[00:00.000 --> 00:09.560]  You are listening to the Liberty Beats, your daily source for Liberty News and activist
[00:09.560 --> 00:15.400]  updates online at TheLibertyBeats.com.
[00:15.400 --> 00:19.600]  John Bush here with your Liberty Beats for April 4, 2013.
[00:19.600 --> 00:28.240]  Gold open today at $1547, silver at $26.75 and Bitcoin is trading at $137.
[00:28.240 --> 00:32.120]  Today's edition of the Liberty Beat is sponsored and parked by Tomorrow's Meals Today, fresh
[00:32.120 --> 00:34.120]  local produce and grass-fed meats.
[00:34.120 --> 00:38.640]  Open Tuesday through Sunday, South Austin Market Days every Saturday from 3 to 7 p.m.
[00:38.640 --> 00:41.280]  at 10106 Manchak Road.
[00:41.280 --> 00:44.080]  Information at Tomorrow's Meals Today.com.
[00:44.080 --> 00:45.520]  And now the news.
[00:45.520 --> 00:50.200]  Michael Cargill, concealed handgun instructor and former candidate for Travis County Constable,
[00:50.200 --> 00:54.600]  has announced his candidacy for Texas House of Representatives District 50 after current
[00:54.600 --> 00:58.360]  Representative Mark Strama announced he will retire after his term.
[00:58.360 --> 01:02.320]  Cargill, an ardent supporter of the Bill of Rights and Second Amendment, nearly defeated
[01:02.320 --> 01:07.280]  incumbent Adon Biasteros in the Democratic Party primary runoff in July 2012.
[01:07.280 --> 01:11.600]  However, in this race for state rep, Michael Cargill will run as a Republican.
[01:11.600 --> 01:15.320]  Cargill explains why he made the switch from Democrat to the Republican Party.
[01:15.320 --> 01:21.160]  Maybe the Democratic pundits were in sense that I refuse to limit my support to only
[01:21.160 --> 01:26.520]  those constitutional rights approved by the party platform, or maybe they were terrified
[01:26.520 --> 01:28.560]  by the thought of a black man with a gun.
[01:28.560 --> 01:33.080]  For their reason, the party of inclusion made it clear that they preferred not to include
[01:33.080 --> 01:34.080]  me.
[01:34.080 --> 01:37.280]  Cargill recently spoke against an Austin City Council resolution which directs the
[01:37.280 --> 01:40.760]  Police Department and City Manager to work in tandem with the federal government and
[01:40.760 --> 01:46.520]  gun control initiatives.
[01:46.520 --> 01:51.400]  On Wednesday, Connecticut Senate passed a bill 26-10 that will strengthen a ban on so-called
[01:51.400 --> 01:56.000]  semi-automatic assault rifles, limit ammo magazine cartridges, and require background
[01:56.000 --> 01:58.360]  checks for all weapons bought throughout the state.
[01:58.360 --> 02:03.000]  USA Today reports politicians like Senate President Donald E. Williams Jr. used the
[02:03.000 --> 02:07.400]  recent Newton-Connecticut school massacre as an impetus to require greater restrictions
[02:07.400 --> 02:09.280]  on guns sold in Connecticut.
[02:09.280 --> 02:13.280]  Meanwhile, firearm sales throughout North America are soaring due to the federal government's
[02:13.280 --> 02:20.160]  growing obsession with gun control legislation.
[02:20.160 --> 02:24.040]  The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits rose to its highest
[02:24.040 --> 02:27.880]  level in four months last week, suggesting the labor market recovery lost some steam
[02:27.880 --> 02:28.880]  in March.
[02:28.880 --> 02:33.200]  Initial claims for state unemployment benefits increased $28,000 to a seasonally adjusted
[02:33.200 --> 02:34.200]  $385,000.
[02:34.200 --> 02:41.560]  The highest level since November, the Labor Department said on Thursday.
[02:41.560 --> 02:46.280]  Report for the Liberty Bead comes from PureRainUSA.com, chemical and fluoride-free bottled water
[02:46.280 --> 02:51.200]  available at Whole Foods and Central Market, and by Central Texas Gun Works, self-defense
[02:51.200 --> 03:15.280]  training CHL courses and firearm sales online at CentralTexasGunWorks.com.
[03:21.200 --> 03:35.800]  USA Today reports politicians like Senate President Donald E. Williams Jr. used the
[03:35.800 --> 03:57.800]  word ministers for public affairs.
[03:57.800 --> 04:18.360]  I do like that song. This is Randy Kelton, Deb Stevens, Rue Vleu Radio on this Thursday,
[04:18.360 --> 04:28.360]  April the 4th, and tonight, I thought I had a guest, but I lost him. That happens sometimes.
[04:28.360 --> 04:35.280]  I did, but we're going to talk about the Judicial Conduct Commission tomorrow more.
[04:35.280 --> 04:45.480]  We're going to start doing a session called the Capitol Grill. I was in the Capitol Building
[04:45.480 --> 04:56.840]  last Tuesday, and because we had a Senate Subcommittee hearing for the Texas Commission
[04:56.840 --> 05:03.720]  on Judicial Conduct, they're up for sunset this year, and the bar will be up for sunset
[05:03.720 --> 05:10.320]  next year. We went to the hearing and we were walking in the Capitol Building, and I passed
[05:10.320 --> 05:17.960]  the door and I looked at it and it said, Capitol Grill, and that sounded like a good title
[05:17.960 --> 05:25.960]  for a segment to do while the legislature's in session, so we're going to do a session,
[05:25.960 --> 05:39.560]  a portion tomorrow on Capitol Grill. But today I'll go over a little bit about what occurred.
[05:39.560 --> 05:53.320]  When we were at the initial hearings for the House, they had the head of the State Commission
[05:53.320 --> 06:02.400]  on the hot seat, and these guys were really working him over. I was kind of concerned
[06:02.400 --> 06:10.400]  there that they might come to blows, because they really had a rakeus meeting there, and
[06:10.400 --> 06:18.120]  they were arguing back and forth because the Commission had refused to release records
[06:18.120 --> 06:29.960]  to the Sunset Commission. Legislators on the Sunset Commission were irate that they were
[06:29.960 --> 06:35.480]  there to evaluate the Commission, but the Commission wouldn't release the records. The
[06:35.480 --> 06:41.160]  Commission claimed the constitutional prohibition, as everything that occurs there is secret,
[06:41.160 --> 06:48.000]  and what the legislature was saying, is we're not asking you to release it to the public.
[06:48.000 --> 06:54.160]  Releasing it to the House oversight commission is not releasing it to the public. It doesn't
[06:54.160 --> 07:00.000]  fall within the intent of the constitutional prohibition. Well, that was the argument back
[07:00.000 --> 07:10.760]  and forth. Subsequent to that, I found out more about what was really going on there.
[07:10.760 --> 07:21.920]  It appears as though we may have some judges who were exerting some rather intense pressure
[07:21.920 --> 07:30.880]  on the Commission in order to get the Commission to rule the way they wanted them to. These
[07:30.880 --> 07:38.640]  records that the legislature was requesting that they release would show evidence of that
[07:38.640 --> 07:48.040]  improper influence. What the accusations are is that's the real reason they don't want
[07:48.040 --> 07:56.720]  to release these records. I don't know if that's true or not, but it would tend to explain
[07:56.720 --> 08:04.600]  why the Commission was resisting so strongly releasing records to the very Commission that
[08:04.600 --> 08:14.440]  was required to do oversight over them. I did speak before the Commission, and that kind
[08:14.440 --> 08:23.000]  of accused them of creating this police state that we're in. The head of the Commission
[08:23.000 --> 08:28.720]  gave me a card and wanted me to call him. I haven't yet. I told him before I went up
[08:28.720 --> 08:37.000]  there, I said, I see you have some very shiny shoes there. He looked at them. He said, well,
[08:37.000 --> 08:42.760]  yes. I said, I am likely to scuff them up a little bit, because I'll be stepping on
[08:42.760 --> 08:52.320]  your toes up there. He said, well, I'm used to that. But we have another hearing by the
[08:52.320 --> 09:02.480]  House on Monday, and it would be nice to get as many people there as we possibly can. It
[09:02.480 --> 09:10.880]  really does make a difference when you talk to your legislators. They don't get many
[09:10.880 --> 09:15.600]  people coming in. There's only three people that actually spoke before the Commission
[09:15.600 --> 09:25.720]  or four that spoke before the Senate hearings. They don't get much input. I was surprised
[09:25.720 --> 09:36.920]  that only four showed up. We need more people. We need to get their attention. The Commission,
[09:36.920 --> 09:45.600]  the legislature has proposed legislation that would require that the Commission release
[09:45.600 --> 09:52.120]  these records. I'm sure if they pass this legislation, the Commission will raise a constitutional
[09:52.120 --> 10:00.560]  challenge to it. So it'll be a while before it has any effect. But if they can get that
[10:00.560 --> 10:11.280]  into place. What I suggested to them is I agreed with the legislation that we need to
[10:11.280 --> 10:19.440]  give the Commission plausible deniability. If there are strong political pressures in
[10:19.440 --> 10:27.040]  place, the Commission needs teeth, and they need plausible deniability so they can use
[10:27.040 --> 10:38.600]  those teeth. And forcing them to give up these records would prevent any judges in the future
[10:38.600 --> 10:48.440]  from attempting to exercise this kind of influence because of the periodic oversight every time
[10:48.440 --> 10:56.520]  the Council is up for a sunset, the legislature would get a look at all these records.
[10:56.520 --> 11:05.680]  And I think there was also a proposal to examine these records every year. And I think it would
[11:05.680 --> 11:13.640]  take that in order to give the Commission back the authority that it needs in order
[11:13.640 --> 11:20.320]  to actually do its job because if you check the records, you know, I think I've spoken
[11:20.320 --> 11:30.240]  to this issue on here that judges in taxes believe, especially justice and municipal
[11:30.240 --> 11:37.320]  judges, they're afraid of the Commission because they believe that the Commission uses them
[11:37.320 --> 11:46.560]  for cannon fodder, that they only sanction inferior court judges and never sanction
[11:46.560 --> 11:56.040]  elected judges. And if you examine the record, that is exactly the case. The only time they've
[11:56.040 --> 12:05.280]  ever sanctioned an elected judge is when the judge was already convicted of committing
[12:05.280 --> 12:11.960]  a crime while in office and was being removed from the office because of the Commission
[12:11.960 --> 12:19.440]  of the crime, then the Commission sanctioned them. Otherwise, they never have. And this
[12:19.440 --> 12:29.800]  is outrageous. That's why we pardon the primary reason we have a 99.6% commission rate, commission.
[12:29.800 --> 12:36.880]  Conviction rate is because the judges don't want to have to do their jobs. They won't
[12:36.880 --> 12:43.560]  want to have to sit through one hearing after another after another. They want the docket
[12:43.560 --> 12:53.400]  cleared with deals so they don't have to work. And because of that, we house the United States
[12:53.400 --> 12:59.960]  contains approximately 3% of the world's population and we house approximately 50% of the world's
[12:59.960 --> 13:07.800]  population of inmates. At 30 grand a year, if the legislature forced the judges to do
[13:07.800 --> 13:15.360]  their jobs and brought the conviction rate back down to 70 or 80% where it should be,
[13:15.360 --> 13:27.720]  and that other 20% would no longer be subject to incarceration because the governor's criminal
[13:27.720 --> 13:36.520]  justice oversight council in 2003 and it's a semi-annual report complained to the governor
[13:36.520 --> 13:44.840]  that because of this propensity of prosecutors to force everyone coming in to the system to
[13:44.840 --> 13:54.000]  take a deal, put them on probation and then on a probation violation, incarceration was
[13:54.000 --> 14:02.440]  mandatory. That it was that practice that had overpopulated the jails because at the
[14:02.440 --> 14:10.320]  time when our jails were filling up, the national crime rate was dramatically decreasing. It
[14:10.320 --> 14:19.720]  has been for the last 20 years. While the crime rate was decreasing 8% to 10% a year,
[14:19.720 --> 14:26.240]  we're filling up all of our jails and the United States is housing more prisoners than
[14:26.240 --> 14:32.560]  the rest of the world combined. This is outrageous. We need those people out of jail. We need
[14:32.560 --> 14:39.440]  them working, paying taxes and we need to stop paying $30,000 a year to house them.
[14:39.440 --> 14:45.200]  It would give our legislators a lot of money to work with that they don't now have and
[14:45.200 --> 14:50.200]  it would put the population in a position so they weren't, they're not quite so angry
[14:50.200 --> 15:03.880]  at our legislators as the largest voting block in the state of Texas is the families of inmates.
[15:03.880 --> 15:11.320]  The largest of all. So we're hoping that we can influence these legislators with some
[15:11.320 --> 15:21.480]  a little political common sense to take some steps to, to bring some control back to these
[15:21.480 --> 15:28.720]  judges. And if they don't by the time this comes up again, we will have our, I have bar
[15:28.720 --> 15:37.920]  grievance up, we'll soon have judicial conduct up and we'll start filling our data bank with
[15:37.920 --> 15:44.240]  complaints that we can then waive in the public and they can't make a secret. Anyway, that's
[15:44.240 --> 15:50.680]  enough of my rant and raving on judicial conduct. I would hope that as many people who can
[15:50.680 --> 15:59.360]  will come down to the hearings next Monday. It's a great experience to go down there and
[15:59.360 --> 16:09.920]  I absolutely assure you, you absolutely can make a difference. These legislators will
[16:09.920 --> 16:17.520]  listen to you. You are the pulse of the public and they will pay attention. Okay, Rick, I
[16:17.520 --> 16:23.960]  see you there and Rick is going to come in and we're about to go to breaks. I'll pick
[16:23.960 --> 16:30.520]  you up on the other side, but he has had some good luck in the courts in California and
[16:30.520 --> 16:38.720]  I think that is rather remarkable what he pulled off. We've had some of that buck here, but
[16:38.720 --> 16:44.600]  this one he did all is on its own. It has to do with the credit card issue. We will
[16:44.600 --> 16:53.680]  pick him up on the other side. I call it numbers 512-646-1984. Give us a call. We'll be taking
[16:53.680 --> 17:00.680]  calls, questions and comments all night. We'll be right back.
[17:23.680 --> 17:34.360]  We're all breaking Tangy Tangerine, Tangy Tangerine, Tangy Tangerine, we're all breaking
[17:34.360 --> 17:41.920]  Tangy Tangerine, Tangy Tangerine, Tangy Tangerine. Order beyond Tangy Tangerine and other great
[17:41.920 --> 17:47.600]  young Jevity products at LogosRadioNetwork.com by clicking on the Tangy Tangerine banner.
[17:47.600 --> 17:53.040]  Sign up as a preferred customer for wholesale prices or become a distributor and support
[17:53.040 --> 17:55.400]  LogosRadioNetwork.com. So what do you say, Elvis?
[17:55.400 --> 18:01.840]  Tangy, Tangy Tangerine, Tangy Tangerine. Are you being harassed by debt collectors with
[18:01.840 --> 18:07.160]  phone calls, letters or even lawsuits? Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears
[18:07.160 --> 18:12.080]  Proven Method. Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors
[18:12.080 --> 18:17.380]  and now you can win two. You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win
[18:17.380 --> 18:22.560]  in court using federal civil rights statutes. What to do when contacted by phones, mail
[18:22.560 --> 18:27.180]  or court summons, how to answer letters and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out
[18:27.180 --> 18:32.440]  of your credit reports, how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go
[18:32.440 --> 18:33.440]  away.
[18:33.440 --> 18:38.320]  The Michael Mearris proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:38.320 --> 18:40.480]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[18:40.480 --> 18:46.000]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mearris banner
[18:46.000 --> 18:55.440]  or email michaelmearris at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s
[18:55.440 --> 19:21.840]  at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors next.
[19:21.840 --> 19:50.680]  Okay, we are back.
[19:50.680 --> 19:59.640]  And we're going to go to Rick Cock-a-doodle-doo from California.
[19:59.640 --> 20:03.240]  How you doing, honey?
