'll say we don't recognize that. Get out of here. Why?
[01:06:05.000 --> 01:06:16.000]  Because to them in their eyes, it is not proof of the law. They do it at the state level. They do it at the federal level.
[01:06:16.000 --> 01:06:22.000]  Okay. You have to use the case law and the statutes the case laws based on.
[01:06:22.000 --> 01:06:27.000]  Now, do I agree with that concept? Absolutely not.
[01:06:27.000 --> 01:06:28.000]  Yeah, we're hoping you do.
[01:06:28.000 --> 01:06:39.000]  Every public servant, the moment he says I don't recognize the Constitution, should be drugged to the street and beat to death with a bronzed copy of it.
[01:06:39.000 --> 01:06:40.000]  Yeah.
[01:06:40.000 --> 01:06:51.000]  Okay. That would be my take on getting it done. But until we get to that point, this is what we're stuck with.
[01:06:51.000 --> 01:07:04.000]  But I had to believe that, for instance, if a federal agency like, let's say, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, if they're a federal agency and they foreclose on you.
[01:07:04.000 --> 01:07:06.000]  They're not. They're a private entity.
[01:07:06.000 --> 01:07:07.000]  Okay.
[01:07:07.000 --> 01:07:12.000]  No, they're also a, they're a part of the federal government.
[01:07:12.000 --> 01:07:17.000]  So they are couched under official capacity.
[01:07:17.000 --> 01:07:20.000]  They're not, they're a quasi private corporate.
[01:07:20.000 --> 01:07:29.000]  If a federal agency foreclose on you, then you can use the Constitution because it's, it's against the federal government.
[01:07:29.000 --> 01:07:38.000]  Well, if you're concerned, I don't think the concern is really that valid.
[01:07:38.000 --> 01:07:44.000]  When I first heard that, I felt like you do. I felt like I'd lost something.
[01:07:44.000 --> 01:07:48.000]  But I think I better understand the position now.
[01:07:48.000 --> 01:07:53.000]  It is the Constitution that set out the protections.
[01:07:53.000 --> 01:07:58.000]  But the Constitution is very vague.
[01:07:58.000 --> 01:08:12.000]  And it, in order to avoid that vagueness, the legislature laid down the statutes to define the constitutional protections.
[01:08:12.000 --> 01:08:23.000]  So when your protection has been violated, you go to the statute and say, this is how my constitutional protection has been violated.
[01:08:23.000 --> 01:08:34.000]  And it's not that the Constitution's not there. It's just that this is not what you need to give to the court so that they have something they can do to Kate.
[01:08:34.000 --> 01:08:37.000]  Yeah, I understand what you're saying.
[01:08:37.000 --> 01:08:42.000]  Like I said, it's like having a full coverage insurance or you wreck your car and they won't fix it.
[01:08:42.000 --> 01:08:44.000]  That's the way I look at it.
[01:08:44.000 --> 01:08:49.000]  Marty, have you ever read a book by Lesander Spooner called No Treason?
[01:08:49.000 --> 01:08:51.000]  No, no.
[01:08:51.000 --> 01:08:58.000]  You need to read it. You absolutely, everybody listening, you need to read it.
[01:08:58.000 --> 01:09:01.000]  Lesander Spooner wrote a lot of books.
[01:09:01.000 --> 01:09:13.000]  He's got the one on the right to trial by jury and he's got one on No Treason, which is all about the federal constitutions.
[01:09:13.000 --> 01:09:23.000]  Please, folks, Spooner was what was known as an anarchist simply because he did not believe that government authority existed to the point of being used.
[01:09:23.000 --> 01:09:28.000]  I come to realize anarchy is not a bad thing.
[01:09:28.000 --> 01:09:34.000]  Anarchy in reality is complete freedom from government rule.
[01:09:34.000 --> 01:09:44.000]  And the only time they're allowed to interfere with your life is when you've done something that harms someone else and justice has to be served.
[01:09:44.000 --> 01:09:48.000]  That's it. That's what anarchy really means.
[01:09:48.000 --> 01:09:54.000]  Leave me alone until you can prove I've hurt somebody.
[01:09:54.000 --> 01:09:59.000]  So I highly recommend you go read at least those two books by Lesander Spooner.
[01:09:59.000 --> 01:10:06.000]  No treason and the treaties on the common law write the trial by jury.
[01:10:06.000 --> 01:10:08.000]  What's the first thing?
[01:10:08.000 --> 01:10:10.000]  No treason.
[01:10:10.000 --> 01:10:12.000]  No, no. First thing of the author.
[01:10:12.000 --> 01:10:16.000]  Lesander. L-Y-S-A-N-D-E-R.
[01:10:16.000 --> 01:10:17.000]  Okay.
[01:10:17.000 --> 01:10:20.000]  Spooner. Spoon-E-R.
[01:10:20.000 --> 01:10:23.000]  Okay, very well.
[01:10:23.000 --> 01:10:29.000]  Very well. Thank you very much, guys, and let somebody else speak. And thank you all again.
[01:10:29.000 --> 01:10:31.000]  All right. Thanks.
[01:10:31.000 --> 01:10:35.000]  Bye-bye.
[01:10:35.000 --> 01:10:37.000]  All right, Rayden, who's our next caller?
[01:10:37.000 --> 01:10:45.000]  Okay, now we'll go to Marshall in Oregon. Marshall, what do you have for us?
[01:10:45.000 --> 01:10:50.000]  Hi. Well, a couple of frog closure questions tonight.
[01:10:50.000 --> 01:10:53.000]  First, now, excuse me if you've talked about this recently.
[01:10:53.000 --> 01:10:56.000]  I haven't heard your last week or two of shows,
[01:10:56.000 --> 01:11:04.000]  but it has to do with a case I was reading where the banks and mers are trying to say that,
[01:11:04.000 --> 01:11:13.000]  in this case, Oregon law is preempted by the Homeowners Loan Association Act of 1933.
[01:11:13.000 --> 01:11:20.000]  And in this case specifically, they're saying Oregon Trustee Act, which requires the signatures
[01:11:20.000 --> 01:11:28.000]  or the assignments in the county record, is not, is preempted by the Hola Act of 1933.
[01:11:28.000 --> 01:11:33.000]  And so far, the case is not finished yet, but the judge is,
[01:11:33.000 --> 01:11:37.000]  and the findings and recommendation is supporting this contention.
[01:11:37.000 --> 01:11:40.000]  Are you familiar with that or seen that come up?
[01:11:40.000 --> 01:11:49.000]  I haven't heard that particular argument on Hola, but Hola really goes to just bank regulation.
