[00:00.000 --> 00:07.480]  This is the Liberty Beat, your daily source for Liberty news and activist updates, online
[00:07.480 --> 00:08.480]  at thelibertybeat.com.
[00:08.480 --> 00:13.160]  I'm Brian Hagan with your Liberty Beat for Friday, February 20th, 2015.
[00:13.160 --> 00:20.880]  Gold is trading at $1,209, silver at $16.48, and bitcoin is trading around $244.60.
[00:20.880 --> 00:25.320]  Today's metal price is brought to you by Midas Resources Incorporated, helping clients convert
[00:25.320 --> 00:29.160]  their paper 401Ks and IRAs to solid gold and silver.
[00:29.160 --> 00:36.080]  Read their 10 Reasons book, free, by calling 800-686-2237, that's 800-686-2237.
[00:36.080 --> 00:38.160]  How much food is in your pantry right now?
[00:38.160 --> 00:42.040]  Could you feed your family for two weeks, one week, how about even three days without
[00:42.040 --> 00:43.040]  any help?
[00:43.040 --> 00:46.920]  Well, keeping an emergency food storage kit is the most effective way to begin to ensure
[00:46.920 --> 00:49.640]  your family's well-being during an emergency.
[00:49.640 --> 00:53.160]  eFoods Direct is food security for whatever the future holds.
[00:53.160 --> 01:00.040]  Go to eFoodsDirect.com slash Liberty Beat or call 800-620-5520 to learn more about food
[01:00.040 --> 01:02.320]  security in a time of crisis.
[01:02.320 --> 01:07.040]  In the news, the president of Sudan has made headlines after claiming that Islamic extremist
[01:07.040 --> 01:12.000]  groups ISIS and Boko Haram are a creation of the Central Intelligence Agency and Israel's
[01:12.000 --> 01:13.600]  Mossad.
[01:13.600 --> 01:18.080]  President Omar al-Bashir told Euronews both stand behind the organizations as, quote,
[01:18.080 --> 01:22.120]  there is no Muslim who would carry out such acts, end quote.
[01:22.120 --> 01:26.560]  al-Bashir also warned against taking violent actions against the groups, stating it would
[01:26.560 --> 01:28.560]  only elicit more violence.
[01:28.560 --> 01:32.840]  The statements echo similar claims made by the leader of Lebanon's Hezbollah group and
[01:32.840 --> 01:37.000]  the mayor of the Turkish city Ankara, who also claimed the Mossad was involved in the
[01:37.000 --> 01:39.760]  Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris.
[01:39.760 --> 01:45.200]  The U.S. Department of Justice will likely sue the Ferguson, Missouri, Police Department
[01:45.200 --> 01:47.760]  if recommendations are not implemented.
[01:47.760 --> 01:51.360]  The news comes as Attorney General Eric Holder is expected to announce the conclusions of
[01:51.360 --> 01:55.960]  a DOJ investigation into the shooting of Michael Brown and the Ferguson Police Department.
[01:55.960 --> 02:01.200]  CNN reports the DOJ would be forced to sue the department if they do not agree to review
[02:01.200 --> 02:02.760]  and revise tactics.
[02:02.760 --> 02:06.720]  Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson stated he has heard nothing new from the Justice
[02:06.720 --> 02:09.920]  Department.
[02:09.920 --> 02:13.720]  The Tomball Police Department just outside of Houston is considering adding body cameras
[02:13.720 --> 02:14.880]  to its officers.
[02:14.880 --> 02:19.320]  The Houston Chronicle reports the Tomball City Council is considering adding the cameras.
[02:19.320 --> 02:23.600]  The Liberty is brought to you by Silver Botanicals, producing innovative, all-natural, high-quality
[02:23.600 --> 02:26.240]  collodial silver and gold personal care products.
[02:26.240 --> 02:30.320]  Experience the power of collodial silver with their Silver Shield deodorant and Silver Tongue
[02:30.320 --> 02:31.320]  oral disinfectant.
[02:31.320 --> 02:37.720]  Visit silverbotanicals.com for more info or to buy their products, go to Brave New Books.
[02:37.720 --> 02:43.360]  Support also comes from Central Texas Gunworks, your online source for firearms, firearm accessories
[02:43.360 --> 02:44.760]  and ammunition.
[02:44.760 --> 02:47.760]  They take major credit cards and now accept bitcoin.
[02:47.760 --> 02:52.440]  Visit them online at shop.centraltexasgunworks.com.
[02:52.440 --> 02:56.760]  This is the Liberty Beat for Friday, February 20, 2015.
[02:56.760 --> 03:22.840]  Check out the website at thelibertybeat.com.
[03:26.760 --> 03:49.960]  Welcome to Rural Law Radio, folks.
[03:49.960 --> 04:00.080]  Tonight is the 20th day of February 2015, and you have tuned in to Rural Law Radio Friday
[04:00.080 --> 04:03.080]  Night Marathon with your hosts.
[04:03.080 --> 04:07.720]  In the background, Randy Kelton, who's reading a pleading that I just sent to him, and shame
[04:07.720 --> 04:12.960]  on him, he didn't rush to work today, Randy.
[04:12.960 --> 04:13.960]  Anyway.
[04:13.960 --> 04:18.640]  I don't multitask well.
[04:18.640 --> 04:25.520]  My idea of multitasking is walking and talking at the same time.
[04:25.520 --> 04:26.520]  Yours too.
[04:26.520 --> 04:31.400]  I'm the kind of guy, I can either chew gum or I can walk, but if I try both, I'm either
[04:31.400 --> 04:34.160]  going to trip or choke or both.
[04:34.160 --> 04:43.600]  So anyway, Randy made it in just a few, not near as late as I've made it in for the last
[04:43.600 --> 04:50.680]  couple of weeks, but last few weeks rather, but made it in tonight on time.
[04:50.680 --> 05:01.160]  And I sent to Randy a pleading out of the great state of insanity, also known as Texas.
[05:01.160 --> 05:11.880]  And it appears that we now have controlling case law out of the state of Texas in regard
[05:11.880 --> 05:18.160]  to the issue that everybody has come to call robo-signing.
[05:18.160 --> 05:24.920]  Now we didn't have even a definition for robo-signing, not a legally, not a legally or a judicially
[05:24.920 --> 05:32.360]  recognized definition, but now we have case law.
[05:32.360 --> 05:40.440]  And what would be the result of arguing something?
[05:40.440 --> 05:42.040]  What would you have to argue?
[05:42.040 --> 05:44.900]  Why would this even be an issue?
[05:44.900 --> 05:45.900]  What is a robo-signer?
[05:45.900 --> 05:48.680]  What does a robo-signer do?
[05:48.680 --> 05:50.320]  Let's go over all those things.
[05:50.320 --> 05:57.840]  The colloquial term robo-signer started to appear on the internet here three, maybe four
[05:57.840 --> 05:58.840]  years ago.
[05:58.840 --> 06:09.520]  And it described someone who was signing documents, thousands of them a day, never before a notary
[06:09.520 --> 06:12.280]  signing someone else's name.
[06:12.280 --> 06:25.160]  There was a good expose on robo-signing done by 60 Minutes, I believe back in 2000, I think
[06:25.160 --> 06:30.880]  it was 2012 or 2011, may have been 11.
[06:30.880 --> 06:37.800]  But very good expose on what a robo-signer does, actually interviewed a few of them.
[06:37.800 --> 06:41.920]  And they admitted to all the things that we accused them in courts, but we've never gotten
[06:41.920 --> 06:48.160]  any traction in the courts with it until now.
[06:48.160 --> 06:56.520]  This was, let's see, this came out of the Court of Appeals of Texas Houston Division
[06:56.520 --> 07:01.040]  First District on July 24th, 2014.
[07:01.040 --> 07:05.400]  So it's not real, real fresh, but it's fresh enough.
[07:05.400 --> 07:17.320]  This is under Cause Number 01-13-00220-CV in the case of Winona Flippen Vazquez Appellant
[07:17.320 --> 07:24.440]  versus Deutsche Bank National Trust Company NA Appellee.
[07:24.440 --> 07:40.640]  This was heard, the opinion rather, just the opinion was rendered by or drafted by the
[07:40.640 --> 07:51.040]  Honorable Michael Massengale, M-A-S-S-E-N-G-A-L-E.
[07:51.040 --> 07:57.480]  And let's start off with his, I'm going to start reading into this.
[07:57.480 --> 08:05.240]  This may take up a couple of segments, but this is well worth getting into.
[08:05.240 --> 08:11.880]  Before I do that, let's answer a few more of those previous questions.
[08:11.880 --> 08:13.960]  What would the robo-signing do?
[08:13.960 --> 08:16.760]  What does a robo-signer do?
[08:16.760 --> 08:20.440]  What the robo-signer does is twofold.
[08:20.440 --> 08:22.840]  One involves multiple people.
[08:22.840 --> 08:29.200]  The robo-signer, first, if they're not signing their own name or they're claiming a position
[08:29.200 --> 08:40.360]  that they are not fully authorized to take or presume, or they're signing documents,
[08:40.360 --> 08:43.840]  you know, like I said, in someone else's name, that's perjury.
[08:43.840 --> 08:44.920]  That's perjury.
[08:44.920 --> 08:56.760]  Now, if you have a notary who has verified these perjurious statements or perjurious claims,
[08:56.760 --> 09:05.080]  now you have collusion between the would-be affiant and the notary public.
[09:05.080 --> 09:06.080]  Hold just a second.
[09:06.080 --> 09:11.440]  Let me quickly read something to put where you're going in context.
[09:11.440 --> 09:12.440]  Okay.
[09:12.440 --> 09:23.000]  51-901-C, Texas Government Code, 51-901 goes to fraudulent document or instrument, and
[09:23.000 --> 09:25.120]  this defines what it is.
[09:25.120 --> 09:36.880]  This is a special definition for fraudulent, exempted out of the normal use of the term.
[09:36.880 --> 09:39.440]  And also applicable only to 51-903.
[09:39.440 --> 09:40.440]  Yes.
[09:40.440 --> 09:46.800]  Did you have more?
[09:46.800 --> 09:49.280]  I had it, and then I lost it.
[09:49.280 --> 09:50.280]  Uh-oh.
[09:50.280 --> 09:51.280]  You're getting old, Rainey.
[09:51.280 --> 09:57.000]  It's supposed to be C. It defines what is fraudulent.
[09:57.000 --> 09:59.000]  Let me find it.
[09:59.000 --> 10:01.000]  It's a document.
[10:01.000 --> 10:02.000]  Okay.
[10:02.000 --> 10:03.000]  Keep talking.
[10:03.000 --> 10:06.200]  As soon as I get the right spot, I'll...
[10:06.200 --> 10:07.200]  Okay.
[10:07.200 --> 10:08.200]  So...
[10:08.200 --> 10:09.200]  Oh, got it.
[10:09.200 --> 10:19.120]  For purposes of this section, a document or instrument is presumed to be fraudulent if
[10:19.120 --> 10:26.200]  the document is a purported judgment or other document purporting to memorialize or evidence
[10:26.200 --> 10:34.520]  an act and order a directive or process of a purported court or purported judicial entity.
[10:34.520 --> 10:35.520]  Okay.
[10:35.520 --> 10:43.320]  That goes to Republic of Texas filing a whole bunch of liens from courts they made up, a
[10:43.320 --> 10:47.280]  purported judicial officer of a purported court.
[10:47.280 --> 10:51.920]  That's where they're making up their own grand juries and their own courts.
[10:51.920 --> 10:59.040]  The document or instrument purports to create a lien or assert a claim against real property
[10:59.040 --> 11:05.440]  or an interest in real property or personal property, and is not a document or instrument
[11:05.440 --> 11:13.040]  provided for by the constitution or laws of the state or of the United States.
[11:13.040 --> 11:20.080]  It's created by implied or expressed consent or agreement of the obligor debtor or owner
[11:20.080 --> 11:24.680]  of real property or the interest in real property or personal property if required under the
[11:24.680 --> 11:30.720]  laws of state, or by implied or expressed consent or agreement of an agent.
[11:30.720 --> 11:37.520]  This is where they would send you a request and say, if you don't respond to this, then
[11:37.520 --> 11:41.720]  you're obligated in this way, and this says, no, it isn't now.
[11:41.720 --> 11:47.560]  It's not an equitable, constructive or other lien imposed by a court with jurisdiction
[11:47.560 --> 11:55.240]  created to establish under the constitutional laws of the state or of the United States.
[11:55.240 --> 12:01.280]  This is a special definition of fraudulent.
[12:01.280 --> 12:08.960]  If somebody files a document and there's nothing in the record, if it is a proper document,
[12:08.960 --> 12:12.700]  that's what we're talking about here, not the fraudulent documents, but it is a proper
[12:12.700 --> 12:24.800]  document type, deed of trust, assignment of the deed of trust, substitute trustee, substitute
[12:24.800 --> 12:30.840]  trustee or a substitute trustee, these are mainly the ones we're looking at.
[12:30.840 --> 12:45.680]  This flows from 13.001 property code, which says that any document not, okay, here, I
[12:45.680 --> 12:56.560]  have to go back to 13.001, it can, 13.001 says any document not properly acknowledged
[12:56.560 --> 13:03.360]  or proven, acknowledged, notarized, proven to witnesses and filed in the public record,
[13:03.360 --> 13:13.720]  oh, any property, I lost my, okay, any property, any document not properly acknowledged or
[13:13.720 --> 13:18.880]  proven and filed in the record is void as to the holder.
[13:18.880 --> 13:23.800]  I said document, it should be claimed, any claim not acknowledged or proven and filed
[13:23.800 --> 13:28.920]  in the record is void as to the holder.
[13:28.920 --> 13:36.880]  And then this one says that for the document to be valid, there must be some document in
[13:36.880 --> 13:44.280]  the record that shows that this person has power to file that document in the record.
[13:44.280 --> 13:48.680]  And I think I should have went to 9.0, 51.903, I interrupted you and made a mess of this
[13:48.680 --> 13:49.680]  whole thing.
[13:49.680 --> 13:50.680]  I'm going to shut up.
[13:50.680 --> 13:51.680]  Are you sure?
[13:51.680 --> 13:52.680]  I had it all sorted.
[13:52.680 --> 13:54.680]  Yeah, I'm going to shut up.
