[00:00.000 --> 00:06.000]  The following news flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing the jelly
[00:06.000 --> 00:08.000]  bulletins for the commodities market.
[00:08.000 --> 00:21.000]  Today in history, news updates and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative.
[00:21.000 --> 00:28.000]  Markets for the 31st of July, 2015, opened up with the gold at $1,094.65 an ounce, silver
[00:28.000 --> 00:34.000]  at $14.72 an ounce, Texas crude at $48.52 a barrel, and Bitcoin is currently sitting
[00:34.000 --> 00:42.000]  at about $285 U.S. currency.
[00:42.000 --> 00:48.000]  Today in history, Saturday, July 31, 1999, the Lunar Prospector Drone, part of NASA's
[00:48.000 --> 00:51.000]  Discovery Program, comes to a crashing end.
[00:51.000 --> 00:56.000]  The 19th-month-long mission was designed for a low-polar orbital analysis of the Moon,
[00:56.000 --> 01:00.000]  including mapping of the surface and detection of possible polar ice deposits, measurements
[01:00.000 --> 01:04.000]  in the magnetic and gravitational field, and the study of lunar outgassing.
[01:04.000 --> 01:08.000]  The orbiter was deliberately crashed into a crater near the South Pole after the presence
[01:08.000 --> 01:14.000]  of water ice was successfully detected.
[01:14.000 --> 01:19.000]  In recent news, Facebook is planning on using solar-powered drones with wingspans comparable
[01:19.000 --> 01:24.000]  to a Boeing 737, crisscrossing the planet for providing roughly 4 billion people across
[01:24.000 --> 01:25.000]  the world with Internet.
[01:25.000 --> 01:29.000]  Facebook announced yesterday that its first drone, the Aquila, is already in flight testing
[01:29.000 --> 01:33.000]  in the upper atmosphere as part of its Internet.org initiative.
[01:33.000 --> 01:34.000]  What's the goal?
[01:34.000 --> 01:38.000]  To have hundreds of drones floating upwards with the help of helium balloons, which would
[01:38.000 --> 01:43.000]  then circle the globe at roughly 60 to 90,000 feet, way above commercial airliners and weather
[01:43.000 --> 01:44.000]  systems.
[01:44.000 --> 01:47.000]  It turns out that this is more valuable of a solution than building infrastructure in
[01:47.000 --> 01:51.000]  many remote places in Africa, which would be quantitatively much more expensive.
[01:51.000 --> 01:54.000]  The company still has plenty of work to do before this project becomes a reality.
[01:54.000 --> 01:58.000]  It needs to develop a longer-lasting battery and test its lasers, which it says already
[01:58.000 --> 02:02.000]  can send a signal to a target the size of a dime from 10 miles away.
[02:02.000 --> 02:09.000]  Google is also looking into similar solutions.
[02:09.000 --> 02:13.000]  The New York Police Department handed 54 participants body cameras when it started its pilot program
[02:13.000 --> 02:14.000]  last December.
[02:14.000 --> 02:18.000]  Today, they released a 71-page report reviewing the program thus far.
[02:18.000 --> 02:23.000]  The report calls for stricter guidelines before the program expands and offers 23 suggestions
[02:23.000 --> 02:27.000]  that can both improve police-community relations and protect the safety of officers and the
[02:27.000 --> 02:32.000]  public, covering issues such as camera activation, protecting the anonymity of certain groups,
[02:32.000 --> 02:34.000]  retention periods, and footage access.
[02:34.000 --> 02:39.000]  A notable issue, NYPD Inspector General Philip Ury said, was that they found that officers
[02:39.000 --> 02:42.000]  generally don't know when it's appropriate to use the cameras.
[02:42.000 --> 02:46.000]  NYPD officers are trained to turn on their cameras only when there's reasonable suspicion
[02:46.000 --> 02:50.000]  of a crime happening during traffic stops and during incidents where force is used.
[02:50.000 --> 02:54.000]  But those limits are too restrictive to fully capture the wide range of police-community
[02:54.000 --> 02:55.000]  encounters.
[02:55.000 --> 03:23.000]  This has been the Lowdown for July 31, 2013.
[03:26.000 --> 03:27.000]  Hey, howdy, howdy.
[03:27.000 --> 03:37.000]  This is Randy Kelton with Lowdown Radio on this Friday, the seventh day of August 2015.
[03:37.000 --> 03:40.000]  I had to struggle to get that out.
[03:40.000 --> 03:45.000]  It can't be this far through another year already.
[03:45.000 --> 03:46.000]  Well, I guess it is.
[03:46.000 --> 03:49.000]  My mother warned me about this.
[03:49.000 --> 03:53.000]  Today, we're going to keep the phone lines open all night.
[03:53.000 --> 03:57.000]  So the call-in number is 512-646-1984.
[03:57.000 --> 04:05.000]  But I'm going to start by talking about how to think about court cases.
[04:05.000 --> 04:11.000]  Pieces of this keep coming up when I talk to people on the radio.
[04:11.000 --> 04:20.000]  But we seldom sit down and go through kind of some basic ways of thinking about how the court works.
[04:20.000 --> 04:32.000]  Primarily, most people think of the courts as a place to go and get your issues resolved.
[04:32.000 --> 04:34.000]  And they are.
[04:34.000 --> 04:45.000]  But for the most part, we think that it is our idea that that's what the trial court is for.
[04:45.000 --> 04:48.000]  I'm trying to work out the best way to say this.
[04:48.000 --> 04:55.000]  We think that we can go to the trial court and find remedy.
[04:55.000 --> 05:01.000]  And possibly we can, but rarely.
[05:01.000 --> 05:14.000]  The more effective way of thinking about the trial court is that's the place you go to set the record for appeal.
[05:14.000 --> 05:21.000]  The appeals court is where you should expect to find remedy, not the trial court.
[05:21.000 --> 05:24.000]  I know everybody complains about trial court judges.
[05:24.000 --> 05:25.000]  They're corrupt.
[05:25.000 --> 05:29.000]  They're biased, especially against proceeds.
[05:29.000 --> 05:31.000]  And you're probably right.
[05:31.000 --> 05:43.000]  And whether that's totally intentional on the part of the judges or not, in fact, we see that that is exactly the case.
[05:43.000 --> 05:52.000]  So we really can't expect the trial judge to give us a proper adjudication of the case.
[05:52.000 --> 05:59.000]  So we should only consider the trial court as a place to set the record.
[05:59.000 --> 06:20.000]  And the record we must set with the trial court is we must put the facts before the court in the form of evidence that the court can adjudicate.
[06:20.000 --> 06:32.000]  And then we must tell the court what the facts, I'm sorry, then we must bring the law to the court.