[01:11:49.000 --> 01:11:58.000]  This is a registering the sale of a security instrument with the clerk of the court can
[01:11:58.000 --> 01:12:06.000]  in no way interfere with a valid federal purpose.
[01:12:06.000 --> 01:12:15.000]  So how they can make an argument like this, I'd like to see the case and see how they made the argument.
[01:12:15.000 --> 01:12:25.000]  But if the argument is that filing the sale of a security instrument in the public record
[01:12:25.000 --> 01:12:35.000]  somehow interferes with a federal interest, that's going to be a hard claim to make.
[01:12:35.000 --> 01:12:50.000]  And where they're trying to get to, in order for them to, for the banks to be able to exercise this investment scheme they put together,
[01:12:50.000 --> 01:12:57.000]  and I don't mean for scheme to sound like something horrible, it's just an investment strategy,
[01:12:57.000 --> 01:13:08.000]  they have to be able to move these notes around in the secondary security market in a rather fluid manner.
[01:13:08.000 --> 01:13:18.000]  And the requirement that the sale of security instrument be registered with the county registrar's office,
[01:13:18.000 --> 01:13:25.000]  they'll be filed with the county registrar's office, very much interferes with that.
[01:13:25.000 --> 01:13:36.000]  But that is not a federal interest, that's a personal financial interest.
[01:13:36.000 --> 01:13:53.000]  So I suspect that they're arguing this issue because they ignored the state law so that they could operate this strategy.
[01:13:53.000 --> 01:14:07.000]  And now when it's coming back to haunt them, they want to say that the law doesn't apply because the whole of regulations regulating the banks
[01:14:07.000 --> 01:14:11.000]  allowed the banks to do something that this would interfere with.
[01:14:11.000 --> 01:14:19.000]  So, okay, I'm saying this off the top of my head because I obviously haven't read the complaint,
[01:14:19.000 --> 01:14:24.000]  but I'm just trying to figure out how they can get there.
[01:14:24.000 --> 01:14:37.000]  And somehow I doubt that this is going to fly because of the current state of the relationship between the states and the feds.
[01:14:37.000 --> 01:14:49.000]  The states have been consistently resisting federal intervention, federal preemption of their laws.
[01:14:49.000 --> 01:14:55.000]  This is going to have to be pretty serious, you know, they'll have the states after big time.
[01:14:55.000 --> 01:15:02.000]  Well, this is a federal court in Portland out of Oregon Division, or Portland Division to Oregon.
[01:15:02.000 --> 01:15:14.000]  And in the so, at least thus far, the findings and recommendation where the judge is actually agreeing that Hola does preempt the Oregon trust deed acts,
[01:15:14.000 --> 01:15:19.000]  which has the requirements for recording, fortunately.
[01:15:19.000 --> 01:15:23.000]  I can't see this standing.
[01:15:23.000 --> 01:15:43.000]  I don't understand yet because of the what will happen as a result of that. Then we will have a country where no one in their white mind would attempt to buy property in the United States.
[01:15:43.000 --> 01:15:44.000]  Right.
[01:15:44.000 --> 01:15:45.000]  It would be like this.
[01:15:45.000 --> 01:15:46.000]  The ownership is.
[01:15:46.000 --> 01:15:48.000]  Yeah, you would.
[01:15:48.000 --> 01:15:51.000]  Yeah, you would not dare.
[01:15:51.000 --> 01:15:55.000]  I can't see this getting through the system.
[01:15:55.000 --> 01:16:04.000]  Now, once it gets past the local judge, the trial court judge, the court of appeals are going to have to look at this.
[01:16:04.000 --> 01:16:16.000]  And that would, if they ruled that this is so good chance that that would start to break up of the union.
[01:16:16.000 --> 01:16:22.000]  I know that sounds radical, but we already have 23 states talking about it.
[01:16:22.000 --> 01:16:26.000]  We have a lot of resistance to federal preemption.
[01:16:26.000 --> 01:16:34.000]  If the feds are going to come in now and say, we can buy our federal.
[01:16:34.000 --> 01:16:47.000]  Rules, not even statute of laws, totally decimate your economy, force you into third world status for the next five generations.
[01:16:47.000 --> 01:16:52.000]  If we choose, I don't think the states are going to like that one little bit.
[01:16:52.000 --> 01:16:53.000]  This is Randy Kelsen there.
[01:16:53.000 --> 01:16:58.000]  We're talking to Marshall Morgan.
[01:16:58.000 --> 01:17:01.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:17:01.000 --> 01:17:08.000]  Capital Coin and Boolean is a family owned business built on the promise to bring you affordable pricing on all coin and Boolean products.
[01:17:08.000 --> 01:17:17.000]  In addition to coins and Boolean, we now offer storeable freeze dried foods produced by Augustin Farms, ammunition at 10% above wholesale prices,
[01:17:17.000 --> 01:17:25.000]  Berkey water products, gift certificates, and our Silver Pool, a new way to guarantee silver by prepaying at a locked price.
[01:17:25.000 --> 01:17:32.000]  We can even help you set up a metals IRA account. Call us at 512-646-6440 for more details.
[01:17:32.000 --> 01:17:40.000]  As always, we buy, sell, and trade precious metals, give appraisals, and cater to those with all sizes of coin collections.
[01:17:40.000 --> 01:17:48.000]  We're located at 7304 Burnett Road, sweet A, about a half a mile north of Canig, next to the Ikiban Sushi and Genie Car Wash.
[01:17:48.000 --> 01:17:51.000]  We're open Monday through Friday, 10 to 6, Saturdays, 10 to 2.
[01:17:51.000 --> 01:18:01.000]  Visit us at CapitalCoinandBoolean.com or call 512-646-6440 and say you heard about us on Rule of Law Radio or Texas Liberty Radio.
[01:18:22.000 --> 01:18:25.000]  That's why our name is FreedomTelephones.com.
[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 --> 01:18:53.000]  Don't wait, support the cause and get the highest quality and the lowest prices by calling 1-800-600-5553.
[01:18:53.000 --> 01:18:56.000]  That's 800-600-5553.
[01:18:56.000 --> 01:19:15.000]  FreedomTelephones.com, portable, private, perfect.
[01:19:26.000 --> 01:19:45.000]  If I can't get everything I want, yeah, I'm gonna get a ranger, hey, if I can't get everything I need, yeah, I'm gonna get a ranger.
[01:19:45.000 --> 01:19:56.000]  Okay, well, that's RentChop.com students at Creighton with Law Radio and Marshall, frankly, kind of caught me flat footed on.