[13:54.680 --> 14:00.920]  I mean, man, you had direction there for a minute, you were, you were in, the code didn't,
[14:00.920 --> 14:04.760]  it wasn't the one I wanted to read, it didn't read like it's supposed to, it must be 903,
[14:04.760 --> 14:06.240]  I'll find it.
[14:06.240 --> 14:07.240]  Okay.
[14:07.240 --> 14:08.240]  I'm breathed in.
[14:08.240 --> 14:13.960]  Well, we know that, but that's okay.
[14:13.960 --> 14:17.880]  So where were we?
[14:17.880 --> 14:18.880]  Okay.
[14:18.880 --> 14:25.160]  We've, we've identified what takes place when this alleged robo signing happens.
[14:25.160 --> 14:30.200]  You've got someone making a perjurious statement on a document that they've sworn to and it
[14:30.200 --> 14:32.480]  should be sworn under the penalty of perjury.
[14:32.480 --> 14:41.760]  If it's true affidavit, it will say so, and then that individual claims to have been before
[14:41.760 --> 14:46.880]  a notary at a certain time on a certain date in a certain place.
[14:46.880 --> 14:54.480]  And if that be found not to be true, then you have notary fraud there.
[14:54.480 --> 15:01.840]  Now, how many people does it take to commit a conspiracy to or more?
[15:01.840 --> 15:03.680]  You've got two right there.
[15:03.680 --> 15:07.480]  You've got two right there.
[15:07.480 --> 15:11.840]  So that's what they do now.
[15:11.840 --> 15:15.680]  Why would this ever come up as an issue?
[15:15.680 --> 15:22.720]  Well, if you were challenging the validity of the instrument that would have been, that
[15:22.720 --> 15:28.120]  would maybe, I don't know, assign some type of interest in your, in your property over
[15:28.120 --> 15:31.920]  to someone else, then yeah, that may be of a concern.
[15:31.920 --> 15:38.040]  That assignment might, well, and that's where you would find these, these robo signings
[15:38.040 --> 15:44.520]  is usually is on assignments of deeds of trust or security instruments.
[15:44.520 --> 15:50.240]  Now what would be the result of that?
[15:50.240 --> 15:56.280]  Well, at the end of the day, it would nullify your, your mortgage because if somebody purports
[15:56.280 --> 16:01.480]  to have transferred it and has no authority to do so, there was no transfer of things
[16:01.480 --> 16:05.560]  just kind of hanging out there in limbo because somebody gave it away, but there's nobody
[16:05.560 --> 16:06.560]  to give it to.
[16:06.560 --> 16:10.000]  So it's just kind of out there right now.
[16:10.000 --> 16:13.160]  So that would be the time to challenge an assignment.
[16:13.160 --> 16:17.880]  And in the case of where did they go?
[16:17.880 --> 16:24.240]  Vasquez v. Deutsch, that is exactly what happened.
[16:24.240 --> 16:33.360]  So says Michael Massengale, Justice, and that's the honorable Michael Massengale, Gale, sorry,
[16:33.360 --> 16:36.280]  First District Court of Appeals, Texas, Houston.
[16:36.280 --> 16:41.880]  I think I may have said Dallas earlier, that's Houston, Texas, Dr. on the coast.
[16:41.880 --> 16:44.320]  I hear the music in the background.
[16:44.320 --> 16:45.640]  What better time to take a break?
[16:45.640 --> 16:50.640]  I want to come back into this and start running through this opinion.
[16:50.640 --> 16:56.800]  This is groundbreaking for the state of insanity, also known as Texas, folks, so stay tuned.
[16:56.800 --> 17:00.720]  We've got more on the other side.
[17:00.720 --> 17:05.320]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area
[17:05.320 --> 17:06.320]  of nutrition.
[17:06.320 --> 17:11.480]  People feed their pets better than they feed themselves, and it's time we changed all that.
[17:11.480 --> 17:17.080]  Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[17:17.080 --> 17:23.480]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, young Jevity can
[17:23.480 --> 17:25.720]  provide the nutrients you need.
[17:25.720 --> 17:30.720]  Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which
[17:30.720 --> 17:31.720]  we reject.
[17:31.720 --> 17:36.960]  We have come to trust young Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with
[17:36.960 --> 17:39.760]  Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[17:39.760 --> 17:46.160]  When you order from logosradionetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support
[17:46.160 --> 17:47.160]  quality radio.
[17:47.160 --> 17:51.720]  As you realize the benefits of young Jevity, you may want to join us.
[17:51.720 --> 17:57.360]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and
[17:57.360 --> 17:58.360]  increase your income.
[17:58.360 --> 17:59.360]  Order now.
[17:59.360 --> 18:05.360]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even losses?
[18:05.360 --> 18:09.400]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method.
[18:09.400 --> 18:13.720]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you
[18:13.720 --> 18:14.720]  can win too.
[18:14.720 --> 18:19.520]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal
[18:19.520 --> 18:25.320]  civil rights statutes, what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, how to answer
[18:25.320 --> 18:29.920]  letters and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit reports, how to turn the
[18:29.920 --> 18:34.120]  financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[18:34.120 --> 18:39.240]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:39.240 --> 18:41.400]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[18:41.400 --> 18:46.960]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner
[18:46.960 --> 18:49.640]  or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[18:49.640 --> 18:58.960]  That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt
[18:58.960 --> 18:59.960]  collectors now.
[18:59.960 --> 19:12.840]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, l-l-l-LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[19:12.840 --> 19:30.900]  Thank you Justice.
[19:30.900 --> 19:47.420]  Welcome back to Rule All Radio folks. We're going to leave the phones off for a little
[19:47.420 --> 19:54.260]  while because I want to get deep into this. This is beautiful. What everybody's been saying
[19:54.260 --> 20:03.220]  for years about robo-signing, here it is. The Honorable Michael Massengale, Justice.
[20:03.220 --> 20:09.660]  Appellant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, NA, foreclosed on a house owned by Appellant
[20:09.660 --> 20:16.940]  Winona Flippen Vasquez. After the foreclosure sale, Vasquez sued Deutsche Bank. She, excuse
[20:16.940 --> 20:23.140]  me, she alleged that the assignment of the note and deed of trust to her original lender
[20:23.140 --> 20:32.540]  from her, let me look, the assignment, oh, by her original lender to Deutsche Bank was
[20:32.540 --> 20:37.460]  invalid and that therefore the foreclosure was also invalid.
[20:37.460 --> 20:41.460]  Deutsche Bank moved for summary judgment. Now, what do you go figure? This is the first
[20:41.460 --> 20:49.140]  thing they're going to do, summary judgment in the state and they'll go for a motion for
[20:49.140 --> 20:57.460]  dismissal, Rule 12b6 in federal court every time. But Deutsche Bank moved for summary
[20:57.460 --> 21:05.380]  judgment arguing, of all things, that Vasquez lacked standing to file the lawsuit to protect
[21:05.380 --> 21:11.140]  her interest in the home by challenging the validity of the assignment. We all know that's
[21:11.140 --> 21:17.180]  wrong. Miller v. Homecoming grants you the right to do that or actually you've already
[21:17.180 --> 21:21.100]  got a right to do that and Miller v. Homecoming has just brought that to light.
[21:21.100 --> 21:27.900]  The trial court agreed with the bank and entered judgment in its favor. We conclude that, and
[21:27.900 --> 21:34.700]  keep in mind, we, when Justice Massingale says we, he means the three panel, three judge
[21:34.700 --> 21:43.660]  panel of the Texas Appellate First District Court. We conclude that the bank failed to
[21:43.660 --> 21:53.820]  establish it as a matter of law that Vasquez lacks standing to challenge an alleged void
[21:53.820 --> 22:00.380]  or invalid assignment of a deed of trust that affects the chain of title of property as
[22:00.380 --> 22:04.620]  to which she claims a superior ownership interest.
[22:04.620 --> 22:10.700]  Accordingly, we reverse this opinion of this portion of the trial court's order and remand
[22:10.700 --> 22:19.900]  for further proceedings. Background. Whenona Vasquez owned a house in Houston, she borrowed
[22:19.900 --> 22:28.700]  money from Argent Mortgage Company and executed a note and deed of trust in its favor. Argent
[22:28.700 --> 22:37.260]  engaged CITI, City Residential Lending Inc. as mortgage servicer and gave it a limited
[22:37.260 --> 22:43.980]  power of attorney to act on its behalf. CITI's board of directors delegated its authority
[22:43.980 --> 22:56.860]  in this regard to some of its employees, including one named Brian Bly. That's B-R-Y-A-N-B-L-Y.
[22:56.860 --> 23:04.300]  I think everybody who's ever been through this mess knows the name Brian Bly all too
[23:04.300 --> 23:13.180]  well. This guy is lightning fast and God knows how many hundreds of thousands of documents
[23:13.180 --> 23:20.700]  possessed that particular moniker Brian Bly. The document purporting to assign the deed
[23:20.700 --> 23:27.180]  of trust and note to Deutsche Bank bears the signature over a line indicating that it was
[23:27.180 --> 23:36.460]  signed by Brian Bly, vice president, in quotes. Doesn't say president of who, what, where,
[23:36.460 --> 23:46.540]  how, when, why, just vice president. Probably self-appointed in this case. It was filed in
[23:46.540 --> 23:55.020]  the public real property records of Harris County. When Vasquez, oops, scrolled up too far,
[23:55.020 --> 24:02.700]  when Vasquez defaulted on her loan, I'm going to interject sick because that's questionable,
[24:04.700 --> 24:11.340]  Deutsche Bank foreclosed. A substitute trustee conducted a non-judicial foreclosure and in
[24:11.340 --> 24:18.540]  Texas first liens are non-judicial foreclosure as where a second lien such as home equity
[24:18.540 --> 24:25.020]  is a judicial, takes a judicial proceeding. They've got to sue you here to, or take you to court to
[24:25.020 --> 24:31.420]  get court permission to foreclose on a home equity loan. But a non-judicial foreclosure and
[24:32.140 --> 24:39.020]  delivered a foreclosure deed to Deutsche Bank, which was recorded. Several months later,
[24:39.020 --> 24:46.220]  Vasquez filed suit against Deutsche Bank. Her petition prayed for rescission of the foreclosure
[24:46.220 --> 24:55.980]  sale and deed as well as a declaratory judgment, quieting the title of the property in her name.
[24:56.860 --> 25:05.100]  Vasquez petition alleged several reasons why the document purporting to assign the note and deed
[25:05.100 --> 25:13.180]  of trust to Deutsche Bank was invalid. She argued that assignments of the deed of trust was outside
[25:13.180 --> 25:21.980]  the power granted to city by the limited power of attorney it received from Argent. She also contended
[25:21.980 --> 25:30.780]  that the assignment agreement was made after the date when the trust or pool of mortgages
[25:30.780 --> 25:39.260]  to which Argent contributed Vasquez loan was closed. Let me pause right there.
[25:39.260 --> 25:46.860]  When a real estate mortgage investment conduit is constructed, there are pools that open
[25:48.220 --> 25:55.260]  on a certain date and on a certain date, that is 90 days later, they will close. Let me ask you this,
[25:56.220 --> 26:03.420]  or let me have you imagine this. Let's say you buy concert tickets. The concert is going to be on
[26:03.420 --> 26:20.860]  February 28th at eight o'clock. You show up April 12th at noon. Did you hear a note played? Did you
[26:20.860 --> 26:29.180]  make it to the concert? No, you're a couple months late. This is what I'm talking about.
[26:29.180 --> 26:36.940]  Let's bring that into perspective. When a trust closes, nothing else can get in and hear the music.
[26:38.140 --> 26:44.780]  It might get in, but it never heard the music. If you ask the one that showed up late to the show,
[26:44.780 --> 26:50.700]  hey, how was the show? And he says, oh, it was great. He's lying. Same perspective here.
[26:51.660 --> 26:56.700]  So Deutsche Bank is lying by saying, oh yeah, we made it to the concert on time. Wink, wink,
[26:56.700 --> 27:05.740]  nod, nod, judge, see you on the second fairway. But anyway, finally, she claimed that Bly's
[27:05.740 --> 27:13.500]  electronic signature was affixed to the assignment by someone else without his knowledge or approval.
[27:15.260 --> 27:22.220]  Deutsche Bank moved for traditional summary judgment, Texas RCFP 166 AC,
[27:22.220 --> 27:28.780]  claiming that Vasquez was not a party to the assignment of her mortgage. And thus she had no
[27:28.780 --> 27:38.220]  standing to challenge it. We've already got case law on that. No evidence was attached to the summary
[27:38.220 --> 27:45.100]  judgment motion. That makes it a no evidence summary judgment. Oh, actually, well, that wouldn't be a
[27:45.100 --> 27:50.380]  traditional summary judgment. They just didn't put any evidence in. They were just, they had the
[27:50.380 --> 27:54.380]  had the arguments that she can't, she can't come in here and claim all that. She wasn't a part of
[27:54.380 --> 27:59.980]  that transaction. Make her go away. Shut up, shut up. That's about basically, I'm over emphasizing
[27:59.980 --> 28:10.540]  things, but that's the way it is. It was advanced. Yeah, it was advanced based solely on the face
[28:10.540 --> 28:21.980]  of Vasquez pleading and on pure, purely legal grounds. After Vasquez filed a response with
[28:21.980 --> 28:29.020]  attached evidence, and Deutsche Bank replied, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of
[28:29.020 --> 28:36.940]  the bank. Vasquez appealed. Let me check the clock for going further. I've got a minute and a half.
[28:36.940 --> 28:45.500]  We're going into the analysis now. Well, first, Randy, do you think there's any reason to go into
[28:45.500 --> 28:50.940]  the end? Yeah, it might be good to go into the end. Yeah, the analysis is good. Okay. Well,
[28:50.940 --> 28:55.900]  let's pick up on the analysis. When we get back from this break. And again, folks, we're going to
[28:55.900 --> 29:03.020]  leave the phones off for a little while. But Randy, is any of this so far ringing familiar bells?
[29:03.020 --> 29:13.740]  Oh, only about 500 cases. Like every one where we make the claim, we get ruled against, we get a rule
[29:13.740 --> 29:20.940]  12. Same issues all the time. Oh, we can file anything we want to take your property away,
[29:20.940 --> 29:30.140]  and you can't challenge our standing. Yeah, wrong. You know, Ben, you're right.