[20:03.240 --> 20:12.000]  Okay, Rick, kind of tell us what went on here, kind of give us the setup.
[20:12.000 --> 20:23.440]  And this was, I do a foreclosure teleconference on Wednesdays and he was on that call and
[20:23.440 --> 20:24.440]  talked about it then.
[20:24.440 --> 20:27.400]  We've been dealing with one another for a while.
[20:27.400 --> 20:33.520]  So kind of give us an overview of what went on and have fun here.
[20:33.520 --> 20:44.280]  All right, basically what we have is a situation where I had an alleged credit card with Bank
[20:44.280 --> 20:51.520]  of America and it was eventually turned over to a collection agency, a third-party debt
[20:51.520 --> 20:54.000]  collector.
[20:54.000 --> 21:00.440]  And after going back and forth with Validate the debt, the whole thing, they turned around
[21:00.440 --> 21:04.920]  and they sued me.
[21:04.920 --> 21:10.920]  The, you know, when you talk about civil cases taking forever, it was 11 and a half months
[21:10.920 --> 21:17.520]  from the day the case was filed till the day I actually went to trial, which was this past
[21:17.520 --> 21:21.400]  Tuesday.
[21:21.400 --> 21:32.640]  It was a situation where in their trial brief they were going to try to bypass the fact
[21:32.640 --> 21:40.520]  that their documents were not worth anything and make an end run by, first of all, suing
[21:40.520 --> 21:47.720]  me for an account stated, which means for those of you who don't know what an account
[21:47.720 --> 21:55.320]  stated is, account stated is an independent cause of action and it supersedes the cause
[21:55.320 --> 22:02.360]  of action based upon the credit card agreement and the individual charges.
[22:02.360 --> 22:08.280]  Basically the cause of action states that the parties have come to a new agreement anytime
[22:08.280 --> 22:13.360]  that someone uses the card or anytime someone receives a statement.
[22:13.360 --> 22:24.360]  So by not having a signed contract, this is an end run that they try to do with consumers.
[22:24.360 --> 22:30.440]  And the secondary phase is that they try to get their documents, which were definitely
[22:30.440 --> 22:45.960]  violated all the California laws as far as hearsay, third party hearsay, and they try
[22:45.960 --> 22:52.120]  to get them all through as business statements.
[22:52.120 --> 22:59.560]  And so this was the basics of their case against me.
[22:59.560 --> 23:06.080]  So what I did is I spent a lot of time on two aspects prior to going into trial.
[23:06.080 --> 23:14.480]  The first one was to put together and my evidentiary objections to what's called a in California
[23:14.480 --> 23:17.360]  civil procedure a 98.
[23:17.360 --> 23:22.560]  And what that is is basically instead of having someone appear live to testify against you
[23:22.560 --> 23:28.200]  a custodian of records from the third party debt collector, what he does is he swears in
[23:28.200 --> 23:36.880]  an affidavit that, one, it's my debt, two, and then in that he presents their evidence.
[23:36.880 --> 23:47.840]  And basically the evidence that he presents is a transfer of sale from Bank of America
[23:47.840 --> 23:54.280]  to the collection company and a certification of the debt.
[23:54.280 --> 23:57.840]  They will have a couple of years of statements.
[23:57.840 --> 24:06.960]  They will present a credit card agreement.
[24:06.960 --> 24:15.480]  They will also present what's called a, it's redacted, but it's the loan schedule.
[24:15.480 --> 24:25.640]  And what I did is in my evidentiary objections to what the custodian of records had to say,
[24:25.640 --> 24:33.520]  I went paragraph by paragraph and I put the paragraph in writing and then my objection
[24:33.520 --> 24:40.960]  to what the custodian of records had to say, including my objections to all of their evidence
[24:40.960 --> 24:46.320]  and why their evidence didn't hold muster under California law.
[24:46.320 --> 24:55.960]  I then did a separate trial brief and in the trial brief I turned around and laid out my
[24:55.960 --> 25:03.320]  objections to one that I spelled out who that they wore a third party debt collector to
[25:03.320 --> 25:08.720]  that you're never going to hear from anybody from Bank of America that Bank of America
[25:08.720 --> 25:13.080]  had washed their hands of it for whatever reason.
[25:13.080 --> 25:26.520]  And that I then went into why it doesn't apply for an account stated status and why their
[25:26.520 --> 25:31.760]  evidence that they wanted to present were not business records.
[25:31.760 --> 25:37.400]  So on the day of the trial, the judge walked into the room and said that he was going to
[25:37.400 --> 25:40.520]  take some time to read the trial briefs.
[25:40.520 --> 25:46.480]  He looked at the plaintiff's attorney and said to him that if there's a chance you
[25:46.480 --> 25:52.960]  can settle, you should do so because there is some strong evidentiary objections to what
[25:52.960 --> 26:00.240]  you're presenting and the plaintiff's attorney made it clear that he was ready to fight all
[26:00.240 --> 26:03.560]  of it and that none of it was worth anything.
[26:03.560 --> 26:07.760]  So the judge left the room and was gone about 30 minutes.
[26:07.760 --> 26:14.520]  When he came back in the first thing the judge wanted to talk about was the entire 98 testimony
[26:14.520 --> 26:22.400]  and I voiced an objection that it be admitted in any way and in California we have a rule
[26:22.400 --> 26:31.920]  that an affiant or an affiant must live within 150 miles of the courthouse.
[26:31.920 --> 26:39.200]  And the judge listened to that, he listened, I quoted how in 1983 the California legislature
[26:39.200 --> 26:42.240]  had changed the wording.
[26:42.240 --> 26:49.720]  He wanted to be served at a law office that was within the 150 miles, it wasn't a residence.
[26:49.720 --> 26:58.120]  He never gave a personal address in his statement and it was clear that the legislature wanted
[26:58.120 --> 27:02.960]  whoever was going to testify to live within 150 miles of the courthouse.
[27:02.960 --> 27:10.120]  The plaintiff's attorney then laid down his reasons about why it should be admitted and
[27:10.120 --> 27:15.840]  then I had my first moment of my heart sinking when the judge said, well I'm going to admit
[27:15.840 --> 27:23.120]  the 98 testimony but in the very next sentence he looked at the plaintiff's attorney and
[27:23.120 --> 27:30.560]  he said to him, but you have a lot of other problems besides just the 98, by me admitting
[27:30.560 --> 27:32.200]  the 98.
[27:32.200 --> 27:37.840]  So he said let's get right down to the crux of the matter and let's talk about this assignment
[27:37.840 --> 27:45.400]  of the debt, the assignment to the debt collection company, so the certification of sale and
[27:45.400 --> 27:47.800]  the certification of debt.
[27:47.800 --> 27:54.680]  Now that was an affidavit that was done by a FIA, which is a subsidiary bank of America
[27:54.680 --> 28:02.680]  that does the credit cards, employee and while it was notarized, it wasn't notarized properly
[28:02.680 --> 28:10.920]  because in the state of California, if you're going to accept an out-of-state notary, then
[28:10.920 --> 28:16.840]  the affiant must swear under the penalty of perjury of the laws of the state of California
[28:16.840 --> 28:21.760]  that everything he said was true and that wasn't in the document.
[28:21.760 --> 28:28.480]  It was also obvious that the document was, it was prepared seven months after the sale
[28:28.480 --> 28:35.440]  and basically it was prepared for litigation when they realized I wasn't going to settle
[28:35.440 --> 28:39.920]  or cave under when we started the letter writing campaign back and forth with validation
[28:39.920 --> 28:44.280]  and you know them threatening to sue and the whole thing.
[28:44.280 --> 28:53.680]  Well the plaintiff's attorney cited two case study or two cases in his brief about why
[28:53.680 --> 28:58.320]  it should be admitted as a business record.
[28:58.320 --> 29:05.280]  The judge looked at him and said, both of your case studies, both that you cited do
[29:05.280 --> 29:08.200]  not apply in this case at all.
[29:08.200 --> 29:11.840]  The plaintiff's attorney then said, well, if that's the case you're on or what about
[29:11.840 --> 29:17.680]  the Looper case and the judge said, you know, I'm not familiar with Looper, let me look
[29:17.680 --> 29:18.680]  it up.
[29:18.680 --> 29:27.320]  Meanwhile, would you continue to tell me why this isn't hearsay, third party hearsay
[29:27.320 --> 29:35.040]  and how can a employee of the collection company swear to what?
[29:35.040 --> 29:37.880]  Okay, hang on.
[29:37.880 --> 29:39.960]  We'll be right back.
[29:39.960 --> 29:47.440]  This is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Eddie Craig, Roova Radio, my call in number 512-646-1984.
[29:47.440 --> 29:50.600]  Sandra, Kathy, I see you there.
[29:50.600 --> 29:54.320]  We'll pick you up when we're done with Rick, when Rick's done with his crowing.
[29:54.320 --> 29:56.680]  We'll be right back.
[29:56.680 --> 30:03.040]  Cell phones are an indispensable part of modern life.
[30:03.040 --> 30:07.600]  Nearly 90% of adults and three-quarters of teens now have one, but are cell phones really
[30:07.600 --> 30:08.600]  safe?
[30:08.600 --> 30:11.760]  Let's talk to Catherine Albert and I'll be right back with the facts.
[30:11.760 --> 30:16.400]  Google is watching you, recording everything you've ever searched for and creating a massive
[30:16.400 --> 30:19.040]  database of your personal information.
[30:19.040 --> 30:20.040]  That's creepy.
[30:20.040 --> 30:22.040]  But it doesn't have to be that way.
[30:22.040 --> 30:25.040]  StartPage.com is the world's most private search engine.
[30:25.040 --> 30:29.720]  StartPage.com doesn't store your IP address, make a record of your searches or use tracking
[30:29.720 --> 30:32.000]  cookies and their third party certified.
[30:32.000 --> 30:36.480]  If you don't like big brother spying on you, start over with StartPage.
[30:36.480 --> 30:39.040]  Search results and total privacy.
[30:39.040 --> 30:42.920]  StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[30:42.920 --> 30:46.560]  Americans don't hear much about cell phone health risks, but researchers in Europe have
[30:46.560 --> 30:52.280]  linked the devices to brain tumors, DNA damage, sperm death, and early onset Alzheimer's.
[30:52.280 --> 30:56.600]  You can minimize your risk by knowing your mobile phone emits a basketball-sized sphere
[30:56.600 --> 30:58.440]  of EMF radiation.
[30:58.440 --> 31:01.920]  Picture a basketball with your phone in the middle, then keep that sphere away from your
[31:01.920 --> 31:04.120]  brain and reproductive organs.
[31:04.120 --> 31:08.280]  Behold it near your head or in your pocket and use the speakerphone or get a corded headset
[31:08.280 --> 31:09.280]  or a Bluetooth headset.
[31:09.280 --> 31:14.280]  And before you buy your next phone, check its SAR rating to see how much exposure you're
[31:14.280 --> 31:15.280]  getting.
[31:15.280 --> 31:17.280]  Obviously, the less, the better.
[31:17.280 --> 31:30.200]  This is Dr. Catherine Albrecht, more news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[31:30.200 --> 31:35.560]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11th.
[31:35.560 --> 31:37.560]  The government says that fire brought it down.
[31:37.560 --> 31:42.600]  However, 1,500 architects and engineers have concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[31:42.600 --> 31:45.440]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives.
[31:45.440 --> 31:48.080]  And thousands of my fellow force respond to supply.
[31:48.080 --> 31:49.560]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[31:49.560 --> 31:50.560]  I'm a structural engineer.
[31:50.560 --> 31:51.880]  I'm a New York City correction officer.
[31:51.880 --> 31:52.880]  I'm an Air Force pilot.
[31:52.880 --> 31:54.520]  I'm a father who lost his son.
[31:54.520 --> 31:57.160]  We're Americans, and we deserve the truth.
[31:57.160 --> 32:00.800]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[32:00.800 --> 32:05.640]  It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM, but finding things on the Internet isn't
[32:05.640 --> 32:09.360]  so easy, and neither is finding like-minded people to share it with.
[32:09.360 --> 32:12.600]  Oh, well, I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books then.
[32:12.600 --> 32:13.600]  Brave New Books?
[32:13.600 --> 32:14.600]  Yes.
[32:14.600 --> 32:18.800]  Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for by authors like Alex Jones,
[32:18.800 --> 32:20.760]  Ron Paul and G. Edward Griffin.
[32:20.760 --> 32:24.160]  They even stock inner food, Burkey products, and Calvin Soaps.
[32:24.160 --> 32:27.080]  Well, there's no way a place like that is cleanest.
[32:27.080 --> 32:28.480]  Go check it out for yourself.
[32:28.480 --> 32:32.320]  It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street, just south of UT.
[32:32.320 --> 32:36.160]  Aw, by UT, there's never anywhere to park down there.
[32:36.160 --> 32:41.520]  Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking
[32:41.520 --> 32:43.520]  facility just behind the bookstore.
[32:43.520 --> 32:47.520]  It does exist, but when are they open?
[32:47.520 --> 32:52.280]  Monday through Saturday, 11 a.m. to 9 p.m., and 1 to 6 p.m. on Sundays.
[32:52.280 --> 32:59.280]  So get them a call at 512-480-2503, or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com.
[32:59.280 --> 33:08.280]  Live, free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[33:08.280 --> 33:33.280]  Live, free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[33:33.280 --> 33:44.280]  Live, free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[33:44.280 --> 33:53.280]  Live, free speech radio, logoradionetwork.com.
[33:53.280 --> 34:00.280]  Live, free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[34:00.280 --> 34:10.240]  Well, basically, we were talking about how the judge got right down to the heart of the
[34:10.240 --> 34:15.040]  matter to prove if the third-party debt collector had standing.
[34:15.040 --> 34:22.920]  He asked the plaintiff's attorney to why he should admit the document, especially since
[34:22.920 --> 34:30.920]  what they had in their trial brief he said didn't apply to this case.
[34:30.920 --> 34:34.960]  He then was looking up another case that the attorney said, you know, well, check this
[34:34.960 --> 34:36.680]  one out.
[34:36.680 --> 34:42.520]  And while he was doing that, he was trying to come up with reasons why it needed to
[34:42.520 --> 34:47.720]  be admitted and basically their entire case hinged on it being admitted.
[34:47.720 --> 34:53.160]  When the judge looked up the looper case, he then turned and looked at the attorney and
[34:53.160 --> 34:58.120]  said, I'm sorry, it doesn't apply.
[34:58.120 --> 35:03.240]  The attorney kind of cried and went, put your honor, and the judge cut him off and basically
[35:03.240 --> 35:09.760]  said to him, flat out, look, we're never going to see eye to eye on this.
[35:09.760 --> 35:15.680]  What I laid out in my trial brief and my evidentiary objections covered all of this, and I gave
[35:15.680 --> 35:18.480]  the judge something to hang his hat on.
[35:18.480 --> 35:22.840]  And the judge then turned and looked at him and said, I'm sorry, we're not going to agree.
[35:22.840 --> 35:32.400]  He pounded his gavel and said, judgment for the defendant, and he walked out of the courtroom.
[35:32.400 --> 35:37.160]  And as you were a bit missed at that, I take it?
[35:37.160 --> 35:41.120]  Well, I told you last night I had done so much added work.
[35:41.120 --> 35:45.640]  I had all my arguments laid out.
[35:45.640 --> 35:55.040]  I almost wanted to tell the judge, your honor, wait, I still have more to say, but I didn't.
[35:55.040 --> 36:03.480]  I took the victory in style and walked out the door and I believed, you know, I was happy
[36:03.480 --> 36:05.160]  that my hard work had paid off.
[36:05.160 --> 36:11.600]  I was happy I gave the judge something to hang his hat on that I just wasn't a ignorant
[36:11.600 --> 36:19.320]  pro se in the courtroom and, you know, didn't know what to do or what to say.
[36:19.320 --> 36:26.560]  And I firmly believe with what I presented that I've got a solid formula here for anybody
[36:26.560 --> 36:31.600]  in California who finds themselves being a defendant in a credit card in a third-party
[36:31.600 --> 36:33.600]  debt collector suit.