[06:32.000 --> 06:44.000]  And then demonstrate to the judge how the law applies to the facts and the decisions the law requires him to come to.
[06:44.000 --> 06:54.000]  This is not a place where you can come and tell your story and you will have a responsive ear.
[06:54.000 --> 06:57.000]  You may have a patient ear.
[06:57.000 --> 07:03.000]  You may have someone who gives the impression of listening to what you're saying.
[07:03.000 --> 07:07.000]  And for the most part, they are listening.
[07:07.000 --> 07:25.000]  But they're not necessarily in any way moved by what you're saying unless what you're saying goes to the facts and the law as it applies to the facts.
[07:25.000 --> 07:27.000]  The judge has two primary duties.
[07:27.000 --> 07:32.000]  He must determine the facts in accordance with the rules of evidence.
[07:32.000 --> 07:37.000]  Then he must apply the law as it comes to him to the facts in the case.
[07:37.000 --> 07:39.000]  That's his job.
[07:39.000 --> 07:41.000]  That's his duty.
[07:41.000 --> 08:01.000]  And in the process, he has a certain amount of discretion, the discretionary acts that he can perform in order to maintain the decorum of the court and to address the administrative needs of the court.
[08:01.000 --> 08:13.000]  But outside those, if the judge has anything else in mind, for instance, he comes to the court with an attitude of his own, he needs to leave that house.
[08:13.000 --> 08:19.000]  Like this judge that said that he didn't want to give anybody a free house.
[08:19.000 --> 08:22.000]  He needs to get down off that bench.
[08:22.000 --> 08:29.000]  We didn't pay him to come to that court with an attitude or with some agenda.
[08:29.000 --> 08:36.000]  We pay him to determine the facts in accordance to the rules of evidence and apply the law as it comes to him to the facts in the case.
[08:36.000 --> 08:37.000]  And that is it.
[08:37.000 --> 08:39.000]  That's your job.
[08:39.000 --> 08:45.000]  If you're going into court, that's what you must always be doing.
[08:45.000 --> 09:14.000]  If you have a notion to do something, the first question you should ask yourself is what is my intended outcome as a result of this action and how will that outcome lead me toward the adjudication of this case in a way positive to me?
[09:14.000 --> 09:24.000]  If we are as proceeds to win in court, we must discipline ourselves.
[09:24.000 --> 09:26.000]  Lawyers do that all the time.
[09:26.000 --> 09:28.000]  They do it as a matter of course.
[09:28.000 --> 09:31.000]  It's what they've learned in law school.
[09:31.000 --> 09:40.000]  They've learned how to discipline themselves and restrict themselves to the facts in the law.
[09:40.000 --> 09:49.000]  They don't always do that if they think they can gain a political or emotional advantage over the opposing party.
[09:49.000 --> 09:59.000]  They'll do anything they can to get you hopping up and down and jumping and acting like an idiot so that you discredit yourself and lose your standing before the court.
[09:59.000 --> 10:12.000]  But as to the adjudication of the case, they must put the facts before the court in a way that is in compliance with the rules of evidence.
[10:12.000 --> 10:26.000]  Then they must apply the law to the facts in the case to show why the judge is required by law to give you the ruling that you request.
[10:26.000 --> 10:30.000]  Now that's a little more difficult than it sounds.
[10:30.000 --> 10:35.000]  It's easy enough to say that as a general bright light rule.
[10:35.000 --> 10:54.000]  But as proceeds without the extensive historical training that lawyers get, we have a little more work to do in order to overcome our internal knowledge sets.
[10:54.000 --> 11:12.000]  We learn how to react and interact in the world, and we develop internal patterns, essentially hardwired patterns that help us to handle complex situations.
[11:12.000 --> 11:23.000]  If we had to figure out every step, every time we went into the courtroom, we would never be effective.
[11:23.000 --> 11:43.000]  If we had to figure out all of the possibilities and ramifications of every action we contemplate taking, every word we want to use in a conversation, we would never be able to converge.
[11:43.000 --> 11:46.000]  We don't have that much mental space.
[11:46.000 --> 11:58.000]  What we do over time is we develop a set of routines, a set of ways of responding.
[11:58.000 --> 12:01.000]  We start out as little children.
[12:01.000 --> 12:10.000]  We very quickly find out that if we cry a certain way, we can achieve a predictable response.
[12:10.000 --> 12:18.000]  Mothers very quickly learn what kind of cries their infants have and what the cries mean.
[12:18.000 --> 12:26.000]  We go from that very basic to much more complex methods of acting and reacting.
[12:26.000 --> 12:29.000]  That's a good thing.
[12:29.000 --> 12:35.000]  It's necessary in order for us to move about, function in a complex society.
[12:35.000 --> 12:37.000]  Problem.
[12:37.000 --> 12:56.000]  When we step out of the ordinary life arena and step into the specialized context of law, we need a whole new set of behavior patterns.
[12:56.000 --> 13:00.000]  This is primarily what lawyers learn in school.
[13:00.000 --> 13:12.000]  They learn how to act when the judge denies an objection.
[13:12.000 --> 13:14.000]  They learn what to object to.
[13:14.000 --> 13:21.000]  When somebody says something that you don't think is proper, they learn how to address that in a legal setting.
[13:21.000 --> 13:31.000]  They also learn how to present a case, how to determine what is important and relevant to the case and what is not.
[13:31.000 --> 13:34.000]  We don't have the time to go to law school.
[13:34.000 --> 13:48.000]  I'm trying to develop a set of guidelines that will kind of give you a heads up on how this system works.
[13:48.000 --> 13:58.000]  The first one is understanding that your only purpose in the trial court is to set the record for appeal.
[13:58.000 --> 14:08.000]  When you attempt to set the record, you must bring evidence before the court in accordance with the rules of evidence.
[14:08.000 --> 14:11.000]  You can't just enter information.
[14:11.000 --> 14:18.000]  Any information you enter or attempt to bring before the court has to have foundation.
[14:18.000 --> 14:29.000]  You have to first show the court why this particular information is relevant and necessary to the proper adjudication of the case.
[14:29.000 --> 14:30.000]  Otherwise, the court can't see it.
[14:30.000 --> 14:31.000]  They can't hear it.
[14:31.000 --> 14:33.000]  It's not properly entered.
[14:33.000 --> 14:37.000]  They certainly can't rule based on that information.
[14:37.000 --> 14:53.000]  So anyone who's contemplating representing themselves in a court case should at least go through the basics of the rules of evidence.
[14:53.000 --> 15:02.000]  What constitutes foundation and how do we develop foundation through a set of questioning.
[15:02.000 --> 15:08.000]  If we don't know how to enter evidence, we're never going to win our case.
[15:08.000 --> 15:15.000]  We don't talk about that much on the air, but it's because most people have issues and they want to talk about the issues.