[01:19:56.000 --> 01:20:07.000]  We surprised that they would take this particular approach and they haven't had time to really sort that out.
[01:20:07.000 --> 01:20:18.000]  But on the surface, it looks like if it is ruled in their favor, it will create a horrible mess.
[01:20:18.000 --> 01:20:19.000]  I agree.
[01:20:19.000 --> 01:20:29.000]  Do you have any more information about what the nature of their claim is and what portion of HOPA or HOLA they're claiming it's violating?
[01:20:29.000 --> 01:20:41.000]  Well, I've looked primarily at this judge's findings and recommendation and responding to the defendants, in this case the bank and MERS,
[01:20:41.000 --> 01:20:45.000]  bringing up the HOLA preemption issue.
[01:20:45.000 --> 01:20:59.000]  The judge goes through and brings up some case law that he's using in support of HOLA preempting the Oregon Trust Deed Act regarding...
[01:20:59.000 --> 01:21:03.000]  What portion of the Deed Trust Deed Act?
[01:21:03.000 --> 01:21:10.000]  Specifically regarding not having to do assignments in the county.
[01:21:10.000 --> 01:21:14.000]  Not having to do assignments, not having to record assignments in the county?
[01:21:14.000 --> 01:21:15.000]  Correct.
[01:21:15.000 --> 01:21:20.000]  Correct, yes.
[01:21:20.000 --> 01:21:25.000]  Did they state how they got there?
[01:21:25.000 --> 01:21:37.000]  I mean, how did the recording the assignment in the county interfere with a federal interest?
[01:21:37.000 --> 01:21:49.000]  They're saying that they don't have to, because they're a national bank and they're regulated by HOLA, that the entire Oregon statute...
[01:21:49.000 --> 01:21:52.000]  Okay, wait a minute, that's not enough with HOLA.
[01:21:52.000 --> 01:22:05.000]  A state statute doesn't necessarily violate HOLA simply because it addresses an issue that's also addressed by HOLA.
[01:22:05.000 --> 01:22:13.000]  It must interfere with the intent of a HOLA legislation.
[01:22:13.000 --> 01:22:19.000]  So how does it interfere with a federal purpose?
[01:22:19.000 --> 01:22:28.000]  I don't recall them bringing up an interference issue strictly that they say it's just flat out preempted by HOLA.
[01:22:28.000 --> 01:22:41.000]  Okay, that's not going to be enough because we have case law that says just because a state statute addresses the same issue as HOLA,
[01:22:41.000 --> 01:22:46.000]  that doesn't necessarily mean it preempts it.
[01:22:46.000 --> 01:22:53.000]  It has to interfere with a legitimate purpose.
[01:22:53.000 --> 01:23:11.000]  And if HOLA doesn't require that a sale of security instruments be registered with the clerk of the county registrar's office, and the state does,
[01:23:11.000 --> 01:23:20.000]  if it doesn't interfere with the legitimate purpose of HOLA, then it's not preempted.
[01:23:20.000 --> 01:23:26.000]  So it would be interesting to find out how they're making this argument.
[01:23:26.000 --> 01:23:39.000]  And the plaintiff, the homeowner, actually even brought up the case that the original loan was a state-only certified local bank,
[01:23:39.000 --> 01:23:48.000]  not a national bank, and it was sold to a national bank later, and the judge is saying so what?
[01:23:48.000 --> 01:23:51.000]  I think the judge is right.
[01:23:51.000 --> 01:24:07.000]  And the reason he's right is in the loan agreement it stipulated that the lender has the right to sell the security instrument.
[01:24:07.000 --> 01:24:13.000]  So if he sells it to another state entity, the Fed's not implicated.
[01:24:13.000 --> 01:24:20.000]  But if he sells it to an entity that is regulated by the Fed, then it comes into the Fed.
[01:24:20.000 --> 01:24:32.000]  So in that argument, on the face of it, on the surface, I would tend to agree he's right, because he did have the right to sell it,
[01:24:32.000 --> 01:24:35.000]  and there wasn't a restriction between state and Fed.
[01:24:35.000 --> 01:24:43.000]  So the person entering into the contract would have a reasonable expectation that it could be sold to the federal government,
[01:24:43.000 --> 01:24:49.000]  so he can't complain after the fact that it came under the federal statute.
[01:24:49.000 --> 01:25:11.000]  But it's still hard to see how they can claim that the state banking regulations are preempted by the very traditional requirement that real property sales be filed with the clerk of the court.
[01:25:11.000 --> 01:25:20.000]  They will. That would dramatically undermine a far more longstanding federal interest, I would think.
[01:25:20.000 --> 01:25:28.000]  I would agree. If you like, I could extend you this judge's findings and recommendations.
[01:25:28.000 --> 01:25:37.000]  He does refer to a number of a few different cases, sites, that he puts in there, regarding supporting this whole convention.
[01:25:37.000 --> 01:25:40.000]  Yes, I would very much like to see that.
[01:25:40.000 --> 01:25:42.000]  Okay.
[01:25:42.000 --> 01:25:49.000]  Then maybe call back next Thursday or Friday, and maybe I'll be up to speed, and we can talk about this in a little more depth,
[01:25:49.000 --> 01:25:53.000]  because this sounds like an extremely serious issue.
[01:25:53.000 --> 01:25:56.000]  Yes, I agree.
[01:25:56.000 --> 01:26:01.000]  It could become a big problem if they give me one of their favor.
[01:26:01.000 --> 01:26:05.000]  Okay, do you have any other questions or comments?
[01:26:05.000 --> 01:26:12.000]  Yes, on one case that I've been helping neighbors with, there was a clear cut.
[01:26:12.000 --> 01:26:14.000]  It was a, you know, a MERS type situation.
[01:26:14.000 --> 01:26:26.000]  There was a clear cut break in the chain of title in the county record, and as soon as they filed suit,
[01:26:26.000 --> 01:26:36.000]  the judge put on a restraining order, and a week later, the bank rescinded the foreclosure notice, because they could see, particularly with this judge,
[01:26:36.000 --> 01:26:42.000]  that they were going to lose it, and so they rescinded the foreclosure, and then they said,
[01:26:42.000 --> 01:26:48.000]  well, we're just at some point down the road going to bring a judicial foreclosure.
[01:26:48.000 --> 01:27:00.000]  I'm just curious what might be some of the things you've seen or might suggest how would they go about so-called fixing a clean break from,
[01:27:00.000 --> 01:27:10.000]  in this case, the original lender without a business, and all of a sudden, other people are involved servicing it,
[01:27:10.000 --> 01:27:17.000]  as well as bringing this foreclosure that are completely separate, different parties not listed in the county record.