[36:33.600 --> 36:41.120]  Well, good, we were meant to talk earlier today about that.
[36:41.120 --> 36:46.080]  If you have a formula, I have a venue to put it on.
[36:46.080 --> 36:52.920]  So we'll talk about putting something together where people can get access to some tools
[36:52.920 --> 36:56.280]  that will help them fight these issues.
[36:56.280 --> 37:02.480]  I'd be more than happy to provide any information you'd like because I'll tell you what.
[37:02.480 --> 37:11.600]  These third-party debt collectors are the lowest form of life and they're ruthless
[37:11.600 --> 37:16.600]  and anything I could do to upset their Apple card, I'd be happy to do.
[37:16.600 --> 37:17.600]  Wonderful.
[37:17.600 --> 37:22.040]  It looks like you did pretty good on this one.
[37:22.040 --> 37:24.200]  I did, yes.
[37:24.200 --> 37:32.880]  And you're kind of like Mark in Wisconsin is I understand you're out of credit cards.
[37:32.880 --> 37:37.080]  I am and have been now for about two and a half years.
[37:37.080 --> 37:39.960]  So there goes all your fun.
[37:39.960 --> 37:46.360]  Yeah, except that I still have a couple out there that as a matter of fact, two days ago
[37:46.360 --> 37:51.320]  I got a letter from a debt collector on an old Capital One account.
[37:51.320 --> 37:59.240]  So I'm going to do things a little differently in this case in the sense that I urge everybody,
[37:59.240 --> 38:01.320]  you don't want to be a defendant.
[38:01.320 --> 38:04.280]  I heard the ad earlier for Michael Merris' course.
[38:04.280 --> 38:09.800]  I have Michael Merris' course and I will tell you that my goal is to turn the tables
[38:09.800 --> 38:19.360]  and be the plaintiff and bring these guys up on a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
[38:19.360 --> 38:21.400]  and just attack it from a whole different manner.
[38:21.400 --> 38:28.880]  But unfortunately this goes back so long ago that I just didn't realize and the law group
[38:28.880 --> 38:36.040]  that represent the debt collector, they probably out of Los Angeles, Orange County and San
[38:36.040 --> 38:44.920]  Diego County, they probably sue more people than almost than any law firm in the state.
[38:44.920 --> 38:53.840]  That is interesting that the judge would rule against him that quickly, like we talked about
[38:53.840 --> 38:58.160]  last night, there may be some politics going on here.
[38:58.160 --> 39:08.120]  I agree with you, there could be politics, but again, I'm also a jurisdictionary fan.
[39:08.120 --> 39:14.480]  I knew that I had my case set up in such a manner that if the worst scenario happened,
[39:14.480 --> 39:20.640]  I have a strong case for appeal and I definitely covered my basis to make sure that if it had
[39:20.640 --> 39:28.400]  to go to an appellate court that I was prepared.
[39:28.400 --> 39:35.040]  You learn through experience, I lost a case a little over about a year ago and from that
[39:35.040 --> 39:44.560]  I learned a ton and I was damned if I was going to let it happen again.
[39:44.560 --> 39:49.320]  But it took some time, it took some study, it took some research, but I walked in the
[39:49.320 --> 39:57.360]  door prepared and to be honest with you, I was better prepared than their attorney.
[39:57.360 --> 40:02.000]  The attorneys are probably used to not having to be prepared.
[40:02.000 --> 40:07.800]  Well, I believe if you looked at the statistics, the statistics will tell you that the reason
[40:07.800 --> 40:14.400]  these debt collectors are so successful is because 90% of the people will settle with
[40:14.400 --> 40:17.480]  them or they get default judgments against them.
[40:17.480 --> 40:23.600]  I would say the people that take them to court and then understand a couple of very simple
[40:23.600 --> 40:29.840]  principles will do very well against them.
[40:29.840 --> 40:35.720]  In my first case that I lost, with the research I did, I really didn't find a lot of information
[40:35.720 --> 40:42.400]  on business records and that's what defeated me in the first case is because he admitted
[40:42.400 --> 40:48.240]  all their evidence as business records.
[40:48.240 --> 40:52.120]  But this time I wasn't going to let that happen because they're not business records.
[40:52.120 --> 40:57.560]  I mean, they were done by, they were all B of A's records and just because they were
[40:57.560 --> 41:04.040]  sent to the collection agency, the collection agency in reality can't claim that they're
[41:04.040 --> 41:06.840]  their records, that they made them up.
[41:06.840 --> 41:14.560]  It's like they waved the magic wand and said, okay, now these are our business records.
[41:14.560 --> 41:17.680]  The judge saw right through that.
[41:17.680 --> 41:18.680]  Wonderful.
[41:18.680 --> 41:19.680]  Wonderful.
[41:19.680 --> 41:32.680]  So, the debt collection company essentially testified that they had knowledge of these
[41:32.680 --> 41:33.680]  records.
[41:33.680 --> 41:43.400]  Will you address the nature of the declaration?
[41:43.400 --> 41:47.280]  The declaration from the debt collector?
[41:47.280 --> 41:48.280]  Yes.
[41:48.280 --> 41:53.680]  Well, the debt collectors have what's called custodian of records and what these custodian
[41:53.680 --> 42:02.640]  of records are, are nothing more than professional testifiers.
[42:02.640 --> 42:07.480]  I will guarantee you that if that custodian of record had showed up in court and testified
[42:07.480 --> 42:15.840]  orally that the first time he saw my file was 48 hours prior to showing up in court
[42:15.840 --> 42:20.000]  in San Diego.
[42:20.000 --> 42:26.960]  They have a term that they're using for them now and this term is robo-testimony.
[42:26.960 --> 42:36.640]  And basically, they're parroting the records from another source and they try to get them
[42:36.640 --> 42:42.440]  through as business records like we created them, there are documents, therefore none
[42:42.440 --> 42:47.720]  of the hearsay objections apply whatsoever.
[42:47.720 --> 42:53.240]  And when you get to the heart of that matter, then you've got them.
[42:53.240 --> 42:59.480]  I mean, they can't testify on how the record was prepared.
[42:59.480 --> 43:03.000]  They can't testify if the totals are accurate.
[43:03.000 --> 43:09.280]  They can't testify in any direction because they weren't sitting in the room, they didn't
[43:09.280 --> 43:15.280]  do the records, they didn't see the credit card receipts, they didn't see anything.
[43:15.280 --> 43:21.080]  All they did is receive this information from Bank of America and because they got it, they
[43:21.080 --> 43:27.440]  say it's their business records and they say the bank never makes a mistake.
[43:27.440 --> 43:30.360]  Therefore it's all accurate.
[43:30.360 --> 43:35.000]  So they testified that the, essentially that the bank never made a mistake.
[43:35.000 --> 43:38.400]  Well, in essence that's good enough.
[43:38.400 --> 43:39.400]  Okay.
[43:39.400 --> 43:40.400]  Thank you, Rick.
[43:40.400 --> 43:41.400]  We've got a couple more callers.
[43:41.400 --> 43:42.400]  Appreciate it.
[43:42.400 --> 43:49.400]  We're going to go to break now and when we come back, we'll pick up Sandra in Florida.
[43:49.400 --> 44:01.040]  Our call in number 512-646-1984, give us a call, we'll be right back.
[44:01.040 --> 44:06.400]  Mr. President, members of Congress, you've been making a lot of noise about taking our
[44:06.400 --> 44:14.480]  guns away, but you might want to review history, 1835, Gonzales, Texas Territory.
[44:14.480 --> 44:19.360]  The authorities wanted to confiscate the big gun that protected that colony.
[44:19.360 --> 44:21.600]  You know what the people said?
[44:21.600 --> 44:28.880]  Come and take it because they were willing to fight for their freedom and their guns.
[44:28.880 --> 44:29.880]  So are we.
[44:29.880 --> 44:37.360]  Come and take it if you want it, come and take it if you can, come and take it, but
[44:37.360 --> 44:38.360]  I want you.
[44:38.360 --> 44:39.360]  You'll have to buy it from my cold hands.
[44:39.360 --> 44:40.360]  We want the freedom that God gave us, so you best not cross that line.
[44:40.360 --> 44:41.360]  If you want this done, you've got to come through us and take it.
[44:41.360 --> 44:52.360]  One shot at a time, just like Gonzales, we're keeping our guns.
[44:52.360 --> 45:03.640]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[45:03.640 --> 45:10.360]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand 4-CD course
[45:10.360 --> 45:13.360]  that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[45:13.360 --> 45:20.120]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing, if you don't have a lawyer,
[45:20.120 --> 45:22.520]  know what you should do for yourself.
[45:22.520 --> 45:27.520]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[45:27.520 --> 45:34.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[45:34.000 --> 45:38.720]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the
[45:38.720 --> 45:42.840]  principles and practices that control our American courts.
[45:42.840 --> 45:48.960]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[45:48.960 --> 45:50.960]  prosay tactics, and much more.
[45:50.960 --> 46:19.680]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[46:19.680 --> 46:20.680]  Okay.
[46:20.680 --> 46:21.680]  We are back.
[46:21.680 --> 46:27.600]  Randy Kelton, Debra Stevens, Rule of Law Radio, and Debra has some knowledge in this
[46:27.600 --> 46:33.800]  area, and there was an issue we talked about on the break that she would like to address.
[46:33.800 --> 46:34.800]  Debra?
[46:34.800 --> 46:35.800]  Yes.
[46:35.800 --> 46:36.800]  Thank you.
[46:36.800 --> 46:42.720]  I wanted to address what just happened with this caller and the fact that he won his case
[46:42.720 --> 46:47.120]  as a defendant, this third-party debt collector going after him.
[46:47.120 --> 46:50.200]  See, here's the issue in a situation like this.
[46:50.200 --> 46:51.200]  He did very well.
[46:51.200 --> 46:52.320]  I'm very proud of him.
[46:52.320 --> 46:58.520]  We're very proud of our callers, our listeners, that win their cases, that do their homework.
[46:58.520 --> 47:03.000]  But this kind of goes to the whole Mike Mears method thing.
[47:03.000 --> 47:09.160]  See, just because you beat a debt collector, a third-party debt collector as a defendant
[47:09.160 --> 47:13.640]  in a state court, like what just happened here, that doesn't mean that the whole nightmare
[47:13.640 --> 47:15.320]  is over.
[47:15.320 --> 47:21.640]  Is number one, there's nothing to say that this debt collector is going to actually pull
[47:21.640 --> 47:24.480]  out of his credit report for one thing.
[47:24.480 --> 47:29.840]  There's nothing to say that this debt collector isn't going to turn around and sell the account
[47:29.840 --> 47:34.360]  to another third-party debt collector, and he's going to have to go for the same thing
[47:34.360 --> 47:35.960]  all over again.
[47:35.960 --> 47:38.680]  And that's where the Mike Mears method comes in.
[47:38.680 --> 47:44.400]  Now what Randy was saying is that if they sold the account to another third-party debt
[47:44.400 --> 47:53.360]  collector, then Randy was saying this would go to a stop-all, and now that may be.
[47:53.360 --> 47:59.560]  But how many times are you going to have to fight these third-party debt collectors and
[47:59.560 --> 48:01.040]  claim a stop-all?
[48:01.040 --> 48:06.960]  How many times is your credit going to have to get ruined because literally it could go
[48:06.960 --> 48:08.760]  on forever.
[48:08.760 --> 48:12.760]  It could never end for the rest of your life.
[48:12.760 --> 48:16.320]  They could just keep selling it to each other and suing you, and you're going to have to
[48:16.320 --> 48:19.440]  keep claiming a stop-all and keep fighting it.
[48:19.440 --> 48:25.120]  And this is where the Mike Mears method comes in that puts an end to the whole thing.
[48:25.120 --> 48:32.520]  Now, especially if this third-party debt collector stays in this listeners' credit report, that's
[48:32.520 --> 48:38.480]  when you bring in the Mike Mears method to sue under FCRA, Fair Credit Reporting Act.
[48:38.480 --> 48:42.360]  You start monitoring your credit report, you pull it monthly.
[48:42.360 --> 48:46.600]  If the third-party debt collector is still in there, you send a dispute letter.
[48:46.600 --> 48:48.800]  You challenge it.
[48:48.800 --> 48:55.680]  You send dispute letters to the credit agencies challenging it, basically saying you won this
[48:55.680 --> 49:00.920]  lawsuit where they tried to sue you, and if they refused to get out of the credit report,
[49:00.920 --> 49:03.040]  that's when you sue them under FCRA.
[49:03.040 --> 49:09.680]  And see, the whole bit with the Mike Mears method is that it puts an end to the nightmare
[49:09.680 --> 49:18.080]  permanently, because as part of the settlement agreement that you force them into in a federal
[49:18.080 --> 49:25.560]  lawsuit, as part of the settlement agreement in the contract, you force them to agree to
[49:25.560 --> 49:30.000]  not only get out of your credit report, but you force them to agree that they will never
[49:30.000 --> 49:38.920]  sell the account or any of your personal information to any other entity ever again, period.
[49:38.920 --> 49:43.080]  That's how you make sure that it goes away forever.
[49:43.080 --> 49:50.600]  So I would encourage this listener at this point who won this case and bravo, good job,
[49:50.600 --> 49:55.400]  but just keep in mind, it may not be over, especially if they stay in your credit report.
[49:55.400 --> 49:57.960]  You're going to have to watch.
[49:57.960 --> 50:02.240]  A month from now, he may get a letter from another third-party debt collector because
[50:02.240 --> 50:06.560]  if there's nothing in place that prohibits this third-party debt collector from selling
[50:06.560 --> 50:13.840]  it to the next sucker, third-party debt collector, again, like Randy said, you can claim a stop-all,
[50:13.840 --> 50:18.240]  put it into the suit, but you don't want this to keep going on forever and ever and never
[50:18.240 --> 50:22.960]  going away and it keeps ruining your credit report over and over and over and it's just,
[50:22.960 --> 50:26.200]  you got to put the nightmare to an end at some point.
[50:26.200 --> 50:32.120]  So keep watching your credit report, Rick, and if they don't get out, then you use the
[50:32.120 --> 50:37.880]  Mike Mears method and make them get out of your credit report and furthermore, make them
[50:37.880 --> 50:40.600]  agree to never sell it again to anyone else.
[50:40.600 --> 50:44.000]  So that's basically the comments I had on that.
[50:44.000 --> 50:48.000]  And make them pay you some money to get you to go away and leave them alone.
[50:48.000 --> 50:49.000]  Absolutely.
[50:49.000 --> 50:54.760]  And see, depending on how far along a case has gotten, if you're a defendant in a state
[50:54.760 --> 51:03.080]  case, typically if you can get them set up for DCPA violations or FCRA violations early
[51:03.080 --> 51:10.800]  enough or even if they have a judgment against you in a state case, you still go turn right
[51:10.800 --> 51:17.320]  around and sue them, set up your federal lawsuit against them, and then if the state case is
[51:17.320 --> 51:22.200]  not finished, then as part of the settlement agreement in the federal case where you're
[51:22.200 --> 51:29.600]  the plaintiff, you force them to agree to drop the case against you in the state court,
[51:29.600 --> 51:35.120]  to file a motion to dismiss with prejudice, okay, with prejudice, very important.
[51:35.120 --> 51:36.560]  That way they can never bring it up again.
[51:36.560 --> 51:43.480]  All right, if they have a judgment against you in a state court, then as part of the
[51:43.480 --> 51:51.280]  settlement agreement in the federal suit, you force them to agree to vacate the judgment
[51:51.280 --> 51:57.440]  against you in the state court and to take that judgment out of your credit report.
[51:57.440 --> 52:03.280]  All right, so there's always ways to deal with this, regardless of if they have a judgment
[52:03.280 --> 52:05.200]  against you or not.
[52:05.200 --> 52:10.880]  And again, I'm very proud of the listener, but just keep in mind, this does not necessarily
[52:10.880 --> 52:13.960]  mean that this is going to go away at this point.