[15:15.000 --> 15:19.000]  They want to talk about how the judge didn't give them the ruling they want.
[15:19.000 --> 15:31.000]  Very often, if we dig down into what they did, they brought information before the court, but they didn't bring it in such a way so that it was before the court.
[15:31.000 --> 15:37.000]  I was in an eviction hearing trying to stop an eviction for a woman in Garland, Texas.
[15:37.000 --> 15:57.000]  And the lawyer for the bank presented to the court his case and he stated that he had a substitute trustee's teach and attempted to file it in the court as evidence I objected.
[15:57.000 --> 16:07.000]  And told the judge that I looked in the public record this morning and there is no substitute trustee's deed in the public record.
[16:07.000 --> 16:11.000]  And the judge said, yes, Mr. Kelton, but he has one right here.
[16:11.000 --> 16:14.000]  Yes, your honor, he does.
[16:14.000 --> 16:18.000]  But you can't see it.
[16:18.000 --> 16:28.000]  While he had what appeared to be a substitute trustee's deed, it had not been properly filed with the clerk of the court, with the county clerk.
[16:28.000 --> 16:33.000]  And therefore under 13.001 was a voidage to the holder.
[16:33.000 --> 16:39.000]  And he claimed that it's real property, not properly acknowledged, approved, and filed in the record as voidage to the holder.
[16:39.000 --> 16:43.000]  So this purported evidence was not proper evidence.
[16:43.000 --> 16:45.000]  The judge could not see it.
[16:45.000 --> 16:49.000]  And a lot of times you put evidence in and you don't know the judge can't see it.
[16:49.000 --> 16:51.000]  He's not necessarily going to tell you.
[16:51.000 --> 16:52.000]  Hang on.
[16:52.000 --> 16:54.000]  Randy Kelton, We're Law Radio.
[16:54.000 --> 17:00.000]  We'll be right back.
[17:00.000 --> 17:06.000]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area of nutrition.
[17:06.000 --> 17:09.000]  People feed their pets better than they feed themselves.
[17:09.000 --> 17:11.000]  And it's time we changed all that.
[17:11.000 --> 17:17.000]  Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[17:17.000 --> 17:25.000]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, Young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need.
[17:25.000 --> 17:31.000]  Logo Sheridio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject.
[17:31.000 --> 17:40.000]  We have come to trust Young Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[17:40.000 --> 17:48.000]  When you order from LogosSheridioNetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio.
[17:48.000 --> 17:52.000]  As you realize the benefits of Young Jevity, you may want to join us.
[17:52.000 --> 17:59.000]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and increase your income.
[17:59.000 --> 18:01.000]  Order now.
[18:01.000 --> 18:06.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even losses?
[18:06.000 --> 18:09.000]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method.
[18:09.000 --> 18:15.000]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win two.
[18:15.000 --> 18:21.000]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes.
[18:21.000 --> 18:25.000]  What to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons.
[18:25.000 --> 18:27.000]  How to answer letters and phone calls.
[18:27.000 --> 18:29.000]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit reports.
[18:29.000 --> 18:34.000]  How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[18:34.000 --> 18:39.000]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:39.000 --> 18:41.000]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[18:41.000 --> 18:47.000]  For more information, please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner.
[18:47.000 --> 18:50.000]  Or email MichaelMears at yahoo.com.
[18:50.000 --> 18:52.000]  That's RuleOfLawRadio.com.
[18:52.000 --> 19:01.000]  Or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors next.
[19:01.000 --> 19:11.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, the LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[19:31.000 --> 19:36.000]  Okay, we are back.
[19:36.000 --> 19:42.000]  Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio on this Friday, the 7th day of August, 2015.
[19:42.000 --> 19:50.000]  And we're talking about what to do in court and how you think about a court case.
[19:50.000 --> 20:11.000]  First, you have to present the facts to the court and then bring the law to the court that apply to your facts that will lead the judge to the outcome that you want.
[20:11.000 --> 20:15.000]  Now, what defines your outcome?
[20:15.000 --> 20:22.000]  And this is something we don't talk about a lot and frankly most people don't understand.
[20:22.000 --> 20:26.000]  And it sends them down rabbit holes.
[20:26.000 --> 20:30.000]  They keep chasing issues that don't matter.
[20:30.000 --> 20:43.000]  And the way to figure out where to start creating a case is by going to the end.
[20:43.000 --> 21:04.000]  The last thing that happens in your case before the jury deliberates on your issues is the judge will read to the jury the patterned jury charges for the issue that's before the court.
[21:04.000 --> 21:12.000]  If it's a criminal case, there are patterned jury charges for every specific crime that's out there.
[21:12.000 --> 21:23.000]  And if it's civil, every tort or every type of tort and every cause of action has a patterned jury charge.
[21:23.000 --> 21:31.000]  And what they've done in the patterned jury charges is they've isolated out from the plethora of possibilities,
[21:31.000 --> 21:50.000]  those matters which must be proven in order for the jury to be able to find that a particular law has been broken or that find for or against a particular issue, a cause of action or a tort.
[21:50.000 --> 22:02.000]  Each cause of action or tort are very specifically defined what the elements of those actions of those causes of action or torts or crimes are.
[22:02.000 --> 22:21.000]  And in order for a jury to be able to rule in your favor, you must have brought to the jury every element, you must have proven every element that is necessary to establish the cause of action tort or crime.
[22:21.000 --> 22:30.000]  So the place to find that in the most succinct place is the patterned jury charge.
[22:30.000 --> 22:47.000]  So if you have a case or an issue you want to bring before the court, move all the way through to the end and imagine the judge is saying to the jury, this is what you must find.
[22:47.000 --> 22:53.000]  What is that judge going to say to that jury at that point?
[22:53.000 --> 23:02.000]  Now look at the issue you want to bring, look at the facts you want to bring or the arguments you want to make.
[23:02.000 --> 23:15.000]  Which one of the elements in the cause of action, tort or crime does that piece of information go to?
[23:15.000 --> 23:21.000]  Which element will this evidence establish?
[23:21.000 --> 23:30.000]  If it won't establish one of these elements, you need to back up and look very carefully at what you're about to present.
[23:30.000 --> 23:54.000]  What happens to proceeds is we get in the fight and people do bad things to us and we want to tell the court about the bad things people do because we've got this culturally developed notion that human beings will respond to your suffering.
[23:54.000 --> 24:00.000]  Human beings will be understanding and will be influenced by your suffering.
[24:00.000 --> 24:08.000]  And in the normal world that is consistently the case.
[24:08.000 --> 24:19.000]  They're not necessarily influenced to help you or in the way that you want to be, but people are influenced by other people's issues.
[24:19.000 --> 24:22.000]  It's not that way in court.
