[00:00.000 --> 00:05.000]  This news brief brought to you by the International Newsnet.
[00:05.000 --> 00:09.000]  The Florida House Tuesday passed a bill to allow prayer in public schools.
[00:09.000 --> 00:16.000]  The ACLU and Anti-Defamation League believe the bill violates the separation of church and state and has threatened legal action.
[00:16.000 --> 00:22.000]  Meanwhile, a second bill bans the use of foreign law with an implicit focus on the dangers of Sharia law.
[00:22.000 --> 00:28.000]  The bill's sponsor couldn't point to a single case in Florida in which a judge had ruled on Sharia.
[00:28.000 --> 00:38.000]  Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona said Thursday he and his investigators have evidence President Obama's birth certificate is a forgery.
[00:38.000 --> 00:44.000]  He also raised questions about the authenticity of Obama's selective service registration.
[00:44.000 --> 00:52.000]  Arpaio said, based on all of the evidence presented and investigated, I cannot in good faith report to you that these documents are authentic.
[00:52.000 --> 00:55.000]  Critics have accused him of pandering for votes.
[00:55.000 --> 01:10.000]  Right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh called Georgetown Law School student Sarah Fluke a prostitute this week after she argued birth control should be covered by health insurance at religious institutions.
[01:10.000 --> 01:21.000]  Fluke testified recently about Georgetown's policy on contraception during an unofficial congressional hearing on the contraceptive mandate in the nation's health care law.
[01:21.000 --> 01:27.000]  Fluke was excluded from an official hearing at which all but one of the witnesses were men.
[01:27.000 --> 01:38.000]  The Senate Thursday defeated Senator Roy Blunt's amendment that would have allowed employers to refuse to cover health services they found, quote, morally objectionable.
[01:38.000 --> 01:44.000]  The measure challenged the Obama health care policy requiring health insurance coverage for contraceptives.
[01:44.000 --> 02:00.000]  Blunt would have given employers sweeping authority to decide the kinds of basic health services to be covered by insurance plans, enabling any employer, religious entity, corporation, or health plan to refuse to cover any health care service they objected to.
[02:00.000 --> 02:11.000]  Roy's has reported Friday a U.S. Justice Department inquiry into the packaging and sale of home loans by the biggest U.S. banks could drag on for years.
[02:11.000 --> 02:29.000]  People familiar with the investigation said the Justice Department issued civil subpoenas in January to 11 financial institutions asking for documents related to offerings of mortgage-backed securities between 2006 and 2008, including bonds backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
[02:29.000 --> 02:41.000]  Citigroup disclosed last week it had received one of the Justice Department's subpoenas. The probe is part of a new interagency task force Barack Obama unveiled in his State of the Union speech.
[02:41.000 --> 02:57.000]  In a separate investigation, J.P. Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Wells Fargo disclosed they'd received Wells' notices from the Securities and Exchange Commission, alerting them that SEC lawyers were considering bringing charges and giving them the chance to rebut allegations.
[02:57.000 --> 03:04.000]  For more details on this story, visit INN4report.net.
[03:27.000 --> 03:49.000]  Hi folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio. Looks like Danny dropped off the board. We're quite finished with you yet, Danny, if you want to call back in. Sorry, I'm trying to be combative or argue with you here.
[03:49.000 --> 04:15.000]  I'm just trying to point out and figure out how we're getting from point A to point B into 17A of the Code of Chronal Procedure. I see we're talking about the way they're doing the process, but we need, if we're going to make that jump, we definitely need to find a reality or admission or some leakable evidence that says this is where they're going first.
[04:15.000 --> 04:28.000]  If that's the case, then you're right. We can absolutely prove they lack jurisdiction over us because we're not a corporation and all we have to do is deny being a corporation and the case is a done deal.
[04:28.000 --> 04:47.000]  But for all intents and purposes, I'm arguing that they're going after you in a capacity rather than as a corporate entity, but we can have that discussion at a later time when you call back in. Right now, we have Michelle in Texas who has a dying cell phone, so we're going to go to her next.
[04:47.000 --> 04:58.000]  Ena, Michelle, what can we do for you? Hi, I'm calling because I have a few questions about a case I have that's been ongoing in Galveston. Okay, what kind of case?
[04:58.000 --> 05:22.000]  I talked to you about it before, Eddie. It was a felony case for assault on a public officer. Ah, okay. And so finally now after two years of waiting to get a trial day, I got a new lawyer and I don't know if that's ever happened, but I had a question about complaints that was filed by a friend of mine.
[05:22.000 --> 05:29.000]  He filed a few complaints, like aggravated kidnapping and things like that based on the IRS. Yeah.
[05:29.000 --> 05:54.000]  And when I went to Galveston a couple of days ago for my free trial hearing and to meet my new lawyer, he took me into the district attorney's office and the file on it said that the judge had ordered the, let me see the exact words, it said, the judge ordered complaints to be voided.
[05:54.000 --> 06:09.000]  The judge ordered the complaints to be voided? It literally said, judge ordered clerk's office to void the entry of complaint filed. And underneath that, it said complaint given to Mora and that was crossed out.
[06:09.000 --> 06:34.000]  Okay, that is interesting. Yeah, because now you can go to the grand jury. If you can get copies of that stuff from that file, that for sure is something you can show to a grand jury to show where a judge is violating 38.05 hindering apprehension and prosecution and where he is intentionally shielding these cops for their criminal acts.
[06:34.000 --> 06:48.000]  Because under article 2.03, it was the duty of the prosecuting attorney to present those to a grand jury. If he failed to do so.
[06:48.000 --> 06:54.000]  That was misbeisance in office and shielding.
[06:54.000 --> 07:15.000]  He was specifically statutorily required to take this action. So you can name the prosecutor and name the judge both. You can accuse the judge of doing what the prosecutor did because the judge acted in concert inclusion.
[07:15.000 --> 07:21.000]  Okay, I thought so. I just wasn't sure the word void the entry of the complaint.
[07:21.000 --> 07:31.000]  I want to see where a judge has authority to void a complaint by a citizen.
[07:31.000 --> 07:33.000]  I didn't think there was one.
[07:33.000 --> 07:35.000]  Yeah, there isn't. That's the point.
[07:35.000 --> 07:51.000]  Okay, awesome. I'm glad that I have that straight. And then the other thing was my new lawyer was able to show me the video from the officer's vehicle from when they arrested me.
[07:51.000 --> 08:09.000]  And there's a point in the part. It's only like eight minutes long and for about three minutes in the middle of it, he covers up the video camera with like a little black air freshener tree.
[08:09.000 --> 08:17.000]  You know them talking about little air fresheners, car fresheners. He just covers up about three minutes and then uncovers it.
[08:17.000 --> 08:22.000]  I don't know if that's... With those three minutes important?
[08:22.000 --> 08:31.000]  Well, I mean, not per se. The only thing is he was being very verbally aggressive during that whole time.
[08:31.000 --> 08:40.000]  Okay. If those three minutes weren't important, then it's not an issue.
[08:40.000 --> 08:45.000]  Okay. So I can't use it for anything in my...
[08:45.000 --> 08:57.000]  No, no. Not unless you claim there was something really important behind those three minutes and that you can accuse the officer of trying to hide.
[08:57.000 --> 09:12.000]  But if there was nothing important back there, then it's a moot point. It's a distinction without a difference. It doesn't mean anything.
[09:12.000 --> 09:19.000]  In the offense report, they're just trying to say that I was being very aggressive and that I was like...
[09:19.000 --> 09:28.000]  One of the reports that I was banging my head against the grill, even though I was not, and nowhere in the video does it show that.
[09:28.000 --> 09:31.000]  Okay. So that's aggravated perjury.
[09:31.000 --> 09:45.000]  Yeah. You need to take everything in that police report and everything that's shown in the video, and you need to write down the discrepancies between what is stated and what occurred.
[09:45.000 --> 09:51.000]  Make a complete list of those and list them in an affidavit straight up as facts.
[09:51.000 --> 10:07.000]  The police report states the video shows that between starting at this time mark and ending at this time mark that the statement made in the police report is patently false.
[10:07.000 --> 10:19.000]  Okay. Just list it as a statement of facts, worded more or less just like that, and then go get it notarized and everything and get that filed in your case.
[10:19.000 --> 10:22.000]  Make your attorney file it.
[10:22.000 --> 10:32.000]  File it in the form of a verified criminal affidavit.
[10:32.000 --> 10:38.000]  That will invoke the magisterial duty of the judge.
[10:38.000 --> 10:42.000]  When it doesn't act on it, then you file against the judge.
[10:42.000 --> 10:44.000]  Okay.
[10:44.000 --> 10:49.000]  Okay. Next question, real quick, is there was a...
[10:49.000 --> 10:55.000]  I finally got a list of names of everybody that was involved in the whole arrest.
[10:55.000 --> 10:58.000]  And the...
[10:58.000 --> 11:03.000]  You mean spectators as well as police officers or just officers?
[11:03.000 --> 11:15.000]  Well, officers and then they have a witness evidently that states that the...her exact statement said, I saw that black girl kick that cop.
[11:15.000 --> 11:19.000]  So that's what her statement is according to the police.
[11:19.000 --> 11:21.000]  Uh-huh.
[11:21.000 --> 11:31.000]  But I found weird in the offense report was the officer that said any questions that caught...there was a question in the couple about it.
[11:31.000 --> 11:36.000]  He himself wasn't...he wasn't an on-duty officer.
[11:36.000 --> 11:40.000]  I don't know if this makes any changes.
[11:40.000 --> 11:44.000]  Well, he doesn't have to be on duty to be a witness if that's what you're asking.
[11:44.000 --> 11:45.000]  No, no, no, not a witness.
[11:45.000 --> 11:46.000]  He was...okay.
[11:46.000 --> 11:48.000]  One of the arresting officers is named...
[11:48.000 --> 11:50.000]  Oh, it doesn't matter.
[11:50.000 --> 11:55.000]  A police officer is always on duty for that purpose.
[11:55.000 --> 12:00.000]  No, but he's from a different...he's a constable out of Texas city.
[12:00.000 --> 12:10.000]  A recent legislation has said that a policeman can act in his capacity even if he's out of his particular jurisdiction.
[12:10.000 --> 12:12.000]  So you won't get any traction on that.
[12:12.000 --> 12:14.000]  So it won't matter that...okay.
[12:14.000 --> 12:19.000]  My lawyer had just mentioned that she wanted me to look into it, but I didn't.
[12:19.000 --> 12:20.000]  Okay.
[12:20.000 --> 12:22.000]  So it doesn't matter that he's not...that he's...
[12:22.000 --> 12:34.000]  Just a couple of years ago, they passed a new legislation that said that a police officer, even if he's traveling and he sees a crime, he can act in his capacity as a police officer.
[12:34.000 --> 12:36.000]  Oh, okay.
[12:36.000 --> 12:39.000]  So, yeah, you won't get any traction on that one.
[12:39.000 --> 12:40.000]  Okay.
[12:40.000 --> 12:41.000]  Okay.
[12:41.000 --> 12:58.000]  I think, yeah, more or less, the only biggest thing was just those complaints, and I guess now would it make any sense to go ahead and file any more complaints?
[12:58.000 --> 13:01.000]  I mean, they have the complaint, and they're saying that...
[13:01.000 --> 13:04.000]  Yeah, you're going to give them to a grand jury this time, though.
[13:04.000 --> 13:06.000]  You're not going to give them to anybody else.
[13:06.000 --> 13:10.000]  Yeah, what you're doing now is raising the bar.
[13:10.000 --> 13:23.000]  You file against the officers, and when the judge and the prosecutor don't act properly on those complaints, now you file against the judge and the prosecutors for their improper behavior.
[13:23.000 --> 13:27.000]  So you raise the stakes on them.
[13:27.000 --> 13:28.000]  Okay.
[13:28.000 --> 13:30.000]  Okay.
[13:30.000 --> 13:31.000]  Alrighty.
[13:31.000 --> 13:33.000]  Well, I guess that's it.
[13:33.000 --> 13:42.000]  So they couldn't use anything with the videos. Oh, never mind. There was one other question on... There were two videos. There was a video in the jail also.
[13:42.000 --> 14:00.000]  And I don't know if I used this in my face or in my lawsuit, but it shows, which I didn't know I was able to prove, but it actually shows where in the jail itself where they were pulling on my cuff, like up above my head.
[14:00.000 --> 14:07.000]  And the one guy threw me on the ground, and they told me I couldn't have any clothes to wear, and it was kind of ridiculous.
[14:07.000 --> 14:16.000]  But it shows it all. He's, like, twisting my hand behind my back, and I'm sitting there the whole time. I'm not doing anything. I wasn't arguing with them. I wasn't fighting with them.
[14:16.000 --> 14:23.000]  So it's all on video, but then my lawyer says the prosecutor will probably not allow that to be in my case.
[14:23.000 --> 14:33.000]  That's not necessarily the prosecutor's call. That's your call.
[14:33.000 --> 14:50.000]  Yeah. If your lawyer is actually trying to say, well, if the prosecutor says they don't want it in the case and I'm going to agree with them, then he is basically taking away your ability to defend yourself for excessive use of force, which is exactly what those officers are doing.
[14:50.000 --> 14:58.000]  Anytime they do something like that, it affects the rest of the arrest and everything else.
[14:58.000 --> 15:05.000]  And your attorney should know that. If he doesn't know that, then he shouldn't have a bar card.
[15:05.000 --> 15:20.000]  He does know that, but he doesn't want the prosecutor to be upset with him. So you might want to tell your attorney, you either properly adjudicate my case.
[15:20.000 --> 15:23.000]  Oh, maybe you have a better idea.
[15:23.000 --> 15:36.000]  Uh, tell him you saw this website by this crazy guy in Austin who does a radio show and the site is called bar grievance.net.
[15:36.000 --> 15:49.000]  And he should go to that site and click on the link for the American Bar Association standards for the prosecutorial function.
[15:49.000 --> 15:57.000]  Your attorney's probably never seen that. This is a reason to send him to bar grievance.net.