[52:13.960 --> 52:20.040]  So you have to be vigilant and keep on top of these rogues, all right.
[52:20.040 --> 52:22.280]  Does that make sense, Randy?
[52:22.280 --> 52:24.720]  Yes, it does.
[52:24.720 --> 52:32.920]  And what if they are in your credit and they don't get the mark removed, you can certainly
[52:32.920 --> 52:36.800]  sue them for denial of credit.
[52:36.800 --> 52:46.600]  Just had a report today of someone in a foreclosure issue suing the lender for wrongful foreclosure
[52:46.600 --> 52:55.360]  that caused the person denial of credit and won an incredible judgment against them.
[52:55.360 --> 52:57.600]  So that was very interesting.
[52:57.600 --> 53:05.000]  Denial of credit is a very specific defined cause of action.
[53:05.000 --> 53:09.080]  So they may give you a shot at them.
[53:09.080 --> 53:11.280]  It could be that the funds are not over.
[53:11.280 --> 53:14.560]  Okay, thank you, Deborah.
[53:14.560 --> 53:17.800]  Now we're going to go to Sandra in Florida.
[53:17.800 --> 53:18.800]  Hello.
[53:18.800 --> 53:19.800]  Hello.
[53:19.800 --> 53:20.800]  Hello.
[53:20.800 --> 53:21.800]  Hello.
[53:21.800 --> 53:22.800]  Hi.
[53:22.800 --> 53:26.400]  I'll bring you up to current.
[53:26.400 --> 53:29.880]  I was accused of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
[53:29.880 --> 53:37.920]  The deadly weapon is my 1998 Chevy S10 truck.
[53:37.920 --> 53:44.520]  So I filed for, okay, first of all, I went pro-state because I already have material
[53:44.520 --> 53:50.360]  evidence that I wasn't even involved in this and witnesses for other things that I won't
[53:50.360 --> 53:51.360]  discuss.
[53:51.360 --> 53:58.680]  So I'm very confident that they don't have a case on this.
[53:58.680 --> 54:06.200]  And so I went pro-state on this case and I filed a motion to dismiss and this happened
[54:06.200 --> 54:11.720]  on September 29th, 2012, so that's 12 months ago that I was accused of this.
[54:11.720 --> 54:15.760]  I filed as a pro-state and I filed a motion to dismiss.
[54:15.760 --> 54:24.280]  The state attorney filed a, on my motion as a pro-state, a Traverse stating the three
[54:24.280 --> 54:25.280]  things.
[54:25.280 --> 54:30.880]  He didn't really answer the Travis correctly, but he basically said one, Sandra was driving
[54:30.880 --> 54:35.600]  in Brevard County, Sandra was intentionally drove, said vehicle towards a child that was
[54:35.600 --> 54:41.200]  walking on the side of the road without intent, without, without intent to kill.
[54:41.200 --> 54:46.280]  But that said child was in fear as Sandra drove the vehicle in his direction.
[54:46.280 --> 54:49.480]  Those were the Traverse.
[54:49.480 --> 54:56.760]  Then I filed a motion for a hearing and scheduled a hearing date for my motion to dismiss.
[54:56.760 --> 55:02.000]  So I was pro-state up September all the way up to March and the state attorney actually
[55:02.000 --> 55:05.600]  responded back to me as a pro-state litigant.
[55:05.600 --> 55:10.520]  When I went to make the motion for dismiss and the judge said he was going to think about
[55:10.520 --> 55:18.200]  making a ruling, the assistant state attorney said I'm requesting the competency hearing
[55:18.200 --> 55:22.160]  for her to be a pro-state, which of course I objected to.
[55:22.160 --> 55:26.200]  But the judge said that he would grant the competency hearing.
[55:26.200 --> 55:35.480]  And so when he did that, he made an in-court order for a mentally competency evaluation.
[55:35.480 --> 55:38.520]  He said that I had a public defender.
[55:38.520 --> 55:44.000]  I was forced to have a public defender that I could not fire and that he abated the speedy
[55:44.000 --> 55:48.480]  trial since I never wavered speedy trial.
[55:48.480 --> 55:52.760]  And then he had set a court date for me to see the competency evaluation.
[55:52.760 --> 56:01.160]  However, I intervened and I filed an appeal to the 5th district court of appeals for an
[56:01.160 --> 56:04.440]  appeal of his court order.
[56:04.440 --> 56:16.040]  Subsequently, he filed that it's on it and I filed a notice of an appeal to the 5th district
[56:16.040 --> 56:20.400]  court of appeals for his non-final order.
[56:20.400 --> 56:28.720]  And then he's given the order that if I don't take another evaluation that he'll put me
[56:28.720 --> 56:38.840]  in incarceration and remain there until I decide to take a competency evaluation.
[56:38.840 --> 56:43.040]  And I'm forced to have a public defender that has never been in the picture, was never in
[56:43.040 --> 56:48.840]  the picture, had made no court appearances, has not interacted at all in any way, shape
[56:48.840 --> 56:53.480]  or form, this so-called which has not been named this public defender that the judge
[56:53.480 --> 56:54.480]  appointed to me.
[56:54.480 --> 56:55.480]  Oh, yes.
[56:55.480 --> 56:57.520]  And I was forced to, which I never did.
[56:57.520 --> 57:02.720]  I was forced to write an indigent status to the court saying that I'm indigent, which
[57:02.720 --> 57:04.520]  I did not do either.
[57:04.520 --> 57:05.520]  And I refused that.
[57:05.520 --> 57:07.840]  So that's where the case is at.
[57:07.840 --> 57:08.840]  Okay.
[57:08.840 --> 57:09.840]  So the, yes.
[57:09.840 --> 57:14.840]  What's your question or issue?
[57:14.840 --> 57:15.840]  Okay.
[57:15.840 --> 57:25.240]  Yeah, you're supposed to call in with a question.
[57:25.240 --> 57:26.240]  Okay.
[57:26.240 --> 57:28.800]  Let me, I would like to comment on that.
[57:28.800 --> 57:37.160]  The courts are beginning to use this competency nonsense as a way to deny you all of your
[57:37.160 --> 57:41.080]  constitutional rights.
[57:41.080 --> 57:50.720]  I would look, I suggest that you have a competency hearing, but requested that the court appoint
[57:50.720 --> 57:57.560]  a evaluator of your choice, not their choice.
[57:57.560 --> 58:03.080]  And okay, we're going to break this, this is the top of the hour break and take a little
[58:03.080 --> 58:04.080]  longer.
[58:04.080 --> 58:12.480]  But I would look at as allowing them to appoint you counsel and then we'll show you how to
[58:12.480 --> 58:17.560]  kick councils behind every way from Sunday.
[58:17.560 --> 58:24.520]  The last case I had like this, the judge dismissed the case to protect my court appointed
[58:24.520 --> 58:27.840]  attorney from me.
[58:27.840 --> 58:30.040]  We'll show you how to handle counsel.
[58:30.040 --> 58:33.120]  They're all part of the same little fraternity.
[58:33.120 --> 58:39.200]  So when the dirty rotten pro se turns on the poor mistreated lawyer, the judge being their
[58:39.200 --> 58:40.920]  buddy has to bail them out.
[58:40.920 --> 58:41.920]  Okay.
[58:41.920 --> 58:42.920]  Hang on.
[58:42.920 --> 58:46.000]  This is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Eddie Craig rule of law radio.
[58:46.000 --> 58:49.580]  We'll be right back.
[58:49.580 --> 58:55.000]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated
[58:55.000 --> 58:57.800]  because they struggle to understand it.
[58:57.800 --> 59:03.200]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise
[59:03.200 --> 59:06.440]  the profound meaning of the scripture.
[59:06.440 --> 59:08.240]  Enter the recovery version.
[59:08.240 --> 59:14.140]  First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more
[59:14.140 --> 59:17.880]  than 9,000 explanatory footnotes.
[59:17.880 --> 59:22.880]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance
[59:22.880 --> 59:27.600]  into the riches of the word beyond which you've ever experienced before.
[59:27.600 --> 59:32.720]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking.
[59:32.720 --> 59:43.160]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102
[59:43.160 --> 59:47.240]  or by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[59:47.240 --> 59:49.720]  That's freestudybible.com.
[59:49.720 --> 01:00:03.800]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:00:03.800 --> 01:00:09.640]  You're listening to the Liberty Beats, your daily source for Liberty News and activist
[01:00:09.640 --> 01:00:15.440]  updates online at TheLibertyBeats.com.
[01:00:15.440 --> 01:00:19.640]  John Bush here with your Liberty Beat for April 4th, 2013.
[01:00:19.640 --> 01:00:28.280]  Gold opened today at $1547, silver at $26.75, and Bitcoin is trading at $137.
[01:00:28.280 --> 01:00:32.520]  Today's edition of the Liberty Beat is sponsored in part by Tomorrow's Meals Today, Fresh Local
[01:00:32.520 --> 01:00:34.520]  Produce and Grasp That Neat.
[01:00:34.520 --> 01:00:35.880]  Open Tuesday through Sunday.
[01:00:35.880 --> 01:00:41.800]  South Boston Market Days every Saturday from 3 to 7 p.m. at 10106 Manchak Road.
[01:00:41.800 --> 01:00:44.200]  Information at tomorrowsmealstoday.com.
[01:00:44.200 --> 01:00:45.600]  And now the news.
[01:00:45.600 --> 01:00:50.360]  Michael Cargill, concealed handgun instructor and former candidate for Travis County Constable,
[01:00:50.360 --> 01:00:54.680]  has announced his candidacy for Texas House of Representatives District 50 after current
[01:00:54.680 --> 01:00:58.400]  Representative Mark Strama announced he will retire after his term.
[01:00:58.400 --> 01:01:02.400]  Cargill, an ardent supporter of the Bill of Rights and Second Amendment, nearly defeated
[01:01:02.400 --> 01:01:07.400]  incumbent Adon Biasteros in the Democratic Party primary runoff in July 2012.
[01:01:07.400 --> 01:01:11.680]  However, in this race for state rep, Michael Cargill will run as a Republican.
[01:01:11.680 --> 01:01:15.720]  Cargill explains why he made the switch from Democrat to the Republican Party.
[01:01:15.720 --> 01:01:21.240]  Maybe the Democratic pundits were in sense that I refuse to limit my support to only
[01:01:21.240 --> 01:01:26.600]  those constitutional rights approved by the party platform, or maybe they were terrified
[01:01:26.600 --> 01:01:28.520]  by the thought of a black man with the gun.
[01:01:28.520 --> 01:01:33.200]  For whatever reason, the party of inclusion made it clear that they preferred not to include
[01:01:33.200 --> 01:01:34.200]  me.
[01:01:34.200 --> 01:01:37.360]  Cargill recently spoke against an Austin City Council resolution which directs the
[01:01:37.360 --> 01:01:40.840]  police department and city manager to work in tandem with the federal government and
[01:01:40.840 --> 01:01:46.600]  gun control initiatives.
[01:01:46.600 --> 01:01:50.840]  On Wednesday, Connecticut's Senate passed a bill 26 to 10 that will strengthen a ban
[01:01:50.840 --> 01:01:55.560]  on so-called semi-automatic assault rifles, limit ammo magazine cartridges, and require
[01:01:55.560 --> 01:01:58.600]  background checks for all weapons bought throughout the state.
[01:01:58.600 --> 01:02:03.080]  USA Today reports politicians like Senate President Donald E. Williams Jr. used the
[01:02:03.080 --> 01:02:07.480]  recent Newton-Connecticut school massacre as an impetus to require greater restrictions
[01:02:07.480 --> 01:02:09.320]  on guns sold in Connecticut.
[01:02:09.320 --> 01:02:13.360]  Meanwhile, firearm sales throughout North America are soaring due to the federal government's
[01:02:13.360 --> 01:02:20.240]  growing obsession with gun control legislation.
[01:02:20.240 --> 01:02:24.120]  The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits rose to its highest
[01:02:24.120 --> 01:02:28.000]  level in four months last week, suggesting the labor market recovery lost some steam
[01:02:28.000 --> 01:02:29.000]  in March.
[01:02:29.000 --> 01:02:33.200]  Initial claims for state unemployment benefits increased 28,000 to a seasonally adjusted
[01:02:33.200 --> 01:02:34.200]  385,000.
[01:02:34.200 --> 01:02:41.680]  The highest level since November, the later department said on Thursday.
[01:02:41.680 --> 01:02:46.360]  Support for the Liberty Bead comes from PureRainUSA.com, chemical and fluoride-free bottled water
[01:02:46.360 --> 01:02:51.320]  available at Whole Foods and Central Market, and by Central Texas Gun Works, self-defense
[01:02:51.320 --> 01:02:58.320]  training CHL forces and firearm sales online at CentralTexasGunWorks.com.
[01:03:21.320 --> 01:03:28.320]  USA Today reports politicians like Senate President Donald E. Williams Jr. used the
[01:03:51.320 --> 01:03:58.320]  federal government to make sure that the state of North America is safe and secure.
[01:03:58.320 --> 01:04:06.320]  USA Today reports politicians like Senate President Donald E. Williams Jr. used the
[01:04:06.320 --> 01:04:13.320]  federal government to make sure that the state of North America is safe and secure.
[01:04:13.320 --> 01:04:23.160]  This thing of requesting a evaluation, first thing I would do is bar grieve the lawyer,
[01:04:23.160 --> 01:04:24.160]  the prosecutor.
[01:04:24.160 --> 01:04:40.640]  The fact that you actively adjudicate your case is hardly grounds for a request for
[01:04:40.640 --> 01:04:47.640]  psychiatric evaluation.
[01:04:47.640 --> 01:04:56.760]  The other thing is they went on four months as a procé until it was before the judge
[01:04:56.760 --> 01:05:00.840]  to make a motion to dismiss this case.
[01:05:00.840 --> 01:05:05.880]  I was treated and I was handed in court the discovery when I requested it, so it was handed
[01:05:05.880 --> 01:05:06.880]  to me.
[01:05:06.880 --> 01:05:13.880]  I've never been a public defender in this case, but the judge is stating that there's
[01:05:13.880 --> 01:05:16.880]  a public defender, but there's not any...
[01:05:16.880 --> 01:05:17.880]  No, wait, wait.
[01:05:17.880 --> 01:05:18.880]  We weren't...
[01:05:18.880 --> 01:05:20.040]  I wasn't talking about a public defender.
[01:05:20.040 --> 01:05:21.720]  Who asked for the evaluation?
[01:05:21.720 --> 01:05:22.720]  Right, exactly.
[01:05:22.720 --> 01:05:26.960]  No, who asked for the evaluation?
[01:05:26.960 --> 01:05:28.400]  That was a question.
[01:05:28.400 --> 01:05:30.400]  The prosecutor stated...
[01:05:30.400 --> 01:05:31.400]  Okay.
[01:05:31.400 --> 01:05:32.400]  That's who you go after.
[01:05:32.400 --> 01:05:33.400]  Go after the prosecutor.
[01:05:33.400 --> 01:05:40.880]  I mean, a bar grievance against the prosecutor.
[01:05:40.880 --> 01:05:49.520]  Go to bargrevance.net and select the...
[01:05:49.520 --> 01:05:53.200]  When you open it up, it'll give you a map.
[01:05:53.200 --> 01:05:56.840]  On one side, it'll be American Bar Association Model Standards.
[01:05:56.840 --> 01:05:59.240]  That'll be on your right.
[01:05:59.240 --> 01:06:06.760]  On your left will be the American Bar Association Standards for the Prosecutorial Function.
[01:06:06.760 --> 01:06:17.480]  Go to that side and look through that and find the one that fits what he has done and
[01:06:17.480 --> 01:06:19.600]  file a grievance against him.
[01:06:19.600 --> 01:06:23.000]  That's the first thing to do.
[01:06:23.000 --> 01:06:28.520]  You might file a judicial conduct complaint against the judge for accepting it and look
[01:06:28.520 --> 01:06:35.600]  at petitioning the district court for rid of mandamus to order them to cease and desist
[01:06:35.600 --> 01:06:44.880]  using a psychological evaluation as a way to punish you for actively adjudicating your
[01:06:44.880 --> 01:06:45.880]  rights.