[01:27:17.000 --> 01:27:25.000]  How can they go about fixing so-called fixing the record to where they would have a case to bring a judicial foreclosure?
[01:27:25.000 --> 01:27:43.000]  That's a good question, because the assignment of the deed of trust would have had to have been made by this original company before it went out of business.
[01:27:43.000 --> 01:27:53.000]  Once it went out of business, it can't be made, so this is just something they screwed up, and if they're thinking,
[01:27:53.000 --> 01:28:05.000]  maybe they think they have a judge in their pocket, but if they didn't have it in this case,
[01:28:05.000 --> 01:28:18.000]  okay, let me back up. They began the foreclosure. What was the claim to stop them?
[01:28:18.000 --> 01:28:32.000]  Just simply the chain of ownership, or is there a reference to the substitute trustee or the entity who's actually doing the foreclosure?
[01:28:32.000 --> 01:28:43.000]  Yeah, breaking the chain of ownership, and that the details relative to MERS supposedly being a beneficiary were identical to another case,
[01:28:43.000 --> 01:28:55.000]  what's called the Hooker case, that the Medford District Federal Judge in Oregon had already ruled in favor of the homeowner saying MERS is not strictly or truly a beneficiary,
[01:28:55.000 --> 01:28:58.000]  even though they try to claim they're a beneficiary.
[01:28:58.000 --> 01:29:04.000]  Okay, so you've got collateral estoppel on that one.
[01:29:04.000 --> 01:29:13.000]  For those of you who don't know what collateral estoppel is, is if you come into the court and make a very specific claim that are ruled against,
[01:29:13.000 --> 01:29:24.000]  even if you win the case in the end, if you're ruled against on an issue, you can't bring that same issue back into court because you've already had it ruled against you
[01:29:24.000 --> 01:29:34.000]  or are subject to collateral estoppel. Okay, we're about to go to break. I'll pick this up on the other side, but we get to this segment, so we're good.
[01:29:34.000 --> 01:29:43.000]  This is Randy Kelton, Deb. Stephen Zeddy Craig, Negro Radio. Our call-in number is 512-646-1984.
[01:29:43.000 --> 01:30:01.000]  Okay, I see you there. We'll get to you when we come back on the other side.
[01:30:01.000 --> 01:30:08.000]  A noble lie, Oklahoma City, 1995, will change forever the way you look at the true nature of terrorism.
[01:30:08.000 --> 01:30:15.000]  The damage pattern to the building, but the government sends impossible. The grand jury did not want to hear anything I had to say.
[01:30:15.000 --> 01:30:23.000]  The decision was made not to pursue any more of those individuals. Some of these columns were ripped up, shredded, tossed around.
[01:30:23.000 --> 01:30:27.000]  The people that did the things they did knew doggone well what they were doing.
[01:30:27.000 --> 01:30:42.000]  We'll expose the cover-up now at InnobleLive.com.
[01:30:42.000 --> 01:30:57.000]  All right, back to talk about the morality of altering memory in a moment.
[01:31:13.000 --> 01:31:22.000]  Imagine this. Doctors insert chemicals into your brain that completely erase your memory.
[01:31:22.000 --> 01:31:29.000]  Light clean, your mind becomes a blank slate ready to accept brand new memories, perhaps even a new personality.
[01:31:29.000 --> 01:31:34.000]  It sounds like a scene from Blade Runner, the sci-fi classic about robots with artificial memories.
[01:31:34.000 --> 01:31:40.000]  But new research suggests human memories can be overwritten, like digital files on a laptop.
[01:31:40.000 --> 01:31:47.000]  That's because scientists have found a molecule called Zip that shuts down another one called PKM Zeta, and that's what preserves your memories.
[01:31:47.000 --> 01:31:53.000]  Take it away, and your old identity could be, what you may call it? Oh yeah, reformat it.
[01:31:53.000 --> 01:32:11.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:32:24.000 --> 01:32:29.000]  They come from natural amenity.
[01:32:29.000 --> 01:32:33.000]  They set fast rules in authenticity.
[01:32:33.000 --> 01:32:36.000]  The tools to regain dignity.
[01:32:36.000 --> 01:32:39.000]  Rebuild the crime of obesity.
[01:32:39.000 --> 01:32:46.000]  And I say, true to nature must be justice, I believe.
[01:32:46.000 --> 01:32:52.000]  True to nature must be justice.
[01:32:52.000 --> 01:32:54.000]  Oh, it's a daunting task.
[01:32:54.000 --> 01:32:56.000]  At least I got the disease.
[01:32:56.000 --> 01:33:01.000]  I sent them all to just take off the silly minds.
[01:33:01.000 --> 01:33:06.000]  And in the light of day, we all will pass and we'll be tools of ingenuity.
[01:33:06.000 --> 01:33:09.000]  To use against the workers of iniquity.
[01:33:09.000 --> 01:33:14.000]  To use against the workers of iniquity.
[01:33:14.000 --> 01:33:22.000]  Okay, the background of Captain Debbie Stevens and Craig with my radio, we're talking to Marshall in Oregon.
[01:33:22.000 --> 01:33:30.000]  We're talking about what they're likely to do in a judicial foreclosure.
[01:33:30.000 --> 01:33:37.000]  They're almost certainly going to come and try to claim the authority of the lean document.
[01:33:37.000 --> 01:33:54.000]  But have you looked at the signatures on the leans and the signatures in the documents in the county coordinator county registrar's office and check them against the robo signers?
[01:33:54.000 --> 01:33:58.000]  I'm not specifically that I don't believe no.
[01:33:58.000 --> 01:34:00.000]  Okay, you might go down and pull the records.
[01:34:00.000 --> 01:34:16.000]  I just went to court last week to check what was filed and make sure everything's that all the signatures were proper and the bank hadn't even filed the lien in the court record.
[01:34:16.000 --> 01:34:19.000]  So it's kind of surprising what you'll find.
[01:34:19.000 --> 01:34:23.000]  But you might pull all the documents in the court record.
[01:34:23.000 --> 01:34:36.000]  And those documents that would be required like the assignments and especially an affidavit showing authority on part of the bank to to foreclose.
[01:34:36.000 --> 01:34:43.000]  Call the entity that the signature claims to be a function area of.
[01:34:43.000 --> 01:34:53.000]  You'd hold a personnel and ask personnel to tell personnel you want to talk to this person's secretary.
[01:34:53.000 --> 01:34:58.000]  The personnel go and look for the person if they don't find him in their records.