[29:30.140 --> 29:36.060]  Wrong. You know, Ben, to reiterate, we've we've already established under
[29:37.740 --> 29:44.220]  Miller v homecomings that yes, a homeowner has or a mortgage or has a right to challenge the
[29:44.220 --> 29:51.740]  assignments. Now, there may be some different issues. But the the fact remains that they have
[29:51.740 --> 29:57.100]  that homeowner has or no mortgage or has a right to challenge the assignments.
[29:57.100 --> 30:03.660]  One bright folks will be right backstage pesticides and pathogens on produce. Yuck.
[30:03.660 --> 30:08.140]  It's a pesky problem. But scientists say there's a simple solution to this health hazard right in
[30:08.140 --> 30:12.860]  your own home. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. And I'll tell you about a frugal fruit and vegetable fix
[30:12.860 --> 30:18.620]  in just a moment. Your search engine is watching you recording all your searches and creating a
[30:18.620 --> 30:24.300]  massive database of your personal information. That's creepy. But it doesn't have to be that way.
[30:24.300 --> 30:29.740]  Startpage.com is the world's most private search engine. Startpage doesn't store your IP address,
[30:29.740 --> 30:33.980]  make a record of your searches or use tracking cookies, and they're third party certified.
[30:33.980 --> 30:39.580]  If you don't like big brother spying on you, start over with Startpage. Great search results
[30:39.580 --> 30:44.300]  and total privacy. Startpage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[30:44.300 --> 30:49.980]  Pesticides on produce? Yuck. Going organic helps, but dirt and pathogens can still be a health
[30:49.980 --> 30:55.100]  hazard. Researchers recommend a simple remedy and you probably already have the ingredients you need
[30:55.100 --> 31:00.220]  right at home. Just fill a spray bottle with one part vinegar to nine parts water. Studies show
[31:00.220 --> 31:05.820]  this simple solution removes over 90% of bacteria from items like strawberries and lettuce. Follow
[31:05.820 --> 31:11.420]  with a 30 second wash under cold tap water, rubbing or scrubbing firm skin produce. The water removes
[31:11.420 --> 31:16.460]  the vinegar and the friction will reduce any pesticide residues. Amazingly, this inexpensive
[31:16.460 --> 31:21.180]  approach is just as effective as those pricey fruit and vegetable washes and it costs a whole
[31:21.180 --> 31:26.300]  lot less. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[31:30.540 --> 31:35.100]  Did you know there are three million edible food plants on earth and none have the nutritional
[31:35.100 --> 31:40.780]  value of the hemp plant? HempUSA.org offers you hemp protein powder. It does not contain chemicals
[31:40.780 --> 31:47.260]  or THC, is non-GMO, and is 100% gluten free. Hemp protein powder burns fat, builds muscle,
[31:47.260 --> 31:54.700]  contains 53% protein, and feeds the body the nutrients it needs. Call 888-910-4367 and see
[31:54.700 --> 31:59.980]  what our powder, seeds, and oil can do for you. Only at HempUSA.org.
[32:01.980 --> 32:05.980]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the rule of law traffic seminar. In today's America,
[32:05.980 --> 32:09.820]  we live in an us against them society. If we the people are ever going to have a free society,
[32:09.820 --> 32:13.980]  then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights. Among those rights are the right to
[32:13.980 --> 32:17.500]  travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity, and most
[32:17.500 --> 32:21.740]  importantly, the right to due process of law. Traffic courts afford us the least expensive
[32:21.740 --> 32:26.140]  opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process. Former Sheriff's
[32:26.140 --> 32:30.140]  Deputy A. Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the most comprehensive
[32:30.140 --> 32:33.980]  teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is and how to hold
[32:33.980 --> 32:37.740]  courts to the rule of law. You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going
[32:37.740 --> 32:42.060]  to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today. By ordering now, you'll receive a copy
[32:42.060 --> 32:46.140]  of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of the
[32:46.140 --> 32:50.620]  original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents, and other useful resource material.
[32:50.620 --> 32:54.540]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com.
[32:54.540 --> 32:58.620]  Order your copy today, and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[32:58.620 --> 33:09.740]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com.
[33:09.740 --> 33:25.740]  Yeah, I got a warrant, and I'm going to solve them, to the government them, prosecute them. Okay.
[33:25.740 --> 33:47.580]  Welcome back to Rule of Law Radio, folks. Before we left, or before I paused, we were going to
[33:47.580 --> 33:56.460]  get into the analysis, and if you just made it to the show, this I'm reading from a fairly recent
[33:56.460 --> 34:01.180]  appellate court decision out of the state of insanity, also known as Texas.
[34:01.180 --> 34:09.180]  This one out of the first district court of appeals in Houston, Texas. This is styled,
[34:09.180 --> 34:17.340]  Winona Flippen Vazquez versus Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, NA. It's under cause
[34:17.340 --> 34:29.980]  number 011300220CV. And to pick this back up, we're going into the analysis. Part one, standing to
[34:29.980 --> 34:36.540]  challenge assignment. Vazquez argued that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment
[34:36.540 --> 34:44.540]  in favor of Deutsche Bank because she had standing to challenge a void or invalid assignment of
[34:44.540 --> 34:51.260]  a deed of trust pertaining to the property which she claims to own. Traditional summary judgments
[34:51.260 --> 34:59.740]  are reviewed de novo, that is new. The movement, I'm not going to read all the sites. This thing
[34:59.740 --> 35:04.300]  is riddled with case sites, but I'm not going to include the case sites. I'm just going to
[35:04.300 --> 35:11.420]  read on as what was determined. Traditional summary judgments are reviewed de novo.
[35:11.420 --> 35:19.020]  The movement has the burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists
[35:19.900 --> 35:27.340]  and that it is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
[35:27.340 --> 35:33.900]  Deutsche Bank did not attach evidence to its motion for summary judgment. When a defendant
[35:33.900 --> 35:41.740]  thus moves for summary judgment on its pleadings, quote unquote, on its pleadings, we take, quote,
[35:42.300 --> 35:50.620]  all allegations, facts, and inferences in the pleading as true and view them in a light most
[35:50.620 --> 35:57.660]  favorable to the pleader. A court has no jurisdiction over a claim made by a plaintiff
[35:57.660 --> 36:11.580]  without standing to assert it. For standing, a plaintiff must be personally aggrieved and
[36:11.580 --> 36:21.660]  his injury must be concrete and particularized. Yeah. Okay. Sorry. I thought I was misreading
[36:21.660 --> 36:28.460]  that, but I wasn't. Actual or there's a loud clicking in the background. Sounds like somebody's
[36:28.460 --> 36:34.620]  tapping a pencil on their mic. It's not going out on the air. Okay. That's
[36:34.620 --> 36:44.300]  good. Awful distracting. But anyway, actual or imminent, not hypothetical ID footnotes
[36:44.300 --> 36:51.500]  admitted a plaintiff does not lack standing simply because he cannot prevail on the merits
[36:51.500 --> 37:00.220]  of his claim. He lacks standing because his claim of injury is too slight for a court to afford
[37:00.220 --> 37:09.900]  redress. In her brief, Vasquez contended that Texas follows the common law rule permitting
[37:09.900 --> 37:18.780]  a debtor to assert against an assignee any grounds that renders an assignment void or invalid.
[37:18.780 --> 37:27.500]  And that was all in quotes. She relies upon Tri-Cities Construction, Incorporated versus
[37:27.500 --> 37:33.660]  American National Insurance Company. And that was also a first district in Houston.
[37:34.620 --> 37:44.940]  That was in 1975 in which this court wrote the law is settled when the obligors.
[37:47.420 --> 37:56.060]  Let me start over. The law is settled that the obligors of a claim made may defend the suit,
[37:56.060 --> 38:03.660]  brought their brought their own on any grounds, which renders the assignment void, but may not
[38:03.660 --> 38:13.660]  defend on any grounds, which renders the assignment voidable only. Okay. So if it's void,
[38:14.220 --> 38:19.420]  according to that case, if it's void, you can challenge it. If it's voidable, you cannot.
[38:19.420 --> 38:28.620]  So the authority for this proposition may be traced to Corpus Christi. I'm sorry, Corpus Juris
[38:28.620 --> 38:35.260]  Secundum, Corpus Christi. I'm still out there on the coast. Wish now is fishing. The debtor,
[38:35.260 --> 38:42.940]  a quote, the debtor may generally assert against an assignee any matters, any matters, plural,
[38:42.940 --> 38:50.860]  rendering the assignment absolutely invalid or ineffective and the lack of a plaintiff's title
[38:51.660 --> 39:00.060]  or right to sue. But if the assignment is effective to pass legal title, the debtor cannot
[39:00.060 --> 39:08.540]  interpose defects or objections, which merely render the assignment voidable at the election
[39:08.540 --> 39:20.780]  of the assignee or, or those standing in his shoes. That's, I don't need to quote side.
[39:20.780 --> 39:28.220]  It's already been cited as a matter of precedent and policy. A Texas mortgage or has standing to
[39:28.220 --> 39:38.140]  challenge an assignment of the deed of trust in a chain of title of a rival claimant to the land
[39:38.140 --> 39:49.100]  that she owns. If foreclosure on the home is initiated by a person or entity whose right to
[39:49.100 --> 39:55.980]  foreclose is contingent upon the validity of an assignment, the homeowner has standing to attack
[39:55.980 --> 40:06.860]  the assignment and thereby seek to stop or reverse the foreclosure. Such a homeowner is, quote,
[40:06.860 --> 40:13.580]  personally aggrieved, end quote, because she is at risk of losing her house.
[40:15.580 --> 40:24.060]  And the, and the allegation of such, yeah, and the allegation of such an injury is sufficient,
[40:24.060 --> 40:36.380]  concrete and particularized to, to confer standing to sue as courts have long implied when oops,
[40:36.380 --> 40:41.820]  scrolled up too far again, when explaining the function and actions of, to quiet title,
[40:43.260 --> 40:56.860]  even the barest competing claim to real property is an injury that is, that is actual and at least,
[40:56.860 --> 41:01.420]  or at least imminent and not one that is merely hypothetical.
[41:01.420 --> 41:06.780]  The rest of that's in parentheses, and I'm going to read it. In the time since the trial court
[41:07.740 --> 41:13.180]  entered summary judgment in, in this case, and Vasquez brought it, brought this appeal,
[41:13.180 --> 41:19.340]  the United States court of appeals in the fifth circuit, that's out here in,
[41:21.100 --> 41:27.500]  I always want to say Baton Rouge, but it's not in New Orleans. That's the district for all Texas
[41:27.500 --> 41:34.860]  courts, the United States courts of appeals go to the fifth circuit. The fifth circuit issued
[41:36.060 --> 41:46.620]  a decision persuasively explaining the law in Texas on standing of property owned,
[41:48.620 --> 41:55.500]  owner to, good Lord, lost my place, property owner to challenge the law in Texas on standing
[41:55.500 --> 42:01.580]  place, property owner to challenge an assignment on her note and deed of trust.
[42:02.540 --> 42:12.780]  Mrs. C. Rain, Rainegal, R-E-I-N-A-G-E-L versus Deutsche Bank. Ooh, another one from Deutsche.
[42:14.300 --> 42:21.340]  Although the court in Rainegal ultimately affirmed the dismissal of the mortgage or suit,
[42:21.340 --> 42:31.740]  it expressly declined to do so on the basis advocated by the bank that the mortgage or elect
[42:31.740 --> 42:38.940]  standing to challenge the validity of an assignment. As a general rule, a non-party to a contract
[42:38.940 --> 42:47.180]  cannot enforce the contract unless she is an intended third party beneficiary. However,
[42:47.180 --> 42:54.940]  the rule does not apply when a party rather than seeking to enforce the contract instead alleges
[42:54.940 --> 43:04.140]  that the contract was void from the onset. Relying on, and judgments are the same way folks,
[43:05.340 --> 43:09.100]  all judgments, whether it be summary judgment or any other judgment.
[43:09.100 --> 43:19.580]  If an assignment was void, no judgments count. Relying on the precedent of the court in Tri-City,
[43:19.580 --> 43:27.180]  the Fifth Circuit correctly observed that Texas courts adhere to the majority rule that the
[43:27.180 --> 43:35.340]  obligor may defend on any grounds which renders an assignment void. The federal court also,
[43:35.340 --> 43:39.740]  yes I do hear the music in the background, the federal court also noted the logic in Texas law
[43:39.740 --> 43:46.780]  in this regard. Considering that, I don't have time to finish that. We'll be right back after
[43:46.780 --> 43:51.340]  this break folks. This is a good opportunity to go see our sponsors. Stay tuned. I'll try to wrap
[43:51.340 --> 44:03.020]  this up on the other side. Hello, my name is Stuart Smith from Nature's Pure Organic.
[44:03.020 --> 44:07.420]  My name is Stuart Smith from Nature's Pure Organics.com and I would like to invite you
[44:07.420 --> 44:13.180]  to come by our store at 1904 Guadalupe Street, Sweet D here in Austin, Texas. I'm Brave New Books
[44:13.180 --> 44:17.260]  and Jay Payne to see all our fantastic health and wellness products with your very own eyes.
[44:17.900 --> 44:22.300]  Have a look at our Miracle Healing Clay that started our adventure in alternative medicine.
[44:22.300 --> 44:26.460]  Take a peek at some of our other wonderful products including our Australian Eme oil,
[44:26.460 --> 44:34.860]  lotion candles, olive oil, soaps and colloidal silver and gold. Call 512-264-4043 or find us
[44:34.860 --> 44:42.860]  online at Nature's Pure Organics.com. That's 512-264-4043, Nature's Pure Organics.com.
[44:42.860 --> 44:46.300]  Don't forget to like us on Facebook for information on events and our products,
[44:46.300 --> 45:05.180]  Nature's Pure Organics.com. Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without
[45:05.180 --> 45:11.580]  an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course that will show
[45:11.580 --> 45:19.100]  you how in 24 hours, step by step. If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[45:19.100 --> 45:24.700]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step
[45:24.700 --> 45:32.220]  by step course and now you can too. Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years
[45:32.220 --> 45:38.220]  of case winning experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should
[45:38.220 --> 45:43.980]  understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive
[45:43.980 --> 45:51.660]  our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics and much
[45:51.660 --> 46:08.940]  more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[46:21.660 --> 46:31.340]  Welcome back to Rule of Law, folks. I'm going to pick right up where I left back. And again,
[46:31.340 --> 46:38.300]  we're going to leave the phones off for a little while because this is good stuff right here.