[01:06:45.880 --> 01:06:46.880]  Okay.
[01:06:46.880 --> 01:06:49.960]  Take the fight back to them.
[01:06:49.960 --> 01:06:51.760]  They want to fight, give them one.
[01:06:51.760 --> 01:06:52.760]  Right.
[01:06:52.760 --> 01:06:59.080]  And also, too, this one judge basically cleared out any kind of constitutional rights I have
[01:06:59.080 --> 01:07:06.800]  by forcing me, against my will to have a public defender, by abating the Speedy Trial because
[01:07:06.800 --> 01:07:14.680]  by the end of April, this case will have, I mean, made its limits of time limits of...
[01:07:14.680 --> 01:07:19.600]  Have you made a demand for Speedy Trial?
[01:07:19.600 --> 01:07:20.840]  I never wavered it.
[01:07:20.840 --> 01:07:23.800]  I don't know if I've made a demand for it.
[01:07:23.800 --> 01:07:32.840]  What the courts have essentially said is that if you don't specifically demand a right,
[01:07:32.840 --> 01:07:34.720]  then you waive it.
[01:07:34.720 --> 01:07:41.520]  And what we suggest is in your first pleading, there should always be included a demand for
[01:07:41.520 --> 01:07:43.840]  Speedy Trial.
[01:07:43.840 --> 01:07:54.440]  However, you can still make the argument, but the point we keep trying to make is for
[01:07:54.440 --> 01:07:59.360]  anything they do, there are things you can do.
[01:07:59.360 --> 01:08:04.840]  There's always something you can do, and we're not lawyers, so we're not stuck inside the
[01:08:04.840 --> 01:08:06.720]  lawyer box.
[01:08:06.720 --> 01:08:11.360]  You've got things you can do from outside the lawyer box.
[01:08:11.360 --> 01:08:19.600]  That judicial conduct complains the judge, accuses the judge of improperly using a psychological
[01:08:19.600 --> 01:08:27.200]  evaluation as a way to punish you for actively adjudicating your case.
[01:08:27.200 --> 01:08:33.200]  They hire a lawyer, they force a lawyer on you, fine, hammer that lawyer.
[01:08:33.200 --> 01:08:38.680]  That lawyer, if he don't do what you tell him to, you can sue him.
[01:08:38.680 --> 01:08:44.000]  And then if he tries to get removed from the case, you file a judicial, your bar grievance
[01:08:44.000 --> 01:08:47.720]  against him for that.
[01:08:47.720 --> 01:08:56.000]  Just if bar grievances are a big deal, and in Florida, lawyers don't have to carry malpractice
[01:08:56.000 --> 01:08:57.720]  insurance.
[01:08:57.720 --> 01:09:04.440]  However, it's because the bar actually indemnifies them.
[01:09:04.440 --> 01:09:09.040]  When they start getting judicial conduct complaints and the potential of malpractice suits, the
[01:09:09.040 --> 01:09:14.840]  bar is really going to be unhappy at them, because now you're going to get into the bars
[01:09:14.840 --> 01:09:15.840]  of money.
[01:09:15.840 --> 01:09:18.880]  And the bars are all made up of lawyers, and they like their money.
[01:09:18.880 --> 01:09:21.680]  That's the way it is in Australia.
[01:09:21.680 --> 01:09:30.280]  And you get sued in Australia, and the Law Society gets real excited because they have
[01:09:30.280 --> 01:09:36.440]  a large pool of money they have to indemnify lawyers against suits, and they like to play
[01:09:36.440 --> 01:09:38.640]  with that pool of money.
[01:09:38.640 --> 01:09:42.080]  You do anything to get into their pool of money, they're not going to be happy with
[01:09:42.080 --> 01:09:43.080]  you.
[01:09:43.080 --> 01:09:45.320]  So, use the tools we have.
[01:09:45.320 --> 01:09:46.320]  Fight them back.
[01:09:46.320 --> 01:09:53.240]  And what about your comments of the idea of suing the whole public defender's office
[01:09:53.240 --> 01:09:56.520]  or not even stepping up to this?
[01:09:56.520 --> 01:10:02.480]  Because, okay, I'm not saying that I even tried, but if I tried to call the public
[01:10:02.480 --> 01:10:07.480]  defender, they wouldn't even take my call, because they're not even wanting to get involved
[01:10:07.480 --> 01:10:08.480]  in this.
[01:10:08.480 --> 01:10:13.760]  And the judge appointed, without a name, the public defender.
[01:10:13.760 --> 01:10:15.760]  So, we'll say the public defender's office.
[01:10:15.760 --> 01:10:18.360]  So, I'm not exactly, I'm forced to have a public defender.
[01:10:18.360 --> 01:10:22.400]  He will have to name, they'll have to name a lawyer.
[01:10:22.400 --> 01:10:24.040]  They haven't done that.
[01:10:24.040 --> 01:10:27.040]  Well, they will.
[01:10:27.040 --> 01:10:33.360]  Has the ethereal public defender's office appeared in court for you?
[01:10:33.360 --> 01:10:34.360]  No.
[01:10:34.360 --> 01:10:35.360]  No, okay.
[01:10:35.360 --> 01:10:38.400]  Have they written any documents in your behalf?
[01:10:38.400 --> 01:10:41.840]  They have written no documents, have contacted me in no way.
[01:10:41.840 --> 01:10:45.480]  Okay, so there's been no representation.
[01:10:45.480 --> 01:10:54.000]  So, there will be a name when there is representation, and then you'll know who the lawyer is.
[01:10:54.000 --> 01:10:57.960]  And it is the lawyer you go after.
[01:10:57.960 --> 01:11:03.900]  Understand, lawyers working for the public defender's office, they're generally young
[01:11:03.900 --> 01:11:07.120]  lawyers who get out of law school.
[01:11:07.120 --> 01:11:12.240]  They're not at the top of their class, so they don't get picked up by a law firm.
[01:11:12.240 --> 01:11:17.640]  They have this huge student loan to pay off.
[01:11:17.640 --> 01:11:22.360]  But they can't get started in their own business, so they go to work for the public defender's
[01:11:22.360 --> 01:11:23.360]  office.
[01:11:23.360 --> 01:11:28.280]  They are exceptionally vulnerable.
[01:11:28.280 --> 01:11:34.800]  You can hammer them big time, and the court is not going to want you to ruin that young
[01:11:34.800 --> 01:11:36.840]  lawyer's career.
[01:11:36.840 --> 01:11:42.840]  So, to protect the lawyer, you can get them to drop your case.
[01:11:42.840 --> 01:11:44.640]  That's exactly what they did for me last time.
[01:11:44.640 --> 01:11:51.440]  I told the lawyer, as soon as they appointed him, he went in a little room and they appointed
[01:11:51.440 --> 01:11:53.800]  me one like they did you.
[01:11:53.800 --> 01:11:58.200]  They called me in for a hearing, and I asked the judge, what am I doing here?
[01:11:58.200 --> 01:12:01.240]  He said, well, we've sent you this appeal.
[01:12:01.240 --> 01:12:06.240]  I understand that, Your Honor, but it doesn't tell me why I'm here.
[01:12:06.240 --> 01:12:10.840]  Well, Mr. Kaufman, we needed to find out if you had a lawyer.
[01:12:10.840 --> 01:12:16.080]  I said, well, Your Honor, I've got to a 28.01 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and that
[01:12:16.080 --> 01:12:21.320]  lists all of those things you can order me to come to court for, to see if I have a
[01:12:21.320 --> 01:12:22.320]  lawyer.
[01:12:22.320 --> 01:12:23.320]  It's not one of them.
[01:12:23.320 --> 01:12:30.120]  Well, that got her pretty excited, but she caught herself.
[01:12:30.120 --> 01:12:34.000]  She really wanted to get angry, but she caught herself, and she leaned forward, and she said,
[01:12:34.000 --> 01:12:37.200]  well, Mr. Carlton, we really needed to know if you had a lawyer.
[01:12:37.200 --> 01:12:45.520]  And it turned out this judge was the daughter of the district attorney who had just retired.
[01:12:45.520 --> 01:12:48.000]  So I figured I had a political judge here.
[01:12:48.000 --> 01:12:50.160]  I probably couldn't do any better.
[01:12:50.160 --> 01:12:54.840]  She obviously was smart because she didn't lose her cool.
[01:12:54.840 --> 01:12:57.200]  So I said, no, Your Honor, I don't have a lawyer.
[01:12:57.200 --> 01:13:00.320]  She said, do you want one?
[01:13:00.320 --> 01:13:01.800]  She said, should I appoint you one?
[01:13:01.800 --> 01:13:03.920]  I said, I don't care what you do.
[01:13:03.920 --> 01:13:06.760]  She said, well, Mr. Carlton, no, she said, are you going to hire a lawyer?
[01:13:06.760 --> 01:13:07.760]  I said, no.
[01:13:07.760 --> 01:13:09.080]  She said, do you want me a point one?
[01:13:09.080 --> 01:13:10.080]  I said, I don't care what you do.
[01:13:10.080 --> 01:13:13.400]  She said, well, I'm going to appoint you an attorney.
[01:13:13.400 --> 01:13:19.520]  I said, well, if you do, Judge, make sure you appoint one you really don't like.
[01:13:19.520 --> 01:13:24.560]  And she kind of laughed and said they had an attorney wheel and she appointed this lawyer.
[01:13:24.560 --> 01:13:28.280]  When he came out, we went in this room and he starts telling me how things are going
[01:13:28.280 --> 01:13:29.280]  to go.
[01:13:29.280 --> 01:13:31.520]  And I told him, no, that's not how they're going to go.
[01:13:31.520 --> 01:13:32.840]  Oh, it's not.
[01:13:32.840 --> 01:13:34.240]  Well, then how are things going to go?
[01:13:34.240 --> 01:13:36.520]  I said, this is how it's going to go.
[01:13:36.520 --> 01:13:41.200]  You're going to go to the judge and ask the judge to remove you from this case.
[01:13:41.200 --> 01:13:44.800]  And I'm going to go to the judge and tell him, don't you dare remove him from this
[01:13:44.800 --> 01:13:45.800]  case?
[01:13:45.800 --> 01:13:49.120]  And the judge is going to remove you from this case.
[01:13:49.120 --> 01:13:51.320]  She said, well, if I request to be removed, he will.
[01:13:51.320 --> 01:13:53.000]  I said, yeah, I know that.
[01:13:53.000 --> 01:13:57.320]  And then I'll get to sue the judge for interfering with the contract.
[01:13:57.320 --> 01:14:02.040]  He said, well, Mr. Kelton, I'm not under contract to you.
[01:14:02.040 --> 01:14:03.400]  I'm under contract with the state.
[01:14:03.400 --> 01:14:07.520]  I said, yes, you are, but I'm the intended third party beneficiary and I have standing
[01:14:07.520 --> 01:14:10.840]  to enforce the contract.
[01:14:10.840 --> 01:14:16.560]  And he sat back and looked at me and he had this look in his eye that said, this guy's
[01:14:16.560 --> 01:14:19.520]  going to get me disbarred.
[01:14:19.520 --> 01:14:26.200]  And through the course of that hearing, that trial, I bet he told me 30 times that you're
[01:14:26.200 --> 01:14:28.040]  going to get me disbarred.
[01:14:28.040 --> 01:14:37.360]  He was terrified because I'm demanding that he do what he should be doing.
[01:14:37.360 --> 01:14:45.280]  But he knows his only purpose there is to keep me from having a reason to appeal.
[01:14:45.280 --> 01:14:52.120]  And I'm telling him, I've got emotion in with 27 due process issues in it and you will adequately
[01:14:52.120 --> 01:14:54.720]  adjudicate every single one of those.
[01:14:54.720 --> 01:15:01.320]  You failed to adjudicate a single one of those, I'll bar grieve you then I'll sue you.
[01:15:01.320 --> 01:15:06.480]  And he sees his career passing before his eyes.
[01:15:06.480 --> 01:15:10.120]  These guys are very vulnerable.
[01:15:10.120 --> 01:15:17.920]  And the judge literally dismissed the case to keep me from ruining this lawyer's career.
[01:15:17.920 --> 01:15:27.480]  They think they're sticking you with a lawyer, they're sticking themselves with a liability.
[01:15:27.480 --> 01:15:36.640]  Better not to get angry, better to get mean, better not to feel betrayed and defeated when
[01:15:36.640 --> 01:15:39.080]  they pull their shenanigans.
[01:15:39.080 --> 01:15:42.200]  You got to know these guys are corrupt.
[01:15:42.200 --> 01:15:43.560]  They're absolutely corrupt.
[01:15:43.560 --> 01:15:49.080]  They could care less whether you're guilty or innocent.
[01:15:49.080 --> 01:15:51.320]  They only care about getting a deal.
[01:15:51.320 --> 01:15:54.280]  They absolutely do not want to go to trial.
[01:15:54.280 --> 01:15:57.280]  That's why they forced a lawyer on you.
[01:15:57.280 --> 01:16:01.240]  So he can try to force you to take a deal.
[01:16:01.240 --> 01:16:07.640]  So the first thing you tell the lawyer, there will be no deals, period.
[01:16:07.640 --> 01:16:12.120]  That doesn't mean there will be no deals, but this is poker.
[01:16:12.120 --> 01:16:20.320]  You can always take a deal later, but if they don't have the evidence they need, they're
[01:16:20.320 --> 01:16:26.720]  going to huff and puff and jump up and down and wave their arms until you get to the courthouse
[01:16:26.720 --> 01:16:30.760]  door and then they're going to dismiss.
[01:16:30.760 --> 01:16:37.440]  We have a friend here in Austin, they were pursuing her for five years, got to the courthouse
[01:16:37.440 --> 01:16:38.440]  door.
[01:16:38.440 --> 01:16:41.520]  She told them absolutely no deals.
[01:16:41.520 --> 01:16:44.360]  They dismissed everything.
[01:16:44.360 --> 01:16:47.640]  So they're just trying to beat you into submission.
[01:16:47.640 --> 01:16:49.760]  Hang on, we're about to go to break.
[01:16:49.760 --> 01:16:57.320]  This is Randy Kelkman, Deborah Stevens, Rue La Radio, our call-in number 512-646-1984.
[01:16:57.320 --> 01:17:08.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:17:08.000 --> 01:17:20.000]  Hey, tangy tangerine, see what you've done to me.
[01:17:20.000 --> 01:17:28.000]  You've done so much good, ain't I a sight compared to what I used to be.
[01:17:28.000 --> 01:17:38.000]  Calcium, magnesium, selenium and zinc, take a moment now and think, if you have a little
[01:17:38.000 --> 01:17:46.000]  thing, every day will bring the life that you've been looking for.
[01:17:46.000 --> 01:17:52.000]  The Calcium Tangerine is available at Brave New Books, located at 1904, Guadalupe Street.
[01:17:52.000 --> 01:17:57.600]  The bookstore also carries the works of Dr. Joel Wallop, founder of Young Jeviti and creator
[01:17:57.600 --> 01:18:00.760]  of Beyond Tangy Tangerine.
[01:18:00.760 --> 01:18:04.560]  At Capital Coin in Berlin, our mission is to be your preferred shopping destination by
[01:18:04.560 --> 01:18:09.360]  delivering excellent customer service and outstanding value at an affordable price.
[01:18:09.360 --> 01:18:13.640]  Capital Coin features a great selection of high quality coins and precious metals.
[01:18:13.640 --> 01:18:17.320]  In addition to providing the best prices in the nation, we want to bring you the best
[01:18:17.320 --> 01:18:20.480]  shopping experience both in-store and online.
[01:18:20.480 --> 01:18:24.600]  In addition to coins and bullion, we carry popular Young Jeviti products such as Beyond
[01:18:24.600 --> 01:18:27.040]  Tangy Tangerine and Polyburst.