[24:22.000 --> 24:29.000]  The judge does not care from a legal standpoint, maybe on a human standpoint.
[24:29.000 --> 24:37.000]  He cares about all the bad things that's happened to you, but from a legal standpoint, he cares about the facts and the law.
[24:37.000 --> 24:55.000]  I sat in as a judge in a mock trial in Massachusetts and a friend of mine had been charged by the state of Pennsylvania and they were going to prosecute him and he was going to represent himself.
[24:55.000 --> 25:07.000]  And Pastor Massad, who I do a show with on Monday's Truth Radio Network, he knew the person real well and suggested that he not represent himself.
[25:07.000 --> 25:10.000]  And the whole patriot community was all up in arms.
[25:10.000 --> 25:19.000]  So Pastor Massad put together a mock trial where they went out and asked people on the street if they would sit in as a mock jury.
[25:19.000 --> 25:46.000]  And they got a jury seated and Danny started his presentation and I'm sitting there while he's going through all of these patriot issues, explaining how horrible the courts are and how there was a 1931 bankruptcy of the United States and how there was no lawful money and on and on and on.
[25:46.000 --> 25:57.000]  And I'm sitting there thinking, oh, well, that's all well and good, but what does that have to do with the issue before the court?
[25:57.000 --> 26:06.000]  And I was a friend of his and I'm thinking, there is no way I could rule in your favor.
[26:06.000 --> 26:23.000]  And I had a guy helping him. In my discretion as the judge, I called a short recess and told Danny that this friend of yours who's trying to help you, you need to take him out behind the building here and shoot him.
[26:23.000 --> 26:32.000]  You would be better off that he's bringing these irrelevant issues and all he's going to do is make the court upset at him.
[26:32.000 --> 26:36.000]  There were two mock trials, the one that we did and another one.
[26:36.000 --> 26:46.000]  They insisted on bringing up this patriot methodology and he lost both of them.
[26:46.000 --> 26:53.000]  The jury ruled against him on both of them and he subsequently went to trial and lost that too.
[26:53.000 --> 26:58.000]  But he never did understand what it was he had to prove.
[26:58.000 --> 27:11.000]  He was trying to prove other things and what he was trying to prove may have been absolutely correct, but those things weren't in the pattern jury charge.
[27:11.000 --> 27:15.000]  So in the end, they made no difference.
[27:15.000 --> 27:28.000]  And I sat up there listening to him bring these arguments and as the judge in the case, I can't take a side. Pastor Massad acted as the prosecutor, just ripped him to pieces.
[27:28.000 --> 27:35.000]  I had to just sit there and listen to his arguments. I couldn't say to him that's an irrelevant argument.
[27:35.000 --> 27:40.000]  The pastor acting as the prosecutor could have, but he didn't care.
[27:40.000 --> 27:46.000]  Because he's being, he's prosecuting here. Go ahead, bring all the irrelevant arguments you want to.
[27:46.000 --> 27:52.000]  I'm going to let you just burn yourself out with stuff that does not matter.
[27:52.000 --> 28:04.000]  If you have not read the pattern jury charges for your case, you have no idea what it is that you have to prove.
[28:04.000 --> 28:16.000]  And then when you do get the pattern jury charges, walk right down there, prove them up, prove them up in a reasonable, logical manner.
[28:16.000 --> 28:21.000]  And that would go kind of some basics on how to do that.
[28:21.000 --> 28:35.000]  I've seen writing pleadings myself in listening to judges and getting thrown out of court and doing this show and hearing all of these things happen.
[28:35.000 --> 28:48.000]  I've kind of developed a basic structure in no matter what state you're in or even in the Fed, wherever you're at in court, there are certain things you have to establish.
[28:48.000 --> 28:55.000]  And if it's an initial pleading, you have to tell the court who you are.
[28:55.000 --> 28:59.000]  You have to tell the court who all of the parties are and define them.
[28:59.000 --> 29:05.000]  That's generally the first thing is parties and list all the parties.
[29:05.000 --> 29:09.000]  The next thing is jurisdiction.
[29:09.000 --> 29:22.000]  You need to show why the court has jurisdiction. And I suggest that nobody ever write up a section on jurisdiction.
[29:22.000 --> 29:24.000]  Don't ever do that.
[29:24.000 --> 29:36.000]  Go look in the court record and see how every lawyer who files in that court establishes jurisdiction for the court.
[29:36.000 --> 29:45.000]  Every pleading, original pleading, will have everything you need to establish jurisdiction in that particular court.
[29:45.000 --> 29:50.000]  And it will have it in a way that that judge expects to see it.
[29:50.000 --> 29:55.000]  It will have the case law the judge expects to see.
[29:55.000 --> 29:57.000]  And if you have to read the case law, do so.
[29:57.000 --> 30:03.000]  But it's generally jurisdiction.
[30:03.000 --> 30:08.000]  A carload of teenagers pulls up alongside you and tosses a milkshake, splat.
[30:08.000 --> 30:09.000]  What to do?
[30:09.000 --> 30:17.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll tell you how one woman lost her cool in $2,000 by seeking revenge next.
[30:17.000 --> 30:19.000]  Privacy is under attack.
[30:19.000 --> 30:22.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[30:22.000 --> 30:27.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:27.000 --> 30:29.000]  So protect your rights.
[30:29.000 --> 30:33.000]  Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[30:33.000 --> 30:35.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[30:35.000 --> 30:42.000]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[30:42.000 --> 30:46.000]  Start over with StartPage.
[30:46.000 --> 30:51.000]  In Palo Alto, a woman was out for a walk when a Range Rover full of teenagers roared by.
[30:51.000 --> 30:57.000]  As they passed, one of the teens tossed a milkshake, which, I'm sorry to say, hit its intended target.
[30:57.000 --> 30:58.000]  How did the woman react?
[30:58.000 --> 30:59.000]  Well, not well.
[30:59.000 --> 31:04.000]  She lost her head and hurt her purse at the car, which was a bad idea.
[31:04.000 --> 31:10.000]  For one, it was an expensive alligator skin purse, and two, it had $2,000 inside.
[31:10.000 --> 31:16.000]  The purse sailed through the car's open window, and the teens drove off, minus one milkshake and two Grand Richer.
[31:16.000 --> 31:18.000]  The moral of the story?
[31:18.000 --> 31:22.000]  When milkshakes fly your way, it's always best to keep your cool.
[31:22.000 --> 31:28.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[31:52.000 --> 32:02.000]  Call 888-910-4367 and see what our powder, seeds, and oil can do for you, only at NQSA.org.
[32:02.000 --> 32:06.000]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law traffic seminar.