[46:40.140 --> 46:46.700]  I'll recap what I couldn't get finished before the break. The federal court also noted the logic
[46:46.700 --> 46:57.420]  of Texas law in this regard. Considering that a contrary rule would lead to the odd result
[46:58.300 --> 47:05.260]  that a bank could foreclose on a mortgageor's property though it is not a valid party to the
[47:05.260 --> 47:14.780]  deed or promissory note, which should mean that the bank lacks standing to foreclose
[47:14.780 --> 47:23.100]  in its brief. Deutsche Bank recognized that the analysis in Rangel is applicable to the present
[47:23.100 --> 47:34.460]  case, but argues that the Fifth Circuit misread Texas law. These guys, and I believe this was
[47:34.460 --> 47:44.940]  Lock Lord, the guys out at Lock Lord, it's a foreclosure mill here in Texas. They're
[47:44.940 --> 47:51.740]  challenging the Fifth Circuit by saying Fifth Circuit misread Texas law. The bank emphasizes
[47:51.740 --> 48:02.780]  the use of the word may defend in quotes in Tri-Cities and argues that a mortgageor's ability
[48:02.780 --> 48:09.180]  to challenge an assignment is limited to cases which the mortgageor is defendent,
[48:09.980 --> 48:21.020]  defending a suit by the assignee. We disagree. Excuse me. The prior authority relied upon
[48:21.020 --> 48:31.420]  by this court in Tri-City itself concerned a suit by a plaintiff to declare null and void
[48:31.420 --> 48:40.780]  an assignment to which the plaintiff is not a party. See page 330, Southwest, second at 531.
[48:41.820 --> 48:57.100]  Likewise, Rangel began as a suit brought by a mortgageor to enjoin a non-judicial foreclosure
[48:57.100 --> 49:07.260]  proceeding instituted against their property by the defendant, assignee. Again, see Rangel at 222.
[49:10.060 --> 49:17.900]  The Rangel court correctly reasoned that to hold that the mortgageor's lack standing
[49:17.900 --> 49:24.540]  would have the quote, odd result of leaving the mortgageor's without remedy against
[49:24.540 --> 49:32.700]  putative assignees who pursue a non-judicial foreclosure based on void assignments,
[49:32.700 --> 49:39.980]  but who themselves are not valid parties to the deed of trust and thus lack standing to foreclose.
[49:39.980 --> 49:48.220]  Oh, man, my throat's getting scratchy. You want me to pick up and read a while?
[49:48.220 --> 49:55.980]  Let me get this paragraph here and go down to where we're quoting paragraphs 12 and 13.
[49:55.980 --> 50:00.620]  We're almost there. Vasquez, therefore, has standing to pursue her
[50:00.620 --> 50:07.740]  suit to quiet title if her petition includes allegations that, if true, would render the
[50:07.740 --> 50:14.860]  assignment void. In this case, she argues that the assignment is void because the signer,
[50:16.060 --> 50:20.140]  because the signature it bears is forged.
[50:20.140 --> 50:30.860]  A forged deed is void. See Dyson, Dyson Descendant Corp versus Sonat Exploration.
[50:33.900 --> 50:40.460]  More blue stuff, memorandum of opinion. Okay, a document is forged if the assignment is
[50:40.460 --> 50:50.780]  signed by one who purports to act as another. In Seymour Case Law, in her petition Vasquez alleged,
[50:50.780 --> 50:58.060]  Randy pick it up at paragraph 12. The foreclosure deed under which
[50:58.060 --> 51:11.180]  Deutsch asserts an interest in plaintiff's property is defective. Although appearing valid on its face,
[51:11.180 --> 51:19.180]  it is in fact invalid and has no force or effect. 13, the corporate assignment from agent to Deutsch
[51:19.180 --> 51:33.740]  signed on February 13th, 2009 by Bly was ineffective and void for multiple reasons. Preserving the right to amend, add, amend, or add additional defects.
[51:33.740 --> 51:38.060]  Plaintiff asked the court to consider the following issues.
[51:38.060 --> 51:50.380]  No transfer of the note as required by Texas law invalid signature. I'm not sure what that, oh, that was a footnote, my apologies.
[51:50.380 --> 51:55.100]  Yes, footnote. It just goes from paragraph 13 to paragraph 16.
[51:55.100 --> 52:04.460]  In the present case, the plaintiff's claim is invalid and the defendant's claim is invalid.
[52:04.460 --> 52:14.060]  In the present case, the signature on the purported transfer is not Bly's personal signature.
[52:14.060 --> 52:22.940]  Bly, who has been an employee of nationwide title for several years, has personally admitted through legal deposition
[52:22.940 --> 52:28.700]  that his signatures are electronically scanned and used by others without his supervision,
[52:28.700 --> 52:36.540]  approval, or personal knowledge. There are materially different versions of Bly's signature
[52:36.540 --> 52:42.140]  found throughout public records, which raises doubts as to the integrity of the assignments.
[52:42.140 --> 52:51.500]  The following are excerpts from Bly's deposition testimony by Ms. Einstein.
[52:51.500 --> 52:56.940]  We are back on the record. OK, Mr. Bly, right before we took a break, you were telling me
[52:56.940 --> 53:04.460]  that you had never seen Exhibit 5 before and that your signature on there was done by an electronic process
[53:04.460 --> 53:13.260]  that you had given an exemplar to an NTC employee named Thomas McKinnon. Is that correct?
[53:13.260 --> 53:19.980]  Bly, that's correct. OK, so you don't know the actual person who pushes the button,
[53:19.980 --> 53:26.380]  clicks the mouse, does something, and suddenly your signature gets on the piece of paper.
[53:26.380 --> 53:35.500]  Bly, no. OK, so you don't supervise these people that apply your signature to documents.
[53:35.500 --> 53:43.420]  Is that correct? That's correct. Do you know who supervises them? No. OK, do you have any communication
[53:43.420 --> 53:50.780]  with them about what documents they're applying your signature to? No. OK, has anyone ever come to
[53:50.780 --> 53:59.980]  ask you about a particular document? Should you know, should your signature go on it? No. OK.
[54:01.100 --> 54:08.780]  Now, in this loan, which you signed the assignment of, did you see the original note
[54:08.780 --> 54:15.580]  and mortgage change hands? No. OK, did you know where the original note and mortgage are? No.
[54:15.580 --> 54:20.780]  Do you know where they were, excuse me, when you signed the assignment?
[54:24.220 --> 54:31.020]  OK, a little confusion, another question. OK, if you had physically signed it, would you know
[54:31.020 --> 54:39.980]  where those documents were? No. OK, do you know anything at all about the original mortgage
[54:39.980 --> 54:46.220]  in this case? No. Plaintiff objects to the signature of the reported assignment and the validity
[54:46.220 --> 54:51.180]  of the notarization, therefore, is entitled to the protection of the Texas Business and Commerce
[54:51.180 --> 54:58.940]  Code because plaintiff has raised general factual concerns regarding the untimely transfer of the
[54:58.940 --> 55:04.460]  note and the suspicious signatures. Plaintiff urges his court to require that Deutsche Bank
[55:04.460 --> 55:10.940]  prove the rights of its transferor and, of course, any prior transfers as statutorily
[55:10.940 --> 55:19.980]  required by Texas law at 2417. In light of the various material defects, plaintiff contends
[55:19.980 --> 55:27.580]  that the assignment from agent to Deutsche never took legal effect and thus all subsequent transfers
[55:27.580 --> 55:36.860]  are void. OK, that's the end of the transcript. Vasquez thus alleged in her original petition
[55:36.860 --> 55:42.300]  that the assignment to Deutsche Bank was void and that Bly's signature on the assignment was
[55:42.300 --> 55:48.220]  affixed by someone else who acted without his knowledge or approval. This was an allegation of
[55:48.220 --> 55:54.380]  forgery and, as such, an allegation that the assignment was void. Deutsche Bank argues that
[55:54.380 --> 55:59.900]  Vasquez is claiming forgery for the first time on appeal and did not raise it in her position.
[56:00.780 --> 56:06.140]  It contends that Vasquez never used the word forgery but instead actually asserted in her
[56:06.140 --> 56:15.820]  position that Brian Bly signed the conveyance to Deutsche or used words to similar effect.
[56:16.460 --> 56:23.420]  It also claims that Vasquez never alleged that Bly's electronic signature, if used by an agent,
[56:23.420 --> 56:29.180]  if used by another, was used without his authorization. Deutsche Bank thus argues that
[56:29.180 --> 56:36.700]  Vasquez allegedly only alleged only that the assignment was made without authorization,
[56:36.700 --> 56:44.220]  therefore it was voidable, not void, and accordingly she lacked standing. Texas is a
[56:44.220 --> 56:50.620]  notice pleading jurisdiction and a petition is sufficient if it gives fair and adequate
[56:50.620 --> 56:56.780]  notice of the facts upon which the pleader bases his claim. The purpose of this rule is to give
[56:56.780 --> 57:05.660]  the opposing party information sufficient to enable him to prepare a defense. As such, Vasquez pleads
[57:05.660 --> 57:14.060]  did not use any specific word such as forgery or be a model of draftsmanship. With specific
[57:14.060 --> 57:19.740]  respect to the examples referenced by Deutsche Bank where Vasquez's petition made reference
[57:19.740 --> 57:26.620]  to Bly's signature or by signing, the context must be considered and in this circumstance
[57:26.620 --> 57:35.580]  that context includes Vasquez's additional allegations about the authenticity of the
[57:35.580 --> 57:52.140]  signature on the assignment. That context includes Vasquez's additional allegations about the
[57:52.140 --> 58:00.700]  authenticity of the signature on the assignment which he had alleged was outside the authority of
[58:00.700 --> 58:07.580]  Bly and Citi to make on behalf of Arjun. I'm gonna stop you right here in music. Yes, you are hearing
[58:07.580 --> 58:18.860]  music. Yes, you're right, you're hearing music. You got 30 seconds. But I totally lost my place.
[58:19.420 --> 58:25.820]  That's okay, I got it, I got it. Go ahead, I clicked the wrong button. No, that's okay, I got it right
[58:25.820 --> 58:33.500]  here and we'll be back after this top of the hour break, folks. We'll probably turn the phones on.
[58:33.500 --> 58:38.380]  Let me look at this. We'll probably go through the first segment of the next hour and then turn the
[58:38.380 --> 58:43.420]  phones on the other side. But we'd like to get some feedback on this because I'm sure everybody
[58:43.420 --> 58:47.660]  out there has seen this mess before. We'll be right back after the news. You're listening
[58:47.660 --> 58:54.060]  real a lot. Stay tuned. Would you like to make more definite progress in your walk with God?
[58:54.060 --> 59:00.140]  Bibles for America is offering a free study Bible and a set of free Christian books that can really
[59:00.140 --> 59:05.340]  help. The New Testament Recovery Version is one of the most comprehensive study Bibles available
[59:05.340 --> 59:10.860]  today. It's an accurate translation and it contains thousands of footnotes that will help you to know
[59:10.860 --> 59:16.940]  God and to know the meaning of life. The free books are a three-volume set called Basic Elements
[59:16.940 --> 59:22.300]  of the Christian Life. Chapter by chapter, Basic Elements of the Christian Life clearly presents
[59:22.300 --> 59:28.780]  God's plan of salvation, growing in Christ, and how to build up the church. To order your free
[59:28.780 --> 59:35.420]  New Testament Recovery Version and Basic Elements of the Christian Life, call Bibles for America
[59:35.420 --> 59:52.300]  toll free at 888-551-0102. That's 888-551-0102. Or visit us online at bfa.org. Live free speech
[59:52.300 --> 01:00:05.820]  radio, logosradionetwork.com. This is the Liberty Beat, your daily source for Liberty news and
[01:00:05.820 --> 01:00:11.100]  activist updates. Online at thelibertybeat.com. I'm Brian Hagan with your Liberty Beat for Friday,
[01:00:11.100 --> 01:00:18.460]  February 20th, 2015. Gold is trading at $1,209, silver at $16.48, and bitcoin is trading around
[01:00:18.460 --> 01:00:25.020]  $244.60. Today's metal price is brought to you by Midas Resources Incorporated, helping clients
[01:00:25.020 --> 01:00:30.620]  convert their paper 401Ks and IRAs to solid gold and silver. Get their 10 reasons book free
[01:00:30.620 --> 01:00:38.380]  by calling 800-686-2237. That's 800-686-2237. How much food is in your pantry right now? Could you
[01:00:38.380 --> 01:00:43.180]  feed your family for two weeks, one week? How about even three days without any help? Well, keeping
[01:00:43.180 --> 01:00:48.140]  an emergency food storage kit is the most effective way to begin to ensure your family's well-being
[01:00:48.140 --> 01:00:53.580]  during an emergency. eFoods Direct is food security for whatever the future holds. Go to
[01:00:53.580 --> 01:01:00.700]  eFoodsDirect.com slash Liberty Beat or call 800-620-5520 to learn more about food security
[01:01:00.700 --> 01:01:06.140]  in a time of crisis. In the news, the president of Sudan has made headlines after claiming that
[01:01:06.140 --> 01:01:11.340]  Islamic extremist groups ISIS and Boko Haram are a creation of the Central Intelligence Agency
[01:01:11.340 --> 01:01:17.340]  and Israel's Mossad. President Omar al-Bashir told Euronews both stand behind the organizations
[01:01:17.340 --> 01:01:23.340]  as, quote, there is no Muslim who would carry out such acts, end quote. Al-Bashir also warned
[01:01:23.340 --> 01:01:28.380]  against taking violent actions against the groups, stating it would only elicit more violence.