[01:34:58.000 --> 01:35:01.000]  They come back and tell you what we don't have a person by this name.
[01:35:01.000 --> 01:35:06.000]  You ask them when he was terminated or when he left the company.
[01:35:06.000 --> 01:35:16.000]  And they'll go back and check and they'll if they tell you they don't find him as a current or ex employee, you got a robot.
[01:35:16.000 --> 01:35:28.000]  Then you go to the local district court with the record and the evidence that the signature is not a person authorized to sign it.
[01:35:28.000 --> 01:35:33.000]  And ask the district court to to window the record void.
[01:35:33.000 --> 01:35:39.000]  You go to the district court for an action to correct the public record.
[01:35:39.000 --> 01:35:43.000]  This is generally a exporter hearing.
[01:35:43.000 --> 01:35:46.000]  Just you and the judge and you show the judge the document.
[01:35:46.000 --> 01:36:01.000]  He looks in the four corners of it and you show in the evidence that the signature cannot be valid because according to their own personnel records, this person never worked for the company.
[01:36:01.000 --> 01:36:07.000]  And ask the judge to render the document void.
[01:36:07.000 --> 01:36:14.000]  But I wouldn't do that if I find that one of the signatories are actually a bogus signature.
[01:36:14.000 --> 01:36:22.000]  And if Merz was involved in this is a good chance they are customers destroyed all the original documents.
[01:36:22.000 --> 01:36:32.000]  And don't play that hand until you get a judicial foreclosure action.
[01:36:32.000 --> 01:36:41.000]  Play that hand late in the action once you've hammered them a little bit and cost them some money and get them to commit to their position.
[01:36:41.000 --> 01:36:49.000]  And my preference would be to sue the law firm who files the paperwork.
[01:36:49.000 --> 01:36:56.000]  Because he is required to ensure the veracity of his client before he makes a claim.
[01:36:56.000 --> 01:37:04.000]  If he fails to do that and the client cannot back up the claim, then the lawyer can be held responsible.
[01:37:04.000 --> 01:37:06.000]  This drives the lawyer crazy.
[01:37:06.000 --> 01:37:10.000]  Absolutely. That's great.
[01:37:10.000 --> 01:37:15.000]  We've been doing that to some of them and they are not happy campers.
[01:37:15.000 --> 01:37:19.000]  So they're taking these cases because the bank's got a lot of money.
[01:37:19.000 --> 01:37:25.000]  Now we put them in a position to where what if my bank can't prove up its position.
[01:37:25.000 --> 01:37:30.000]  These guys are suing me, not the banks.
[01:37:30.000 --> 01:37:34.000]  And then you can always come back if they rule in favor of the lawyer.
[01:37:34.000 --> 01:37:38.000]  You can always come back and amend the pleading and add the other guys.
[01:37:38.000 --> 01:37:50.000]  I guess we should do a show on how to work these cases so that people understand that no matter what the other side does is something you can do back to them.
[01:37:50.000 --> 01:37:54.000]  And it's all about the money.
[01:37:54.000 --> 01:37:56.000]  Let's make it cost them a lot of money.
[01:37:56.000 --> 01:37:58.000]  They want to fight you.
[01:37:58.000 --> 01:38:05.000]  You know, if these guys want to do a traditional foreclosure, you can beat them up for a long time.
[01:38:05.000 --> 01:38:09.000]  They essentially gave up on a quick foreclosure.
[01:38:09.000 --> 01:38:13.000]  Now they know it's going to be in court forever.
[01:38:13.000 --> 01:38:16.000]  Do you have any other questions or comments?
[01:38:16.000 --> 01:38:19.000]  That'll do me for tonight, Randy. That was great suggestion and information.
[01:38:19.000 --> 01:38:22.000]  I appreciate it again as always. Thank you, tonight.
[01:38:22.000 --> 01:38:23.000]  Okay. Thank you.
[01:38:23.000 --> 01:38:27.000]  Now we're going to go to Danny in Texas.
[01:38:27.000 --> 01:38:29.000]  Hello, Danny.
[01:38:29.000 --> 01:38:31.000]  Hey, how are you doing?
[01:38:31.000 --> 01:38:35.000]  Where have you been? I thought they'd thrown you in jail or something.
[01:38:35.000 --> 01:38:38.000]  No, I've waited that for a while now.
[01:38:38.000 --> 01:38:44.000]  I have to confess, I've been holding back on the nickels I supposed to be going up to you.
[01:38:44.000 --> 01:38:47.000]  Oh, I got nickels?
[01:38:47.000 --> 01:38:50.000]  Well, you would have.
[01:38:50.000 --> 01:38:53.000]  You hadn't been donating to my beer fund?
[01:38:53.000 --> 01:38:55.000]  Well, no, not lately.
[01:38:55.000 --> 01:39:00.000]  Oh, now I'm hurt.
[01:39:00.000 --> 01:39:11.000]  But, yeah, I was calling in about the guy that called in about the letters from the city inspectors about the cars behind the fence and everything.
[01:39:11.000 --> 01:39:13.000]  Yeah.
[01:39:13.000 --> 01:39:24.000]  Okay, this is something that seemed to be going on along these lines in a lot of places, a lot of cases, uses of bait but tight things.
[01:39:24.000 --> 01:39:30.000]  And I've been working with a guy in Brazoria County on this for a while.
[01:39:30.000 --> 01:39:38.000]  And if you're ready to go, and they had provided their own state of prosecution,
[01:39:38.000 --> 01:39:43.000]  so they adopted based on state law and kind of gotten the uses of bait.
[01:39:43.000 --> 01:39:46.000]  So, wait a minute, Danny, you're breaking up pretty bad.
[01:39:46.000 --> 01:39:50.000]  Oh, sorry.
[01:39:50.000 --> 01:40:04.000]  They kind of combined in their local procedures the things doing with the usage of baitment and the junk vehicle statutes and the transportation code.
[01:40:04.000 --> 01:40:12.000]  And two main things that found in there that they didn't do like they should have.
[01:40:12.000 --> 01:40:25.000]  The first thing found was that it's supposed to be a written complaint and trying to find that could never get, you know, a copy of it or anything about it.
[01:40:25.000 --> 01:40:36.000]  And the other thing is start looking at the meaning of person as it's adopted there.
[01:40:36.000 --> 01:40:46.000]  And only like business entities, a corporation, a trust, a business trust, an estate, several different things,
[01:40:46.000 --> 01:40:50.000]  but now not even individual is listed in there.