[15:57.000 --> 16:10.000]  When he goes to bar grievance.net and reads what's there, he's going to crap his drawers because he's going to think you know about it and what if she files a grievance against me?
[16:10.000 --> 16:15.000]  They'll cancel my malpractice insurance and I can't practice.
[16:15.000 --> 16:26.000]  That'll give him, then he can go to the prosecutor and say, hey, look what she sent me. She's going to grieve me. You got to protect me.
[16:26.000 --> 16:34.000]  Okay, and then on my previous attorney, I had him for two years now.
[16:34.000 --> 16:36.000]  Real useful, wasn't he?
[16:36.000 --> 16:38.000]  Yes.
[16:38.000 --> 16:41.000]  Okay, we need to talk about him when you come back.
[16:41.000 --> 16:43.000]  Okay, thank you.
[16:43.000 --> 16:49.000]  Well, if this is rule of law radio, calling number is 512-646-1984.
[16:49.000 --> 17:15.000]  If you got a question query or pondrance, please give us a call. We'll be right back on the other side of this break.
[17:15.000 --> 17:25.000]  Spending and funded Planned Parenthood. Finally, a flip-flopper who's been on all sides, supported our bailouts and provided the blueprint for Obamacare.
[17:25.000 --> 17:32.000]  Three men, one vision, more big governments, more mandates, less freedom.
[17:32.000 --> 17:48.000]  One man stands apart, ready to deliver real change, voting against every tax increase and every unbalanced budget every time. A real plan to cut a trillion dollars year one and to balance the budget in three.
[17:48.000 --> 17:57.000]  Pro-life, pro-right to work, guided by faith and principle. Ron Paul, the one who will restore America now.
[17:57.000 --> 18:04.000]  I'm Ron Paul and I approve this message.
[18:27.000 --> 18:34.000]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit reports. How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[18:34.000 --> 18:41.000]  The Michael Miris proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well.
[18:41.000 --> 19:01.000]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Miris banner or email Michaelmiris at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[19:01.000 --> 19:13.000]  Well, don't let nothing get to you. Only the Father can deliver you. Don't let much of my people hurt you. Until things are getting behind you.
[19:13.000 --> 19:20.000]  Know what I mean? My friend and all our judges, come to those things that hurt me crazy.
[19:20.000 --> 19:28.000]  Hi, folks. We are back. This is Rule of Law Radio. This is Eddie Craig with Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens.
[19:28.000 --> 19:35.000]  Right now, we are talking with Michelle. Danny, when you see that you call back in, so hang on and we will get back with you.
[19:35.000 --> 19:40.000]  Right now, let's see if we can finish up with Michelle. All right, Michelle, go ahead.
[19:40.000 --> 19:49.000]  Um, okay, so just real quick on my old lawyer. I was told that I should do him. I'm not really wanting to...
[19:49.000 --> 19:55.000]  Far-greaving, yes. Absolutely. If he didn't do anything the whole time you had him, except take your money.
[19:55.000 --> 20:01.000]  Hold on. There's something else I wanted to ask. How did you lose your old lawyer? Did he withdraw?
[20:01.000 --> 20:10.000]  Well, that was the issue. We were speaking to an email and I asked him. I told him he was properly handling the case.
[20:10.000 --> 20:14.000]  Then I wanted to get a new lawyer so he said he would withdraw.
[20:14.000 --> 20:29.000]  Oh, okay. So he didn't... You fired him, essentially. Okay. The reason I asked that is in a criminal case, a lawyer cannot simply withdraw from the case.
[20:29.000 --> 20:37.000]  He's forbidden to by statute. Now, he can't if you fire him, but he can't do it himself.
[20:37.000 --> 20:47.000]  No, no, no. Yeah, I want to... Okay, okay. I'm not suggesting that you file a bar grievance against your attorney.
[20:47.000 --> 21:02.000]  I'm suggesting that you let your attorney know in kind of a backhanded way that you know precisely how to file a bar grievance against him and what to file a grievance against him for.
[21:02.000 --> 21:12.000]  Yeah, and my new attorney, this is... But my old attorney, my new attorney is a woman who I think she kind of knows that I know already because she asked me not to...
[21:12.000 --> 21:17.000]  I had told her that I had already filed a bar grievance against my old attorney.
[21:17.000 --> 21:27.000]  Okay, good. So she's aware. So, you need to send her to this anyway and have her look at the standards for the prosecutor.
[21:27.000 --> 21:38.000]  But then should I file another one based on the fact that he never... I never knew that these videos, the jail videos, the car video, like he never gave me any of this information.
[21:38.000 --> 21:41.000]  Did you ever ask him for any of it?
[21:41.000 --> 21:49.000]  Of course. When you filed for discovery back in March of last year, I asked him what he never... He never gave me information.
[21:49.000 --> 21:51.000]  He would always say, oh, let me do my job.
[21:51.000 --> 22:07.000]  Okay, that is a specific grievance. If you'll go to bargreements.net and kind of follow the instructions there and go into the questionnaire side, there is a section on that about the law you're communicating with the client.
[22:07.000 --> 22:18.000]  And there's a very specific requirement. It's a questionnaire, so it... You have turned these standards into questions, so it makes it really easy to go through them.
[22:18.000 --> 22:25.000]  So does it file on this website? Will it file the grievance for you or do you still have to send it in your...
[22:25.000 --> 22:27.000]  Wait, that couldn't understand you.
[22:27.000 --> 22:33.000]  Does the bargreements.net... Does it actually file the bargreements for you? Can you fill it in?
[22:33.000 --> 22:41.000]  If it's working right now, it's supposed to create one and you can download it.
[22:41.000 --> 22:43.000]  Oh, I see. And then you send it. Okay.
[22:43.000 --> 22:49.000]  Yeah, you have to send it, so you have to download it, sign it in front of a notary and then send it.
[22:49.000 --> 22:58.000]  Right, okay. So I don't need to... She had my new law if I was going to file a civil against my old lawyer.
[22:58.000 --> 23:00.000]  Oh.
[23:00.000 --> 23:04.000]  That's... Yeah, go ahead.
[23:04.000 --> 23:15.000]  And my boyfriend wants to listen to the show all the time, too. He's like, yes, yes, you need to do your old lawyer, so I don't know if that's something I need to do.
[23:15.000 --> 23:16.000]  It's just two years.
[23:16.000 --> 23:23.000]  Well, okay. Before you sue him, send him a tort letter.
[23:23.000 --> 23:25.000]  Okay.
[23:25.000 --> 23:43.000]  And a tort letter, you should write the tort letter to look like the lawsuit, except instead of putting a court heading on it, put a business heading on it and say, you know, this is how you've harmed me, make me hold it, be sued.
[23:43.000 --> 23:49.000]  And good chats, he'll come to you and say, let's make a deal, let's make a deal, let's make a deal.
[23:49.000 --> 23:59.000]  Don't sue me, don't sue me, because your suit won't cost him as much as his malpractice insurance will cost him.
[23:59.000 --> 24:03.000]  It'll go up so much. They may cancel it all together.
[24:03.000 --> 24:28.000]  And that's kind of the cool thing. He's saying that I owe him money still for a trial fee, like $2,000 for a trial fee, but I never went to trial. So he's telling my lawyer and my judge and everyone, he's like, the judge was, I guess, angry with me because I didn't take the plea, and now because he's saying I didn't pay my lawyer, which I did, I just didn't pay him a trial fee because I didn't go to trial.
[24:28.000 --> 24:39.000]  Okay, yeah, then this is to send a lawyer a tort letter and since he told your judge, file the tort letter in the case.
[24:39.000 --> 24:44.000]  Okay, got it. Okay, wonderful.
[24:44.000 --> 24:52.000]  Okay, that one left the judge know that you're going to beat up his attorneys.
[24:52.000 --> 25:07.000]  Now, I'm not talking about the prosecutors, you're going to beat up his defense attorneys. Right. The last case I had in Travis County, they threw it out to protect my lawyer from me.
[25:07.000 --> 25:19.000]  So if the judge thinks he's got a client that's going to do his best to end the career of this attorney, he'd get rid of your case to keep you from screwing the attorney.
[25:19.000 --> 25:24.000]  And I didn't mean that literally. Yeah.
[25:24.000 --> 25:26.000]  Okay.
[25:26.000 --> 25:31.000]  Well, then I guess the tort letter will be when I write. Okay, well, thank you, Eddie. I appreciate it.
[25:31.000 --> 25:43.000]  Okay, thank you Mr. for calling. We have Danny back on, but we need to finish up really quickly. We've got a bunch of folks that's been holding for quite a while.
[25:43.000 --> 25:50.000]  Okay, Danny. All right, about title two, you got my interest.
[25:50.000 --> 25:52.000]  Okay.
[25:52.000 --> 26:16.000]  The Co-Construction Act or Chapter 311 doesn't apply in Codal Crown Procedure until title two starting at article chapter 100. That's where it says it says it says that but if you read chapter 311 itself, it says that it is for all codes unless there's a local provision stating otherwise.
[26:16.000 --> 26:29.000]  I agree. Virtually every code in Texas begins with chapter 311 government code applies. In other words, it specifically invokes it.
[26:29.000 --> 26:41.000]  However, chapter 311 itself says that it applies unless the code specifically says it does not apply.
[26:41.000 --> 27:06.000]  And just because chapter title one does not specifically invoke it, it does not specifically say it does not apply. There actually are several places in various codes where in that particular local chapter it specifically states chapter 311 does not apply.
[27:06.000 --> 27:16.000]  Well, even if it does, what's in 311 that would include somebody individual isn't part of person there.
[27:16.000 --> 27:34.000]  No, you're right. They absolutely aren't. But the courts are going to the code or the penal code to look up the definition of individual, even though that code specifically says the definition of that term is limited to that code.
[27:34.000 --> 27:39.000]  They decided they would use it across all codes, whether it's defined or not.
[27:39.000 --> 27:48.000]  Okay. Well, I gotta, they may be doing that, but I got another little part on that too. Chapter 17A was added in 1973.
[27:48.000 --> 28:12.000]  And before that time, the code criminal procedure was adopted in 1965. It had no specific definition of a person in it, but 3.01 words and phrases has all that, but it also had a reference and, you know, term defined in the penal code without the meaning given there.
[28:12.000 --> 28:22.000]  In 1975, they amended 3.01 to take that part off. That the part referring to the penal code was chopped off.
[28:22.000 --> 28:24.000]  So 17A.
[28:24.000 --> 28:26.000]  Whoa, hold on, hold on.
[28:26.000 --> 28:38.000]  With the meaning of person added in in 1973, an article 3.01 was amended in 1975 to remove the reference to definitions in the penal code.
[28:38.000 --> 28:43.000]  Eddie, how does that comport with the 1925 code?
[28:43.000 --> 28:46.000]  Well, I'm sorry.
[28:46.000 --> 28:53.000]  It doesn't. That's what it doesn't.
[28:53.000 --> 29:04.000]  So that would have a, would act as a material change. Then it would be void.
[29:04.000 --> 29:10.000]  Yeah, because the legislature cannot change the purpose of an enactment by amendment.
[29:10.000 --> 29:30.000]  If they're going to add anything to the purpose and scope of any legislative enactment as it's put together in the preamble when the bill is made, they can only do that by repealing the original act and reenacting it in its entirety.
[29:30.000 --> 29:38.000]  They cannot amend any existing enact to alter its application.
[29:38.000 --> 29:44.000]  That's right in the constitution that they can't do that.
[29:44.000 --> 29:46.000]  Okay.
[29:46.000 --> 29:49.000]  Okay, you have anything else, Danny?
[29:49.000 --> 29:51.000]  No, that's good for now, I guess.
[29:51.000 --> 29:54.000]  Okay, thank you, Danny. This is Randy Kelton. Good to see you.
[29:54.000 --> 30:00.000]  Thank you for watching this video.
[30:24.000 --> 30:28.000]  We lost his son. We are Americans and we deserve the truth.
[30:28.000 --> 30:33.000]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[30:33.000 --> 30:37.000]  Ouch. That's how consumers are reacting after being victimized by pins.
[30:37.000 --> 30:43.000]  No, not sewing pins. We're talking about debit card pin numbers, but the result is still quite painful.
[30:43.000 --> 30:47.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be back with a prickly tale in just a moment.
[30:47.000 --> 30:57.000]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again, and once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:57.000 --> 31:02.000]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[31:02.000 --> 31:12.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. This public service announcement 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 --> 31:21.000]  Pin pads. They're those high-tech boxes at checkouts for paying with debit and credit cards.
[31:21.000 --> 31:25.000]  Customers punch in a four-digit code called a pin number for extra protection.
[31:25.000 --> 31:31.000]  Since only the customer handles the card and the pin data is encrypted, you might think the systems are safe, but think again.
[31:31.000 --> 31:39.000]  Thieves recently compromised dozens of the pads at Michael's craft stores in 20 states, intercepting hundreds of card numbers in pins.
[31:39.000 --> 31:45.000]  Then they used the information to steal money from shop or bank accounts using ATM machines hundreds of miles away.
[31:45.000 --> 31:51.000]  The moral? Using debit and credit cards can be risky business. The most secure form of payment is cash.
[31:51.000 --> 32:20.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[32:21.000 --> 32:29.000]  Yeah, I won't.
[32:29.000 --> 32:39.000]  I won't. I won't let you pull the world over my eyes.
[32:39.000 --> 32:44.000]  Okay, this is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Eddie Craig, and Willow Vlog Radio.
[32:44.000 --> 32:48.000]  We're going to go to Carlos in California.
[32:48.000 --> 32:53.000]  Carlos, I'm sorry we had you hanging so long. What do you have for us today?
[32:53.000 --> 32:56.000]  Okay, Randy, am I on?
[32:56.000 --> 32:57.000]  You are on.
[32:57.000 --> 32:59.000]  All right, thank you. Thank you.
[32:59.000 --> 33:02.000]  Okay, Randy, let's go back to foreclosures.