[01:01:28.380 --> 01:01:32.620]  The statement echoes similar claims made by the leader of Lebanon's Hezbollah group
[01:01:32.620 --> 01:01:37.020]  and the mayor of the Turkish city Ankara, who also claimed the Mossad was involved in the
[01:01:37.020 --> 01:01:43.660]  Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris. The U.S. Department of Justice will likely sue the
[01:01:43.660 --> 01:01:47.980]  Ferguson, Missouri Police Department if recommendations are not implemented. The news
[01:01:47.980 --> 01:01:52.940]  comes as Attorney General Eric Holder is expected to announce the conclusions of a DOJ investigation
[01:01:52.940 --> 01:01:58.060]  into the shooting of Michael Brown and the Ferguson Police Department. CNN reports the DOJ would be
[01:01:58.060 --> 01:02:03.340]  forced to sue the department if they do not agree to review and revise tactics. Ferguson Police
[01:02:03.340 --> 01:02:07.180]  Chief Thomas Jackson stated he has heard nothing new from the Justice Department.
[01:02:07.180 --> 01:02:14.060]  The Tombaugh Police Department just outside of Houston is considering adding body cameras to its
[01:02:14.060 --> 01:02:19.180]  officers. The Houston Chronicle reports the Tombaugh City Council is considering adding the cameras.
[01:02:19.180 --> 01:02:23.180]  The Liberty is brought to you by Silver Botanicals, producing innovative all-natural
[01:02:23.180 --> 01:02:27.580]  high-quality collodial silver and gold personal care products. Experience the power of collodial
[01:02:27.580 --> 01:02:32.060]  silver with their silver shield deodorant and silver tongue oral disinfectant. Visit
[01:02:32.060 --> 01:02:37.900]  silverbotanicals.com for more info or to buy their products go to Brave New Books. Support
[01:02:37.900 --> 01:02:43.420]  also comes from Central Texas Gunworks, your online source for firearms, firearm accessories
[01:02:43.420 --> 01:02:49.340]  and ammunition. They take major credit cards and now accept bitcoin. Visit them online at
[01:02:49.340 --> 01:02:56.700]  shop.centraltexasgunworks.com. This is the Liberty Beat for Friday, February 20, 2015.
[01:02:56.700 --> 01:03:02.460]  Check out the website at thelibertybeat.com.
[01:03:27.420 --> 01:03:31.340]  I won't pay for the war with my body.
[01:03:31.340 --> 01:03:34.700]  Ain't gonna pay for the car with my money.
[01:03:34.700 --> 01:03:38.060]  I won't pay for the fun with my body.
[01:03:38.060 --> 01:03:41.500]  Their plans wicked and their logic shoddy.
[01:03:41.500 --> 01:03:44.940]  Ain't gonna pay for the oil with my body.
[01:03:44.940 --> 01:03:48.220]  I won't pay for the poison with my money.
[01:03:48.220 --> 01:03:52.460]  Ain't gonna pay for the kids with my body.
[01:03:52.460 --> 01:03:55.900]  The whole agenda smells funny.
[01:03:55.900 --> 01:03:58.940]  Welcome back to the rule of law radio, folks. We can't find Randy.
[01:03:58.940 --> 01:03:59.820]  Thank you, man.
[01:03:59.820 --> 01:04:02.860]  I was moving. I had my headset off.
[01:04:02.860 --> 01:04:08.620]  Ah, I thought you might have gone to the bathroom and fell in or something.
[01:04:08.620 --> 01:04:14.220]  No, I've got a seat belt.
[01:04:14.220 --> 01:04:20.380]  Under most circumstances, I'd say I'd have to see that, but I'll leave that one alone.
[01:04:20.380 --> 01:04:22.700]  Okay, you remember where you left off?
[01:04:22.700 --> 01:04:23.660]  Yes.
[01:04:23.660 --> 01:04:24.460]  Good.
[01:04:24.460 --> 01:04:33.100]  Okay, since Vasquez petition adequately alleges forgery and her response to the summary judgment
[01:04:33.100 --> 01:04:39.180]  motion raised that argument as the reason why she contends the assignment to Deutsche Bank
[01:04:39.180 --> 01:04:44.700]  was void. The trial court should not have granted summary judgment on the basis
[01:04:44.700 --> 01:04:54.780]  that she lacks standing to pursue her quiet title claim. We sustain her sole appellate issue.
[01:04:54.780 --> 01:05:00.060]  Now we go to government code claim. We're getting close to the conclusion, so we're gonna be done.
[01:05:00.060 --> 01:05:05.500]  Though not addressed by Vasquez's appellate issue, there was a separate cause of action
[01:05:06.220 --> 01:05:11.580]  alleged in her petition. Relying on the same factual allegations discussed above,
[01:05:11.580 --> 01:05:18.540]  Vasquez purported to state a claim under section 51-901, that's the one I read earlier,
[01:05:18.540 --> 01:05:25.260]  of the government code that the assignment was fraudulent and unlawfully filed in the public
[01:05:25.260 --> 01:05:31.340]  records. In connection with this claim, she asked the court to determine the lien and subsequent
[01:05:31.340 --> 01:05:45.420]  transfer of plaintiff's property null and void. This claim was addressed by Deutsche Bank's motion
[01:05:45.420 --> 01:05:53.980]  for summary judgment. The bank argued that the government code claim failed as a matter of law
[01:05:53.980 --> 01:06:01.740]  because the provision relied upon Vasquez's addresses only the filing of documents that purport to create
[01:06:01.740 --> 01:06:09.900]  a lien, not documents that purport to transfer one. Vasquez's arguments on appeal do not extend
[01:06:09.900 --> 01:06:15.180]  to contesting Deutsche Bank's argument made in the motion for summary judgment, that regardless
[01:06:15.180 --> 01:06:21.500]  of standing, her claim under the government code fails as a matter of law. As such, we do not review
[01:06:21.500 --> 01:06:27.020]  and must leave undisturbed the trial court's entry of summary judgment as to Vasquez's claim
[01:06:27.020 --> 01:06:33.980]  under government code. That's why you got to be careful when you file appeals, make sure you
[01:06:33.980 --> 01:06:41.980]  address everything. See Jacobs versus Statterwhite holding the court of appeals' error to reversing
[01:06:41.980 --> 01:06:48.940]  summary judgment as to both claims when appellant only challenged grounds for summary judgment as to
[01:06:48.940 --> 01:06:57.100]  one of the claims. Okay, a couple more paragraphs in the conclusion. Oh, one paragraph. We reverse
[01:06:57.100 --> 01:07:03.500]  the portion of the trial court summary judgment order dismissing Vasquez's quiet title claim and
[01:07:03.500 --> 01:07:12.860]  remand the claim for further proceeding consistent with this opinion. Robo-signing renders a document
[01:07:12.860 --> 01:07:20.620]  void. That's the short and long of it. Okay, we are going to open the phones. You ready to open
[01:07:20.620 --> 01:07:29.180]  the phones, Steve? Sure. Yeah, go right ahead. Yeah, I'd encourage anybody that's looked,
[01:07:29.180 --> 01:07:33.420]  gone to the county recorder's office and gotten a copy of an assignment.
[01:07:33.420 --> 01:07:44.540]  And I don't care whose name is on it. Chances are it's what they call Robo-signed. And there's more
[01:07:44.540 --> 01:07:51.580]  to that. When you go look at documents, when I go look into record, and that's the main thing I do,
[01:07:53.180 --> 01:08:01.420]  we've had people fighting bifurcation and securitization and all this. And I want to say,
[01:08:01.420 --> 01:08:07.660]  whoa, whoa, stop. That's the last place to go. The first place to go is go look in the public
[01:08:07.660 --> 01:08:14.620]  record and see what's in there. Because problems there go to contractual issues where the judge
[01:08:14.620 --> 01:08:20.860]  doesn't have to make an expansive ruling that'll change the world as he knows it. He can rule on
[01:08:20.860 --> 01:08:27.580]  that particular contractual violation. And the primary one is the requirement that both parties
[01:08:27.580 --> 01:08:35.340]  abide by all relevant law. So you look at the deed of trust. First thing you look for is who is the
[01:08:35.340 --> 01:08:43.980]  original lender? And is Merge included in the deed of trust? Then you go look at an assignment.
[01:08:44.620 --> 01:08:52.860]  Who made the assignment? Did Merge make the assignment as nominee for the original lender?
[01:08:52.860 --> 01:09:01.580]  And if so, is the original lender still in existence? Did they go out of business without
[01:09:01.580 --> 01:09:08.300]  filing an assignment? Now Merge comes along a year or so later and tries to resurrect the dead guy.
[01:09:08.300 --> 01:09:19.900]  This I find real common. Is there a substitute trustee's deed by a trustee who was never
[01:09:19.900 --> 01:09:27.980]  properly named as a substitute trustee? Do you have an original lender in there? And then you
[01:09:27.980 --> 01:09:35.420]  come along with somebody else, and I just came across this today, filing an assignment appointment
[01:09:35.420 --> 01:09:44.620]  of substitute trustee. I got some funky little bank and it disappeared a long time ago on the
[01:09:44.620 --> 01:09:52.460]  deed of trust. And the very next document is Wells Fargo appointing a substitute trustee.
[01:09:52.460 --> 01:09:59.660]  And so my question is, how did Wells Fargo get authority to assign anything? That's the question
[01:09:59.660 --> 01:10:08.380]  you should keep asking. Everything you look at, how did this guy or this person or entity get
[01:10:08.380 --> 01:10:17.580]  authority to file what he's filing? That's what 51.901 goes to. And keep in mind, we've got
[01:10:19.260 --> 01:10:27.020]  corporate personage now. So if a corporation can have all of the rights
[01:10:28.860 --> 01:10:34.300]  that are endowed to a living man, then they can certainly have all the downfalls too.
[01:10:34.300 --> 01:10:42.860]  That means they can die. When a company goes out of business, it dies.
[01:10:43.820 --> 01:10:57.500]  If you have a claim against me, and you get ill and don't transfer that claim to someone else
[01:10:57.500 --> 01:11:07.980]  before you pass away, you have abandoned the claim. So the same thing with these banks.
[01:11:07.980 --> 01:11:16.700]  And there's a judge in New York who call these vampire lenders that they resurrect from the
[01:11:16.700 --> 01:11:23.900]  dead whenever it's convenient. So look at the documents in the record and keep asking yourself,
[01:11:23.900 --> 01:11:29.580]  who filed this? And what authority did they have to file it? And who is this guy that signed it?
[01:11:30.620 --> 01:11:38.140]  One of the things we have people do is make up a letter. Say Merge has an assignment in there,
[01:11:38.140 --> 01:11:44.780]  and it's got this guy's name on it. Send a letter to Merge and ask them for evidence of
[01:11:44.780 --> 01:11:52.460]  power of attorney for this individual who signed for your company. We've never got a copy of a
[01:11:52.460 --> 01:12:00.620]  copy of a power of attorney. They don't exist. You're asking them to provide something that
[01:12:00.620 --> 01:12:06.940]  has never come into existence. Right. So now when a document is filed in the public record,
[01:12:08.300 --> 01:12:18.700]  it is presumed to be valid until challenged. A signature on a document is presumed to be valid
[01:12:18.700 --> 01:12:25.340]  until it's challenged. So what we have to do in order to challenge it is merely develop
[01:12:25.340 --> 01:12:29.980]  prima facie. So we go and say, you know, we can go to the court and say,
[01:12:31.420 --> 01:12:37.500]  this document's a piece of crap. This guy's a robot signer and his name splattered all over
[01:12:37.500 --> 01:12:44.300]  the internet. And the judge is going to say, so what does that have to do with this document?
[01:12:44.300 --> 01:12:48.940]  What evidence do you have that although his name may be splattered all over the internet,
[01:12:48.940 --> 01:12:53.820]  what evidence do you have that he didn't sign this document? So, well, your honor,
[01:12:54.780 --> 01:13:02.140]  this guy's name splattered all over the internet. So we sent a request to the company for which he
[01:13:02.140 --> 01:13:10.700]  made the affirmation. And we requested evidence of power of attorney for this person. And we
[01:13:10.700 --> 01:13:16.780]  did not receive evidence of power of attorney. Therefore we have reason to believe and do believe
[01:13:16.780 --> 01:13:24.300]  this guy's a robot signer. Does that make sense, Steve? Absolutely. So you have to establish
[01:13:24.300 --> 01:13:31.660]  something. Every notary, send the notary a request for evidence of the acknowledgement,
[01:13:32.220 --> 01:13:38.140]  all acknowledgments for a day before to a day after whatever document you're interested in.
[01:13:38.140 --> 01:13:43.420]  And they're going to huff and puff. 90% of them want him to respond. And that's what you hope.
[01:13:44.460 --> 01:13:48.460]  You don't want them to do what you're actually asking them to do. You want them not to do it.
[01:13:48.460 --> 01:13:54.460]  So that gives you prima facie evidence that the acknowledgement is void.
[01:13:56.460 --> 01:14:03.500]  Every document filed, you should do that on. And with this case, this case gives us the
[01:14:03.500 --> 01:14:09.660]  leverage that we've been needing to make those things work. And Randy, you'd made reference to
[01:14:09.660 --> 01:14:20.060]  something that kind of sparked something in my mind in that. Nevermind, the spark went out. Good
[01:14:20.060 --> 01:14:25.420]  Lord. I wanted to catch that before you got too far away from it and you got too far away from it.
[01:14:25.420 --> 01:14:33.100]  Okay, I was talking about prima facie mainly. Yeah, but that wasn't it. It'll come to me.