[01:40:50.000 --> 01:40:56.000]  And so it's not even applicable to just a single man.
[01:40:56.000 --> 01:41:14.000]  And that seems to fit with Eddie's argument that the municipal ordinances only apply to municipal employees or to someone who's entered into a contract with the municipality.
[01:41:14.000 --> 01:41:21.000]  Or is a corporation operating within the jurisdiction of the municipality?
[01:41:21.000 --> 01:41:25.000]  Yeah, pretty much the same, yeah.
[01:41:25.000 --> 01:41:35.000]  And after reading this and looking through, looking at it in context of what is subject to it,
[01:41:35.000 --> 01:41:42.000]  because they also talk about, because this is in the county, not within the city that we're dealing with,
[01:41:42.000 --> 01:41:55.000]  and it refers to a neighborhood being within, unused within a neighborhood, a neighborhood being a planted subdivision in 300 feet beyond.
[01:41:55.000 --> 01:42:07.000]  And so if you're within there, that area, and when they complain about you and you're a business operating there, then you'd be subject to it.
[01:42:07.000 --> 01:42:15.000]  And the way I look at it now is that this is a case where if they didn't have something like this,
[01:42:15.000 --> 01:42:25.000]  you had some business running that was putting out smells or making noise at inconvenient times, different things.
[01:42:25.000 --> 01:42:39.000]  And so the little homeowner happened to sue some Deep Pockets Corporation on its own to cause the employment of homespins to be described for different things.
[01:42:39.000 --> 01:42:51.000]  And since the state allows these things to exist, then they put it on for the government, they just turn it up, complain to the government,
[01:42:51.000 --> 01:42:55.000]  and it comes in and makes them behave better.
[01:42:55.000 --> 01:42:58.000]  Yeah, and that's exactly what's supposed to happen.
[01:42:58.000 --> 01:42:59.000]  Yeah.
[01:42:59.000 --> 01:43:07.000]  That's the whole purpose of government to begin with, protect our rights as individuals first and foremost.
[01:43:07.000 --> 01:43:08.000]  Yeah.
[01:43:08.000 --> 01:43:10.000]  That's the whole reason we created them.
[01:43:10.000 --> 01:43:21.000]  They're usually saying things a complete different way and brought up the thing about the person.
[01:43:21.000 --> 01:43:21.000]  Well, they don't really want to talk about that and they don't much want to talk about the complaint.
[01:43:21.000 --> 01:43:30.000]  Oh yeah, another thing along the way, because it's been going on for a couple of years, did a public information request to them
[01:43:30.000 --> 01:43:43.000]  and got some information about all the complaints, the actions they've taken ever since they started keeping records of this.
[01:43:43.000 --> 01:43:45.000]  And the first one, first one...
[01:43:45.000 --> 01:43:48.000]  Yeah, hang on just a second, Danny, we're about to go to break.
[01:43:48.000 --> 01:43:50.000]  Hold on, we'll pick you up on the other side, okay?
[01:43:50.000 --> 01:43:52.000]  Alright folks, this is Rural Law Radio.
[01:43:52.000 --> 01:43:54.000]  We're coming up on our last segment.
[01:43:54.000 --> 01:44:01.000]  Hang in there, we will be right back.
[01:44:24.000 --> 01:44:28.000]  We have one with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:44:28.000 --> 01:44:35.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:44:35.000 --> 01:44:44.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:44:44.000 --> 01:44:53.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:44:53.000 --> 01:45:02.000]  Visit RuralLawRadio.com and click on the banner, or call toll-free 866-LAW-E-Z.
[01:45:02.000 --> 01:45:05.000]  Hey, did you hear? Ron Paul has announced he's running for president in 2012.
[01:45:05.000 --> 01:45:06.000]  Who's Ron Paul?
[01:45:06.000 --> 01:45:09.000]  Really? Okay, put down the cell phone for one minute.
[01:45:09.000 --> 01:45:12.000]  Your friends really don't care about your Twitter updates on what you had for breakfast.
[01:45:12.000 --> 01:45:15.000]  Oh, but I love to make those little smiley faces with punctuation marks.
[01:45:15.000 --> 01:45:16.000]  Of course you do.
[01:45:16.000 --> 01:45:22.000]  Now listen closely, you need to go down to Brave New Books and learn as much as you can about Ron Paul and his message before it's too late.
[01:45:22.000 --> 01:45:25.000]  They have all of his books and many of the books he talks about.
[01:45:25.000 --> 01:45:30.000]  They also have t-shirts, bumper stickers, and yard signs so that you can show your support for him during the campaign.
[01:45:30.000 --> 01:45:33.000]  Brave New Books? Do they have Harry Potter and Twilight?
[01:45:33.000 --> 01:45:39.000]  No, but they do carry a large selection of survival and preparedness books to protect your family in time of emergency.
[01:45:39.000 --> 01:45:41.000]  Oh, that sounds like that's shown in the Discovery Channel.
[01:45:41.000 --> 01:45:49.000]  Yeah, there's even a wilderness survival expert that teaches classes called Earth Skills School that you can sign up for on the website BraveNewBooksDoor.com.
[01:45:49.000 --> 01:45:50.000]  What are you doing?
[01:45:50.000 --> 01:45:55.000]  I'm tweeting all my friends that they should go to BraveNewBooksDoor.com or down to the bookstore in person.
[01:45:55.000 --> 01:45:56.000]  Where's it located?
[01:45:56.000 --> 01:45:58.000]  1904 Guadalupe Street.
[01:45:58.000 --> 01:46:00.000]  There, it's set. I even made a smiley face.
[01:46:00.000 --> 01:46:24.000]  Great.
[01:46:24.000 --> 01:46:26.000]  Alright folks, we are back.
[01:46:26.000 --> 01:46:30.000]  This is Lulub Law Radio. We are now in our last segment.
[01:46:30.000 --> 01:46:33.000]  We are going to finish up here with Danny.
[01:46:33.000 --> 01:46:35.000]  Alright Danny, what else do you have?
[01:46:35.000 --> 01:46:38.000]  Let's continue on with where we were here.
[01:46:38.000 --> 01:46:41.000]  I kind of lost where I was going there.
[01:46:41.000 --> 01:46:44.000]  Oh, that's okay. That puts you way ahead of Randy.
[01:46:44.000 --> 01:46:47.000]  I have to keep him in my name where he was going.
[01:46:47.000 --> 01:46:57.000]  I got information on, pretty much ever since they've been keeping records on this.
[01:46:57.000 --> 01:46:59.000]  We had a big fight going through.
[01:46:59.000 --> 01:47:02.000]  The Attorney General called some of the information anyone released.