[32:06.000 --> 32:11.000]  In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society, and if we, the people, are ever going to have a free society,
[32:11.000 --> 32:14.000]  then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[32:14.000 --> 32:18.000]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity,
[32:18.000 --> 32:23.000]  and most importantly, the right to due process of law. Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity
[32:23.000 --> 32:26.000]  to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process.
[32:26.000 --> 32:30.000]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put together
[32:30.000 --> 32:34.000]  the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is
[32:34.000 --> 32:36.000]  and how to hold courts to the rule of law.
[32:36.000 --> 32:40.000]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to RuleOfLawRadio.com
[32:40.000 --> 32:43.000]  and ordering your copy today. By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book,
[32:43.000 --> 32:48.000]  The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar,
[32:48.000 --> 32:51.000]  hundreds of research documents, and other useful resource material.
[32:51.000 --> 32:55.000]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from RuleOfLawRadio.com.
[32:55.000 --> 33:02.000]  Order your copy today, and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[33:02.000 --> 33:13.000]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at LogosRadioNetwork.com
[33:13.000 --> 33:34.000]  Music
[33:34.000 --> 33:38.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio.
[33:38.000 --> 33:43.000]  I'm back from running off the cliff again. I do that on occasion.
[33:43.000 --> 33:48.000]  Most people can hear the bumper music.
[33:48.000 --> 33:54.000]  We have a support pressure on the system so that when I'm talking, it suppresses other sounds,
[33:54.000 --> 34:00.000]  so I can't hear the bumper music when I'm talking, but I have a screen in front of me
[34:00.000 --> 34:07.000]  that tells me the time I just keep paying attention to what I'm doing and don't multitask so well.
[34:07.000 --> 34:13.000]  Anyway, where we're at, we're talking about, first thing you have to do is establish jurisdiction.
[34:13.000 --> 34:17.000]  There are two kinds of jurisdiction, subject matter and in personam.
[34:17.000 --> 34:28.000]  Under subject matter jurisdiction, they have to show why this court has jurisdiction over this particular kind of case.
[34:28.000 --> 34:41.000]  If it's a civil case, then the amounts demanded in the petition must be within the limits of this particular case.
[34:41.000 --> 34:44.000]  This is pretty straightforward.
[34:44.000 --> 34:51.000]  Then in personam jurisdiction, why, although you have jurisdiction over the subject matter,
[34:51.000 --> 34:58.000]  why do you have jurisdiction over the persons involved?
[34:58.000 --> 35:02.000]  You have jurisdiction over foreclosure issues.
[35:02.000 --> 35:06.000]  If it's a judicial foreclosure, it'll be probably the district court.
[35:06.000 --> 35:12.000]  You have jurisdiction over all foreclosure issues, but you have in personam jurisdiction
[35:12.000 --> 35:18.000]  because this particular property lies within a certain venue,
[35:18.000 --> 35:27.000]  and you have in personam jurisdiction over any property that lies within the venue of the court.
[35:27.000 --> 35:38.000]  From jurisdiction, then you should always put in a brief synopsis.
[35:38.000 --> 35:42.000]  This is what the case is about.
[35:42.000 --> 35:55.000]  These are the basic claims that I will be bringing, and this is the order they'll be bringing them in.
[35:55.000 --> 36:03.000]  These are the claims I'll make, and this is the outcome that I'm going to ask you to give me.
[36:03.000 --> 36:07.000]  So you're telling the judge what you're going to tell him.
[36:07.000 --> 36:12.000]  Then you go to a statement of facts.
[36:12.000 --> 36:16.000]  Statement of facts should be very creative.
[36:16.000 --> 36:24.000]  In a statement of facts, you list all of the facts, and this is only facts.
[36:24.000 --> 36:30.000]  It's not an argument, so you have to restrict yourself.
[36:30.000 --> 36:42.000]  It's difficult because we hate handing out a fact without also telling the person why this fact's important.
[36:42.000 --> 36:45.000]  Well, bad idea.
[36:45.000 --> 36:50.000]  Don't do that in your statement of facts.
[36:50.000 --> 36:57.000]  Only do that in your statement of factual accusation or your arguments in support.
[36:57.000 --> 37:11.000]  So you give the facts first, but in giving the facts, you need to understand that when a human being reads a statement of facts,
[37:11.000 --> 37:20.000]  in order to hold those facts in their mind, they have to establish what we call referential index.
[37:20.000 --> 37:29.000]  They have to attach it to some logical data that they can go back and reacquire.
[37:29.000 --> 37:34.000]  So people try to make sense of facts as they read them.
[37:34.000 --> 37:43.000]  You put a fact in there, and the first question the court's going to have, that the person reading is going to have, is why do you put this in there?
[37:43.000 --> 37:55.000]  And then you put in the next fact, you want the next fact to kind of explain why the first one was there.
[37:55.000 --> 37:57.000]  That was driving in a car.
[37:57.000 --> 38:00.000]  Okay, so you're driving in a car.
[38:00.000 --> 38:03.000]  I looked in my review mirror, I saw red lights flashing.
[38:03.000 --> 38:07.000]  Okay, that's why he told me he's driving in a car.
[38:07.000 --> 38:13.000]  The reader is going to make logical connections between your facts.
[38:13.000 --> 38:21.000]  Now, this is a natural consequence of human beings reading information.
[38:21.000 --> 38:24.000]  Now, we can take advantage of that.
[38:24.000 --> 38:35.000]  You sit down and write out your statement of facts, and then go back and look at it, and look carefully at how you've stated your facts.
[38:35.000 --> 38:48.000]  Would a reasonable person of ordinary prudence in reading your facts draw the conclusions from the facts that you're going to draw?
[38:48.000 --> 38:52.000]  Now, why do you put in the facts?
[38:52.000 --> 38:56.000]  You have to put in all the facts that are relevant.
[38:56.000 --> 39:01.000]  But relevant, that's kind of an iffy term.
[39:01.000 --> 39:10.000]  I tend to put in all of the facts that are relevant to the outcome I'm trying to achieve.
[39:10.000 --> 39:22.000]  And all of those facts, even if they don't go to my outcome but would go to the other side's outcome, you have to put those in, all the facts that will come out.
[39:22.000 --> 39:34.000]  Make sure you put those in there, but add other facts that would tend to mitigate the negative effect of the fact that tends to go against you.
[39:34.000 --> 39:36.000]  I hope this makes sense.
[39:36.000 --> 39:41.000]  It's like writing a story in a mirror.
[39:41.000 --> 39:44.000]  They're not reading the story directly.
[39:44.000 --> 39:49.000]  They're reading the facts and developing a story in their own mind.
[39:49.000 --> 39:52.000]  So there is an art to writing a statement of facts.
[39:52.000 --> 40:02.000]  Once you've written out the statement of facts, then you write an argument in support or a statement of factual accusation.