[01:14:33.980 --> 01:14:39.740]  One of the reasons we do this with MERS, particularly, is because everybody and their
[01:14:39.740 --> 01:14:48.300]  brother sides for MERS. And MERS doesn't have, it's already admitted in depositions by the
[01:14:48.300 --> 01:14:54.860]  ex-president of MERS, that they don't have any employees. So when someone signs a document for
[01:14:54.860 --> 01:15:01.340]  MERS and claims to be a secretary or a vice president, that is fraudulent on its face
[01:15:03.180 --> 01:15:09.580]  because MERS is collaterally stopped from claiming they have a vice president or a
[01:15:09.580 --> 01:15:20.060]  secretary or anything else. It's once they went into court or the president or CEO, whatever he was,
[01:15:21.020 --> 01:15:28.940]  I have his, I use his deposition in a lot of my documents. Once he went into court and stated
[01:15:28.940 --> 01:15:35.980]  under oath that MERS has no employees, MERS cannot come back later and say, oh yeah, these guys are
[01:15:35.980 --> 01:15:43.100]  our employees. This guy's vice president emerged with no such thing. And that goes to collateral
[01:15:43.100 --> 01:15:50.940]  estoppel. And a vice president is an employee designation. And I remembered what it was that
[01:15:50.940 --> 01:15:58.380]  you said, you said that you'd applied to the claimant to provide evidence of a power of
[01:15:58.380 --> 01:16:05.420]  attorney, but you never received that. That kind of goes back to MERS, MERS, MERS, MERS,
[01:16:05.420 --> 01:16:14.780]  to discovery and a request for admissions. If you do not file your admissions or your response to
[01:16:14.780 --> 01:16:23.740]  your admissions or without denying your lack of denial or your acquiescence is acceptance that
[01:16:23.740 --> 01:16:33.180]  everything in there is to the benefit of he who wants to know. So in that same vein, when you make
[01:16:33.180 --> 01:16:40.700]  a request for some type of authority by power of attorney and you don't receive it, then it is
[01:16:40.700 --> 01:16:47.500]  reasonable to presume that it does not exist, that they have no power of attorney. And all you need
[01:16:47.500 --> 01:16:57.420]  is prima facie. The radio, the phones are open folks, 512-646-1984, dial it and we'll get to you
[01:16:57.420 --> 01:17:03.180]  just right on the other side of this break, Steve. Chances are you've heard of My Magic Mud, but have
[01:17:03.180 --> 01:17:07.820]  you used it? Thousands of people are blown away by the clean and healthy feeling they experience
[01:17:07.820 --> 01:17:12.700]  after just one use. Here's what Harlan Dietrich, owner of Brave New Books, has to say about the
[01:17:12.700 --> 01:17:16.460]  product. Hey everybody, this is Harlan Dietrich, owner of Brave New Books. Just want to tell
[01:17:16.460 --> 01:17:21.580]  everybody about My Magic Mud. I use the product and it makes my teeth feel clean and healthy. I
[01:17:21.580 --> 01:17:25.340]  think it makes them stronger. I got lots of customers that come in and say the same thing.
[01:17:25.340 --> 01:17:30.460]  You can pick yours up at Brave New Books. If that wasn't enough, Dr. Griffin Cole, DDS, who's been
[01:17:30.460 --> 01:17:35.100]  featured on the Alex Jones show, loves it too. Hi, I'm Dr. Griffin Cole and I gotta tell you,
[01:17:35.100 --> 01:17:39.660]  I really love this Magic Mud product. Because charcoal is so absorbent, it's very effective
[01:17:39.660 --> 01:17:43.580]  at taking off all the sticky plaque and debris that gets stuck on our teeth every day. I highly
[01:17:43.580 --> 01:17:48.060]  recommend My Magic Mud. If you haven't yet experienced My Magic Mud, it's never too late
[01:17:48.060 --> 01:17:53.260]  to brighten your smile and strengthen your teeth. Get your jar of My Magic Mud today at Brave New
[01:17:53.260 --> 01:17:59.340]  Books, located at 1904 Guadalupe Street or order online today at mymagicmud.com.
[01:18:01.340 --> 01:18:05.660]  At Capital Coin and Bullion, our mission is to be your preferred shopping destination by delivering
[01:18:05.660 --> 01:18:10.540]  excellent customer service and outstanding value at an affordable price. We provide a wide assortment
[01:18:10.540 --> 01:18:14.940]  of favorite products featuring a great selection of high quality coins and precious metals. We
[01:18:14.940 --> 01:18:19.660]  cater to beginners in coin collecting as well as large transactions for investors. We believe in
[01:18:19.660 --> 01:18:24.780]  educating our customers with resources from top accredited metal dealers and journalists. If we
[01:18:24.780 --> 01:18:30.060]  don't have what you're looking for, we can find it. In addition, we carry popular longevity products
[01:18:30.060 --> 01:18:34.940]  such as Beyond Tangy Tangerine and Polynburst. We also offer One World Way, Mountain House
[01:18:34.940 --> 01:18:40.540]  Storable Foods, Berkey Water Products, ammunition at 10% above wholesale and more. We broker metals
[01:18:40.540 --> 01:18:47.260]  IRA accounts and we also accept Bitcoins as payment. Call us at 512-646-6440. We're located
[01:18:47.260 --> 01:18:52.460]  at 7304 Burnett Road, Suite A, about a half mile south of Anderson. We're open Monday through
[01:18:52.460 --> 01:19:18.060]  Friday 10 to 6, Saturdays 10 to 2. Visit us at capitalcoinandbullion.com or call 512-646-6440.
[01:19:22.460 --> 01:19:43.740]  Welcome back to Rule Law Radio, folks. 512-646-1984 is the number dial if you want to join us in
[01:19:43.740 --> 01:19:52.140]  conversation. And I see we have John in Texas. Don't know if you've been screened or not,
[01:19:52.140 --> 01:19:57.020]  but let's pull the pin on this hand grenade. Are we speaking with John in Texas?
[01:19:59.420 --> 01:20:08.380]  Am I on the line? You're on the air. If you're John in Texas. Yeah, I'm here. Okay. Is this John in
[01:20:08.380 --> 01:20:18.060]  Texas? Okay. Are you John in Texas? Yes. Okay, good. And we're talking to the right guy.
[01:20:18.060 --> 01:20:25.660]  Hi. Welcome to the airwaves. What say you, sir? What you got for us tonight, John?
[01:20:27.020 --> 01:20:31.580]  I was going to talk a little bit about foreclosure. I don't want to talk a long time because I don't
[01:20:31.580 --> 01:20:37.260]  want to take up a lot of time. You're the only one on right now. So when it gets stacked up,
[01:20:37.260 --> 01:20:39.980]  we'll move on. But right now you got the floor to yourself.
[01:20:39.980 --> 01:20:49.580]  Okay. I talked to you about three weeks ago. I've been four. I recollect. I had my note.
[01:20:51.020 --> 01:21:00.380]  Do what? I recollect. I remember. I tell you where I'm at. I'm still, you know, of course,
[01:21:00.380 --> 01:21:10.380]  in bankruptcy. And I found out a little more information about the foreclosure that I was in.
[01:21:11.980 --> 01:21:24.700]  I didn't know this. But if a person gets a 1099A, I think it's when they get foreclosed on.
[01:21:24.700 --> 01:21:33.580]  That's an abandonment. Yes. They will look at a little box that's checked or not checked.
[01:21:36.140 --> 01:21:45.020]  And if it's number five, is the borrower personally liable for repayment of this debt?
[01:21:45.020 --> 01:21:54.460]  And if they say no, then your deal is void, the foreclosure, because it just said it was not valid.
[01:21:56.460 --> 01:21:58.940]  Well, it just said that they're not responsible for the debt.
[01:22:00.300 --> 01:22:06.620]  Right. So how do they collect on the debt, John? If they can't collect a monthly payment,
[01:22:06.620 --> 01:22:11.180]  what do they collect? The foreclosure is void.
[01:22:11.180 --> 01:22:21.100]  The way that raises a question, why would they check that box?
[01:22:23.580 --> 01:22:36.220]  Because when they send them the 1099A, and it says they're not responsible. So in other words,
[01:22:36.220 --> 01:22:43.180]  they may go in and say, yeah, we- Okay. Hold on, John. You're using pronouns again. They.
[01:22:45.660 --> 01:22:51.180]  Who does that refer to? Does it refer to the one sending the 1099 or the one receiving?
[01:22:52.860 --> 01:22:55.900]  Well, just say Bank of America. Okay.
[01:22:55.900 --> 01:23:02.620]  And if they send it to the borrower that they foreclosed on, and they check that box,
[01:23:02.620 --> 01:23:07.580]  that they were personally liable or they- Okay. You're still using they, they, they, they.
[01:23:08.140 --> 01:23:15.100]  They who is personally liable. I assume when you say personally liable, I'm assumed that refers
[01:23:15.100 --> 01:23:22.460]  to the borrower. So Bank of America is saying the borrower is not personally liable. Is that right?
[01:23:22.460 --> 01:23:24.460]  Correct. Okay.
[01:23:24.460 --> 01:23:31.500]  So why would Bank of America check that? And I'm assuming there's something going on with the
[01:23:31.500 --> 01:23:35.180]  1099A. I don't know about that would give them a reason to do that.
[01:23:36.060 --> 01:23:43.740]  I'm looking at a 1099A that was sent to me from PNC Bank National Association. And in box five,
[01:23:43.740 --> 01:23:50.060]  it says, was borrower personally liable for repayment of the debt?
[01:23:50.060 --> 01:23:59.340]  And the box, yes, is checked. So, okay. I believe the correct me if I'm wrong, Randy, but I believe
[01:23:59.340 --> 01:24:05.980]  the reason that Randy's asking this is if the bank said, no, they're not responsible.
[01:24:07.340 --> 01:24:11.980]  If they're not personally liable to repay the debt, then why are you coming after the house?
[01:24:11.980 --> 01:24:17.260]  If they're not liable, if they're not responsible for the debt, then there's no debt or they're
[01:24:17.260 --> 01:24:20.860]  going to the wrong person by taking the house. They've got to check, yes.
[01:24:23.500 --> 01:24:27.980]  John, have you seen cases where they have checked no?
[01:24:29.580 --> 01:24:39.100]  I have personally know of a man named David and he's been in a relationship with a man named
[01:24:39.100 --> 01:24:47.020]  David. And I looked at that and he mentioned something about that. Anyway, he's going back
[01:24:47.580 --> 01:24:51.260]  to reclaim his foreclosed home. He's out of love of them.
[01:24:53.660 --> 01:25:00.540]  Smart man. If he wasn't, that's just it. See, if the bank says, well, no, they weren't.
[01:25:00.540 --> 01:25:10.940]  No, this raises a question. Why on earth would that be in there? What legal or equitable reason
[01:25:10.940 --> 01:25:17.980]  is there for that to be there? Randy, Randy, Randy, this is the internal revenue service
[01:25:17.980 --> 01:25:24.780]  we're talking about. Nothing they do is reasonable. They had a reason for putting that there.
[01:25:24.780 --> 01:25:32.460]  And I suspecting that there is something that can go on to where the bank would want to check that.
[01:25:32.460 --> 01:25:36.780]  And it would work much better if I understood what it was.
[01:25:37.740 --> 01:25:40.860]  You just broke up real bad. It would work much better than what?
[01:25:40.860 --> 01:25:48.540]  It'd work much better if I understood what would give the bank a reason to check that box.
[01:25:48.540 --> 01:25:56.940]  John, do you have any idea? I do not. I just know there's a yes or a no.
[01:25:58.620 --> 01:26:05.820]  If it's checked, no. Well, the fact that they put it there,
[01:26:07.500 --> 01:26:13.660]  they put it on the document would indicate that there would be circumstances where the bank would
[01:26:13.660 --> 01:26:20.620]  want to check no. And I don't understand what the. Well, maybe if the if the obligor had gone
[01:26:20.620 --> 01:26:31.260]  through a bankruptcy and it had been discharged. But if it had been discharged, why send the 1099A?
[01:26:34.860 --> 01:26:38.860]  Isn't that doesn't that allow the bank to write that off as a loss?
[01:26:38.860 --> 01:26:47.180]  Well, yes. But of course, the deed of trust is recorded in the deed records, you know,
[01:26:47.180 --> 01:26:54.460]  so that's how they go after people. You do know all this stuff is a tax issue, don't you?
[01:26:55.020 --> 01:26:56.860]  Yes. All these foreclosures,
[01:26:56.860 --> 01:27:06.860]  these remits, that's all this is tax, tax only. I've been researching a lot and I didn't know this.
[01:27:06.860 --> 01:27:16.780]  See, the bank that forecloses, they were supposed to pay the tax on this property, these remits,
[01:27:18.220 --> 01:27:25.180]  and they didn't do it. Well, the way that works is if they foreclose on a property
[01:27:26.380 --> 01:27:35.180]  that's in a remake, they must replace that property with another property of equal value
[01:27:35.180 --> 01:27:41.420]  in order to maintain the collateral base of the remake. But there is a restriction.
[01:27:42.380 --> 01:27:48.540]  They can replace no more than five percent of the notes in the remake. If that happens,
[01:27:49.420 --> 01:27:55.580]  then the whole remake collapses and the bank has to pay the form out of the tax.
[01:27:57.340 --> 01:28:04.860]  And that was a question I've had when Steve, you're saying that the note did not
[01:28:04.860 --> 01:28:13.980]  make it into the pool within the time limit. There's another way for them to get in the pool.
[01:28:15.820 --> 01:28:19.020]  Right. That's a replacing one.
[01:28:19.020 --> 01:28:27.820]  Yeah. And that could happen at most any time. So one thing I've never found is how to check and see
[01:28:27.820 --> 01:28:37.340]  if the note was placed in the pool to replace a... You would have to have a complete list of every
[01:28:37.340 --> 01:28:44.300]  asset that was originally placed in the remake. And I don't know where you would get that.
[01:28:45.740 --> 01:28:48.700]  But you get it off the Securities Exchange Commission.
[01:28:49.420 --> 01:28:56.460]  You get that off the SEC. The numbers of all of the original assets placed in the trust
[01:28:56.460 --> 01:29:01.820]  prior to the closing date? Well, they're supposed to be.
[01:29:02.940 --> 01:29:10.620]  I have read some remakes that's not related to me, and I've gotten account numbers and matched them
[01:29:10.620 --> 01:29:23.580]  up. Okay. Let me be specific about my deal. Okay. I closed my loan the 18th of February, 2005.
[01:29:23.580 --> 01:29:34.860]  I closed it. Okay. February 19th, 2005, the same day. My remake was in default.
[01:29:37.420 --> 01:29:44.060]  Same day it was closed. Hang on there, John. I hear the music in the background, and the time
[01:29:44.060 --> 01:29:51.740]  has come to tell people that they can dial 512-646-1984 and get in behind John. Do so,
[01:29:51.740 --> 01:29:55.900]  folks. We've got to open board. We'll be right back. Stay tuned.
[01:30:00.380 --> 01:30:04.780]  It's been called the perfect food, and in the early part of the 20th century, this food was
[01:30:04.780 --> 01:30:09.740]  actually used to treat and sometimes cure disease. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and in just a moment,
[01:30:09.740 --> 01:30:14.860]  I'll be back with the raw facts. Google is watching you, recording everything you've
[01:30:14.860 --> 01:30:19.260]  ever searched for and creating a massive database of your personal information.