[01:47:02.000 --> 01:47:07.000]  Supposedly names and things under the...
[01:47:07.000 --> 01:47:09.000]  Confidential open records.
[01:47:09.000 --> 01:47:13.000]  Confidential informant kind of thing.
[01:47:13.000 --> 01:47:16.000]  Not to let the names or phone numbers and things like that out.
[01:47:16.000 --> 01:47:19.000]  But anyway, did get information back.
[01:47:19.000 --> 01:47:25.000]  And they had a column in this marked as anonymous.
[01:47:25.000 --> 01:47:32.000]  And so taking that to mean that they're claiming that certain ones are anonymous or not.
[01:47:32.000 --> 01:47:40.000]  Well, the first anonymous complaint they had listed there is back around 1985 or somewhere around then.
[01:47:40.000 --> 01:47:50.000]  Then they didn't have any more until for 20-something years until about 2008, 2007 or 2008, something like that.
[01:47:50.000 --> 01:48:00.000]  And then going through three years, but not a full 36 months, they had 150.
[01:48:00.000 --> 01:48:11.000]  And so either the character of the people complaining about things changed a lot in those last few years or something else has changed somewhere.
[01:48:11.000 --> 01:48:16.000]  Because they're really doing these things without the...
[01:48:16.000 --> 01:48:25.000]  Well, I can guarantee you the thing that's changed is that they have dumped a cornucopia of new ordinance out there that now makes it easier to violate breathing.
[01:48:25.000 --> 01:48:37.000]  That's problem number one, the city is just as bad as the legislature in thinking they now have the right to tell you what you can and cannot do in virtually any instance with anything.
[01:48:37.000 --> 01:48:43.000]  Same thing with the counties.
[01:48:43.000 --> 01:48:55.000]  So odds are you're now being accused of being in violation of hundreds of new ordinances that didn't exist when that original complaint 20-some odd years ago was out there.
[01:48:55.000 --> 01:49:00.000]  I think the point he's going to is these anonymous complaints.
[01:49:00.000 --> 01:49:05.000]  Yeah, the anonymous that are marked anonymous.
[01:49:05.000 --> 01:49:14.000]  20-something years without any anonymous complaints in the past three or less than three years, 150.
[01:49:14.000 --> 01:49:16.000]  Well, let's do it like this.
[01:49:16.000 --> 01:49:23.000]  If the accuser is allowed to remain anonymous, you're not allowed to bring them in to question them about anything.
[01:49:23.000 --> 01:49:34.000]  It makes it easier for the city or the county to make the accusation and require you to pay the fine without any ability to defend yourself because you can't bring in whoever made the accusation in the first place.
[01:49:34.000 --> 01:49:41.000]  Again, we're talking about the purpose of revenue generation versus solving an actual problem.
[01:49:41.000 --> 01:49:44.000]  No, I think this goes to something else.
[01:49:44.000 --> 01:49:49.000]  Danny, are there any in the regulations?
[01:49:49.000 --> 01:49:59.000]  I've seen this before where the regulations said that the city could only raise the issue if there was a complaint.
[01:49:59.000 --> 01:50:00.000]  Right.
[01:50:00.000 --> 01:50:06.000]  So they don't have any complaints, so they go out and generate their own and call them anonymous?
[01:50:06.000 --> 01:50:09.000]  Yeah, that's what I think.
[01:50:09.000 --> 01:50:11.000]  Okay, I thought that's where you were getting to.
[01:50:11.000 --> 01:50:18.000]  They're doing this so they can circumvent that particular statutory restriction.
[01:50:18.000 --> 01:50:19.000]  Right.
[01:50:19.000 --> 01:50:35.000]  And then we've finally from after that and some other things that's taken too long to go into right now have filed a federal lawsuit against them for not following the procedure.
[01:50:35.000 --> 01:50:39.000]  So, you know, violation of due process is what it comes down to.
[01:50:39.000 --> 01:50:45.000]  The process would be okay, but they're not doing that.
[01:50:45.000 --> 01:50:54.000]  And so on two counts, one is the complaint, the other is he's not a person that's made subject to this.
[01:50:54.000 --> 01:50:58.000]  Yeah, compel participation.
[01:50:58.000 --> 01:50:59.000]  Yeah.
[01:50:59.000 --> 01:51:08.000]  Yeah, that's exactly the issue we're raising in my case with the traffic ticket is compulsory engagement in transportation.
[01:51:08.000 --> 01:51:20.000]  I don't want to work in transportation, not going to work in transportation and you can't make me nanny nanny boo boo.
[01:51:20.000 --> 01:51:23.000]  But yeah, I'd agree that's a potential possibility.
[01:51:23.000 --> 01:51:33.000]  I still don't know though if we should be going beyond the most obvious and simple stuff simply because it is a 100% known fact.
[01:51:33.000 --> 01:51:38.000]  Money is where every one of these places is hurting.
[01:51:38.000 --> 01:51:46.000]  And the easier they can collect it and the shorter means of getting their hands on it, the more profitable they can remain.
[01:51:46.000 --> 01:51:53.000]  And I think in these particular types of cases, the kiss principle is the one to remember.
[01:51:53.000 --> 01:52:01.000]  Yeah, but since they had an attorney involved, then I'll make that turn.
[01:52:01.000 --> 01:52:06.000]  Hang on, Danny, you're over modulating there. You're breaking up. Try that again.
[01:52:06.000 --> 01:52:15.000]  Okay, but since they had an assistant DA involved in this, you know, I'm going to be making accusation that, you know, the DA is completely confident,
[01:52:15.000 --> 01:52:23.000]  completely technically confident in you exactly what the respect were just allowed just to go.
[01:52:23.000 --> 01:52:26.000]  And that the inspector speaks to.
[01:52:26.000 --> 01:52:27.000]  Let them.
[01:52:27.000 --> 01:52:31.000]  Yeah, that's malicious prosecution. That's exactly what you want them to do.
[01:52:31.000 --> 01:52:36.000]  Yeah.
[01:52:36.000 --> 01:52:45.000]  Anyway, I just kind of passed that on for the guy there. You know, the person thing is also another issue.
[01:52:45.000 --> 01:52:48.000]  I think that's one of the most important ones.
[01:52:48.000 --> 01:52:57.000]  Yeah, the thing to remember is any time that they try to use those terms against you in court, object to them.
[01:52:57.000 --> 01:53:04.000]  They have not laid any foundation or evidence in support of the claim that you're a person.
[01:53:04.000 --> 01:53:08.000]  So your objection is just like it is in the transportation stuff.