[01:18:27.040 --> 01:18:32.040]  We offer freeze-dried, storeable foods by August with farms, Bergy Water Products, ammunition
[01:18:32.040 --> 01:18:34.440]  at 10% above wholesale and more.
[01:18:34.440 --> 01:18:39.280]  You can lock in a spot price with our Silver Pool and we set up Metal's IRA accounts.
[01:18:39.280 --> 01:18:43.520]  Call us at 512-646-6400 for more details.
[01:18:43.520 --> 01:18:48.520]  We're located at 7304 Burnett Road, Suite A, about a half mile south of Anderson.
[01:18:48.520 --> 01:18:52.520]  We're open Monday through Friday, 10-6, Saturdays, 10-2.
[01:18:52.520 --> 01:19:20.520]  Visit us at CapitalCoinandBullion.com or call 512-646-6400.
[01:19:20.520 --> 01:19:45.520]  We're open Monday through Friday, 10-2, Saturdays, 10-2, Saturdays, 10-2, Saturdays, 10-2.
[01:19:45.520 --> 01:20:11.520]  We're open Monday through Friday, 10-2, Saturdays, 10-2, Saturdays, 10-2, Saturdays, 10-2, Saturdays,
[01:20:11.520 --> 01:20:12.520]  10-2.
[01:20:12.520 --> 01:20:41.520]  We're open Monday through Friday, 10-2, Saturdays, 10-2, Saturdays, 10-2, Saturdays, 10-2, Saturdays,
[01:20:41.520 --> 01:21:01.520]  10-2, Saturdays, 10-2, Saturdays, 10-2, Saturdays, 10-2, Saturdays, 10-2, Saturdays, 10-2, Saturdays,
[01:21:01.520 --> 01:21:11.080]  Well, this will probably wind up being the best legal education you can have.
[01:21:11.080 --> 01:21:12.080]  Yeah.
[01:21:12.080 --> 01:21:13.080]  Ain't that the truth?
[01:21:13.080 --> 01:21:18.280]  No, I listen to your program and I am a lot more educated.
[01:21:18.280 --> 01:21:30.120]  I'm working on, like you said, court rules, Florida statute, procedural law, everything.
[01:21:30.120 --> 01:21:31.360]  So I am working at it.
[01:21:31.360 --> 01:21:40.880]  The only thing that I have the consideration is, is the public defender is being court
[01:21:40.880 --> 01:21:47.640]  ordered for me, but the public defender isn't exactly there and I don't want him to be there.
[01:21:47.640 --> 01:21:52.920]  So let me make a suggestion.
[01:21:52.920 --> 01:22:01.640]  You can ask that the, you can accept the public defender as second chair.
[01:22:01.640 --> 01:22:04.160]  Okay.
[01:22:04.160 --> 01:22:06.760]  Then all he does is advise you.
[01:22:06.760 --> 01:22:15.120]  Well, the problem is, is that they not advising me, okay, as you sort of know, I mean, this
[01:22:15.120 --> 01:22:20.080]  is really more harassment for me than it is actually a real case.
[01:22:20.080 --> 01:22:21.560]  They know that this would have a case.
[01:22:21.560 --> 01:22:22.920]  We know what it is.
[01:22:22.920 --> 01:22:24.960]  We know what they're doing.
[01:22:24.960 --> 01:22:25.960]  So that's okay.
[01:22:25.960 --> 01:22:28.280]  We take it and turn it on their head.
[01:22:28.280 --> 01:22:29.280]  Right.
[01:22:29.280 --> 01:22:32.040]  They don't want anything to do with me.
[01:22:32.040 --> 01:22:33.840]  They won't, they don't want to talk to me.
[01:22:33.840 --> 01:22:35.880]  They would never take any of my calls.
[01:22:35.880 --> 01:22:37.560]  They don't want anything to do.
[01:22:37.560 --> 01:22:38.560]  Okay.
[01:22:38.560 --> 01:22:39.560]  No, it's not.
[01:22:39.560 --> 01:22:40.560]  Okay.
[01:22:40.560 --> 01:22:48.600]  Let me suggest never, ever call them, never, ever go down and talk to them if you can't
[01:22:48.600 --> 01:22:55.160]  avoid it, give, make them do everything in writing.
[01:22:55.160 --> 01:23:01.280]  If they insist you talk to them, take a recorder with you, take one into court.
[01:23:01.280 --> 01:23:08.800]  If they object and stop you from recording it, then that's a claim you have against them.
[01:23:08.800 --> 01:23:14.320]  Now that we have the Glick decision that says where the Ninth Circuit said that it is well
[01:23:14.320 --> 01:23:21.240]  established that citizens may videotape their public officials in the performance of their
[01:23:21.240 --> 01:23:29.560]  duties, understand these guys will lie when the truth will do better.
[01:23:29.560 --> 01:23:36.120]  If you talk to them on the phone, they will make up garbage that you never said.
[01:23:36.120 --> 01:23:41.320]  If you talk to them on the phone, make sure you have it recorded.
[01:23:41.320 --> 01:23:49.280]  If you're using a computer phone, get call graph and record them.
[01:23:49.280 --> 01:23:51.640]  That makes great recordings.
[01:23:51.640 --> 01:23:57.440]  But always record them because they will lie like dogs.
[01:23:57.440 --> 01:24:01.120]  So make them do everything in writing.
[01:24:01.120 --> 01:24:07.280]  And they want to foster this public defender on you.
[01:24:07.280 --> 01:24:12.600]  Make that public defender's life a living hell.
[01:24:12.600 --> 01:24:15.160]  Give them reason to drop your case.
[01:24:15.160 --> 01:24:16.520]  We do need to move along.
[01:24:16.520 --> 01:24:18.520]  Deborah has something to say.
[01:24:18.520 --> 01:24:19.520]  Thank you.
[01:24:19.520 --> 01:24:20.800]  Thank you for calling in.
[01:24:20.800 --> 01:24:23.560]  Keep us up to date on what's happening.
[01:24:23.560 --> 01:24:24.560]  Okay.
[01:24:24.560 --> 01:24:25.560]  Okay.
[01:24:25.560 --> 01:24:26.560]  Thank you.
[01:24:26.560 --> 01:24:27.560]  Okay.
[01:24:27.560 --> 01:24:28.560]  Deborah has a case.
[01:24:28.560 --> 01:24:30.080]  This is one I've heard about recently.
[01:24:30.080 --> 01:24:37.720]  It's a very recent case about the right of people to sue police officers.
[01:24:37.720 --> 01:24:38.720]  Deborah?
[01:24:38.720 --> 01:24:39.720]  Okay.
[01:24:39.720 --> 01:24:40.720]  Yes.
[01:24:40.720 --> 01:24:45.080]  I wanted to talk about this case because the Supreme Court just ruled on it this week.
[01:24:45.080 --> 01:24:52.480]  And it has to do with FTCA, which is the Federal Tort Claims Act, which is something very near
[01:24:52.480 --> 01:25:00.400]  and dear to my heart as I have filed an FTCA case against some rogue federal officials
[01:25:00.400 --> 01:25:02.880]  in New Mexico, as many of you know.
[01:25:02.880 --> 01:25:07.960]  I'm not going to get into the details of my case right now, but I do want to discuss
[01:25:07.960 --> 01:25:10.120]  this case here.
[01:25:10.120 --> 01:25:14.280]  It's Milbrookvus.
[01:25:14.280 --> 01:25:20.400]  And the Supreme Court just made a ruling on it on April 2nd.
[01:25:20.400 --> 01:25:24.640]  And I wanted to read a bit from this article about this case.
[01:25:24.640 --> 01:25:29.040]  And then I'm going to discuss it and read some of the statutes concerning the case.
[01:25:29.040 --> 01:25:35.720]  This is from the conservativeactionalerts.com, not the, but it's from conservativeactionalerts.com.
[01:25:35.720 --> 01:25:43.040]  At any rate, this case involves a prosailiticate of all things.
[01:25:43.040 --> 01:25:45.280]  And it's a very interesting case.
[01:25:45.280 --> 01:25:53.960]  It says here in this article, in its ruling in Milbrookvus, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court
[01:25:53.960 --> 01:25:59.440]  concluded that the U.S. government may be held liable for abuses intentionally carried
[01:25:59.440 --> 01:26:06.000]  out by law enforcement officers, whether they're police officers or prison guards, in the course
[01:26:06.000 --> 01:26:08.760]  of their employment.
[01:26:08.760 --> 01:26:12.840]  Critics of the government's tactics hope the court's ruling will send a strong message
[01:26:12.840 --> 01:26:17.760]  to the government's various law enforcement agencies that they need to do a better job
[01:26:17.760 --> 01:26:23.840]  of policing their employees and holding them accountable to respecting citizens' rights,
[01:26:23.840 --> 01:26:25.440]  especially while on the job.
[01:26:25.440 --> 01:26:27.720]  I'm going to pause the article here.
[01:26:27.720 --> 01:26:33.840]  This goes to the concept of respondeat superior, okay, that it's, you know, it's going to go
[01:26:33.840 --> 01:26:38.720]  back to the superior, okay, in this situation where the Federal Tort Claims Act goes back
[01:26:38.720 --> 01:26:40.280]  to the U.S. government itself.
[01:26:40.280 --> 01:26:48.520]  All right, so back to the article, Kim Lee Milbrook serving a 31-year sentence reportedly
[01:26:48.520 --> 01:26:54.720]  for drug and gun-related charges along with witness intimidation, all right, he's serving
[01:26:54.720 --> 01:26:55.800]  the sentence.
[01:26:55.800 --> 01:27:01.360]  On March 1, 2010, Milbrook was transferred to a high-security federal prison in Lewisburg,
[01:27:01.360 --> 01:27:05.840]  Pennsylvania, specializing in dealing with inmates who are highly disruptive and difficult
[01:27:05.840 --> 01:27:09.080]  to manage, including gang leaders.
[01:27:09.080 --> 01:27:16.480]  On March 4, 2010, a few days after being installed at the Special Management Unit in Lewisburg,
[01:27:16.480 --> 01:27:21.320]  Milbrook and his cellmate got into a fight and were temporarily placed in the shower
[01:27:21.320 --> 01:27:22.320]  area.
[01:27:22.320 --> 01:27:29.440]  Then, according to Milbrook, three prison guards escorted him to the basement holding
[01:27:29.440 --> 01:27:34.200]  cell area where one guard choked him until he almost lost consciousness, and the second
[01:27:34.200 --> 01:27:40.800]  guard made Milbrook perform oral sex on him while a third stood by at the door.
[01:27:40.800 --> 01:27:46.200]  Conveniently, no video cameras were monitoring the basement at the time of the alleged assault.
[01:27:46.200 --> 01:27:49.720]  Although Milbrook claims the guards threatened to kill him, if he reported the incident,
[01:27:49.720 --> 01:27:55.040]  he saw the complaint with prison officials, which then led to a formal investigation.
[01:27:55.040 --> 01:27:58.720]  During the course of the investigation, a prison physician determined Milbrook did not
[01:27:58.720 --> 01:28:01.200]  show signs of having been choked.
[01:28:01.200 --> 01:28:06.120]  A prison psychologist concluded Milbrook did not exhibit trauma, and the prison guards
[01:28:06.120 --> 01:28:10.200]  and Milbrook's cellmates all testified to having no knowledge of any such assault.
[01:28:10.200 --> 01:28:11.920]  Yet, I'm sure they did.
[01:28:11.920 --> 01:28:14.160]  Okay, that was my comment.
[01:28:14.160 --> 01:28:18.840]  Prison officials also noted Milbrook had filed similar complaints in a previous prison,
[01:28:18.840 --> 01:28:21.160]  which were eventually dismissed, blah, blah, blah.
[01:28:21.160 --> 01:28:23.120]  All right, here's the good part.
[01:28:23.120 --> 01:28:30.240]  A non-lawyer, relatively well-versed in navigating the legal system, Milbrook turned to the courts
[01:28:30.240 --> 01:28:37.600]  for relief in January 2011, suing the federal government for $1.5 million in damages for
[01:28:37.600 --> 01:28:42.960]  negligence, assault, and battery, and requesting a transfer out of the Lewisburg facility.
[01:28:42.960 --> 01:28:47.600]  Neither the federal court nor the Third Circuit Court of Appeals proved to be receptive to
[01:28:47.600 --> 01:28:53.920]  Milbrook's argument that prison guards should be held liable under a provision of the Federal
[01:28:53.920 --> 01:29:00.340]  Tort Claims Act, which allows individuals to sue federal law enforcement officials for
[01:29:00.340 --> 01:29:01.340]  misconduct.
[01:29:01.340 --> 01:29:02.840]  I'm going to make a comment here.
[01:29:02.840 --> 01:29:06.800]  Actually, this is not what the Federal Tort Claims is about.
[01:29:06.800 --> 01:29:09.960]  The prison guards themselves are never liable.
[01:29:09.960 --> 01:29:12.400]  Individuals are not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
[01:29:12.400 --> 01:29:19.040]  The U.S. government is the entity that is liable under the FTCA, resulting from negligence,
[01:29:19.040 --> 01:29:23.480]  et cetera, of their employees, which in this case would be the prison guards.
[01:29:23.480 --> 01:29:28.640]  So this article isn't really quite properly describing what goes on with the Federal
[01:29:28.640 --> 01:29:30.960]  Tort Claims Act in this paragraph.
[01:29:30.960 --> 01:29:34.600]  At any rate, okay, the cliffhanger, we're about to go to break.
[01:29:34.600 --> 01:29:40.640]  When I get back, I'm going to finish talking about what happened with this pro se Milbrook
[01:29:40.640 --> 01:29:45.000]  and the Supreme Court, because it is actually quite encouraging.
[01:29:45.000 --> 01:29:48.160]  And then I'm going to discuss a little bit more about the Federal Tort Claims Act and
[01:29:48.160 --> 01:29:54.480]  read some of the statutes and how that relates to a suing individuals under Bivens.
[01:29:54.480 --> 01:29:58.160]  We'll be right back, just for the rule of law.
[01:29:58.160 --> 01:30:05.680]  Few people realize today's cameras encode precise GPS location data into your photos.
[01:30:05.680 --> 01:30:09.720]  That means an online creep could use your birthday pictures to pinpoint your home.
[01:30:09.720 --> 01:30:12.760]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, details in a moment.
[01:30:12.760 --> 01:30:18.120]  Your search engine is watching you, recording all your searches and creating a massive database
[01:30:18.120 --> 01:30:20.200]  of your personal information.
[01:30:20.200 --> 01:30:21.200]  That's creepy.
[01:30:21.200 --> 01:30:23.200]  But it doesn't have to be that way.
[01:30:23.200 --> 01:30:26.320]  StartPage.com is the world's most private search engine.
[01:30:26.320 --> 01:30:30.480]  StartPage doesn't store your IP address, make a record of your searches or use tracking
[01:30:30.480 --> 01:30:32.720]  cookies and their third party certified.
[01:30:32.720 --> 01:30:37.200]  If you don't like big brother spying on you, start over with StartPage.
[01:30:37.200 --> 01:30:39.640]  Great search results and total privacy.
[01:30:39.640 --> 01:30:42.800]  StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:30:42.800 --> 01:30:47.480]  These days, smartphones with built-in cameras are all the rage, but I bet you don't know
[01:30:47.480 --> 01:30:52.120]  the information hidden in the photos digital files could invade your privacy.
[01:30:52.120 --> 01:30:56.800]  Many new smartphone cameras geotag photographs and videos with the exact coordinates where
[01:30:56.800 --> 01:30:58.320]  the images were taken.
[01:30:58.320 --> 01:31:02.880]  Not only are the latitude and longitude numbers recorded, but many include a mapping feature
[01:31:02.880 --> 01:31:05.040]  that's like putting a pin on a map.
[01:31:05.040 --> 01:31:09.120]  The next time you want to upload a picture of your kids in the pool to Facebook or Twitter,
[01:31:09.120 --> 01:31:10.120]  think twice.
[01:31:10.120 --> 01:31:13.720]  If you don't want strangers knowing where your children live, review your manufacturer's
[01:31:13.720 --> 01:31:18.160]  instructions and disable the geotagging application on your camera.