[01:30:19.260 --> 01:30:24.220]  That's creepy. But it doesn't have to be that way. Startpage.com is the world's most
[01:30:24.220 --> 01:30:28.940]  private search engine. Startpage.com doesn't store your IP address, make a record of your
[01:30:28.940 --> 01:30:33.500]  searches or use tracking cookies, and they're third-party certified. If you don't like big
[01:30:33.500 --> 01:30:39.180]  brother spying on you, start over with Startpage. Great search results and total privacy.
[01:30:39.180 --> 01:30:42.620]  Startpage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:30:42.620 --> 01:30:47.260]  If cream in your coffee sends you reeling with cramps, you could be lactose intolerant.
[01:30:47.260 --> 01:30:50.380]  For millions, even small amounts of milk can be trouble.
[01:30:50.380 --> 01:30:52.780]  But a surprising new trend is a lot of people saying,
[01:30:52.780 --> 01:30:56.860]  move over pasteurized milk and bring on the real stuff, raw milk.
[01:30:56.860 --> 01:31:01.100]  Research shows four out of five people with lactose intolerance can drink raw milk with
[01:31:01.100 --> 01:31:06.060]  no symptoms, and farm families who drink raw milk have fewer allergies than the rest of us.
[01:31:06.060 --> 01:31:09.980]  For thousands of years, people drank milk straight from the cow right to the glass.
[01:31:09.980 --> 01:31:14.140]  No pasteurizing, no homogenizing. So go ahead, pour some in your coffee,
[01:31:14.140 --> 01:31:18.140]  splash some on your cereal, raw milk. Talk about doing a body good.
[01:31:18.140 --> 01:31:22.460]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:31:31.500 --> 01:31:36.940]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[01:31:36.940 --> 01:31:39.420]  The government says that fire brought it down. However,
[01:31:39.420 --> 01:31:45.260]  1,500 architects and engineers concluded it was a controlled demolition. Over 6,000 of my fellow
[01:31:45.260 --> 01:31:49.500]  service members have given their lives, and thousands of my fellow first responders are dying.
[01:31:49.500 --> 01:31:53.340]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm a structural engineer. I'm a New York City correction officer.
[01:31:53.340 --> 01:31:57.020]  I'm an Air Force pilot. I'm a father who lost his son. We're Americans,
[01:31:57.020 --> 01:32:01.340]  and we deserve the truth. Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[01:32:01.900 --> 01:32:08.460]  After work, I'm so tired that I want to be left alone to sleep. Hey, listen to me. Who are you?
[01:32:08.460 --> 01:32:12.540]  I knew years ago when you felt healthy and young and everything worked on your body.
[01:32:12.540 --> 01:32:15.740]  Do you remember that? Yes. I wish I felt like that now.
[01:32:15.740 --> 01:32:20.940]  You can feel like that again with a new micro-plant powder formulation called Iodine Now.
[01:32:20.940 --> 01:32:25.420]  It cleans the entire body from head to toe and feeds the body what it really needs.
[01:32:25.420 --> 01:32:29.100]  You'll be in a better mood, and you'll find more drive in your romantic life.
[01:32:29.100 --> 01:32:32.380]  Really? I gotta try Iodine Now. It'd feel good again.
[01:32:32.380 --> 01:32:35.100]  It also protects you from radiation, heavy metals,
[01:32:35.100 --> 01:32:38.780]  fluoride, chlorine, and bromine, including cancer and most major diseases.
[01:32:38.780 --> 01:32:41.260]  You'll be amazed. You can be your own doctor.
[01:32:41.260 --> 01:32:44.540]  I want to keep you out of the hospital and off pharmaceuticals.
[01:32:44.540 --> 01:32:47.740]  Wow. Why are you so nice to me? Because I'm you.
[01:32:47.740 --> 01:32:50.620]  You're out of shape, and I need a better-looking future.
[01:32:50.620 --> 01:32:56.380]  Call 888-910-4367. That's 888-910-4367.
[01:32:56.380 --> 01:33:00.860]  Or visit microplantpowder.com. microplantpowder.com.
[01:33:00.860 --> 01:33:04.860]  Looking for some truth? You found it. logosradionetwork.com.
[01:33:30.860 --> 01:33:44.300]  Welcome back to Rule All Radio, folks. It is a Friday night marathon here on the
[01:33:44.300 --> 01:33:50.140]  20th day of February, 2015. And we've got John on the line.
[01:33:51.020 --> 01:33:54.380]  And he's the only one. He's the only caller. So you can get in line behind John
[01:33:54.380 --> 01:34:03.660]  at 512-646-1984. And John, before we left, we're all getting pretty frustrated with
[01:34:04.460 --> 01:34:12.220]  all this mess that's going on with these banks and all the leniency that our courts seem to be
[01:34:13.260 --> 01:34:19.180]  granting to the bankers' attorneys. But this issue here that you're raising
[01:34:19.180 --> 01:34:28.140]  with the Remix is a very strong issue. The only thing that would get in, I think that
[01:34:28.140 --> 01:34:33.340]  would get, you know, you may have the facts on your side. And I'm not even going to go
[01:34:33.340 --> 01:34:41.180]  to politics. But in argument, how we draft our pleadings, how we present ourselves or
[01:34:41.180 --> 01:34:50.860]  present our issues in oral argument is extremely important. Now brevity, if the courts
[01:34:51.420 --> 01:35:02.220]  appreciate anything, above all, it is brevity. So this being a very complex issue, I mean,
[01:35:03.100 --> 01:35:08.300]  most people don't even, they've never heard of a mortgage, mortgage investment,
[01:35:08.300 --> 01:35:14.300]  a real estate mortgage investment conduit, aka Remic. They've never heard of pooling and
[01:35:14.300 --> 01:35:19.420]  servicing agreements. They don't even know that their mortgage has been traded on Wall Street.
[01:35:20.460 --> 01:35:31.340]  So when the layman or lay person, when the layman goes to tell the court what's going on in their
[01:35:31.340 --> 01:35:41.820]  mortgage, they've got to be able to be A, concise, and B, to the point, concise, meaning that you've
[01:35:41.820 --> 01:35:52.060]  got to, both of them together, meaning that you got to lay it out succinctly and as briefly as
[01:35:52.060 --> 01:36:00.540]  possible to show the court what went wrong in a certain part of the process of the securitization.
[01:36:00.540 --> 01:36:05.420]  Now, John, I've said all that with the intent of asking you a question.
[01:36:07.020 --> 01:36:11.660]  At the end of the day, how does this affect you?
[01:36:14.780 --> 01:36:16.780]  It's the difference between night and day.
[01:36:17.500 --> 01:36:23.500]  No, the difference between night and day didn't hurt you. How did this bring you harm?
[01:36:24.540 --> 01:36:28.540]  If you'll remember in the case that we were reading before we took your call,
[01:36:28.540 --> 01:36:33.820]  that you've got to show, the court itself said in there, that you've got to show some kind of harm.
[01:36:33.820 --> 01:36:44.860]  So if, okay, fine, great. It's all well and good. I see, John in Texas, that your mortgage made it
[01:36:44.860 --> 01:36:51.340]  into, or your mortgage-backed asset, transferable record, call it what you will, did not make it
[01:36:51.340 --> 01:37:03.340]  into a remic on time. So how did that hurt you? I'm the judge and you say that it did make it in time
[01:37:03.340 --> 01:37:11.980]  and I say, so what? So what? How did that harm you? You should consider everything
[01:37:11.980 --> 01:37:17.740]  that you say the judge is going to say so what to and make sure you told him so what.
[01:37:17.740 --> 01:37:24.620]  What cause of action would have arisen that would give you standing in court of law to say, hey,
[01:37:24.620 --> 01:37:31.340]  my mortgage-backed asset didn't make it into the, my security didn't make it into the security pool
[01:37:31.340 --> 01:37:38.700]  on time and it broke my leg. We know it didn't break your legs, but what I'm looking for is
[01:37:38.700 --> 01:37:44.780]  how did it harm you? I did not get my money. What money?
[01:37:44.780 --> 01:37:49.900]  The money that's owed to me on the investment, three dash three oh five.
[01:37:49.900 --> 01:37:58.300]  Hold on, you don't have a standing in the investment. That wasn't your money, that was,
[01:37:59.420 --> 01:38:01.820]  that was a- The investor's money.
[01:38:01.820 --> 01:38:08.460]  Yeah, what do they call it? They factored your, they simply factored your, your income stream.
[01:38:08.460 --> 01:38:14.220]  We know, Steve already knows the answer to the question and we're trying to get you to get the
[01:38:14.220 --> 01:38:21.420]  right answer. The right answer is it clouds your title. That's how you're harmed.
[01:38:22.220 --> 01:38:27.660]  Yep. Now, if you have a clouded title,
[01:38:27.660 --> 01:38:37.340]  what cause of action can you file in a competent, in a court of competent jurisdiction?
[01:38:39.340 --> 01:38:43.420]  There's three of them. Adverse, adverse claim?
[01:38:43.980 --> 01:38:49.260]  Nope. No, no. An adverse claim is when you file
[01:38:49.260 --> 01:38:59.980]  suit against a debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding. That's, adverse claim is peculiar. It's a term
[01:38:59.980 --> 01:39:07.180]  of art and that's the only thing it refers to. If you have a cloud on your title, you want that
[01:39:07.180 --> 01:39:13.500]  cloud removed and there are three pleadings that will result in a debtor's claim.
[01:39:13.500 --> 01:39:19.340]  On your title, you want that cloud removed and there are three pleadings that will result in
[01:39:19.340 --> 01:39:25.100]  the removal of a cloud on title. One being quiet title action, two being trespass to try title,
[01:39:25.660 --> 01:39:32.700]  and third slander of title. Trespass to try and quiet title.
[01:39:33.820 --> 01:39:42.300]  If it's prior to foreclosure and there are documents that affect your title, but don't
[01:39:42.300 --> 01:39:47.500]  claim ownership to your property, then you do quiet title. Once there's a foreclosure,
[01:39:47.500 --> 01:39:51.740]  there's a trustees deed in there. Now that one claims ownership to the property.
[01:39:52.620 --> 01:40:00.460]  The trespass to try title is you claim, you state that your claim is more valid than their claim.
[01:40:01.340 --> 01:40:04.140]  Is that right, Steve? Yep. Did I miss anything? Nope.
[01:40:04.140 --> 01:40:11.740]  You got it. Explain slander of title as opposed to simply quiet title.
[01:40:12.620 --> 01:40:19.580]  Well, I've got that on my website and I was just looking that up. I was going to try to
[01:40:19.580 --> 01:40:27.580]  preempt that question because there are some subtle nuances. I've heard it, but I
[01:40:27.580 --> 01:40:34.940]  seem not to be able to hold them in my brain. Well, I've got all the statutory elements,
[01:40:34.940 --> 01:40:41.660]  if I can just find the right. Hang on here. I'll find it. I put a search engine in here
[01:40:41.660 --> 01:40:49.820]  for a reason, didn't I? T-L-E, quiet title. Let's see what we'll get here. Quiet title action.
[01:40:49.820 --> 01:40:59.820]  Continue reading. Okay. I've got them listed somewhere. Here we go. Okay. The elements of
[01:40:59.820 --> 01:41:07.340]  a quiet title action are quite simple and straightforward. Here they are. Quiet title
[01:41:07.340 --> 01:41:18.780]  or trespass to try title is an interest. I'm sorry. Dyslexia was kicking in. Quiet title,
[01:41:18.780 --> 01:41:30.380]  trespass to try title. An interest in specific property. That title to the property is affected
[01:41:30.380 --> 01:41:39.740]  by a claim by the defendant and here's the third, that the claim, although facially valid is
[01:41:39.740 --> 01:41:52.860]  invalid or unenforceable. Slander of title is a publication or quote utterance, a falsity done
[01:41:52.860 --> 01:42:00.780]  with malice and a loss of a specific sale. You've got to show a loss of a specific sale
[01:42:01.340 --> 01:42:07.740]  in slander of title. Let me set this up. You got your house for sale. You've got no idea
[01:42:07.740 --> 01:42:16.140]  of all the goings on on Wall Street, but somebody screwed your title up and the title company that's
[01:42:16.140 --> 01:42:22.540]  going to draft up the documents did a title search and they found that, oh, wait a minute.
[01:42:22.540 --> 01:42:31.660]  There's a problem here. There's a big break in the chain. I'm sorry, but we cannot issue a title
[01:42:31.660 --> 01:42:40.060]  policy on this specific asset. The buyer backs out and says, I don't want to buy a headache. I want
[01:42:40.060 --> 01:42:48.140]  to buy a house. Now you've lost a specific sale. Specific means that you can name the in the would
[01:42:48.140 --> 01:42:55.260]  be or intended buyer and you've got to show that he walked away from the table due to the cloud on
[01:42:55.260 --> 01:43:03.420]  the title and that cloud would have been put there by a falsity or done with malice.
[01:43:03.420 --> 01:43:11.340]  You there, Randy? That's pretty much the difference between quiet title trespass and slander title.
[01:43:11.340 --> 01:43:32.700]  Okay. And I keep losing that. So next time I need it, I'll have to have you in my room.
[01:43:32.700 --> 01:43:41.580]  So next time I need it, I'll have to have you in my room. I'll send you a link. Yeah, I'm still here.
[01:43:41.580 --> 01:43:47.260]  Where's the static at? Hang on. I think that's Randy. We're going to break again. Yeah. I thought
[01:43:47.260 --> 01:43:55.820]  I was muted. Yeah. No, you weren't. He's eating M&Ms. 512-646-1984. Folks, you're listening to
[01:43:55.820 --> 01:43:58.940]  the rule of law radio with Randy Kelton, Steve Skidmore. We'll be right back.
[01:43:58.940 --> 01:44:03.820]  Do you feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics?
[01:44:03.820 --> 01:44:07.500]  Are you confused by words like the constitution or the federal reserve?