[01:53:08.000 --> 01:53:17.000]  Objection assumes facts, not an evidence, not agreed to, and requires a legal conclusion by the fact witness.
[01:53:17.000 --> 01:53:25.000]  Objection, every time they attempt to use one of those terms from any of those ordinances or codes against you in court.
[01:53:25.000 --> 01:53:28.000]  Develop an allergic reaction to them.
[01:53:28.000 --> 01:53:33.000]  Jump on them like you're a starving man and it's a hamburger.
[01:53:33.000 --> 01:53:39.000]  Yeah.
[01:53:39.000 --> 01:53:47.000]  Well, I kind of want to pass on. I got some other things that could bring up another time, but too long.
[01:53:47.000 --> 01:53:57.000]  Danny, are you taking any action? Do you have your desire? Are you helping? Is he countersuing the city?
[01:53:57.000 --> 01:53:58.000]  Well, we...
[01:53:58.000 --> 01:54:01.000]  Oh, that's right. You said you filed a federal suit.
[01:54:01.000 --> 01:54:02.000]  Yeah.
[01:54:02.000 --> 01:54:09.000]  Oh, I'm brain dead. What was the nature of the suit?
[01:54:09.000 --> 01:54:18.000]  Well, the main thing is violation due process, because there's not only that, but also there's a lot of issues.
[01:54:18.000 --> 01:54:35.000]  But the thing going on into JP Court too, in relation to a eviction process, removing a filed answer is what the allegation is going to be.
[01:54:35.000 --> 01:54:56.000]  And then making an order saying that there was no answer and not counting days' right for being able to come in and ask for a jury and denying a jury and a good number of things.
[01:54:56.000 --> 01:55:01.000]  Well, it's just saying they removed the answer from the court record.
[01:55:01.000 --> 01:55:02.000]  Yeah.
[01:55:02.000 --> 01:55:05.000]  Do they have a stamped copy of it?
[01:55:05.000 --> 01:55:08.000]  Yeah. I mean, that's the copy I've got.
[01:55:08.000 --> 01:55:12.000]  Has he filed criminal charges against the clerk?
[01:55:12.000 --> 01:55:15.000]  Yeah. Maura might be doing that too, yeah.
[01:55:15.000 --> 01:55:23.000]  Because if it's missing from the court record, good chance a lawyer took it.
[01:55:23.000 --> 01:55:37.000]  If somebody pulls the court record out and slipped this out of there, but it was the duty of the clerk to ensure they protect the court record.
[01:55:37.000 --> 01:55:46.000]  So if something is missing, then the only legal presumption you can have is the clerk took it.
[01:55:46.000 --> 01:55:54.000]  I've got it because he returned it to me later after it's filed.
[01:55:54.000 --> 01:55:56.000]  He returned you?
[01:55:56.000 --> 01:55:58.000]  Yeah.
[01:55:58.000 --> 01:56:04.000]  Saying that, you know, she couldn't, she couldn't have that judge said he couldn't file that.
[01:56:04.000 --> 01:56:16.000]  First thing was causing an attorney and I said, well, I'm a party also because I formed a partnership with this guy before these last things came up.
[01:56:16.000 --> 01:56:24.000]  And then, you know, they're not doing that either, so it weren't recognized me as being a party in this.
[01:56:24.000 --> 01:56:33.000]  All I was, the suit was addressed to him and other occupants.
[01:56:33.000 --> 01:56:35.000]  We're losing you there, David.
[01:56:35.000 --> 01:56:39.000]  Hang on, David, you're breaking up really bad again. Try that again.
[01:56:39.000 --> 01:56:46.000]  I said it was addressed to, the suit was addressed to him and other occupants of the land.
[01:56:46.000 --> 01:56:52.000]  And I claimed to be an occupant of the land because of being a partner with him.
[01:56:52.000 --> 01:57:11.000]  And so I was a party as well. And because I wasn't an attorney and, you know, other things just want to let me talk and know that he had some interaction with me before.
[01:57:11.000 --> 01:57:19.000]  And in the county court level, I had been recognized as a party there.
[01:57:19.000 --> 01:57:24.000]  And these things happened before it went to the JP court.
[01:57:24.000 --> 01:57:26.000]  Oh, this is good.
[01:57:26.000 --> 01:57:28.000]  Yeah.
[01:57:28.000 --> 01:57:31.000]  So had you filed any criminal charges against him yet?
[01:57:31.000 --> 01:57:43.000]  No, I've been thinking about it. Oh, well, I know another thing that, I don't know if you completely agree with it, but tell them about the lawyer's license, whether they have one or not.
[01:57:43.000 --> 01:57:45.000]  Yes.
[01:57:45.000 --> 01:57:57.000]  Okay, well, I'm pretty certain that there's not one. The Supreme Court issues the license, so there absolutely is one.
[01:57:57.000 --> 01:58:05.000]  No, only the Supreme Court is, all are prohibited from the issue of license.
[01:58:05.000 --> 01:58:13.000]  And the Supreme Court doesn't cause Article 2 separation of powers that would be prohibited as an executive action.
[01:58:13.000 --> 01:58:24.000]  Well, maybe, but they do it. They actually issue one. The problem is they don't do it in accordance with law because it says the signature of the affian has to be affixed to the document.
[01:58:24.000 --> 01:58:36.000]  They actually send them the wall license, but they sign a sticky back slip somewhere far away from the judges and just attach it to the back when they put it on the wall.
[01:58:36.000 --> 01:58:45.000]  They're not subscribing on the license. They're subscribing on all this label that's stuck to the license.
[01:58:45.000 --> 01:58:48.000]  Well, when I asked for it, nobody seemed to believe it.
[01:58:48.000 --> 01:58:51.000]  Oh, wait a minute, Dan. We are out of time.
[01:58:51.000 --> 01:58:52.000]  Yeah.
[01:58:52.000 --> 01:59:01.000]  This is Randy Kelton, Debbie Stevens, Eddie Craig. We love radio. Thank you for listening. Eddie and Deborah be back Monday. Thank you.
[01:59:01.000 --> 01:59:08.000]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free, a unique study Bible called the New Testament Recovery Version.
[01:59:08.000 --> 01:59:19.000]  The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain what the Bible says, verse by verse, helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[01:59:19.000 --> 01:59:31.000]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America. Call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:31.000 --> 01:59:41.000]  This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross references, plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:59:41.000 --> 01:59:52.000]  This is truly a Bible you can understand. To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:59:52.000 --> 02:00:12.000]  Or visit us online at bfa.org.