[01:31:18.160 --> 01:31:19.560]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[01:31:19.560 --> 01:31:29.880]  More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:31:29.880 --> 01:31:35.200]  A noble lie, Oklahoma City, 1995 will change forever the way you look at the true nature
[01:31:35.200 --> 01:31:36.200]  of terrorism.
[01:31:36.200 --> 01:31:40.120]  Based on the damage pattern to the building, but the government sends impossible.
[01:31:40.120 --> 01:31:43.800]  The grand jury did not want to hear anything I had to say.
[01:31:43.800 --> 01:31:47.600]  The decision was made not to pursue any more of those individuals.
[01:31:47.600 --> 01:31:52.320]  Some of these columns were ripped up, shredded, tossed around.
[01:31:52.320 --> 01:31:56.000]  The people that did the things they did knew doggone well what they were doing.
[01:31:56.000 --> 01:32:00.520]  Expose the cover up now at anobleye.com.
[01:32:00.520 --> 01:32:06.880]  At hempusa.org, we offer chemical-free products to people around the world, detoxifying, self-healing
[01:32:06.880 --> 01:32:09.000]  while rebuilding the immune system.
[01:32:09.000 --> 01:32:14.760]  We urge our listeners to please consider our largest selling product, micro plant powder.
[01:32:14.760 --> 01:32:20.760]  Our micro plant powder is rich in iodine, probiotics, zinc, and silica to help rebuild
[01:32:20.760 --> 01:32:24.640]  the immune system and to create a healthy stomach flora.
[01:32:24.640 --> 01:32:28.440]  Micro plant powder is excellent for daily intake and is perfect to add to your storage
[01:32:28.440 --> 01:32:29.440]  shelter.
[01:32:29.440 --> 01:32:34.600]  We urge our listeners to please visit us at hempusa.org and remember all of our products
[01:32:34.600 --> 01:32:36.720]  are chemical-free and healthy to eat.
[01:32:36.720 --> 01:32:41.400]  We constantly strive to give you the best service, highest quality, and rapid shipping
[01:32:41.400 --> 01:32:42.400]  anywhere.
[01:32:42.400 --> 01:32:45.600]  And we offer free shipping on orders over $95 in the U.S.
[01:32:45.600 --> 01:32:52.120]  Please visit us at hempusa.org or call 908-6912608.
[01:32:52.120 --> 01:32:55.360]  That's 908-6912608.
[01:32:55.360 --> 01:32:59.960]  See what our powder, seeds, and oil can do for you at hempusa.org.
[01:32:59.960 --> 01:33:06.960]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:33:06.960 --> 01:33:12.960]  Yeah, who you want to check?
[01:33:12.960 --> 01:33:15.960]  Who you think we're for free, Tony?
[01:33:15.960 --> 01:33:17.960]  Who you want to check?
[01:33:17.960 --> 01:33:19.960]  Man up for you, Tony.
[01:33:19.960 --> 01:33:21.960]  You can check me.
[01:33:21.960 --> 01:33:23.960]  All my facts.
[01:33:23.960 --> 01:33:27.960]  Don't let them chip you in the morning, chip you in the evening, put that chip in your
[01:33:27.960 --> 01:33:33.440]  back, this is the rule of law, Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens, and I am going
[01:33:33.440 --> 01:33:41.240]  over this very important Supreme Court case, ruling just handed down this week concerning
[01:33:41.240 --> 01:33:43.960]  FTCA, Federal Tort Claims Act.
[01:33:43.960 --> 01:33:49.960]  And I'm going to continue with this article and make commentary and read some of the statute.
[01:33:49.960 --> 01:33:51.960]  All right, so back to the article.
[01:33:51.960 --> 01:33:56.240]  Again, the article got it a little bit wrong, this writer.
[01:33:56.240 --> 01:34:01.840]  The FTCA does not allow individuals to sue federal law enforcement officials for misconduct.
[01:34:01.840 --> 01:34:07.680]  In fact, it's very specific that that's not the purpose of the FTCA.
[01:34:07.680 --> 01:34:14.680]  The purpose of the FTCA is to sue the U.S. government itself for the actions of its employees.
[01:34:14.680 --> 01:34:17.240]  So I'm going to get, they got that a little bit wrong here.
[01:34:17.240 --> 01:34:19.240]  All right, back to the article.
[01:34:19.240 --> 01:34:23.800]  Although both courts, although both courts, referring to the federal district court and
[01:34:23.800 --> 01:34:27.680]  the third circuit court of appeals, although both courts noted that the prison guard's
[01:34:27.680 --> 01:34:33.120]  alleged behavior was troubling, they ducked the issue and dismissed the case on the grounds
[01:34:33.120 --> 01:34:39.120]  that the federal government has sovereign immunity, that is, although an egregious wrong
[01:34:39.120 --> 01:34:43.720]  may have been committed by a government employee, they cannot be held liable for money damages
[01:34:43.720 --> 01:34:46.680]  for their behaviors, for their behaviors.
[01:34:46.680 --> 01:34:52.720]  Specifically the court's reason that the FTCA only applies to, quote, police officers while
[01:34:52.720 --> 01:34:58.440]  they are in the process of making an arrest or seizure or executing a search.
[01:34:58.440 --> 01:35:04.760]  All right, I'm going to pause here and read part of the Federal Tort Claims Act.
[01:35:04.760 --> 01:35:11.320]  And you folks will see why the Supreme Court basically made the ruling that it did.
[01:35:11.320 --> 01:35:21.160]  Section 28 USC, section 1346B1, states that the United States, for money damages, okay,
[01:35:21.160 --> 01:35:26.280]  it talks about jurisdiction of the district court concerning claims against the United
[01:35:26.280 --> 01:35:34.800]  States for money damages, for injury, loss of property or personal injury or death caused
[01:35:34.800 --> 01:35:43.480]  by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the government while acting
[01:35:43.480 --> 01:35:49.560]  within the scope of his office or employment under circumstances where the United States,
[01:35:49.560 --> 01:35:53.880]  if a private person would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the laws of the
[01:35:53.880 --> 01:35:58.760]  place where the act or omission occurred, any employee, all right.
[01:35:58.760 --> 01:35:59.760]  And there's more.
[01:35:59.760 --> 01:36:05.000]  I'll read some more from the act in a moment, but back to the, so see here what's happening
[01:36:05.000 --> 01:36:11.240]  is that the lower courts are saying, oh, the US government is only responsible if police
[01:36:11.240 --> 01:36:16.000]  officers commit certain crimes or wrongful acts while they're in the process of making
[01:36:16.000 --> 01:36:17.640]  an arrest or seizure.
[01:36:17.640 --> 01:36:21.520]  But these are prison guards, so sorry, the US government isn't responsible.
[01:36:21.520 --> 01:36:24.080]  All right, that's what the lower courts are trying to say.
[01:36:24.080 --> 01:36:26.000]  Okay, back to the article.
[01:36:26.000 --> 01:36:35.880]  Undeterred, Milbrook filed a handwritten petition in pencil, no less, to the US Supreme Court
[01:36:35.880 --> 01:36:44.400]  and in a rare show of magnanimity, the court not only agreed to hear his case but ruled
[01:36:44.400 --> 01:36:46.160]  in his favor.
[01:36:46.160 --> 01:36:51.440]  Of course, Milbrook still has to prove to the lower courts that he was, in fact, assaulted
[01:36:51.440 --> 01:36:53.240]  by the guards.
[01:36:53.240 --> 01:36:57.840]  Whether or not Milbrook's allegations prove to be true, however, is a painful reminder
[01:36:57.840 --> 01:37:03.400]  that such abuses are par for the course, et cetera, et cetera, and tolerated.
[01:37:03.400 --> 01:37:08.200]  Okay, so I'm not going to read the whole rest of the article because I want to get to some
[01:37:08.200 --> 01:37:10.400]  of the main points of the law here.
[01:37:10.400 --> 01:37:17.120]  But basically, one thing that the article writer was saying here is he's criticizing
[01:37:17.120 --> 01:37:22.160]  the government saying, which should be criticized, what kind of government not only turns a blind
[01:37:22.160 --> 01:37:29.360]  eye to such abuses but absolves itself or attempts to absolve itself of any responsibility.
[01:37:29.360 --> 01:37:34.200]  And the answer, and Randy has mentioned this several times, the answer is a government
[01:37:34.200 --> 01:37:40.000]  whose system of checks and balances has given way to a concerted effort by all branches
[01:37:40.000 --> 01:37:47.800]  of the government, including the courts, to maintain their acquired power at all costs.
[01:37:47.800 --> 01:37:50.680]  It's all about protecting their power.
[01:37:50.680 --> 01:37:56.640]  All right, and then the article says, looked at from this perspective, while Milbrook was
[01:37:56.640 --> 01:38:01.840]  indeed a welcome respite from the Supreme Court's usual practice of giving law enforcement
[01:38:01.840 --> 01:38:06.240]  officials a get out of jail free card, it may prove in the long run to be little more
[01:38:06.240 --> 01:38:13.760]  than a bone toss to a dog, a small concession in the midst of a sea of abuses.
[01:38:13.760 --> 01:38:19.360]  And so furthermore, there is criticism of this whole situation, and I guess the FTCA
[01:38:19.360 --> 01:38:27.320]  in general, because basically the U.S. government ends up paying and then, which means the taxpayers
[01:38:27.320 --> 01:38:36.000]  end up paying, and here says Jeff Buschholz, I'm not quite sure who that is, it says responding
[01:38:36.000 --> 01:38:40.440]  to the assertion that the Milbrook ruling ensures the government now has a direct pocketbook
[01:38:40.440 --> 01:38:46.680]  interest in stopping this kind of behavior, he points out that the FTCA judgments are
[01:38:46.680 --> 01:38:51.760]  paid by an unlimited fund provided by Congress so it doesn't hurt prison guards or their
[01:38:51.760 --> 01:38:56.560]  supervisors when judgments are paid out under the statute.
[01:38:56.560 --> 01:39:03.240]  In other words, it's business as usual with a taxpayer forced to pay the penalty for the
[01:39:03.240 --> 01:39:08.800]  government employee's misdeeds, all right, it says in days gone by this payment to right
[01:39:08.800 --> 01:39:13.760]  or wrong was called blood money, and it was paid by the guilty party to his victim.
[01:39:13.760 --> 01:39:17.680]  And it says, could it be that the government has managed to slip the news from around its
[01:39:17.680 --> 01:39:21.240]  own neck, leaving us to hang for the crime, figuratively speaking.
[01:39:21.240 --> 01:39:25.360]  All right, so I'm going to respond to some of this here, I'm going to read some more
[01:39:25.360 --> 01:39:34.960]  about this statute, all right, and the history of its relation with Bivens, all right.
[01:39:34.960 --> 01:39:45.080]  I've read a book on FTCA, and basically in the past, the government has tried to say,
[01:39:45.080 --> 01:39:50.440]  well, if you're going to sue the US government for these type of actions, wrongful actions
[01:39:50.440 --> 01:39:56.080]  of the employees, well, you can't also sue them personally under Bivens.
[01:39:56.080 --> 01:39:57.080]  Not true.
[01:39:57.080 --> 01:40:02.120]  All right, this is the answer to, well, it's at least a partial answer to some of the critics
[01:40:02.120 --> 01:40:03.640]  of the FTCA.
[01:40:03.640 --> 01:40:10.160]  And believe me, even though the US government may have to pay, there are repercussions for
[01:40:10.160 --> 01:40:17.000]  these people at their jobs, and there's repercussions for their supervisors, et cetera, et cetera.
[01:40:17.000 --> 01:40:23.720]  People get in trouble, even if it doesn't come out of their pockets over these FTCA cases.
[01:40:23.720 --> 01:40:30.280]  Now there's a case, and I'm sorry, I don't have the year, it's called Carlson v. Green,
[01:40:30.280 --> 01:40:37.440]  where the Supreme Court commented that Congress follows the practice of explicitly so stating
[01:40:37.440 --> 01:40:44.240]  what it means to make this tort claims act an exclusive remedy, and held that the remedy
[01:40:44.240 --> 01:40:52.600]  provided by the FTCA is not exclusive and does not preempt the remedy provided against
[01:40:52.600 --> 01:41:00.760]  federal officials individually for violation of rights by the Bivens v. Six unknown federal
[01:41:00.760 --> 01:41:02.240]  narcotics agents case.
[01:41:02.240 --> 01:41:12.760]  Bivens is the landmark case that set the precedent to allow people to sue federal employees
[01:41:12.760 --> 01:41:16.600]  personally for their wrongful acts.
[01:41:16.600 --> 01:41:24.280]  And so this is why, if you're going to pursue an FTCA case, you wrap it all up into one
[01:41:24.280 --> 01:41:30.040]  suit, part of the suit, you're suing the US government, they're all co-defendants.
[01:41:30.040 --> 01:41:35.200]  That's why in my case, literally there's like 25 co-defendants, okay?
[01:41:35.200 --> 01:41:39.920]  All these unknown people, some people who we know, we're suing the agencies, we're suing
[01:41:39.920 --> 01:41:43.480]  the US government itself on and on and on, okay?
[01:41:43.480 --> 01:41:47.280]  Under FTCA, the only defendant is the US government itself.
[01:41:47.280 --> 01:41:53.000]  But the point is, you go after all of them under all these different statutes and under
[01:41:53.000 --> 01:41:54.000]  Bivens.
[01:41:54.000 --> 01:41:59.120]  So you sue the individuals directly under Bivens and you sue the US government under
[01:41:59.120 --> 01:42:00.120]  the FTCA.
[01:42:00.120 --> 01:42:01.120]  Okay?
[01:42:01.120 --> 01:42:08.360]  Now, you also have to go back and see what the state law says on these issues concerning
[01:42:08.360 --> 01:42:11.760]  wrongful acts, et cetera, et cetera.
[01:42:11.760 --> 01:42:19.600]  And now, as a result of the Bivens case, Congress amended the exclusionary provisions of Section
[01:42:19.600 --> 01:42:27.360]  2680 of the Torch Claims Act to permit suit under the Act on Claims accruing on or after
[01:42:27.360 --> 01:42:34.080]  March 16, 1974 for assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process,
[01:42:34.080 --> 01:42:40.600]  or malicious prosecution, et cetera, et cetera, where claims are based upon the acts or omissions
[01:42:40.600 --> 01:42:44.320]  of federal investigative or law enforcement officers.
[01:42:44.320 --> 01:42:45.320]  Okay?
[01:42:45.320 --> 01:42:51.600]  This is in the congressional debates on this bill.
[01:42:51.600 --> 01:42:57.520]  It was amended in 1974, this Section 2680.
[01:42:57.520 --> 01:43:04.600]  And it was specifically added in by Congress because of the Bivens suit.
[01:43:04.600 --> 01:43:05.600]  Okay?
[01:43:05.600 --> 01:43:13.240]  Because of this landmark Bivens case, Congress amended the Federal Torch Claims Act to allow
[01:43:13.240 --> 01:43:18.800]  for the US government to be sued and held liable.
[01:43:18.800 --> 01:43:28.240]  And I'm going to read it here, Section 2680-H, US, 28 USC, Title 28, Section 2680-H, which
[01:43:28.240 --> 01:43:34.160]  states with regards to acts or omissions of investigative or law enforcement officers
[01:43:34.160 --> 01:43:36.880]  of the United States government.
[01:43:36.880 --> 01:43:40.200]  This, and I'll finish reading after the fact.
[01:43:40.200 --> 01:43:44.840]  But at any rate, it's very clear when you look at the congressional records, the congressional
[01:43:44.840 --> 01:43:52.040]  intent, you read the statute, they even specifically amended it because of Bivens.
[01:43:52.040 --> 01:43:55.120]  And I'll finish this up quickly on the other side and continue to take the calls.
[01:43:55.120 --> 01:43:56.120]  We'll be right back.
[01:43:56.120 --> 01:43:57.120]  This is the rule of law.