[33:02.000 --> 33:07.000]  Okay, very interesting. You were talking about the assignments, right?
[33:07.000 --> 33:08.000]  Yes.
[33:08.000 --> 33:18.000]  Assignment of Deer's Trust. This is what an attorney told me. An attorney told me. It says, on your trust is deed.
[33:18.000 --> 33:20.000]  Look at the trust is deed.
[33:20.000 --> 33:26.000]  Therein, you should find the foreclosing beneficiary.
[33:26.000 --> 33:37.000]  Now, that beneficiary, look and find out whether that foreclosures beneficiary did have any assignment of Deer's Trust.
[33:37.000 --> 33:42.000]  Or conferring the parts yourself. In that, that's a least void. Does that make any sense?
[33:42.000 --> 33:44.000]  Okay, wait. Say that again.
[33:44.000 --> 33:52.000]  Okay. On the trust is deed, right? Let's talk about my case.
[33:52.000 --> 33:59.000]  On my, the trust is deed, according to this attorney says, look at the trust is deed.
[33:59.000 --> 34:07.000]  Right on the trust is deed, you're going to see, you're going to find who was the foreclosing beneficiary. Okay?
[34:07.000 --> 34:14.000]  That foreclosing beneficiary, they had to assign the Deer's Trust.
[34:14.000 --> 34:22.000]  He had to have an assignment in order for him to have the power to sell the property.
[34:22.000 --> 34:31.000]  Okay. It is the beneficiary who has the power to appoint a substitute trustee.
[34:31.000 --> 34:32.000]  Okay.
[34:32.000 --> 34:49.000]  In order to foreclose, there has to be a deed of trust, authorizing the beneficiary of the deed of trust to foreclose if there is a default on the security instrument.
[34:49.000 --> 34:57.000]  And I think what the lawyer is going to is the foreclosure is almost always done by a substitute trustee.
[34:57.000 --> 35:00.000]  Yes, you're right. You're 100% right.
[35:00.000 --> 35:02.000]  This is my case.
[35:02.000 --> 35:10.000]  So for there to be a substitute trustee, there must be an assignment of a substitute trustee.
[35:10.000 --> 35:15.000]  And it must be by someone who has authority to do that.
[35:15.000 --> 35:38.000]  Now, if the beneficiary on the deed of trust subsequent to the creation of the security instrument has negotiated the security instrument and received consideration, he cannot invoke the lien.
[35:38.000 --> 35:40.000]  Right. You're right.
[35:40.000 --> 35:47.000]  Now, let me add something. On my case, I've been foreclosed. There's no substitution of trustee.
[35:47.000 --> 35:54.000]  I got all my documents. I'm going to court. They're doing a motion to dismiss. I have a pretty good case.
[35:54.000 --> 36:00.000]  There's no assignment of deed of trust. And I have case law that backs me up. It's a valid case law.
[36:00.000 --> 36:20.000]  Now, one more thing. When the notice of default, when they send me the notice of default, when they recorded the notice of default in the corner recorders, the substitute trustee was not yet assigned as trustee.
[36:20.000 --> 36:23.000]  Therefore, the notice of default is defective.
[36:23.000 --> 36:27.000]  That's the...
[36:27.000 --> 36:34.000]  Minister, I mean, the Massachusetts case, what's his name? Ibanez?
[36:34.000 --> 36:45.000]  Okay, right. I'm not sure which one you're talking about, but I concentrate in California because in California, when I'm finding out there's no substitution...
[36:45.000 --> 36:49.000]  I'm sorry. There's no assignment of deed of trust.
[36:49.000 --> 37:01.000]  There's none for my foreclosure. On top of that, when they sent me the notice of default, it was sent by someone who was not assigned as trustee yet.
[37:01.000 --> 37:08.000]  That day, when they sent me the notice of default and they recorded the notice of default...
[37:08.000 --> 37:13.000]  Okay. How are you attempting to adjudicate that?
[37:13.000 --> 37:22.000]  Well, I have a lawsuit against them and I have a 2932.5. It says they may substitute the lender...
[37:22.000 --> 37:40.000]  Okay, hold on, hold on. Back up. The reason I asked you that question is, if there is a substitute trustee, did they file a substitute trustee's deed in the case?
[37:40.000 --> 37:43.000]  They filed a substitution of trustee.
[37:43.000 --> 37:51.000]  Okay. No, wait a minute. Okay, this is what I'm finding in Texas. I'm finding a substitute trustee's deed.
[37:51.000 --> 37:53.000]  No, we don't have that, yeah.
[37:53.000 --> 38:03.000]  Well, it's the document he files that says, I'm the guy that has authority to foreclose and I'm about to...
[38:03.000 --> 38:07.000]  It's the notice of acceleration and notice of foreclosure.
[38:07.000 --> 38:11.000]  We don't have that. Not in my case.
[38:11.000 --> 38:16.000]  How do you know who is doing the foreclosure?
[38:16.000 --> 38:29.000]  Well, Calgary was recombining sending the notice of default and there's no assignment of the little trustee from the beneficiary to Calgary.
[38:29.000 --> 38:54.000]  Okay, then what we might look at this possibility, go to the district court and file for injunctive relief and maintain that the public records of the county registrar's office are in error
[38:54.000 --> 39:03.000]  and ask the district court to consider the documentation in order to correct the public record.
[39:03.000 --> 39:20.000]  Then the court can only look at the four corners of the county registrar's office's records and show that this document was filed in the record as a notice of default.
[39:20.000 --> 39:32.000]  But it was filed by an entity who had no standing to file it, therefore it is void and no force in effect and ask the court to rule to that effect.
[39:32.000 --> 39:56.000]  Then this can be done in export a hearing and maintained to the court if this entity wishes they can at any time correct this deficiency by filing a proper assignment of substitute trustee then refiling the notice of default.
[39:56.000 --> 40:14.000]  So asking the judge to correct the record doesn't really do any serious harm, it doesn't remove the person, the individual's position, it just corrects the record.
[40:14.000 --> 40:29.000]  But if he has already foreclosed, he's got a big problem now, that decision will be easier to get than a decision overturning the foreclosure.
[40:29.000 --> 40:46.000]  So you try to get this decision first and then once you have that decision, now you go back to the courts and ask them to overturn the foreclosure, that makes it almost a no-brainer.
[40:46.000 --> 40:48.000]  Does that make sense to you?
[40:48.000 --> 40:52.000]  Yes, it says, and you said it's an injunctive relief.
[40:52.000 --> 40:54.000]  Say that again.
[40:54.000 --> 40:57.000]  Did you say, what did you call it, injunctive relief?
[40:57.000 --> 40:59.000]  Yeah, injunctive relief.
[40:59.000 --> 41:03.000]  You're not asking for any money, you're not asking for any damages.
[41:03.000 --> 41:04.000]  Okay, got it.
[41:04.000 --> 41:24.000]  You're just asking an order of the court, just an injunction, and the injunction would go to the clerk of the court and ask the clerk to put a notation in the court record that this particular document is voiding of no-forcing effect.
[41:24.000 --> 41:32.000]  And we're simple, a lot easier to get done, and a really slick maneuver to run right in behind them.
[41:32.000 --> 41:34.000]  All right, that's why I run right here.
[41:34.000 --> 41:35.000]  Thank you.
[41:35.000 --> 41:41.000]  I just, my only complaint about that is that I didn't think of it.
[41:41.000 --> 41:44.000]  Well, it's never too late.
[41:44.000 --> 41:46.000]  Okay, somebody else come up with it.
[41:46.000 --> 41:47.000]  Oh, okay, okay.
[41:47.000 --> 41:50.000]  Well, you know, as long as we can help and help each other.
[41:50.000 --> 41:51.000]  Thank you, Randy.
[41:51.000 --> 41:54.000]  Yeah, and it was a chump that come up with that.
[41:54.000 --> 41:59.000]  I think he's back there in the background, Steve Skidmore.
[41:59.000 --> 42:00.000]  Okay.
[42:00.000 --> 42:01.000]  Thank you.
[42:01.000 --> 42:02.000]  Thank you, Carlos.
[42:02.000 --> 42:07.000]  Okay, now we're going to go to Eric in Texas.
[42:07.000 --> 42:10.000]  Eric, what do you got for us?
[42:10.000 --> 42:30.000]  Maybe I sent an email to you a couple weeks ago, you asked me to call in about a property that I am acquiring through an inheritance, and I wanted to know if you had the input on how I might go about registering this thing as far as, you know, title or ownership,
[42:30.000 --> 42:37.000]  whether I'll put it in a trust or I wanted to know what more you might know about land patents.
[42:37.000 --> 42:38.000]  Okay.
[42:38.000 --> 42:46.000]  We know some about land patents, and I will get Eddie to address that in a minute.
[42:46.000 --> 42:55.000]  But if you received it in a probate, Eddie might be able to address both of these.
[42:55.000 --> 43:03.000]  Eddie, are you more familiar with how to file, I'm sure you'll file a warranted deed.
[43:03.000 --> 43:11.000]  Well, I'm not 100% on the land patent process, though we do have several people that are regular listeners to the show that have done it.
[43:11.000 --> 43:20.000]  The key thing about it just to remember is that the land patent does not automatically remove your property from the local tax rolls.
[43:20.000 --> 43:29.000]  The best way to do that with or without a land patent is to have the property declared private property by a judge.
[43:29.000 --> 43:35.000]  That's really not that hard to do. You just simply take the deed in there and you can have a ruling made.
[43:35.000 --> 43:41.000]  This property is not used for commercial purposes. It doesn't hold a hotel or anything of that nature.
[43:41.000 --> 43:46.000]  And if it's agricultural, then that's still not considered for profit.
[43:46.000 --> 43:54.000]  And then having declared it as private rather than what they call personal property or real property.
[43:54.000 --> 44:00.000]  Hold on a minute, hold on a minute, we're out of time. Randy Kelk, Deborah Stevenson, David Craig, We Will All Radio, you'll be right back.
[44:24.000 --> 44:28.000]  And now you can too.
[44:54.000 --> 45:01.000]  And click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ.
[45:25.000 --> 45:33.000]  The only witness the government produced to place McBae at the building that morning, Dana Bradley, who lost her children in one of her legs in the bombing,
[45:33.000 --> 45:39.000]  testified that she saw McBae with another man, the fable Jondo number two, exiting the rider truck.
[45:39.000 --> 45:51.000]  While at least 15 other witnesses claim to have seen McBae with other perpetrators the day of the bombing, no less than 226 witnesses placed him with other men in the days before the bombing,
[45:51.000 --> 45:57.000]  including when he rented the rider truck, and in some cases had positively identified the other perpetrators.
[45:57.000 --> 46:23.000]  For more information, please visit okcbombingtruth.com.
[46:28.000 --> 46:39.000]  All right folks, we are back. This is Room of Law Radio. I kept thinking for some reason that Randy was going to jump in there, but I guess he's too busy yawning.
[46:39.000 --> 46:42.000]  No, you were addressing this issue.
[46:42.000 --> 46:47.000]  Yeah, we were talking with Eric in Texas. All right, Eric, you still there?
[46:47.000 --> 46:49.000]  Yeah, I'm still here.
[46:49.000 --> 47:01.000]  Let me do this in real quick, just for fun. I don't think this will make a lot of difference. We didn't go through probate. We're doing this between me and my sister through an affidavit of airship.
[47:01.000 --> 47:08.000]  I don't know if that will alter any of what you guys are telling me about.
[47:08.000 --> 47:10.000]  Say that one more time.
[47:10.000 --> 47:21.000]  We're doing the, what should I say, the disbursement of, you know, dad's property. We're managing it not through a probate.
[47:21.000 --> 47:31.000]  We're not having, you know, any interactions with an attorney or anything like that. We're doing all of this through an affidavit of airship.
[47:31.000 --> 47:34.000]  Wait a minute. Is your dad still alive?
[47:34.000 --> 47:36.000]  No.
[47:36.000 --> 47:43.000]  I don't think you can do that. Can you, Eddie? Was there a will?
[47:43.000 --> 47:47.000]  There was a will, yes.
[47:47.000 --> 47:51.000]  Okay, so you're doing this according to the will?
[47:51.000 --> 47:52.000]  Correct.
[47:52.000 --> 48:03.000]  Okay, then that's something I'm not familiar with. Are you familiar with that, Eddie? An affidavit of airship?
[48:03.000 --> 48:05.000]  Eddie?
[48:05.000 --> 48:09.000]  Yeah, who's the administrator of the will?
[48:09.000 --> 48:14.000]  My sister and I are co-administrators, equally.
[48:14.000 --> 48:23.000]  Okay, well then, as long as they have it, their job is simply to do what the will directs them to do in that capacity.
[48:23.000 --> 48:45.000]  Yeah, that's correct. And that's really kind of how that boils down is, there is no contest or there's no challenge on either of our parts, and so we, you know, there's really no need in paying an attorney pretty much money to achieve what...
[48:45.000 --> 48:50.000]  Oh, no, you may as well just give him everything if you hire an attorney to do any of this.
[48:50.000 --> 48:53.000]  Uh-huh.
[48:53.000 --> 49:03.000]  See, the state seems to think it has a right to intercede in the disbursements of private property between family members, and I failed to see where that authority was ever invested in any of them.
[49:03.000 --> 49:08.000]  We stand in the same position.
[49:08.000 --> 49:30.000]  Okay, so as long as nobody's raising a ruckus or anything, it's none of their business as far as I'm concerned, and I don't see anything that would make it mandatory on a private individual in their family to hire an attorney or to bring the state into a private family matter for the disbursement of property.
[49:30.000 --> 49:45.000]  So that's certainly how we're operating for whatever it's worth. My sister has previously worked in years past for a family law attorney that was apparently one of the better guys out there.
[49:45.000 --> 50:09.000]  Nevertheless, they, my sister, handled her mother-in-law's estate in the same fashion in the property when they sold it. The property did get financed, so apparently the lender accepted all this same sort of a procedure as adequate appropriately.