[40:02.000 --> 40:11.000]  I use that term so that it's clear in my argument I'm referring to the above facts.
[40:11.000 --> 40:25.000]  In your arguments, now you explain why this fact matters and bring to the court the case law that supports your fact.
[40:25.000 --> 40:29.000]  Here's another axiom that we have.
[40:29.000 --> 40:34.000]  Never make a proactive statement out of your own mouth.
[40:34.000 --> 40:41.000]  Never make a proactive statement of law out of your own mouth.
[40:41.000 --> 40:47.000]  You must always make statements of law out of the mouth of the court or the legislature.
[40:47.000 --> 40:53.000]  You can't say, well, they've got to do this and they can't do that and they have to do this other.
[40:53.000 --> 40:55.000]  Well, that doesn't mean anything.
[40:55.000 --> 41:03.000]  You have to say, statute 39.03 requires that the judge do this thing, the judge failed to do this thing.
[41:03.000 --> 41:08.000]  Therefore, his act is an act in violation of this code.
[41:08.000 --> 41:13.000]  Case law is the same way and I really enjoy case law.
[41:13.000 --> 41:17.000]  Case law, for the most part, is really well written.
[41:17.000 --> 41:22.000]  And I talk about how I am an accomplished plagiarist.
[41:22.000 --> 41:28.000]  I don't write a legal argument if I can avoid it.
[41:28.000 --> 41:41.000]  The most persuasive legal arguments have been written by judges in orders adjudicating cases.
[41:41.000 --> 41:56.000]  So you want to find cases that go to the issue you want and then look in that order and capture the verbiage of the court.
[41:56.000 --> 42:09.000]  Now, I don't always quote where I get this from because most orders, they never make a proactive statement of law out of their own mouth.
[42:09.000 --> 42:15.000]  They say, this court said this, that court said that, therefore, this is the case.
[42:15.000 --> 42:20.000]  So you can take that arguments to get right in your paperwork.
[42:20.000 --> 42:30.000]  I suggest that in preparing legal documents, you write as little of the text as possible.
[42:30.000 --> 42:39.000]  Find your facts, find your case law in support of those facts and paste your case law arguments altogether
[42:39.000 --> 42:48.000]  and then go in and write your connections between the different pieces of case law that you pull from the different cases.
[42:48.000 --> 42:55.000]  When the judge reads that, the judge will know exactly what you've done.
[42:55.000 --> 42:59.000]  And frankly, he will appreciate it.
[42:59.000 --> 43:06.000]  He doesn't have to read a lot of whining and crying and griping and complaining and moralizing.
[43:06.000 --> 43:09.000]  He goes right to the facts in the law.
[43:09.000 --> 43:11.000]  He's got everything in front of him.
[43:11.000 --> 43:15.000]  You're more likely to get a positive adjudication.
[43:15.000 --> 43:24.000]  And the very last thing you must do, once you've made your argument, then you have to state your cause of action.
[43:24.000 --> 43:32.000]  If it's a cause of action or a tort or you won't be prosecuted to crime or if you've been accused of the criminal act,
[43:32.000 --> 43:38.000]  then you'll state that they must find you guilty because of this hand or the other.
[43:38.000 --> 43:45.000]  Just present a conclusion and the last thing you do is the prayer.
[43:45.000 --> 43:48.000]  Ask the judge to give you the ruling that you want.
[43:48.000 --> 43:51.000]  If you leave that out, you don't have a prayer waiting.
[43:51.000 --> 43:54.000]  Randy Kelton, the ruler of our radio, a call in number.
[43:54.000 --> 43:56.000]  512-646-1984.
[43:56.000 --> 43:57.000]  We've got some callers.
[43:57.000 --> 43:59.000]  You can go to the one on the other side.
[43:59.000 --> 44:02.000]  We'll be right back.
[44:02.000 --> 44:06.000]  Hello, my name is Stuart Smith from naturespureorganics.com.
[44:06.000 --> 44:12.000]  And I would like to invite you to come by our store at 1904 Guadalupe Street Sweet D here in Austin, Texas.
[44:12.000 --> 44:14.000]  I'm Brave New Books and Chase Banks.
[44:14.000 --> 44:18.000]  To see all our fantastic health and wellness products with your very own eyes.
[44:18.000 --> 44:22.000]  Have a look at our Miracle Healing Clay that started our adventure in alternative medicine.
[44:22.000 --> 44:30.000]  Take a peek at some of our other wonderful products including our Australian Eme oil, lotion candles, olive oil, soaps, and colloidal silver and gold.
[44:30.000 --> 44:37.000]  Call 512-264-4043 or find us online at naturespureorganics.com.
[44:37.000 --> 44:43.000]  That's 512-264-4043, naturespureorganics.com.
[44:43.000 --> 45:01.000]  Don't forget to like us on Facebook for information on events and our products, naturespureorganics.com.
[45:01.000 --> 45:04.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[45:04.000 --> 45:08.000]  Win your case without an attorney with Juris Dictionary.
[45:08.000 --> 45:16.000]  The affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[45:16.000 --> 45:20.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[45:20.000 --> 45:23.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[45:23.000 --> 45:28.000]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course and now you can too.
[45:28.000 --> 45:35.000]  Juris Dictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience.
[45:35.000 --> 45:40.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles
[45:40.000 --> 45:44.000]  and practices that control our American courts.
[45:44.000 --> 45:50.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[45:50.000 --> 46:15.000]  pro se tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[46:15.000 --> 46:28.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio.
[46:28.000 --> 46:36.000]  And that was kind of a very short synopsis on how to think about a lawsuit.
[46:36.000 --> 46:38.000]  And I hope that was helpful to everybody.
[46:38.000 --> 46:42.000]  We do have a couple of callers and I don't want to hold them up too long.
[46:42.000 --> 46:47.000]  So I'm going to go to Steve in Illinois. He's a first-time caller.
[46:47.000 --> 46:51.000]  Hello, Steve. What do you have for us today?
[46:51.000 --> 46:55.000]  Hey, Randy. Thanks for taking my call.
[46:55.000 --> 47:03.000]  I grew up in Chicago, so I'm not terribly prejudiced against people from Illinois, only a little.
[47:03.000 --> 47:05.000]  What was that?
[47:05.000 --> 47:13.000]  I said I grew up in Chicago, so I'm not terribly prejudiced against people from Illinois, only a little bit.
[47:13.000 --> 47:18.000]  Very cool, yeah. So I was performing at a – I played drums.
[47:18.000 --> 47:24.000]  I was performing a private party and there was a noise complaint that came in.
[47:24.000 --> 47:30.000]  The owner of the household went out and spoke to the deputy.
[47:30.000 --> 47:38.000]  He's my close friend. And I went out there a little bit afterwards just to say hello and then we shut the party down.