[01:44:07.500 --> 01:44:11.500]  What? If so, you may be diagnosed with the deadliest disease known today,
[01:44:11.500 --> 01:44:17.100]  stupidity. Hi, my name is Steve Holt. And like millions of other Americans, I was diagnosed
[01:44:17.100 --> 01:44:22.300]  with stupidity at an early age. I had no idea that the number one cause of the disease is found in
[01:44:22.300 --> 01:44:27.500]  almost every home in America, the television. Unfortunately, that puts most Americans at risk
[01:44:27.500 --> 01:44:32.140]  of catching stupidity, but there is hope. The staff at Brave New Books have helped me and
[01:44:32.140 --> 01:44:36.940]  thousands of other foxaholics suffering from sports zombieism recover. And because of Brave
[01:44:36.940 --> 01:44:41.740]  New Books, I now enjoy reading and watching educational documentaries without feeling tired
[01:44:41.740 --> 01:44:47.020]  or uninterested. So if you or anybody you know suffers from stupidity, then you need to call
[01:44:47.020 --> 01:44:55.100]  512-480-2503 or visit them at 1904Guadalupe or bravenewbookstore.com. Side effects when
[01:44:55.100 --> 01:44:58.220]  using Brave New Books products may include discernment and enlarged vocabulary and an
[01:44:58.220 --> 01:45:03.580]  overall increase in mental functioning. Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:04.220 --> 01:45:09.740]  Win your case without an attorney with Juris Dictionary, the affordable, easy to understand,
[01:45:09.740 --> 01:45:17.020]  four CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step. If you have a lawyer,
[01:45:17.020 --> 01:45:21.740]  know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do
[01:45:21.740 --> 01:45:27.980]  for yourself. Thousands have won with our step by step course and now you can too.
[01:45:27.980 --> 01:45:33.900]  Juris Dictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience.
[01:45:34.540 --> 01:45:39.340]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the
[01:45:39.340 --> 01:45:45.580]  principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio classroom,
[01:45:45.580 --> 01:45:52.300]  video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:45:52.300 --> 01:46:16.300]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:22.300 --> 01:46:44.300]  As we saw, so shall we read. From so many groups, the words get put on all our leaves.
[01:46:44.300 --> 01:47:02.540]  Welcome back to Rule of Law Radio, folks. It is a beautiful night outside on this,
[01:47:03.580 --> 01:47:10.380]  well here in Texas anyway. Sorry for you folks up here in New England states. I keep seeing things
[01:47:10.380 --> 01:47:16.220]  on Facebook for people just posting pictures of 10 foot snow drifts and digging their way.
[01:47:16.220 --> 01:47:21.180]  It seems to hell just to get to their car in the driveway, only to realize that they can't get out
[01:47:21.180 --> 01:47:30.060]  of the driveway anyway. That's what I love about Texas. But John in Texas, how about that weather
[01:47:30.060 --> 01:47:38.860]  out there? Isn't it gorgeous? Yeah, so far. Okay. So, and I see we've got Bob in California after
[01:47:38.860 --> 01:47:46.300]  you. So where were we? We were trying to determine the difference between slander title and trespass
[01:47:46.300 --> 01:47:52.300]  to tri-title and cry-title. John was talking about remix. Remix, right. And you were telling
[01:47:52.300 --> 01:48:01.260]  us about your particular loan. Yeah. Okay. Both of you guys cool your heels. Okay. Okay,
[01:48:01.260 --> 01:48:05.820]  I'm going to tell you what I'm doing. You know, the difference between is the glass half full
[01:48:05.820 --> 01:48:15.500]  and half empty. Yep. Okay. I made the loan the 18th of February, 2005, and it was in default
[01:48:15.500 --> 01:48:21.180]  the same day the loan was made. The remix was- Wait a minute. It was in default?
[01:48:22.540 --> 01:48:27.260]  Yes, it was in default the same day. Wait, practice not using pronouns.
[01:48:28.700 --> 01:48:35.740]  The loan was in default, correct? Yeah. When you said it, I had to stop. It caused me to drop
[01:48:35.740 --> 01:48:42.060]  out of flow. I had to stop and look around and say, okay, what's he referring to with that pronoun,
[01:48:42.060 --> 01:48:48.940]  and I had to get it attached. And by then I lost where you were at. Okay. Especially in legal
[01:48:48.940 --> 01:48:55.100]  writing, never ever use pronouns because if a lawyer can misconstrue what you're saying,
[01:48:55.100 --> 01:49:04.140]  he's going to do that with relish. Okay. Okay. Let me start and tell you specifically
[01:49:04.140 --> 01:49:11.900]  what my deal is. Okay. I made a loan with America's wholesale lender, a New York corporation,
[01:49:13.980 --> 01:49:24.780]  the 18th of February, 2005. That was to be put into a remake that I found out years later.
[01:49:24.780 --> 01:49:33.900]  That loan was never at any time put into that remake. So that makes that loan in default.
[01:49:36.620 --> 01:49:43.740]  Okay. Let me pause you right there. Are you in default or is the account creditor in default?
[01:49:45.260 --> 01:49:48.220]  The lender is in default.
[01:49:50.380 --> 01:49:51.980]  Well, the lender's out of the picture.
[01:49:51.980 --> 01:49:55.820]  Well, the lender's out of the picture. Default on what?
[01:49:57.420 --> 01:50:02.780]  Because they did not put on the note inside that remake.
[01:50:03.660 --> 01:50:08.140]  Where is, what's that have to do with your note and security instrument?
[01:50:08.860 --> 01:50:18.940]  It's nothing about security. It was never put into the remake and it collapsed the corpus,
[01:50:18.940 --> 01:50:25.340]  which is the body of it. It's not any good. Well, okay. No, okay. Your note never went
[01:50:25.340 --> 01:50:28.140]  into the remake. So what does the remake have to do with anything?
[01:50:29.740 --> 01:50:39.900]  Because this falls under 2.01 of the pooling and service agreement that has to be put in there
[01:50:39.900 --> 01:50:46.940]  into the remake within a 90 day window. Hold on. Hold on. You're missing something.
[01:50:46.940 --> 01:50:55.740]  You're missing. I had a loan on my house and it never went into a remake. So what?
[01:50:57.980 --> 01:51:08.780]  What? Something's missing here. Did someone claim standing to enforce payment based on
[01:51:08.780 --> 01:51:14.380]  your loan being in a remake? Because you know, the case we read earlier,
[01:51:14.380 --> 01:51:21.980]  you don't have any standing concerning the contract itself. Yes, I did. How?
[01:51:23.500 --> 01:51:30.780]  Because I have a right to recoup the investment. Where did you get that right?
[01:51:30.780 --> 01:51:45.340]  UCC 3-305 and UCC 3-306. What did they say?
[01:51:46.780 --> 01:51:54.300]  It says that I have a process, I can't pronounce it. It's a right and it's kind of like a third party
[01:51:54.300 --> 01:52:03.420]  beneficiary. But I have a right to the investment because it is an investment.
[01:52:07.660 --> 01:52:14.380]  It's a security. It's not. I don't understand. Your defenses and claims in recoupment. What was
[01:52:14.380 --> 01:52:25.580]  it? 3-305? 305 and 306. Defenses and claims in recoupment. You can recoup that. You send them a
[01:52:25.580 --> 01:52:34.540]  letter to the bank and say, there's an adverse claim here. Okay. This is. Right.
[01:52:35.420 --> 01:52:43.260]  Except as otherwise provided in this section, the right to enforce the obligation of a party
[01:52:43.260 --> 01:52:55.340]  to pay an interest is subject to the following. Who has a right to enforce an obligation of a
[01:52:55.340 --> 01:53:02.940]  party? How do you become a party to the pooling and services agreement that would give you a
[01:53:02.940 --> 01:53:07.740]  right to enforce it? Because that's an investment.
[01:53:07.740 --> 01:53:13.740]  So what? I have investments and you don't have any part. You're not a party of those.
[01:53:14.940 --> 01:53:18.460]  I am a party. Who took the investment?
[01:53:18.460 --> 01:53:26.380]  Money. How do you have a party? How are you involved in that investment?
[01:53:27.420 --> 01:53:35.900]  Because I furnish the money for the investment. How did you furnish the money? As I see it.
[01:53:35.900 --> 01:53:42.780]  With his signature. He did it with his signature when he signed the note.
[01:53:42.780 --> 01:53:51.500]  People keep saying that, but what the note says is I will trade you a promise to pay you money
[01:53:51.500 --> 01:54:00.780]  for a warranty deed. That's what the contract says. And how do you get from there to an investment?
[01:54:00.780 --> 01:54:07.180]  Well. How do you get from there to creating money?
[01:54:11.180 --> 01:54:15.980]  Because the money that was furnished with my signature came from me.
[01:54:18.700 --> 01:54:25.500]  Yeah. So what? And it goes in that.
[01:54:25.500 --> 01:54:30.780]  Okay. Hold on. Let me explain what I'm doing here. We have a
[01:54:33.820 --> 01:54:39.180]  primary tenant. Never make a proactive statement of law out of your own mouth.
[01:54:40.940 --> 01:54:47.100]  In law, we can't just say something is a certain way. We have to say it's a certain way by code
[01:54:47.100 --> 01:54:56.220]  or by opinion, rule, or regulation. What establishes the position you're claiming?
[01:54:59.020 --> 01:55:03.020]  I furnished the money. It was turned into.
[01:55:04.220 --> 01:55:08.220]  How much money did you take out of your pocket and give to them?
[01:55:09.180 --> 01:55:11.180]  $82,900.
[01:55:11.180 --> 01:55:17.260]  $82,900. And you gave them $82,900 and whatever dollars at closing?
[01:55:23.180 --> 01:55:31.980]  Yes and no. They took that $82,900 and tuck it to the window with federal,
[01:55:33.820 --> 01:55:39.660]  oh man, Federal Reserve Bank. And it turned it into cash.
[01:55:39.660 --> 01:55:47.580]  That has nothing to do with you though. That is an agreement between the federal funding,
[01:55:48.140 --> 01:55:55.660]  federal lender and the Federal Reserve Bank. That didn't have anything to do with you.
[01:55:57.260 --> 01:56:04.220]  No. Maybe I'm getting too technical. Just listen to me. I gave them a note,
[01:56:04.220 --> 01:56:07.020]  which was converted to an investment.
[01:56:07.020 --> 01:56:10.620]  Yeah, but what did you have to do with it?
[01:56:12.060 --> 01:56:13.100]  Just let him explain it.
[01:56:15.340 --> 01:56:19.660]  Okay. The money came from me. $82,900.
[01:56:19.660 --> 01:56:25.980]  Okay. Hold on. I can't just go there. I don't understand how the money came from you in order
[01:56:25.980 --> 01:56:30.140]  for the premises to work. That has to be established.
[01:56:30.140 --> 01:56:36.380]  Let him get to the end of his dissertation and then we'll go back and address this.
[01:56:36.380 --> 01:56:40.060]  Go ahead, John. The reason this frustrates me is I go
[01:56:40.060 --> 01:56:46.300]  through these and I have an unstated presupposition that leads to another unstated
[01:56:46.300 --> 01:56:51.740]  presupposition to another and then they get buried. The time we get to the end is so confusing.
[01:56:51.740 --> 01:56:55.500]  I can't get back to those parts in the front. Okay.
[01:56:55.500 --> 01:57:02.220]  Well, this will never come to fruition unless we let John go through the whole thing.
[01:57:02.220 --> 01:57:05.260]  I'm going to shut up now. You do that.
[01:57:05.260 --> 01:57:11.100]  John, start talking while Randy's shutting up. Be careful what you say because he might say something.
[01:57:13.180 --> 01:57:15.580]  Okay. I'm going to get kind of technical here.
[01:57:15.580 --> 01:57:16.140]  Go ahead.
[01:57:16.140 --> 01:57:25.660]  Anyway, the note was $82,900. It came from me. They took that note being the mortgage lender,
[01:57:25.660 --> 01:57:28.940]  and I'm going to go ahead and say it's America's wholesale lender, even though
[01:57:28.940 --> 01:57:35.500]  they did not exist, and a countrywide, not the home loan company, but the...
[01:57:35.500 --> 01:57:38.220]  I can't think of that. It's countrywide.
[01:57:38.220 --> 01:57:38.860]  Financial.
[01:57:38.860 --> 01:57:45.260]  Anyway, they took... No, it's not financial. It's one that's out of Delaware.
[01:57:45.260 --> 01:57:54.700]  Anyway, just that note. They took it to the window of Federal Reserve, and they turned it into cash,
[01:57:54.700 --> 01:58:04.780]  into cash, and they gave me a receipt as being a depositor, but I never got it.
[01:58:04.780 --> 01:58:06.620]  They didn't intend to give it to me.
[01:58:09.260 --> 01:58:09.500]  Right.
[01:58:10.940 --> 01:58:11.900]  Okay. We'll fix it. Go to...
[01:58:12.540 --> 01:58:14.060]  Yeah, we do. You got 30 seconds.
[01:58:15.500 --> 01:58:23.420]  Okay. And then they turned it in. It's called a 10X fractionalization. That $82,900 was turned
[01:58:23.420 --> 01:58:34.620]  into $829,000, or it was a 20X fractionalization, which is two times that, with that million six or
[01:58:34.620 --> 01:58:35.180]  million eight.
[01:58:35.820 --> 01:58:40.220]  Okay. We're going to have to pause you right there, John. We'll come back to you on the other side
[01:58:40.220 --> 01:58:46.060]  of this break. 512-646-1984, and Bob in California, we'll see you there too.
[01:58:46.060 --> 01:58:47.500]  We'll be right back. Stay tuned.
[01:58:47.500 --> 01:58:55.740]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated
[01:58:55.740 --> 01:59:01.740]  because they struggle to understand it. Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text,
[01:59:01.740 --> 01:59:08.220]  but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the scripture. Enter the recovery
[01:59:08.220 --> 01:59:14.700]  version. First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the
[01:59:14.700 --> 01:59:21.580]  more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes. Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous
[01:59:21.580 --> 01:59:26.860]  way, providing an entrance into the riches of the word beyond which you've ever experienced
[01:59:26.860 --> 01:59:32.620]  before. Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking.
[01:59:33.260 --> 01:59:43.660]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102,
[01:59:43.660 --> 01:59:49.900]  or by ordering online at freestudybible.com. That's freestudybible.com.
[01:59:49.900 --> 02:00:13.180]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com.