[50:09.000 --> 50:17.000]  Yeah, unless there's something written into the contract to purchase the property, the lender really doesn't have a choice.
[50:17.000 --> 50:23.000]  Actually, he does. Is there a loan against the property?
[50:23.000 --> 50:28.000]  No, there is not now. Are we talking about dad's property or the mother-in-law's property?
[50:28.000 --> 50:50.000]  Dad's. No, no. There is a clause in most of the standard security instruments that on assignment to another party, the bank can call the loan.
[50:50.000 --> 51:14.000]  Right, right. Let me back up. Maybe I'll mislead you guys. The people who bought the property from my sister-in-law's estate, I'm sorry, through my sister's husband's family, through the mother-in-law's estate, it was financed.
[51:14.000 --> 51:34.000]  Okay, that's okay. That's different. The beneficiary can assign the note to anybody wants to. That's the one who's receiving the payments. The one who's making the payments, they can't do the assignment.
[51:34.000 --> 51:50.000]  So if there was a loan against property, most likely there was an insurance on it to pay off the note. If not, the property would, and the property changed hands.
[51:50.000 --> 52:06.000]  There may be some special provisions for how to handle this when someone passes away. I'm sure they're almost feel certain they're yes, but it's beyond the scope of my knowledge.
[52:06.000 --> 52:20.000]  But moving forward, Eddie, you had mentioned about having a judge to tell the property it's private and not in commerce.
[52:20.000 --> 52:39.000]  If you're actually planning on living there and not paying property taxes, if that was what you were getting to. But now, if the problem is, is somebody may not want to buy a piece of property if they aren't in the know about whether or not property taxes are something they actually owe.
[52:39.000 --> 52:54.000]  If you take it off the tax rolls and then try to sell it, people might that don't know anything are liable to be afraid to buy it under the presumption that, oh, I buy it, I go and register the deed. Now they tell me I've got all these back taxes because these people haven't been paying them.
[52:54.000 --> 53:06.000]  That's easy enough to write into the contract that the seller is responsible for any back taxes.
[53:06.000 --> 53:17.000]  If I do this, will I no longer get tax bills in the mail?
[53:17.000 --> 53:21.000]  Well, yeah, they can't tax the property if it's not on the tax roll.
[53:21.000 --> 53:39.000]  If you have this declared private property, the tax and authority is still going to send you bills and you're going to have to go fight with them to get them to stop. They most likely have no clue.
[53:39.000 --> 53:56.000]  If they do stop billing you, wonderful, you may be lucky. But if you were going to do this, I was a couple of things you need to look at. One is you'll have to rewrite a contract with the police and the fire department.
[53:56.000 --> 54:03.000]  Because if you're not on the tax rolls, they're not allowed to respond to you.
[54:03.000 --> 54:14.000]  It takes you out of that system so you'd have to re-contract with them. And most likely the assessor-collector is not going to know anything about this.
[54:14.000 --> 54:19.000]  He's going to say, that's all a bunch of hooey. You've got to pay me anyway.
[54:19.000 --> 54:25.000]  Say, you're going to have this fight because the system's corrupt. It's just the way it works.
[54:25.000 --> 54:36.000]  And this is even down. You get on Highway 175 in a few towns that start.
[54:36.000 --> 54:40.000]  You know any towns that are down Highway 175, Randy?
[54:40.000 --> 54:45.000]  Maybank. What's the lake down there?
[54:45.000 --> 54:55.000]  So far, I'm picking on Randy about his little hiatus he took down there in Jacksonville.
[54:55.000 --> 54:58.000]  Jacksonville, I know where that one's at. That's right at the end of it.
[54:58.000 --> 55:07.000]  Yeah, that's actually in Jasper County. But the thing can get similar down there and that end of the gene pool.
[55:07.000 --> 55:16.000]  It's pretty short down there.
[55:16.000 --> 55:27.000]  Let's see here. So what judge would I attempt to exercise this through?
[55:27.000 --> 55:35.000]  You can do it in front of any county or district judge.
[55:35.000 --> 55:42.000]  I know that we have actually had some people call in and say they've actually had this done.
[55:42.000 --> 55:48.000]  So folks, if any of you out there listening that have actually gone through the process of having your property declared private,
[55:48.000 --> 55:52.000]  please give us a call. We got a little over an hour left in the show.
[55:52.000 --> 55:58.000]  And with Eric listening in, you can say exactly what the process is you went through and how it worked.
[55:58.000 --> 56:02.000]  This will help everybody else that's listening as well that's thinking the same thing.
[56:02.000 --> 56:10.000]  But if anybody out there has gone specifically through it, please give us a call and let us know exactly what the process was you followed to accomplish it.
[56:10.000 --> 56:15.000]  That will benefit everybody in the long run.
[56:15.000 --> 56:26.000]  And if I might add or ask another question is what you guys have to say about it is what do you think about trust?
[56:26.000 --> 56:28.000]  Trust are great as they're set up.
[56:28.000 --> 56:32.000]  I don't trust it.
[56:32.000 --> 56:38.000]  Just kidding. Exactly if they set up properly.
[56:38.000 --> 56:50.000]  If you set up a trust and you are the grand tour or the benefactor,
[56:50.000 --> 56:59.000]  who the beneficiaries is not important, but who the trustee is is very important.
[56:59.000 --> 57:05.000]  You want the trustee to at least a couple of degrees of separation.
[57:05.000 --> 57:10.000]  Certainly you do not want to be the grantor, the grantee and the trustee.
[57:10.000 --> 57:13.000]  If you do that, you don't have a trust.
[57:13.000 --> 57:22.000]  So there has to be a separate beneficiary from the grantor and then there has to be a third party as the trustee.
[57:22.000 --> 57:29.000]  Now you can name yourself as the trustee, but that really weakens the trustee.
[57:29.000 --> 57:32.000]  IRS will come in and rip that to pieces.
[57:32.000 --> 57:44.000]  If you engage a third party as the trustee, then you have the concern with being able to trust the trustee.
[57:44.000 --> 57:45.000]  Right.
[57:45.000 --> 57:57.000]  And the way to do that is write a private contract with the trustee that will make you the managing director of the trust
[57:57.000 --> 58:03.000]  and take away all authority of the trustee. So he's trustee and name only.
[58:03.000 --> 58:06.000]  However, there's one little caveat to that.
[58:06.000 --> 58:19.000]  If you're a trustee of trust, what you are paid to act as a trustee is not taxable because the trust is on the private side.
[58:19.000 --> 58:26.000]  So you might look at that and appointing a trustee is a good way to get untaxable income.
[58:26.000 --> 58:30.000]  Okay, this is Randy Kelk and Deborah Stevens and Craig with our radio.
[58:30.000 --> 58:32.000]  We've got one more hour.
[58:32.000 --> 58:37.000]  We've got a couple of calls left on the board, but we could use a few more.
[58:37.000 --> 58:42.000]  Give us a call 512-646-1984.
[58:42.000 --> 59:00.000]  We'll try to answer all your questions and we'll be right back in about three minutes.
[59:00.000 --> 59:08.000]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it.
[59:08.000 --> 59:16.000]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the Scripture.
[59:16.000 --> 59:19.000]  Enter the recovery version.
[59:19.000 --> 59:28.000]  First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes.
[59:28.000 --> 59:38.000]  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 --> 59:43.000]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking.
[59:43.000 --> 59:58.000]  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.
[59:58.000 --> 01:00:13.000]  That's freestudybible.com.
[01:00:29.000 --> 01:00:43.000]  Despite claims by Keystone XL supporters, experts say the tar sands pipeline will not bring down prices at US gas pumps.
[01:00:43.000 --> 01:00:52.000]  The proposed pipeline, which would run from Canada to Texas, wouldn't be built until 2014, and at the most, we've reduced prices by pennies.
[01:00:52.000 --> 01:00:56.000]  The US is currently a net exporter of oil.
[01:00:56.000 --> 01:01:06.000]  A new report in the British Medical Journal has found antipsychotic drugs are responsible for killing at least 1,800 dementia patients a year.
[01:01:06.000 --> 01:01:17.000]  Researchers from Harvard Medical School tracked more than 75,000 dementia patients living in nursing homes that were prescribed antipsychotic drugs.
[01:01:17.000 --> 01:01:30.000]  Japan's Meteorological Research Institute said Wednesday 40,000 trillion becquerels of radioactive cesium, or twice the amount previously thought, may have spewed from the crippled Fukushima No. 1 reactor.
[01:01:30.000 --> 01:01:38.000]  Scientists believe around 30% of radioactive particles discharged during the crisis ended up on land while the rest fell in the sea.
[01:01:38.000 --> 01:01:48.000]  Meanwhile, measurements taken by the US Geological Survey in Bennington, Vermont showed traces of radiological materials produced by explosions at Fukushima.
[01:01:48.000 --> 01:01:56.000]  Researchers estimated it took just 18 days for radioactive particles from Fukushima to circle the Earth.
[01:01:56.000 --> 01:02:09.000]  Billionaire Aubrey McLendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy, the nation's second largest producer of natural gas, says he sees nothing wrong with the controversial extraction process known as fracking.
[01:02:09.000 --> 01:02:18.000]  Fracking has been linked to water, soil, and air contamination that has led to sickness and even death of those living near drilling sites.
[01:02:18.000 --> 01:02:33.000]  McLendon pointed out, quote, we frack all the time. What's the big deal? Rolling Stone writer Jeff Goodell noted, quote, fracking is about producing cheap energy the same way the mortgage crisis was about helping realize the dreams of middle-class homeowners.
[01:02:33.000 --> 01:02:53.000]  Goodell went on, for Chesapeake, the primary profit in fracking comes not from selling the gas itself, but from buying and flipping the land that contains the gas. Adding, McLendon has financed this land grab with junk bonds, complex partnerships, and future production deals, creating a highly leveraged, deeply indebted company.
[01:02:53.000 --> 01:03:04.000]  For more details on this story, visit INSworldlyHorse.net.
[01:03:23.000 --> 01:03:49.000]  Hi folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio. Call in number is 512-646-1984. We're going to try to finish up our call with Eric in Texas. All right, Eric, let's get this wrapped up, shall we?
[01:03:49.000 --> 01:04:10.000]  Okay, one other little thing I just thought of as we were exiting. I have arranged, or drew up the general warranty deed that I had executed by my sister, dating over her interest to me. I had that arranged in upper and lower case letters.
[01:04:10.000 --> 01:04:37.000]  Is that of any benefit in making this private property? No. It makes no difference at all. I do have online, if you go to aidocs.com. There's a link down there for a warranty deed. I have an interactive PDF form where you can go in and just fill in the blanks.
[01:04:37.000 --> 01:04:42.000]  Okay. If you're interested.
[01:04:42.000 --> 01:05:00.000]  All right. I guess that's about all I can think of. I really appreciate everything that y'all do. I wish I'd say a quite regular listener and a very regular podcast downloader. I appreciate it.
[01:05:00.000 --> 01:05:10.000]  Okay. What I want to hear is, I am a large and frequent contributor to Randy Spear Fund.
[01:05:10.000 --> 01:05:36.000]  Well, I'll rearrange my work. I tend to be a large and frequent contributor to Randy Spear Fund. And if I don't get around to dedicating any money towards that in an appropriate timely manner, I will think of you the next time I try to open a bottle.
[01:05:36.000 --> 01:05:45.000]  Oh, good man. But thinking of me is not as good as cold beer.
[01:05:45.000 --> 01:05:48.000]  I agree. I agree.
[01:05:48.000 --> 01:05:56.000]  But thinking of his condition five minutes after he drinks that cold beer flat on his back on the floor grinning at the ceiling, that's priceless.
[01:05:56.000 --> 01:06:00.000]  Yeah. I had to quit drinking that stuff all together.
[01:06:00.000 --> 01:06:01.000]  Yeah.
[01:06:01.000 --> 01:06:04.000]  This didn't agree with me.
[01:06:04.000 --> 01:06:06.000]  Yeah. Kind of like gravity after it had one.
[01:06:06.000 --> 01:06:16.000]  Yeah. Everybody told me that tea toddlers live longer and I don't believe it. I think it just seems longer.
[01:06:16.000 --> 01:06:18.000]  Okay. Thank you, Eric.
[01:06:18.000 --> 01:06:21.000]  Thanks, guys.
[01:06:21.000 --> 01:06:26.000]  Now we're going to go to Walt in New York.
[01:06:26.000 --> 01:06:31.000]  Now, Walt, I know you've gotten in some trouble since we talked to you last.
[01:06:31.000 --> 01:06:34.000]  Yes. Can you hear me okay, Randy?
[01:06:34.000 --> 01:06:37.000]  No, I can't hear what you're saying.
[01:06:37.000 --> 01:06:39.000]  Yeah, you sound fine. I was just kidding.
[01:06:39.000 --> 01:06:43.000]  Okay, because I'm on a cell phone. Hi, Eddie. Hi, Randy.
[01:06:43.000 --> 01:07:00.000]  Okay. For the first time, I thought I was going to come eventually. I had a confrontation last Sunday afternoon when I went over and visited my former wife, her son, and my former brother-in-law upstairs apartment in Masset in New York, which is the next county over for me about 14 miles from where I live.
[01:07:00.000 --> 01:07:12.000]  And the only thing that happened about two o'clock in the afternoon to five is the young man, 14, got excited twice. You know, like when you watch a football game, he had a little uppers twice.
[01:07:12.000 --> 01:07:21.000]  There's two times he went, hey, like that or something like that. And that's all that happened. And about two hours after that, there was a knock at the door.
[01:07:21.000 --> 01:07:29.000]  They live upstairs and there's 15 steps going down to the door. And the boy went down there and answered the door. He came back up. He says, the police are here.
[01:07:29.000 --> 01:07:38.000]  So my former wife walks over to the top of the steps from the living room. And the officer, I hear her saying, there's nothing going on here. So I walked over there.
[01:07:38.000 --> 01:07:48.000]  And the cop, the police officer, is sticking his head in the door. He's not inside the door in her apartment downstairs by the stairwell.