[47:38.000 --> 47:44.000]  And I went out there and immediately he met me with hostility.
[47:44.000 --> 47:49.000]  He was swearing that I needed to get back in the house and he's got no business with me.
[47:49.000 --> 47:57.000]  And if I didn't listen to him, I'd be arrested for obstructing justice, which I was like, oh, that's strange.
[47:57.000 --> 48:06.000]  So this entire thing escalated in about 20 seconds and he slapped the cuffs on me.
[48:06.000 --> 48:13.000]  And I just went to court and I thought, you know, they were going to drop it.
[48:13.000 --> 48:17.000]  It was just this guy, you know, flexing his authority.
[48:17.000 --> 48:22.000]  But they actually filed charges for obstructing a peace officer.
[48:22.000 --> 48:28.000]  And I always thought there was a physical element to both of those crimes,
[48:28.000 --> 48:33.000]  but I guess it's not the case in obstruction if you are – you false probation
[48:33.000 --> 48:38.000]  when you're already lawfully detained or arrested or assumed to have –
[48:38.000 --> 48:43.000]  you know, you have a cause to assume you are all involved in some other crime.
[48:43.000 --> 48:46.000]  But my question was – I had a couple of ones.
[48:46.000 --> 48:51.000]  One, the officer didn't sign the complaint.
[48:51.000 --> 48:53.000]  I believe it's the state's journey.
[48:53.000 --> 48:59.000]  Is there any – can the prosecutor be the complaining?
[48:59.000 --> 49:00.000]  Yes.
[49:00.000 --> 49:01.000]  And act?
[49:01.000 --> 49:02.000]  Okay.
[49:02.000 --> 49:07.000]  Anyone can be the complainant and I'll explain why.
[49:07.000 --> 49:19.000]  Say someone comes to me and says, my next door neighbor is a crazy criminal and I am terrified of him.
[49:19.000 --> 49:25.000]  I saw him beat someone to death, but I'm afraid to say anything.
[49:25.000 --> 49:29.000]  I'm afraid he'll do that to me.
[49:29.000 --> 49:36.000]  I can go to the police and I can report the crime if I believe what the other person says.
[49:36.000 --> 49:40.000]  I don't have to have personal knowledge.
[49:40.000 --> 49:48.000]  So technically anyone can file – can sign the complaint.
[49:48.000 --> 49:49.000]  Okay.
[49:49.000 --> 49:53.000]  Let's go back to obstructing a police officer.
[49:53.000 --> 49:56.000]  Have you read the statute?
[49:56.000 --> 49:57.000]  Yeah.
[49:57.000 --> 50:05.000]  I don't have it in front of me, but it's basically – most of the obstructing case law –
[50:05.000 --> 50:10.000]  appellate Illinois appellate cases that I've been able to find go to –
[50:10.000 --> 50:16.000]  it mostly deals with giving a false name after you've already lawfully been detained.
[50:16.000 --> 50:19.000]  And even sometimes that isn't even enough.
[50:19.000 --> 50:26.000]  It has to be a material obstruction to whatever the officer was trying to arrest you for in the first place.
[50:26.000 --> 50:28.000]  But there was a –
[50:28.000 --> 50:29.000]  Hold on.
[50:29.000 --> 50:40.000]  In Texas, the statute says that you cannot obstruct a officer verbally.
[50:40.000 --> 50:44.000]  You must do some physical act.
[50:44.000 --> 50:47.000]  That's what I thought, and I thought I was well within my rights,
[50:47.000 --> 50:53.000]  and I stood there for three seconds long and then he felt appropriate and he slapped the cuffs on me.
[50:53.000 --> 50:57.000]  Were you on private property?
[50:57.000 --> 51:04.000]  Yeah, private property in an unincorporated locator itself.
[51:04.000 --> 51:09.000]  You should file – you have to understand the prosecutor.
[51:09.000 --> 51:14.000]  Prosecutor, he don't care if you're guilty or not.
[51:14.000 --> 51:20.000]  Okay, maybe as a human being he does, but as a prosecutor, that's not an interest he has.
[51:20.000 --> 51:23.000]  That's not a real consideration.
[51:23.000 --> 51:27.000]  What his considerations are is his caseload.
[51:27.000 --> 51:31.000]  He's got all these cases he's got to adjudicate.
[51:31.000 --> 51:34.000]  And he don't want to go to court on them.
[51:34.000 --> 51:36.000]  And he wants you to take a deal.
[51:36.000 --> 51:39.000]  So he don't care what the officer says.
[51:39.000 --> 51:43.000]  He don't care if it's a bunch of garbage crapola.
[51:43.000 --> 51:46.000]  He's just going to try to get you to take a deal.
[51:46.000 --> 51:53.000]  They will reduce the complaint to something lesser if you will agree to take a deal.
[51:53.000 --> 51:58.000]  They threaten all these horrible things they're going to do to you if you don't take a deal,
[51:58.000 --> 52:01.000]  and they force everybody to take a deal.
[52:01.000 --> 52:08.000]  In every state that I've looked at, the average conviction rate for all crimes across the board was above 99%.
[52:08.000 --> 52:10.000]  That's his whole purpose.
[52:10.000 --> 52:12.000]  You have to understand that.
[52:12.000 --> 52:19.000]  So if you're expecting him to be reasonable, if you're expecting him to actually consider the facts, he don't care.
[52:19.000 --> 52:25.000]  He's not going to care until he can't get a deal.
[52:25.000 --> 52:34.000]  When he looks at having to bring the officer on the stand and putting his testimony before court,
[52:34.000 --> 52:38.000]  now he's going to look at the facts.
[52:38.000 --> 52:42.000]  Not until then.
[52:42.000 --> 52:45.000]  Okay. Does that make sense?
[52:45.000 --> 52:48.000]  Yes, absolutely.
[52:48.000 --> 52:50.000]  So hope when you get it.
[52:50.000 --> 52:53.000]  Now, we watch what they do.
[52:53.000 --> 53:02.000]  If you've done the legal research, you pretty well know that the officer doesn't have a case.
[53:02.000 --> 53:04.000]  Right.
[53:04.000 --> 53:05.000]  Okay.
[53:05.000 --> 53:11.000]  There were two instances where someone was able to be arrested for failure to move back,
[53:11.000 --> 53:19.000]  but it was in one, one, two, there was a protest that was degrading into a physical,
[53:19.000 --> 53:25.000]  like a civil unrest situation, and that was upheld in the higher courts.
[53:25.000 --> 53:31.000]  But with this, it says I impeded his investigation by refusing to step back.
[53:31.000 --> 53:39.000]  And he told me himself that the investigation was already over,
[53:39.000 --> 53:43.000]  and I talked to my friend just to verify that, yes, they were shaking hands.