[01:43:57.120 --> 01:44:04.680]  It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM, but finding things on the Internet isn't
[01:44:04.680 --> 01:44:08.440]  so easy, and neither is finding like-minded people to share it with.
[01:44:08.440 --> 01:44:11.640]  Oh, well, I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books then.
[01:44:11.640 --> 01:44:12.640]  Brave New Books?
[01:44:12.640 --> 01:44:13.640]  Yes.
[01:44:13.640 --> 01:44:17.800]  Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for by authors like Alex Jones,
[01:44:17.800 --> 01:44:19.800]  Ron Paul, Angie Edward Griffin.
[01:44:19.800 --> 01:44:23.120]  They even stock Interfood, Berkey products, and Calvin Soaps.
[01:44:23.120 --> 01:44:26.120]  There's no way a place like that exists.
[01:44:26.120 --> 01:44:27.600]  Go check it out for yourself.
[01:44:27.600 --> 01:44:31.640]  It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street, just south of UT.
[01:44:31.640 --> 01:44:33.120]  Oh, by UT?
[01:44:33.120 --> 01:44:35.360]  There's never anywhere to park down there.
[01:44:35.360 --> 01:44:40.560]  Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking
[01:44:40.560 --> 01:44:43.560]  facility just behind the bookstore.
[01:44:43.560 --> 01:44:46.560]  It does exist, but when are they open?
[01:44:46.560 --> 01:44:51.360]  Monday through Saturday, 11 a.m. to 9 p.m., and 1 to 6 p.m. on Sundays.
[01:44:51.360 --> 01:44:57.960]  So get them a call at 512-480-2503, or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:44:57.960 --> 01:45:03.600]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:03.600 --> 01:45:06.840]  Win your case without an attorney with jurisdictionary.
[01:45:06.840 --> 01:45:13.200]  The affordable, easy-to-understand four-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours
[01:45:13.200 --> 01:45:14.200]  is a step-by-step.
[01:45:14.200 --> 01:45:18.200]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:45:18.200 --> 01:45:22.200]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:22.200 --> 01:45:27.200]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can, too.
[01:45:27.200 --> 01:45:33.200]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:45:33.200 --> 01:45:38.200]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the
[01:45:38.200 --> 01:45:42.200]  principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:42.200 --> 01:45:49.200]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[01:45:49.200 --> 01:45:51.200]  prosay tactics, and much more.
[01:45:51.200 --> 01:45:55.200]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner.
[01:45:55.200 --> 01:46:00.200]  Or call toll-free 866-LAW-E-V.
[01:46:00.200 --> 01:46:14.200]  Hello. Oh, man, you're in jail. You got fucking nothing.
[01:46:14.200 --> 01:46:22.200]  Oh, man, I'm broke.
[01:46:22.200 --> 01:46:32.200]  Oh, man, you're in jail.
[01:46:32.200 --> 01:46:42.200]  Oh, man, you're in jail.
[01:46:42.200 --> 01:47:04.200]  Okay, folks, we are back.
[01:47:04.200 --> 01:47:09.200]  All right, I'm going to quickly finish up here concerning this FTCA case.
[01:47:09.200 --> 01:47:13.200]  It's a very important case here, this Milbrook case.
[01:47:13.200 --> 01:47:20.200]  All right, so the bottom line is the Supreme Court said that, yes, under FTCA,
[01:47:20.200 --> 01:47:30.200]  the U.S. government is absolutely liable for damages if what this fella is saying is true,
[01:47:30.200 --> 01:47:36.200]  even though they were, quote, prison guards instead of police officers, federal police,
[01:47:36.200 --> 01:47:41.200]  federal, because there's still federal law enforcement and also there's still an employee.
[01:47:41.200 --> 01:47:49.200]  So back to the Bivens thing, Congress specifically amended the FTCA to include another paragraph
[01:47:49.200 --> 01:47:53.200]  holding the U.S. government liable.
[01:47:53.200 --> 01:48:00.200]  And this is section 2680H, which says, with regard to acts or omissions of investigative
[01:48:00.200 --> 01:48:05.200]  or law enforcement officers of the United States government.
[01:48:05.200 --> 01:48:06.200]  I'm going to pause there.
[01:48:06.200 --> 01:48:09.200]  Prison guards are included as a law enforcement officer.
[01:48:09.200 --> 01:48:12.200]  That's another reason why the Supreme Court ruled the way it did.
[01:48:12.200 --> 01:48:14.200]  All right, back to the statute.
[01:48:14.200 --> 01:48:20.200]  The provisions of this chapter in section 1346 of this title shall apply to any claim arising
[01:48:20.200 --> 01:48:26.200]  on or after the date of the enactment of this proviso out of assault, battery, false imprisonment,
[01:48:26.200 --> 01:48:33.200]  false arrest, abuse of process, or malicious prosecution for the purpose of this subsection
[01:48:33.200 --> 01:48:38.200]  of investigative or law enforcement officer means any officer of the U.S.
[01:48:38.200 --> 01:48:43.200]  who's empowered to execute searches, seize evidence, or make arrests for violations of federal law.
[01:48:43.200 --> 01:48:47.200]  Certainly, prison guards have the authority to do all of those things.
[01:48:47.200 --> 01:48:52.200]  All right, and see, this wasn't even really necessary to be added into the statute
[01:48:52.200 --> 01:49:00.200]  because the bottom line is section 1346 says any employee, the negligent or wrongful act
[01:49:00.200 --> 01:49:04.200]  or omission of any employee of the government.
[01:49:04.200 --> 01:49:11.200]  All right, obviously a wrongful act includes all of these things that were mentioned in the other paragraph.
[01:49:11.200 --> 01:49:17.200]  And so I just wanted to comment briefly on, Randy and I were discussing on the break,
[01:49:17.200 --> 01:49:23.200]  scope of duties versus scope of employment.
[01:49:23.200 --> 01:49:28.200]  Okay, and I'm going to read a little bit from a state tort claims act,
[01:49:28.200 --> 01:49:31.200]  and this is pretty much across the board in every state.
[01:49:31.200 --> 01:49:37.200]  The New Mexico Tort Claims Act defines scope of duties as performing any duties
[01:49:37.200 --> 01:49:42.200]  that a public employee is requested, required, or authorized to perform by a government entity,
[01:49:42.200 --> 01:49:45.200]  regardless of the time and place of performance.
[01:49:45.200 --> 01:49:50.200]  This phrase differs from the common law term scope of employment
[01:49:50.200 --> 01:49:59.200]  and can encompass even criminal acts of an employee acting within the scope of his or her duties.
[01:49:59.200 --> 01:50:06.200]  Okay, so the bottom line is to properly sue under Federal Tort Claims Act,
[01:50:06.200 --> 01:50:11.200]  you have to show, if there was a criminal act involved like assault, battery, et cetera, et cetera,
[01:50:11.200 --> 01:50:23.200]  you have to show that the alleged officer, the alleged employee of the United States government,
[01:50:23.200 --> 01:50:29.200]  you have to show that that person was acting within the scope of their duties,
[01:50:29.200 --> 01:50:35.200]  which means were they in uniform, were they on the clock, were they acting,
[01:50:35.200 --> 01:50:43.200]  except for the crime itself, were they carrying out the duties of a prison guard, et cetera, et cetera,
[01:50:43.200 --> 01:50:51.200]  because if they were off the clock, say at a bar somewhere and drunk and gotten a bar brawl,
[01:50:51.200 --> 01:50:57.200]  well then you can't sue the U.S. government under Federal Tort Claims Act
[01:50:57.200 --> 01:51:00.200]  because they were not acting in the scope of their duties.
[01:51:00.200 --> 01:51:07.200]  And so scope of employment is different. So basically these assaults,
[01:51:07.200 --> 01:51:14.200]  the sexual assault, the beatings, everything else, was outside of the scope of their employment
[01:51:14.200 --> 01:51:20.200]  because they certainly weren't hired to do such a thing and it's a crime.
[01:51:20.200 --> 01:51:25.200]  So they were acting outside the scope of their employment but they were acting within the scope of their duties
[01:51:25.200 --> 01:51:31.200]  because it happened while they were in the midst of performing their duties.
[01:51:31.200 --> 01:51:36.200]  So does that make sense? So you have to show within scope of duties but outside scope of employment.
[01:51:36.200 --> 01:51:40.200]  So at any rate, the bottom line is that it all goes back to Bivens
[01:51:40.200 --> 01:51:44.200]  and so the solution here is you have to sue under both.
[01:51:44.200 --> 01:51:47.200]  You have to sue these agents personally under Bivens
[01:51:47.200 --> 01:51:52.200]  and then you also sue the U.S. government under Federal Tort Claims Act
[01:51:52.200 --> 01:51:56.200]  and you get them all in trouble. So anyways, I just wanted to go over that case
[01:51:56.200 --> 01:52:02.200]  and we have one caller left but what's your take, what's your commentary on that, Randy?
[01:52:02.200 --> 01:52:04.200]  I'm going to have to look a lot closer at that.
[01:52:04.200 --> 01:52:11.200]  It gives me a lot of ideas about how to set up an action.
[01:52:11.200 --> 01:52:18.200]  We've been considering an action against the federal government concerning access to grand juries.
[01:52:18.200 --> 01:52:28.200]  And this gives me a shot at going after a U.S. attorney who would interfere with access to a grand jury.
[01:52:28.200 --> 01:52:35.200]  That's criminal where he exerts a purports to exert an authority he doesn't explicitly have
[01:52:35.200 --> 01:52:38.200]  and I don't care if I sue him personally or not.
[01:52:38.200 --> 01:52:45.200]  If I can sue the federal government, everything's political and that will create a lot of politics.
[01:52:45.200 --> 01:52:53.200]  Yes, absolutely. So it's not just a situation of, oh well, the taxpayers have to pay or oh well,
[01:52:53.200 --> 01:53:01.200]  it's just all going to, you know, the Federal Reserve is going to just print free money to pay for the lawsuit anyway.
[01:53:01.200 --> 01:53:08.200]  It's a lot more than that. You are going to make some change when you start suing successfully
[01:53:08.200 --> 01:53:11.200]  or even unsuccessfully under Federal Tort Claims Act.
[01:53:11.200 --> 01:53:18.200]  Yeah, especially in this time of tight budgets. We've only got five minutes left. Thank you very much, Deborah.
[01:53:18.200 --> 01:53:22.200]  Yes, and just one last comment about that prosecutor thing.
[01:53:22.200 --> 01:53:29.200]  I think that would be a situation where the prosecutor would be acting within the scope of his duties
[01:53:29.200 --> 01:53:35.200]  because he's carrying out his quote duties as a prosecutor but outside scope of employment because it's a crime.
[01:53:35.200 --> 01:53:38.200]  Wonderful. All right, go ahead.
[01:53:38.200 --> 01:53:44.200]  Okay, thank you. Stephen, sorry we've got so late here.
[01:53:44.200 --> 01:53:48.200]  You have a question or a comment for us?
[01:53:48.200 --> 01:53:55.200]  It's all show. Y'all got the right to go over. That's pretty good information on no offense.
[01:53:55.200 --> 01:54:12.200]  Yeah, so what I was going for is, listen, I had a visit been over a year since I even had somebody even attempt to come out to my property there in Hillsboro in Texas.
[01:54:12.200 --> 01:54:21.200]  And as far as co-enforcement or building as a factor, they both left me alone after some bleemings over the phone.
[01:54:21.200 --> 01:54:30.200]  And this time I've got one that actually had the nerve to go right beside my private property in no trespassing sign that I have on the home that we're working on.
[01:54:30.200 --> 01:54:42.200]  I don't even live in it. It's just property at the moment, not in any commercial use or any sort, but they had the nerve to stick a sign, a staple of paper up right next to those signs
[01:54:42.200 --> 01:54:58.200]  and say that, you know, they inspected my property and it was found to be, let's say what they call it. One part they call it a nuisance and another part they call it, well, you need to build a permit to be working on your roof
[01:54:58.200 --> 01:55:03.200]  and if you don't get one by such and such today, well, we're going to find you at $500 a day.
[01:55:03.200 --> 01:55:15.200]  I've queued on two of them so far and I've got recordings of both of it in regard to the fact of what I've told them what I'm about to do to them.
[01:55:15.200 --> 01:55:24.200]  I said, you've got the nerve to come up here and put something on my land like that sign doesn't mean anything to you and you're somehow God and that doesn't pertain to you.
[01:55:24.200 --> 01:55:35.200]  I said, look in your charter and I said, well, have you read our charter? Of course I've read your charter. I know exactly what it says. So they go to the definition to see who you've got jurisdiction over.
[01:55:35.200 --> 01:55:44.200]  Oh, it says right, we've got jurisdiction over. Oh, I said, who are the persons who you've got jurisdiction over? Oh, where do you find that at?
[01:55:44.200 --> 01:55:55.200]  Of course, they don't know, never read it, not trained in it and they'll go up there and they'll be, oh, well, businesses, corporations, all these other things and individuals.
[01:55:55.200 --> 01:56:00.200]  There it is. There you are. See right there. It says we've got control over all individuals.
[01:56:00.200 --> 01:56:14.200]  I've seen more on that you don't have any idea whatsoever what the hell an individual is, it's in the face. I've had it with a couple of them. I said, well, we don't know if we agree with you or whatever.
[01:56:14.200 --> 01:56:29.200]  I said, well, I'll tell you what, I said, and now I'm leaving out several items in this, but I tell you, I've confronted them, I said I'm about to hit you with charges criminally and I named off several going through the penal code.
[01:56:29.200 --> 01:56:36.200]  And I've known, told them I'm going to hit them with civil, which is a court warrant, though, being outside of their charter.
[01:56:36.200 --> 01:56:50.200]  I'm going to hit them with the administrative complaint, because I'm trying to put as many legs on this stool as I can, because if they claim to be code enforcement and they've got to operate by the occupations code and there's a place for complaints there,
[01:56:50.200 --> 01:57:05.200]  and then I want to hit them with PRs and we're going for a court letter also somewhere in here. In addition to my negative agreement where they need to prove up jurisdiction, which they obviously have done, I have their charter.
[01:57:05.200 --> 01:57:24.200]  I have the law that even created them in the 25, actually, I'm sorry, this goes back to 1876. I found that online where municipalities could even be, were created.
[01:57:24.200 --> 01:57:35.200]  In other words, they were never given jurisdiction. It works out perfect. I have no quarrel with actual law where everybody retained their rights within that land.
[01:57:35.200 --> 01:57:47.200]  Anybody who was there, any lands that were there before her, all rights were held in full and free use of and so on and so forth.
[01:57:47.200 --> 01:57:54.200]  Sorry, we're out of time. Can you call it in tomorrow night? We'll have a full four hours.
[01:57:54.200 --> 01:57:59.200]  Most certainly will. I'm going to try and do my best.
[01:57:59.200 --> 01:58:08.200]  Good. You are having way too much fun with these guys, and we definitely want to hear more about it.
[01:58:08.200 --> 01:58:17.200]  I found kind of the same thing that when you go after them, all of a sudden they find that it's not so much fun to push their weight around.
[01:58:17.200 --> 01:58:28.200]  This is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Rule of Law Radio. Thank you all for listening. We'll be back tomorrow night on our four hour info marathon.
[01:58:28.200 --> 01:58:40.200]  Give us a call, ask us some questions. Last week we got stomped to chomp twice. Only twice. So that was pretty good.
[01:58:40.200 --> 01:58:49.200]  But give us a call. Let's have a good show tomorrow night. Thank you for listening and good night.
[01:58:49.200 --> 01:58:57.200]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free, a unique study Bible called the New Testament Recovery Version.
[01:58:57.200 --> 01:59:07.200]  The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain what the Bible says, verse by verse, helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[01:59:07.200 --> 01:59:19.200]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America. Call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:19.200 --> 01:59:29.200]  This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross references, plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:59:29.200 --> 01:59:40.200]  This is truly a Bible you can understand. To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version call us toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:59:40.200 --> 01:59:49.200]  That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:49.200 --> 01:59:59.200]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at LogosRadioNetwork.com.