[01:07:48.000 --> 01:07:56.000]  And he says, we've got an anonymous call that there's a fight going on here. So I said, officer, there's nothing going on here. And I said, who told you that?
[01:07:56.000 --> 01:08:06.000]  He says, it's anonymous. So then I can't remember everything, Randy and Eddie, but I said, could you please tell me then what your probable cause is for being here?
[01:08:06.000 --> 01:08:18.000]  As soon as I said that, he then stepped in the door with his helper, a lady officer. They both stood at the bottom of the stairs, 15 steps down.
[01:08:18.000 --> 01:08:27.000]  And he says, what is your name? To my former wife, he told him. Then he asked my name and I says, officer, you have no probable cause.
[01:08:27.000 --> 01:08:35.000]  So I don't need to give you my name. And then he said this. He says, if you don't give me your name, I'm going to arrest you.
[01:08:35.000 --> 01:08:39.000]  So then I said, what did I do? I didn't do anything wrong. He says, you're under arrest.
[01:08:39.000 --> 01:08:51.000]  So he ran up the stairs, got in my face at the top, and his female officer assistant came up with him. And he was six inches from my face and he's saying, here's what I said.
[01:08:51.000 --> 01:08:58.000]  I said, officer, I will give you my name under protest. I says, what you're doing is not right. You don't belong in his apartment.
[01:08:58.000 --> 01:09:05.000]  And he says, well, the door was open. And I said, sir, you don't belong in this apartment. And then he says, are you the head of the house?
[01:09:05.000 --> 01:09:11.000]  And I said, no. And I looked over to my former wife. I said, Jeannie, I said, tell him to leave.
[01:09:11.000 --> 01:09:19.000]  At that moment, he went down the stairs with his partner. And as he went out the door, he said, I told him, I said, I want to get back.
[01:09:19.000 --> 01:09:25.000]  He gave me his name too. And I said, I'm going to get back to you because I don't believe that you're following the law.
[01:09:25.000 --> 01:09:36.000]  And so that's what happened. And Eddie and Randy, I know this. When the boy answered the door, the officer said, can I see your parents, please?
[01:09:36.000 --> 01:09:43.000]  If there was probable cause, he would have come in immediately up the stairs. There was nothing going on in the apartment.
[01:09:43.000 --> 01:09:50.000]  And then when he happened, there was no probable cause for two or three minutes when he was talking to my former wife on the bottom of the stairs.
[01:09:50.000 --> 01:09:52.000]  Still no probable cause.
[01:09:52.000 --> 01:09:57.000]  Okay, hold on, hold on. I asked the officer, what is your probable cause? Now he's threatening me.
[01:09:57.000 --> 01:10:01.000]  Hold on. Hold on, Walt. You've been through all that. Hold on, hold on. Okay.
[01:10:01.000 --> 01:10:03.000]  So contact you.
[01:10:03.000 --> 01:10:07.000]  Stop. Walt, stop. Okay.
[01:10:07.000 --> 01:10:13.000]  Contact the policing agency these guys were from.
[01:10:13.000 --> 01:10:29.000]  Send them an information request requesting the dispatch logs or the dispatch tapes for a period for that day.
[01:10:29.000 --> 01:10:33.000]  You want to hear the anonymous call?
[01:10:33.000 --> 01:10:35.000]  Yes.
[01:10:35.000 --> 01:10:39.000]  You can be sure it's not going to be there.
[01:10:39.000 --> 01:10:41.000]  Okay, what about it?
[01:10:41.000 --> 01:10:51.000]  I think it's a lady downstairs that lives under her. They have a problem between the both of them and I think he misused the police.
[01:10:51.000 --> 01:10:56.000]  She made a false report to the police to harass my former wife and the police over there.
[01:10:56.000 --> 01:11:09.000]  Oh, okay. Then in that case, if you think there really was a call, then I would simply charge the officer with aggravated assault.
[01:11:09.000 --> 01:11:15.000]  And you look at, you know, he barged into the apartment without being invited.
[01:11:15.000 --> 01:11:21.000]  That's criminal trespass because he was carrying a loaded pistol at the time.
[01:11:21.000 --> 01:11:30.000]  And he made threats against you while displaying a deadly weapon.
[01:11:30.000 --> 01:11:41.000]  You really need to break this guy from sucking eggs because what's likely to happen is he's likely to act out even worse
[01:11:41.000 --> 01:11:49.000]  and somebody's going to bump up against him and he's likely to wind up killing somebody and ruining two lives.
[01:11:49.000 --> 01:11:53.000]  So he may need to get stung a little bit.
[01:11:53.000 --> 01:11:55.000]  Or a lot.
[01:11:55.000 --> 01:12:09.000]  And one really subtle way to do that is to ask for those dispatch logs first and then file a complaint against the officer with the department.
[01:12:09.000 --> 01:12:18.000]  And I would do that in the form of a verified criminal affidavits.
[01:12:18.000 --> 01:12:27.000]  Instead of giving them a voluntary statement, you give them a verified criminal affidavit.
[01:12:27.000 --> 01:12:39.000]  And when they refuse to act on it, then you go to the prosecuting attorney and file complaints against the person to whom you gave the verified criminal complaint.
[01:12:39.000 --> 01:12:55.000]  And you want the prosecutor to arrest this guy for acting in concert and collusion after the fact with his officer, the accusing of misfeasance in office.
[01:12:55.000 --> 01:13:01.000]  Now, this is not going to result in any kind of prosecution.
[01:13:01.000 --> 01:13:08.000]  But what it'll do is to let them know there are some people out here who know the routine.
[01:13:08.000 --> 01:13:12.000]  Who know how to give you a serious problem.
[01:13:12.000 --> 01:13:19.000]  So if you want to play Mr. Macho, there are people out here who leaned your career for you.
[01:13:19.000 --> 01:13:27.000]  Randy, can I ask you something about, I heard something last Monday night, someone called in and spoke to Eddie.
[01:13:27.000 --> 01:13:31.000]  And Eddie said there's only two reasons an officer can enter a home.
[01:13:31.000 --> 01:13:37.000]  And that was either with a warrant or he has to be witnessing a felony and there was nothing going on in the apartment.
[01:13:37.000 --> 01:13:41.000]  Right. He could not. That's why I was saying the criminal trespass.
[01:13:41.000 --> 01:13:52.000]  If he were chasing a felony suspect, he could enter the property after him.
[01:13:52.000 --> 01:13:59.000]  If he were chasing a misdemeanor suspect, he could not enter the property, at least here in Texas.
[01:13:59.000 --> 01:14:06.000]  Okay. Now, what about also his report that he wrote after that?
[01:14:06.000 --> 01:14:08.000]  Have you seen it?
[01:14:08.000 --> 01:14:12.000]  No, but I'm wondering if he did write a report through that too.
[01:14:12.000 --> 01:14:15.000]  Ask for it. Definitely ask for it.
[01:14:15.000 --> 01:14:19.000]  Okay. And the last thing I want to tell you is one more thing to this.
[01:14:19.000 --> 01:14:30.000]  About an hour after the police left, the boy went downstairs to check around and there was a letter at the door from the lady downstairs,
[01:14:30.000 --> 01:14:39.000]  threatening my former wife, saying if you don't stop what you're doing, we're going to take very serious action against you.
[01:14:39.000 --> 01:14:47.000]  Now, I think that is aggravated harassment because I don't know what it means because if she's falsely using the police against my former wife,
[01:14:47.000 --> 01:14:51.000]  what else is she going to do? So what do you think of that?
[01:14:51.000 --> 01:14:53.000]  Move for restraining order.
[01:14:53.000 --> 01:14:55.000]  What's that?
[01:14:55.000 --> 01:14:59.000]  Go to the justice of the peace and ask for a restraining order.
[01:14:59.000 --> 01:15:02.000]  Okay.
[01:15:02.000 --> 01:15:09.000]  You know, when the JP calls them down to court to explain themselves,
[01:15:09.000 --> 01:15:20.000]  if they're really acting inappropriately, the justice is, you know, they get this all the time, they're going to know how to handle this.
[01:15:20.000 --> 01:15:32.000]  So use them for that purpose. That's primarily why JP's are there is to handle these kinds of things and just petition for a restraining order.
[01:15:32.000 --> 01:15:35.000]  Or I don't know if you have peace bonds.
[01:15:35.000 --> 01:15:44.000]  You know, some states will have a peace bond. You can ask for it. Ask them to post the bond to assure that they're not going to mess with you anymore.
[01:15:44.000 --> 01:15:51.000]  There's a number of things. But talk to you, JP. They can tell you what options you have.
[01:15:51.000 --> 01:15:54.000]  All right, Randy and Eddie. Thank you very much.
[01:15:54.000 --> 01:15:57.000]  Yeah. And they're really good at getting people's attention.
[01:15:57.000 --> 01:16:07.000]  Okay. Thank you, Walt. Okay. Now we're going to go to Rob and Connecticut.
[01:16:07.000 --> 01:16:09.000]  Hello, Rob. How's it going?
[01:16:09.000 --> 01:16:12.000]  Good. Hello, Barbara. Hello, Eddie.
[01:16:12.000 --> 01:16:17.000]  And how's the weather on the East Coast?
[01:16:17.000 --> 01:16:21.000]  It's a little chilly, a little damp, but not bad.
[01:16:21.000 --> 01:16:26.000]  There's a little chilly here today. It got down in the 60s.
[01:16:26.000 --> 01:16:33.000]  Oh, yeah, down south. So cousin Randy, did you get the email I sent you with all the Caltons in my family line?
[01:16:33.000 --> 01:16:36.000]  Yes, I did. And I really appreciate that.
[01:16:36.000 --> 01:16:37.000]  Okay, great.
[01:16:37.000 --> 01:16:44.000]  Okay. Okay. Hang on, Rob. We're going to break. We'll put this back up on the other side.
[01:16:44.000 --> 01:16:49.000]  This is Randy Kelton, devastated Eddie Craig with our radio.
[01:16:49.000 --> 01:16:56.000]  Our call in number is 512-646-1984. We'll be right back.
[01:16:56.000 --> 01:17:08.000]  Capital Coin & Bullion is a family-owned business built on the promise to bring you affordable pricing on all coin and bullion products.
[01:17:08.000 --> 01:17:14.000]  In addition to coins and bullion, we now offer storeable freeze-dried foods produced by Augustin Farms,
[01:17:14.000 --> 01:17:21.000]  ammunition at 10% above wholesale prices, Berkey water products, gift certificates, and our Silver Pool,
[01:17:21.000 --> 01:17:28.000]  a new way to guarantee silver by prepaying at a locked price. We can even help you set up a metals IRA account.
[01:17:28.000 --> 01:17:36.000]  Call us at 512-646-6440 for more details. As always, we buy, sell, and trade precious metals,
[01:17:36.000 --> 01:17:40.000]  give appraisals, and cater to those with all sizes of coin collections.
[01:17:40.000 --> 01:17:45.000]  We're located at 7304 Burnett Road, Suite A, about half a mile north of Canig,
[01:17:45.000 --> 01:17:52.000]  next to the Ikiban Sushi and Genie Car Wash. We're open Monday through Friday, 10 to 6, Saturdays, 10 to 2.
[01:17:52.000 --> 01:18:01.000]  Visit us at capitalcoinandbullion.com or call 512-646-6440 and say you heard about us on Rule of Law Radio or Texas Liberty Radio.
[01:18:01.000 --> 01:18:07.000]  What's been the problem with phone companies? High prices and contracts that lock you in for two years minimum,
[01:18:07.000 --> 01:18:15.000]  not FreedomTelephones.com. Freedom Telephones are designed around the concept and reality of patriotism, loyalty, and privacy.
[01:18:15.000 --> 01:18:21.000]  With FreedomTelephones.com, there are no contracts, no credit checks, and no social security numbers required.
[01:18:21.000 --> 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]  Want 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 --> 01:19:03.000]  That's 800-600-5553. FreedomTelephones.com. Portable, private, perfect.
[01:19:03.000 --> 01:19:26.000]  Oh, come on.
[01:19:26.000 --> 01:19:37.000]  If I can't get everything I want, yeah, I'm gonna raise you.
[01:19:37.000 --> 01:19:46.000]  If I can't get everything I need, yeah, I'm gonna raise you.
[01:19:46.000 --> 01:19:49.000]  Hi folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:19:49.000 --> 01:19:57.000]  All in number is 512-646-1984. We have about 45 minutes left in the show. Randy, where were we?
[01:19:57.000 --> 01:20:06.000]  We were talking to Robin Connecticut about an email he sent me about all the calcans in his family lives,
[01:20:06.000 --> 01:20:11.000]  and I was looking for that email, and it's buried so far down I couldn't find it.
[01:20:11.000 --> 01:20:20.000]  Well, it's not important now, but you did see that picture of my great-grandmother, Samantha Jane Kelton,
[01:20:20.000 --> 01:20:25.000]  and I said, well, you know, she looks a lot like you.
[01:20:25.000 --> 01:20:35.000]  But anyway, what I'm calling about is a question about judgments, particularly when it comes to a monetary amount.
[01:20:35.000 --> 01:20:45.000]  And if the judgment has a number which is preceded by an S with a slash running down the middle of it,
[01:20:45.000 --> 01:20:53.000]  which is commonly known as a dollar sign here, but nowhere else does it say the word dollar or US dollars
[01:20:53.000 --> 01:20:59.000]  or what exactly, what kind of money they're talking about, but just that symbol, the dollar sign,
[01:20:59.000 --> 01:21:05.000]  are we to assume that they mean the United States dollars?
[01:21:05.000 --> 01:21:07.000]  Yes.
[01:21:07.000 --> 01:21:12.000]  Even though there are other currencies in the world that use the exact same symbol.
[01:21:12.000 --> 01:21:25.000]  But you're not in another part of the world, you're in the United States, and it is the dollar that is the only legal tender in the United States.
[01:21:25.000 --> 01:21:32.000]  So all debts are denominated in US dollars in the United States.
[01:21:32.000 --> 01:21:34.000]  Okay, that was my first question.
[01:21:34.000 --> 01:21:38.000]  My second question is about the misspelling of names.
[01:21:38.000 --> 01:21:43.000]  How important or not important is the misspelling of names?
[01:21:43.000 --> 01:21:45.000]  It's not important.
[01:21:45.000 --> 01:21:47.000]  It's so long.
[01:21:47.000 --> 01:21:51.000]  So such a gross misspelling has to completely change the pronunciation.
[01:21:51.000 --> 01:21:53.000]  Yeah, that's exactly where it was going.
[01:21:53.000 --> 01:22:07.000]  If you can't, if a reasonable person can look at the spelling and still know who they're referring to, it's called a minor.
[01:22:07.000 --> 01:22:10.000]  It's not a relevant error.
[01:22:10.000 --> 01:22:12.000]  Okay.
[01:22:12.000 --> 01:22:13.000]  Gotcha.
[01:22:13.000 --> 01:22:15.000]  There's probably a better word for that.
[01:22:15.000 --> 01:22:18.000]  I just can't think of what it is right now.
[01:22:18.000 --> 01:22:23.000]  Then relevant.
[01:22:23.000 --> 01:22:25.000]  I just had those two quick questions.
[01:22:25.000 --> 01:22:27.000]  Okay, I know you got other calls, so thanks a lot, guys.
[01:22:27.000 --> 01:22:29.000]  I'll talk to you later.
[01:22:29.000 --> 01:22:31.000]  Okay, thank you, Rob.
[01:22:31.000 --> 01:22:34.000]  And would you resend me that email?
[01:22:34.000 --> 01:22:35.000]  It's buried too deep.
[01:22:35.000 --> 01:22:36.000]  I can't find it.
[01:22:36.000 --> 01:22:40.000]  I'd like to look at it again.
[01:22:40.000 --> 01:22:42.000]  Okay, I guess he's gone.
[01:22:42.000 --> 01:22:46.000]  Okay, now we're going to go to Sonya in Connecticut.
[01:22:46.000 --> 01:22:49.000]  Now Sonya's our last caller, so the phone lines are open.
[01:22:49.000 --> 01:22:57.000]  If you have a question or comment, give us a call at 512-646-1984.
[01:22:57.000 --> 01:23:00.000]  We're going to Sonya in Connecticut.
[01:23:00.000 --> 01:23:02.000]  Sonya, what do you have for us tonight?
[01:23:02.000 --> 01:23:03.000]  Hi, Randy.
[01:23:03.000 --> 01:23:05.000]  How are you?
[01:23:05.000 --> 01:23:06.000]  I am wonderful.
[01:23:06.000 --> 01:23:09.000]  I don't care what everybody says.
[01:23:09.000 --> 01:23:12.000]  I was a contributor to your beer friend a couple of years ago.
[01:23:12.000 --> 01:23:14.000]  I don't know if you remember me.
[01:23:14.000 --> 01:23:18.000]  I'd probably drink all that up already.
[01:23:18.000 --> 01:23:20.000]  But thank you.
[01:23:20.000 --> 01:23:22.000]  Yeah, you guys are the best.
[01:23:22.000 --> 01:23:23.000]  Hey, I have a question.
[01:23:23.000 --> 01:23:30.000]  I have a case similar to Deborah's in that it involves TCPA.
[01:23:30.000 --> 01:23:37.000]  It involves phone calls made to my home phone
[01:23:37.000 --> 01:23:45.000]  that the alleged creditor was making, looking for my son.
[01:23:45.000 --> 01:23:50.000]  But it was made from an entity that neither my son nor I had ever heard of.
[01:23:50.000 --> 01:23:57.000]  But the fact was, since last February, they made, oh, at least 25 phone calls,
[01:23:57.000 --> 01:23:59.000]  automated phone calls to my home phone.
[01:23:59.000 --> 01:24:04.000]  And then last July or June into July,
[01:24:04.000 --> 01:24:10.000]  they must have given my home phone number to a debt collector in Chicago
[01:24:10.000 --> 01:24:14.000]  that started calling and leaving messages on my phone,
[01:24:14.000 --> 01:24:18.000]  and they were threatening messages and really crazy threatening messages.
[01:24:18.000 --> 01:24:21.000]  Oh, please tell us you saved those messages.
[01:24:21.000 --> 01:24:22.000]  Oh, yeah.
[01:24:22.000 --> 01:24:23.000]  Oh, yeah, I did.
[01:24:23.000 --> 01:24:27.000]  And I kept them on cassette tapes and all of that.
[01:24:27.000 --> 01:24:32.000]  And so last August, they started escalating threatening all sorts of crazy stuff,
[01:24:32.000 --> 01:24:35.000]  using the term death by deception,
[01:24:35.000 --> 01:24:38.000]  in between all of the automated phone calls from the creditor.
[01:24:38.000 --> 01:24:42.000]  In any event, so I filed as a co-planetist.
[01:24:42.000 --> 01:24:47.000]  My son, I filed a complaint in the federal court.
[01:24:47.000 --> 01:24:53.000]  My son is plaintiff and myself is co-planetist.
[01:24:53.000 --> 01:24:55.000]  Myself under TCPA.
[01:24:55.000 --> 01:24:59.000]  And my son under FPRA and MDCPA.
[01:24:59.000 --> 01:25:03.000]  And so bottom line, a couple months later,
[01:25:03.000 --> 01:25:11.000]  the attorney that filed an appearance said that her client wished to look at a settlement.
[01:25:11.000 --> 01:25:16.000]  So, and I got that by email, and I called her and said,
[01:25:16.000 --> 01:25:18.000]  yeah, that would be great.
[01:25:18.000 --> 01:25:21.000]  Well, that happened to be the date that the co-defendants,
[01:25:21.000 --> 01:25:24.000]  the one from Chicago, I told them Chicago Dougs,
[01:25:24.000 --> 01:25:27.000]  were due to provide an answer.
[01:25:27.000 --> 01:25:33.000]  So, since my son had been in and out of the hospital with gastrointestinal problems,
[01:25:33.000 --> 01:25:42.000]  as a result of all of this, I was hoping to enact a compromise with all the parties.
[01:25:42.000 --> 01:25:51.000]  So, while we were in the process of what I thought was a visual compromise over the next 30 days,
[01:25:51.000 --> 01:25:54.000]  and while I was on my way to court one month later, December 9th,
[01:25:54.000 --> 01:26:00.000]  I received a phone call from another attorney at the same firm,
[01:26:00.000 --> 01:26:01.000]  but it was out of state.
[01:26:01.000 --> 01:26:08.000]  It was in Boston on my cell phone on the way to court to file the stipulation of dismissal
[01:26:08.000 --> 01:26:12.000]  with the Chicago firm there.
[01:26:12.000 --> 01:26:19.000]  And this attorney started using profanity at me
[01:26:19.000 --> 01:26:26.000]  and ordering me to have my sons to render the vehicle immediately,
[01:26:26.000 --> 01:26:31.000]  or else he was going to have me thrown off the case.
[01:26:31.000 --> 01:26:40.000]  And just kept me on the phone for 17 minutes with threats, and I was shaking.
[01:26:40.000 --> 01:26:47.000]  I was visibly shaken by everyone that saw me afterwards.
[01:26:47.000 --> 01:26:48.000]  I didn't have that report.
[01:26:48.000 --> 01:26:52.000]  That was the only actual person that I talked to because I didn't know who was calling me.
[01:26:52.000 --> 01:26:55.000]  I didn't recognize the phone number anyway.
[01:26:55.000 --> 01:27:05.000]  So, in any event, after that, I started receiving emails from the other attorney
[01:27:05.000 --> 01:27:10.000]  that he had listening in on speakerphone who then filed an appearance in the case.
[01:27:10.000 --> 01:27:13.000]  And the emails were at...
[01:27:13.000 --> 01:27:17.000]  Well, you're saying he had another attorney listening to him threaten you?
[01:27:17.000 --> 01:27:18.000]  Oh, good.
[01:27:18.000 --> 01:27:20.000]  And you have a witness assistant there.
[01:27:20.000 --> 01:27:22.000]  Yeah, it gets better.
[01:27:22.000 --> 01:27:27.000]  So, oh, and yeah, the attorney that was...
[01:27:27.000 --> 01:27:31.000]  I was meeting to do the stipulation at the court that day,
[01:27:31.000 --> 01:27:35.000]  so I was visibly shaken to an all the clerks at the court.
[01:27:35.000 --> 01:27:38.000]  I was just a wreck after being...
[01:27:38.000 --> 01:27:44.000]  I mean, using full excrement and the four-letter word beginning with C,
[01:27:44.000 --> 01:27:48.000]  and just every other word out of his mouth was that, and he was ranting and raving at me.
[01:27:48.000 --> 01:27:51.000]  And he said to me, if I cared about my son's health,
[01:27:51.000 --> 01:27:54.000]  that I would have my son surrender the vehicle immediately.
[01:27:54.000 --> 01:27:55.000]  Oh, good.
[01:27:55.000 --> 01:27:57.000]  Now we have a direct personal threat.
[01:27:57.000 --> 01:27:58.000]  Right.
[01:27:58.000 --> 01:28:03.000]  And so, they never filed any claims against my son in state court come to find out
[01:28:03.000 --> 01:28:06.000]  because I just found out recently.
[01:28:06.000 --> 01:28:11.000]  I was wondering why they never filed any claims against anyone in the state for anything.
[01:28:11.000 --> 01:28:18.000]  And it's because I'm going to find out the trust that my son's contract
[01:28:18.000 --> 01:28:21.000]  was apparently put in was closed in January of 2008.
[01:28:21.000 --> 01:28:23.000]  And I've got all the SBC documents for that.
[01:28:23.000 --> 01:28:25.000]  But that and I was standing.
[01:28:25.000 --> 01:28:30.000]  Yeah, so they've been pretty, I guess, pretty successful with all their threats
[01:28:30.000 --> 01:28:33.000]  of people calling and acting like police officers.
[01:28:33.000 --> 01:28:39.000]  And for the city of Chicago, Department of Investigations and things like that.
[01:28:39.000 --> 01:28:43.000]  So in any event, yeah, so this attorney called me and started threatening
[01:28:43.000 --> 01:28:47.000]  and had this other attorney, his protege, listen in.
[01:28:47.000 --> 01:28:49.000]  The one attorney was a partner in the firm.
[01:28:49.000 --> 01:28:54.000]  And the protege was a young kid that was licensed here in the state of Connecticut.
[01:28:54.000 --> 01:28:58.000]  The one that called me come to find out, the one that said he had taken over
[01:28:58.000 --> 01:29:01.000]  and the other attorney was off the case and he had taken over,
[01:29:01.000 --> 01:29:05.000]  was not licensed in the state of Connecticut here in Fedcor.
[01:29:05.000 --> 01:29:10.000]  So, yeah, so the young one that was licensed here took a filed appearance
[01:29:10.000 --> 01:29:15.000]  on the following Monday and started sending emails to both my son and myself
[01:29:15.000 --> 01:29:22.000]  demanding return to vehicle or else, you know, or else counterclaims
[01:29:22.000 --> 01:29:25.000]  and we'll come back you through the mud and depositions and all of that,
[01:29:25.000 --> 01:29:27.000]  you know, that sort of thing.
[01:29:27.000 --> 01:29:28.000]  Okay, question, question.
[01:29:28.000 --> 01:29:30.000]  Yeah, yeah, go ahead.
[01:29:30.000 --> 01:29:34.000]  Have you filed a death validation?
[01:29:34.000 --> 01:29:39.000]  Yeah, yeah, yeah, death validation letter, uh, 2010.
[01:29:39.000 --> 01:29:41.000]  Yeah, November 2010.
[01:29:41.000 --> 01:29:43.000]  This just keeps getting better.
[01:29:43.000 --> 01:29:45.000]  Okay, hold on, hold on.
[01:29:45.000 --> 01:29:46.000]  We're going to break.
[01:29:46.000 --> 01:29:49.000]  This is Randy Kelton, Deb. Steve, J.D. Craig,
[01:29:49.000 --> 01:29:53.000]  we'll go to the radio and we'll be right back on the other side.
[01:29:53.000 --> 01:30:04.000]  A Noble Lie, Oklahoma City, 1995 will change forever
[01:30:04.000 --> 01:30:07.000]  the way you look at the true nature of terrorism.
[01:30:07.000 --> 01:30:09.000]  Based on the damage pattern to the building,
[01:30:09.000 --> 01:30:11.000]  but the government sends impossible.
[01:30:11.000 --> 01:30:14.000]  The grand jury did not want to hear anything I had to say.
[01:30:14.000 --> 01:30:18.000]  The decision was made not to pursue any more of those individuals.
[01:30:18.000 --> 01:30:23.000]  Some of these columns were ripped up, shredded, tossed around.
[01:30:23.000 --> 01:30:25.000]  The people that did the things they did
[01:30:25.000 --> 01:30:27.000]  knew doggone well what they were doing.
[01:30:27.000 --> 01:30:31.000]  Expose the cover up now at anoblelie.com.
[01:30:35.000 --> 01:30:37.000]  Want to hear the world's funniest joke?
[01:30:37.000 --> 01:30:39.000]  Really, it's scientifically proven.
[01:30:39.000 --> 01:30:42.000]  Psychologist Richard Wiseman tested 40,000 jokes
[01:30:42.000 --> 01:30:45.000]  and found the one that tickled a universal, funny bone.
[01:30:45.000 --> 01:30:48.000]  Look at your Catherine Albrecht and I'll be back the winner in just a moment.
[01:31:16.000 --> 01:31:20.000]  And now, the world's funniest joke.
[01:31:20.000 --> 01:31:23.000]  Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses.
[01:31:23.000 --> 01:31:26.000]  He doesn't seem to be breathing and his eyes are glazed.
[01:31:26.000 --> 01:31:29.000]  The other guy whips out his cell phone and calls 911.
[01:31:29.000 --> 01:31:32.000]  My friend is dead, he guests. What should I do?
[01:31:32.000 --> 01:31:34.000]  The operator says, calm down, I can help.
[01:31:34.000 --> 01:31:36.000]  First, make sure he's actually dead.
[01:31:36.000 --> 01:31:39.000]  There's a silence, then a shot rings out.
[01:31:39.000 --> 01:31:41.000]  Back on the phone, the guy says, OK, now what?
[01:31:41.000 --> 01:31:43.000]  Get it?
[01:31:43.000 --> 01:31:47.000]  Wiseman says this joke is a winner because it appeals to people in many different countries,
[01:31:47.000 --> 01:31:51.000]  appeals to both sexes, and gets laughs from both young and old alike.
[01:31:51.000 --> 01:32:15.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for startpage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:32:22.000 --> 01:32:26.000]  Okay, we're back.
[01:32:26.000 --> 01:32:32.000]  We're talking to Sonia in Connecticut.
[01:32:32.000 --> 01:32:39.000]  Sonia, are you familiar with the term bar grievance?
[01:32:39.000 --> 01:32:42.000]  Yeah, but I've never done one.
[01:32:42.000 --> 01:32:46.000]  Oh, for shame, for shame.
[01:32:46.000 --> 01:32:51.000]  Are you familiar with the Mike Mirris method?
[01:32:51.000 --> 01:32:53.000]  I'm sorry, Wes?
[01:32:53.000 --> 01:32:55.000]  Are you familiar with Mike Mirris?
[01:32:55.000 --> 01:33:10.000]  Oh, yeah. As a matter of fact, that's what I began on behalf of my son and myself last August filed the complaint against the creditor that appeared in his credit report that we had never heard of before.
[01:33:10.000 --> 01:33:18.000]  And so filed around, sent them a debt validation letter and a credit report dispute letter.
[01:33:18.000 --> 01:33:29.000]  And the answer that we got to that was phone calls to my son's cell phone from a person acting like a police officer.
[01:33:29.000 --> 01:33:42.000]  And all being recorded, well, we have all the son recording, and then repo people come to the house without any paperwork, just trying to steal the car.
[01:33:42.000 --> 01:33:59.000]  So, but so yeah, so anyway, the creditor gave the attorney that filed the appearance on this case last November 9th.
[01:33:59.000 --> 01:34:08.000]  This was after I filed opposition to their motion to dismiss, 90 minutes later they came back with the offer to settle.
[01:34:08.000 --> 01:34:16.000]  So that's why we went the next 30 days attempting to enact a compromise with all the parties.
[01:34:16.000 --> 01:34:31.000]  And like I said, on my way to court to settle with the co-defendant that had been calling my phone as well as had the creditor on the automated calls in violation of Section 227, the TCPA.
[01:34:31.000 --> 01:34:35.000]  Okay, wait, wait, wait, we need to move a little more quickly. We're going to run out of time.
[01:34:35.000 --> 01:34:53.000]  So yeah, so anyway, my question is this. Okay, so I got that phone call on my way to court from this attorney and I got emails afterwards from his protege that filed an appearance and I got quite a few emails and so did my son.
[01:34:53.000 --> 01:34:56.000]  And then come to find out that the second...
[01:34:56.000 --> 01:34:59.000]  Wait a minute, wait a minute, you're going to a question.
[01:34:59.000 --> 01:35:05.000]  Right, right. Well, what I found out was the second district didn't hear a TCPA claim.
[01:35:05.000 --> 01:35:17.000]  So we had to voluntarily dismiss this because the attorney that I was going to have represent my son became afraid of these attorneys because there were sanctions against her.
[01:35:17.000 --> 01:35:29.000]  And come to find out, like I said, on January 11th when we were going to do the amended complaint, the second district didn't hear a TCPA claim.
[01:35:29.000 --> 01:35:45.000]  But on January 18th, the U.S. Supreme Court made a decision on MEMS versus federal financial where any federal court, the decisions that any federal court could hear the TCPA claim.
[01:35:45.000 --> 01:35:47.000]  Yeah, any state or federal court.
[01:35:47.000 --> 01:35:54.000]  Right, right. But I wanted to file hearing federal court because that's what I'm familiar with.
[01:35:54.000 --> 01:36:11.000]  And so I did. So this past February 8th, I filed a TCPA claims against their client for the original automated phone calls and also a TCPA claims against his attorney for his...
[01:36:11.000 --> 01:36:17.000]  Well, the firm, I should say, for both of these attorneys, the phone calls and the emails because the emails did not have the...
[01:36:17.000 --> 01:36:21.000]  Well, don't forget the personal death threat against your son.
[01:36:21.000 --> 01:36:26.000]  Well, I don't know if it was a death. I mean, from the echo then, is there that... Well, we had told them.
[01:36:26.000 --> 01:36:35.000]  The one that said if I were... I would have your son do such and such, he threatened bodily harm is what the statement leads to.
[01:36:35.000 --> 01:36:39.000]  Right. Well, he threatened to me if I care about the health of my son.
[01:36:39.000 --> 01:36:44.000]  Exactly. That's a physical threat of harm. That is criminal.
[01:36:44.000 --> 01:36:50.000]  Uh-huh. Well, I thought the whole phone call was criminal anyways, Section 223.
[01:36:50.000 --> 01:37:00.000]  It is, but now you've got a whole new cause of action to put in there, death threats. That is what they call it, a terroristic threat.
[01:37:00.000 --> 01:37:11.000]  Yeah. This is tampering with the witness obstruction of justice as well, and you have a case in the federal court. It should be filed in the Fed.
[01:37:11.000 --> 01:37:12.000]  Right.
[01:37:12.000 --> 01:37:16.000]  And you need to file a bar grievance against this attorney.
[01:37:16.000 --> 01:37:27.000]  So, this is what happened. So, like I said, I filed the complaint, the answer for the attorney firm, due Monday, the answer for the creditor due Tuesday.
[01:37:27.000 --> 01:37:39.000]  Today, when I got home from work about two hours ago, I get another email from the kid, the one that had filed an appearance that I was getting the emails from.
[01:37:39.000 --> 01:37:52.000]  He said the other attorney had listened in on my speakerphone. I got an email from him saying he had filed an appearance on behalf of his firm and on behalf of the client.
[01:37:52.000 --> 01:38:02.000]  And, oh, by the way, would I agree to a 14-day extension of time for them to review the claims and file an answer? Can you believe this?
[01:38:02.000 --> 01:38:18.000]  Can you believe this? And I remember seeing a form that he had from Sandra Day Osana. I'm trying to find it that Sandra Day Osana wrote for just such an instance where a witness,
[01:38:18.000 --> 01:38:32.000]  an essential witness, can't represent a defendant. In this case, it's the actual defendant. I didn't name these two attorneys personally, because I was...
[01:38:32.000 --> 01:38:34.000]  Which were named the firm.
[01:38:34.000 --> 01:38:45.000]  I named the firm, right. But they are listed in the complaint as those, as alleging as those that committed the violations.
[01:38:45.000 --> 01:38:50.000]  So you filed a motion to disqualify the counsel.
[01:38:50.000 --> 01:38:51.000]  Okay.
[01:38:51.000 --> 01:38:58.000]  And, okay, what are the nature of the answers that they were supposed to have in?
[01:38:58.000 --> 01:39:05.000]  Well, the nature of the answer, the claims I'm making against the attorney firm are FDCPA related.
[01:39:05.000 --> 01:39:14.000]  No, no, no. Were these answers to motions or answers to a regional complaint?
[01:39:14.000 --> 01:39:20.000]  These are answers to not the original complaint, because I had my son on it, and I didn't...
[01:39:20.000 --> 01:39:24.000]  Okay, just go to it. We're running out of time. Too many details.
[01:39:24.000 --> 01:39:25.000]  Yeah.
[01:39:25.000 --> 01:39:39.000]  Is it a original complaint that they would have compelled to answer within 20 days, or was it a motion that they didn't answer that you can move for some judgment on the motion, or default judgment on the motion itself?
[01:39:39.000 --> 01:39:51.000]  Yeah, they're required to answer by Monday. They were served on the day before Valentine's Day, so they're required to answer by Monday. Yeah.
[01:39:51.000 --> 01:40:02.000]  Good. Maybe they won't get an answer in. If they get an answer in that doesn't address the issues, file a bar agreement, ask for sanctions, ask to strike the pleadings, and not responsive.
[01:40:02.000 --> 01:40:15.000]  If they file an answer that addresses issues that aren't relevant to the case, file a motion for sanctions and a bar agreement.
[01:40:15.000 --> 01:40:26.000]  What I did receive today in that email is an attachment that had a proposed request for extension of time for the federal rules.
[01:40:26.000 --> 01:40:37.000]  You know, they want 14 days to review the claims, which is odd because they're the ones that did the claim.
[01:40:37.000 --> 01:40:50.000]  Well, you should object because you have that validation letter in, and the dispute letter, so they had a duty to review the claims at that time.
[01:40:50.000 --> 01:41:00.000]  So to ask for an extension at this time to review the claims is ingenious and should get the bar grievance.
[01:41:00.000 --> 01:41:05.000]  Well, yeah, it's for nothing more than the purpose of harassment and delay at this point.
[01:41:05.000 --> 01:41:20.000]  Yeah, well, the debt validation letter, see, it's not my debt, so the debt validation letter was for my son, and he's not on this complaint. This is mine. This is my complaint.
[01:41:20.000 --> 01:41:23.000]  Oh, okay.
[01:41:23.000 --> 01:41:29.000]  Okay, do you have a, okay, this is a separate that's got confused.
[01:41:29.000 --> 01:41:35.000]  Right, no, the original one had my son on it, but they were threatening to bring them into arbitration, which, you know...
[01:41:35.000 --> 01:41:41.000]  Okay, is this a totally different debt that they're dealing with?
[01:41:41.000 --> 01:41:50.000]  No, this is the, you know, this is not in relation to any debt, though, because I'm not a debtor.
[01:41:50.000 --> 01:41:54.000]  Okay, this is not making sense. I have no idea what you're talking about now.
[01:41:54.000 --> 01:42:04.000]  He spoke to me and... He's gone after him because of phone calls that were directed at her, even though she wasn't involved in the debt. This is pretty much like what Deborah and Jerry were going through.
[01:42:04.000 --> 01:42:08.000]  Okay, okay, that's okay. That's what I didn't understand what was going on. Okay.
[01:42:08.000 --> 01:42:26.000]  The original one was, but I, you know, he did contact me in relation to debt collection, even though, and I'm a consumer, but even though I'm not the one that they have alleged the debt...
[01:42:26.000 --> 01:42:35.000]  Okay, okay, wait, we're running into the second segment. We're getting up to our last segment and we still have two more callers. We need to get this wrapped up or get to a...
[01:42:35.000 --> 01:42:39.000]  So you're saying I should file a bar grievance?
[01:42:39.000 --> 01:42:47.000]  You should file a bar grievance at every opportunity. One bar grievance will double their malpractice insurance.
[01:42:47.000 --> 01:42:48.000]  All right.
[01:42:48.000 --> 01:43:01.000]  And they don't dare mention it to you. They say a word about it, you file a grievance against them for that. This is a way to hurt them big time.
[01:43:01.000 --> 01:43:09.000]  And only pro-says can get away with this. Go on to bargrievance.net.
[01:43:09.000 --> 01:43:19.000]  Got enough. Now, what would be the... Would there be a heading of why the... I mean, there's so many reasons.
[01:43:19.000 --> 01:43:28.000]  Okay, okay, stop, stop. In bargrievance.net, I have the American Bar Association model standards in questionnaire format.
[01:43:28.000 --> 01:43:37.000]  You just walk down the questions. You can go down them quickly and you will be surprised what you can bring complaints about.
[01:43:37.000 --> 01:43:43.000]  So go there and check through those. They'll tell you all the things you can file complaints.
[01:43:43.000 --> 01:43:45.000]  Emotion to disqualify.
[01:43:45.000 --> 01:43:47.000]  Wait, I couldn't hear that.
[01:43:47.000 --> 01:43:50.000]  Emotion to disqualify as well on Monday.
[01:43:50.000 --> 01:43:59.000]  Yes. Okay, hold on. This is Randy Kelton, David Stevens, Eddie Craig. The rule of law radio. We'll be right back for our last segment.
[01:44:21.000 --> 01:44:27.000]  HempUSA.org has moved and expanded its operations for faster worldwide shipping.
[01:44:27.000 --> 01:44:32.000]  Our product line has grown from five to nearly 100 items in less than five years.
[01:44:32.000 --> 01:44:37.000]  Our food has grown naturally, always chemical free, not found in stores.
[01:44:37.000 --> 01:44:41.000]  Great for daily intake and perfect for your emergency storage shelter.
[01:44:41.000 --> 01:44:51.000]  Call 908-6912608 or visit HempUSA.org and see what our powders, seeds and oil can do for you.
[01:44:51.000 --> 01:44:55.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:44:55.000 --> 01:44:58.000]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary.
[01:44:58.000 --> 01:45:06.000]  The affordable, easy to understand four CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step.
[01:45:06.000 --> 01:45:13.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:13.000 --> 01:45:18.000]  Thousands have won with our step by step course, and now you can too.
[01:45:18.000 --> 01:45:25.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience.
[01:45:25.000 --> 01:45:34.000]  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.
[01:45:34.000 --> 01:45:43.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, prosa tactics and much more.
[01:45:43.000 --> 01:45:47.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner.
[01:45:47.000 --> 01:46:05.000]  Our call toll free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:18.000 --> 01:46:27.000]  Okay, this is Randy Kalpnick speaking with Greg with Law Radio.
[01:46:27.000 --> 01:46:30.000]  We're talking to Sonia in Connecticut.
[01:46:30.000 --> 01:46:34.000]  Okay, Sonia, I would, you know, you're a prosaic.
[01:46:34.000 --> 01:46:42.000]  You can get away with filing bar grievances and motions for sanctions that lawyers would never do.
[01:46:42.000 --> 01:46:46.000]  Because the judge can pull their bar card. You don't have one.
[01:46:46.000 --> 01:46:57.000]  And if you have a lawyer, then you become the difficult client and the court winds up having to protect your lawyer from you.
[01:46:57.000 --> 01:47:02.000]  There's really no downside to filing grievances against this attorney.
[01:47:02.000 --> 01:47:17.000]  So go to bargreavance.net. It's kind of a beta side. It's not completed yet, but I have the American Bar Association model standards in questionnaire format.
[01:47:17.000 --> 01:47:29.000]  All of the states have adopted the Bar Association standards and they've made various adjustments, but the adjustments are minor.
[01:47:29.000 --> 01:47:33.000]  What you find in there will apply to all the states.
[01:47:33.000 --> 01:47:38.000]  So have a look in there. I think you'll be surprised at what you can grieve an attorney for.
[01:47:38.000 --> 01:47:41.000]  And it really, really hurts them.
[01:47:41.000 --> 01:47:46.000]  One bar grievance will double their malpractice insurance.
[01:47:46.000 --> 01:47:51.000]  Whether the bar grievance is valid or not makes no difference.
[01:47:51.000 --> 01:47:54.000]  Okay, do you have anything else?
[01:47:54.000 --> 01:48:01.000]  Should I file a bar grievance against both of them? The one that made the phone call and also the one that's trying to file the appearance that's sending me the emails?
[01:48:01.000 --> 01:48:06.000]  Yeah, absolutely. My position is file them quick and file them often.
[01:48:06.000 --> 01:48:12.000]  Okay. And now, even though they're out of state, I can do that here and...
[01:48:12.000 --> 01:48:17.000]  You file the grievance in the state in which they're licensed.
[01:48:17.000 --> 01:48:19.000]  So I'd have to go up there and file it up there then.
[01:48:19.000 --> 01:48:24.000]  No, no, no. Just go online. Go into the state. Every state has a Bar Association website.
[01:48:24.000 --> 01:48:27.000]  You just go on the website and pull down the form.
[01:48:27.000 --> 01:48:30.000]  All right. That sounds good.
[01:48:30.000 --> 01:48:39.000]  And I know Eddie was talking about the threat of criminal threats, threat of death threats.
[01:48:39.000 --> 01:48:47.000]  Okay, yes. We're running out of time, but call back in next Thursday and we'll talk about how to go after them criminally.
[01:48:47.000 --> 01:48:50.000]  This is a fun part.
[01:48:50.000 --> 01:48:54.000]  And then do I complain or would that be a separate complaint?
[01:48:54.000 --> 01:48:56.000]  Oh, criminal's totally separate.
[01:48:56.000 --> 01:48:57.000]  All right. Okay.
[01:48:57.000 --> 01:49:01.000]  It's a whole different animal. It has nothing to do with civil.
[01:49:01.000 --> 01:49:02.000]  All right.
[01:49:02.000 --> 01:49:07.000]  Actually, it has a lot to do with civil, but not only indirectly.
[01:49:07.000 --> 01:49:09.000]  All right. So that's something else entirely.
[01:49:09.000 --> 01:49:11.000]  All right. Thank you guys so much. Appreciate it.
[01:49:11.000 --> 01:49:18.000]  Thank you for coming up when I saw that. And also Rob says that he doesn't recent email.
[01:49:18.000 --> 01:49:20.000]  Okay. Wonderful. Thank you.
[01:49:20.000 --> 01:49:23.000]  Thank you. Thank you for everything. You guys appreciate it.
[01:49:23.000 --> 01:49:29.000]  Okay. Good night. Now we're going to go to Storm in Oregon.
[01:49:29.000 --> 01:49:32.000]  Do you have storms in Oregon?
[01:49:32.000 --> 01:49:35.000]  I thought it never rained in Oregon.
[01:49:35.000 --> 01:49:42.000]  We have them out here when the, when the harp antennas allow it.
[01:49:42.000 --> 01:49:47.000]  Oh, okay. Okay. Do you have a question or comment for us?
[01:49:47.000 --> 01:49:49.000]  Oh, just a comment.
[01:49:49.000 --> 01:49:51.000]  Wanted to call and give process.
[01:49:51.000 --> 01:49:58.000]  I sent you an email today, Randy, on a bar grievance that I was working on for a friend.
[01:49:58.000 --> 01:50:08.000]  Good news on judicial conduct complaint got the presiding judge out here in Deschutes County
[01:50:08.000 --> 01:50:13.000]  sanctioned, although, you know, it's secret so we don't know what happened.
[01:50:13.000 --> 01:50:17.000]  But he was sanctioned.
[01:50:17.000 --> 01:50:27.000]  My friend that I helped write the complaint for, you know, one, the Conduct Commission called him
[01:50:27.000 --> 01:50:35.000]  and told him that they had decided to, you know, sanction the judge.
[01:50:35.000 --> 01:50:38.000]  And so that was just, that was just huge news.
[01:50:38.000 --> 01:50:40.000]  I thought that was pretty cool.
[01:50:40.000 --> 01:50:42.000]  That is wonderful.
[01:50:42.000 --> 01:50:46.000]  Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I was pretty happy with that.
[01:50:46.000 --> 01:50:50.000]  So you need to do more of those.
[01:50:50.000 --> 01:51:01.000]  I guess I want to hear a lot of I have out forbid right now a spec for a template.
[01:51:01.000 --> 01:51:16.000]  I've been working on this a long time and they're preparing me a template that I can take the code for the standards for any licensed
[01:51:16.000 --> 01:51:31.000]  profession, drop it into the template and build and then take the complaint forms that most every state has and drop that in the system
[01:51:31.000 --> 01:51:40.000]  and we'll build a site for filing complaints against all of these licensed professionals.
[01:51:40.000 --> 01:51:45.000]  And we're starting with bar grievance and judicial conduct.
[01:51:45.000 --> 01:51:59.000]  When I get those two sites up and working correctly, then you can go on and I'll have a upfront form.
[01:51:59.000 --> 01:52:09.000]  That's a compilation of all the information asked for by all of the different states because each state asks for something a little different.
[01:52:09.000 --> 01:52:18.000]  We just had college for Connecticut and as I recall Connecticut was one of the ones that asked for stuff that nobody else asked for.
[01:52:18.000 --> 01:52:22.000]  New Jersey had a odd section in the middle.
[01:52:22.000 --> 01:52:30.000]  So we'll produce a site that asks a single document that asks for all of this information.
[01:52:30.000 --> 01:52:43.000]  And then when you hit the, once we go through the model standards, I'll use the model standards initially, but once I get it up as I get time,
[01:52:43.000 --> 01:52:53.000]  when you put in your state, then it'll pull the standards for your state so that when you write the complaint,
[01:52:53.000 --> 01:53:04.000]  it will be written in the verbiage of the standard that was violated, like in the American Bar Association model standards.
[01:53:04.000 --> 01:53:15.000]  The very first one says that a lawyer shall exhibit a level of knowledge and competence, blah, blah, blah, forget what all that says.
[01:53:15.000 --> 01:53:33.000]  So we create a sentence fragment that says, the lawyer failed to demonstrate a level of knowledge and competence, whatever the rest of it is, by the following.
[01:53:33.000 --> 01:53:37.000]  And then we have an input box so they put in what they did.
[01:53:37.000 --> 01:53:46.000]  And then when it creates the complaint, it'll create it in the verbiage of the standard where we're accusing them of violating.
[01:53:46.000 --> 01:53:50.000]  Because this is one of the things they like to throw bark at you if it's out on.
[01:53:50.000 --> 01:53:52.000]  Then it'll...
[01:53:52.000 --> 01:53:56.000]  That sounds, Randy, is, I'm sorry, interrupted.
[01:53:56.000 --> 01:53:59.000]  Go ahead, go ahead.
[01:53:59.000 --> 01:54:16.000]  What I found is there's so many different sets of rules even within my state on the state bar site.
[01:54:16.000 --> 01:54:25.000]  They've got the Oregon Code of Professional Responsibility, the Oregon Code of Professional Conduct, the Rules of Procedure, the State Bar Act.
[01:54:25.000 --> 01:54:30.000]  And then you go into the ADA modell rules, model rules.
[01:54:30.000 --> 01:54:34.000]  You can just pick and choose which code you want to...
[01:54:34.000 --> 01:54:41.000]  And you could write lists of all the violations that would be one of those codes.
[01:54:41.000 --> 01:54:46.000]  It's hard to pick and choose which code to go off of, don't you find that?
[01:54:46.000 --> 01:54:56.000]  This is... I'm working on a litigation engine to handle these kinds of problems.
[01:54:56.000 --> 01:55:07.000]  This came up when I was in Australia because their code compared to ours is far, far more complex.
[01:55:07.000 --> 01:55:15.000]  Here in Texas, the penal code is less than, what is it, about 80, 90 pages?
[01:55:15.000 --> 01:55:17.000]  The penal code? Yeah, about that.
[01:55:17.000 --> 01:55:22.000]  In Australia, it was 500 pages.
[01:55:22.000 --> 01:55:27.000]  Holy crap, so this is what I'm trying to do.
[01:55:27.000 --> 01:55:35.000]  First, I'm taking the codes one at a time and converting them into questionnaires.
[01:55:35.000 --> 01:55:47.000]  And then we will take, say, a given issue, say, criminal, you start asking questions.
[01:55:47.000 --> 01:55:51.000]  Were you arrested? What were you arrested for?
[01:55:51.000 --> 01:55:55.000]  And have you ever played 20 questions?
[01:55:55.000 --> 01:55:57.000]  Oh, yeah.
[01:55:57.000 --> 01:56:00.000]  It's like 20 questions.
[01:56:00.000 --> 01:56:04.000]  Usually with bureaucrats it takes two or three.
[01:56:04.000 --> 01:56:09.000]  Yeah, see, the questions will mine you down through the code.
[01:56:09.000 --> 01:56:23.000]  And then once you isolate the specific issues, then based on what that issue is, there may be other codes that this situation implicates.
[01:56:23.000 --> 01:56:26.000]  Then we link to those other codes.
[01:56:26.000 --> 01:56:40.000]  We can create a mining tool that will take an individual and walking through all of the elements of his issue.
[01:56:40.000 --> 01:56:46.000]  I looked at the code, not like a lawyer, but like an engineer.
[01:56:46.000 --> 01:56:51.000]  And when I look at the code, I read it like a tech manual.
[01:56:51.000 --> 01:56:57.000]  Lawyers read it like it's a novel or something they can play with, but I see it as a tech manual.
[01:56:57.000 --> 01:57:03.000]  And the code itself defines the elements.
[01:57:03.000 --> 01:57:09.000]  The first thing an engineer has to do is find out what all the parameters are.
[01:57:09.000 --> 01:57:13.000]  And in law, the parameters are defined by the elements.
[01:57:13.000 --> 01:57:20.000]  So we create this questionnaire that you answer it this way, you go to this set of elements.
[01:57:20.000 --> 01:57:22.000]  You answer it that way, you go to another set.
[01:57:22.000 --> 01:57:24.000]  And we can mine down quickly.
[01:57:24.000 --> 01:57:31.000]  We will eventually all these questionnaires I'm building for like all of the professions.
[01:57:31.000 --> 01:57:33.000]  So I want to have one for each one.
[01:57:33.000 --> 01:57:37.000]  I want to have the penal code in questionnaire format.
[01:57:37.000 --> 01:57:48.000]  The code of kernel procedure, the rules of civil procedure, the rules of evidence so that we can begin building issues
[01:57:48.000 --> 01:57:52.000]  and link to these as they're appropriate.
[01:57:52.000 --> 01:57:57.000]  We will build an electronic lawyer.
[01:57:57.000 --> 01:58:01.000]  Lawyers think what they're doing is some kind of an art form.
[01:58:01.000 --> 01:58:03.000]  It's not.
[01:58:03.000 --> 01:58:09.000]  80% of it is we can do with 20% of the work.
[01:58:09.000 --> 01:58:19.000]  I just had a conversation with a lawyer the other day where he was telling me that I should go to law school.
[01:58:19.000 --> 01:58:25.000]  And I said, well, why don't you tell me what book I could read to teach me the secrets that you've learned at law school?
[01:58:25.000 --> 01:58:27.000]  And he didn't have an answer.
[01:58:27.000 --> 01:58:30.000]  Okay. Thank you for calling.
[01:58:30.000 --> 01:58:32.000]  We're running out of time.
[01:58:32.000 --> 01:58:38.000]  This is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Eddie Craig, Ruvila Radio.
[01:58:38.000 --> 01:58:40.000]  We thank you all for listening.
[01:58:40.000 --> 01:58:45.000]  Eddie and Deborah will be back Monday on the Monday Night Traffic Show.
[01:58:45.000 --> 01:58:48.000]  I'll be back Thursday and Friday.
[01:58:48.000 --> 01:58:53.000]  Thursday with the whole crew and Friday with Eddie and I.
[01:58:53.000 --> 01:58:56.000]  We'll be looking forward to hearing from you then.
[01:58:56.000 --> 01:58:57.000]  Thank you.
[01:58:57.000 --> 01:58:58.000]  Let me back.
[01:58:58.000 --> 01:59:01.000]  And good night.
[01:59:01.000 --> 01:59:08.000]  The Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study Bible called the New Testament Recovery Version.
[01:59:08.000 --> 01:59:15.000]  The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain what the Bible says verse by verse,
[01:59:15.000 --> 01:59:19.000]  helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[01:59:19.000 --> 01:59:22.000]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America.
[01:59:22.000 --> 01:59:31.000]  Call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:31.000 --> 01:59:38.000]  This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross references, plus charts and maps,
[01:59:38.000 --> 01:59:41.000]  and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:59:41.000 --> 01:59:43.000]  This is truly a Bible you can understand.
[01:59:43.000 --> 01:59:51.000]  To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:59:51.000 --> 02:00:00.000]  That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.