[53:43.000 --> 53:48.000]  They were just having a general casual, consensual conversation after the fact.
[53:48.000 --> 53:50.000]  And I came out then.
[53:50.000 --> 53:54.000]  You should charge him with official oppression.
[53:54.000 --> 53:56.000]  You may not have official oppression.
[53:56.000 --> 53:59.000]  It may be official misconduct in Illinois.
[53:59.000 --> 54:06.000]  Texas happens to have two statutes, one official misconduct and the other official oppression.
[54:06.000 --> 54:14.000]  But most every state has a statute that mimics the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871.
[54:14.000 --> 54:19.000]  Right. I believe it is official misconduct in Illinois.
[54:19.000 --> 54:20.000]  No. Yeah.
[54:20.000 --> 54:22.000]  Okay. It's official misconduct.
[54:22.000 --> 54:29.000]  If a public official acting under the color of his authority exerts or purports to exert an authority he does not expressly have
[54:29.000 --> 54:36.000]  or fails to perform a duty he's required to perform in the process to announce a citizen full free access to enjoyment rights,
[54:36.000 --> 54:39.000]  that is a Class A misdemeanor in the Fed.
[54:39.000 --> 54:42.000]  It's a Class A misdemeanor in Texas.
[54:42.000 --> 54:47.000]  And it's similar in every state that I've looked at.
[54:47.000 --> 54:53.000]  Illinois is going to have a statute in that regard.
[54:53.000 --> 54:57.000]  You need to fight it. It's kind of a catch-all.
[54:57.000 --> 55:06.000]  We maintain that the officer perjured himself in the complaining document
[55:06.000 --> 55:20.000]  in that he accused you of impeding an investigation that by his own mouth was stated that the investigation was completed
[55:20.000 --> 55:24.000]  and that he committed false imprisonment.
[55:24.000 --> 55:29.000]  In Texas, false imprisonment is not a crime.
[55:29.000 --> 55:33.000]  It's something that's suable.
[55:33.000 --> 55:36.000]  We don't have a statute for false imprisonment.
[55:36.000 --> 55:40.000]  So we have to use other statutes to get at that particular issue.
[55:40.000 --> 55:48.000]  And the primary one to use is 3903, official misconduct or official oppression.
[55:48.000 --> 55:55.000]  Sometimes the best defense is good effective offense.
[55:55.000 --> 55:58.000]  So that was sent to the table.
[55:58.000 --> 56:01.000]  Yeah. He showed you how bad he could be.
[56:01.000 --> 56:03.000]  Your turn.
[56:03.000 --> 56:07.000]  Professional conduct complaint against him first.
[56:07.000 --> 56:12.000]  A tort letter to the, is it a municipality or county?
[56:12.000 --> 56:16.000]  He says it's un-corporated, so he's going to be a county sheriff, deputy?
[56:16.000 --> 56:17.000]  Yeah.
[56:17.000 --> 56:28.000]  A tort letter to the county commissioner's court accusing him of false imprisonment.
[56:28.000 --> 56:30.000]  It's not about the law.
[56:30.000 --> 56:33.000]  It's all about the politics.
[56:33.000 --> 56:35.000]  Right.
[56:35.000 --> 56:40.000]  You'll never win your case simply because you have the law and the facts on your side.
[56:40.000 --> 56:44.000]  To think so is naive.
[56:44.000 --> 56:55.000]  You can only win your case if you have the politics on your side and all politics is local.
[56:55.000 --> 56:58.000]  What do you think is going to happen?
[56:58.000 --> 57:12.000]  When the county commissioners get a tort letter from you accusing this officer of what we accuse him of,
[57:12.000 --> 57:22.000]  if it were me, I would accuse him of first degree felony aggravated assault.
[57:22.000 --> 57:24.000]  Yes.
[57:24.000 --> 57:28.000]  Did you have reason to believe that weapon was loaded?
[57:28.000 --> 57:29.000]  Yes.
[57:29.000 --> 57:37.000]  Did you have reason to believe that if you resisted him in any way that he was prepared to use that weapon?
[57:37.000 --> 57:39.000]  Absolutely.
[57:39.000 --> 57:44.000]  That's aggravated assault under the penal code of every state I've ever seen.
[57:44.000 --> 57:46.000]  You should charge him with aggravated assault.
[57:46.000 --> 57:51.000]  In Texas, we have this special statute.
[57:51.000 --> 57:58.000]  It says if you run off the cliff again that your producer is going to beat you bloody.
[57:58.000 --> 58:00.000]  Hang on.
[58:00.000 --> 58:05.000]  We're going to take the top of the hour break and I'll pick this up on the other side.
[58:05.000 --> 58:08.000]  This is Randy Kelton, Wheel of Love Radio.
[58:08.000 --> 58:11.000]  Steve, Mark, Leslie.
[58:11.000 --> 58:12.000]  Oh, Steve, I've got you.
[58:12.000 --> 58:14.000]  Leslie, Mark, I see you there.
[58:14.000 --> 58:16.000]  We will get to you all on the other side.
[58:16.000 --> 58:17.000]  This is the top of the hour break.
[58:17.000 --> 58:28.000]  It takes a little longer, so if you would, you might go to Logos Radio Network and have a look at some of our sponsors and products and services they offer.
[58:28.000 --> 58:36.000]  And if you patronize them or patronize one of those, it will help support this network.
[58:36.000 --> 58:38.000]  And we need all the help we can get.
[58:38.000 --> 58:50.000]  We'll be right back.
[59:08.000 --> 59:13.000]  And it contains thousands of footnotes that will help you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[59:13.000 --> 59:18.000]  The free books are a three-volume set called Basic Elements of the Christian Life.
[59:18.000 --> 59:28.000]  Chapter by chapter, Basic Elements of the Christian Life clearly presents God's plan of salvation, growing in Christ, and how to build up the church.
[59:28.000 --> 59:41.000]  To order your free New Testament Recovery Version and Basic Elements of the Christian Life, call Bibles for America toll-free at 888-551-0102.
[59:41.000 --> 59:45.000]  That's 888-551-0102.
[59:45.000 --> 59:50.000]  Or visit us online at bfa.org.
[59:50.000 --> 01:00:00.000]  Live free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:00.000 --> 01:00:08.000]  The following use flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing the jelly bulletins for the commodity market.
[01:00:08.000 --> 01:00:21.000]  Today in history, news updates, and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative.
[01:00:21.000 --> 01:00:42.000]  Markets for the 31st of July, 2015, opened up with gold at $1,094.65 an ounce, silver, $14.72 an ounce, Texas crude, $48.52 a barrel, and Bitcoin is currently sitting at about 285 U.S. currency.
[01:00:42.000 --> 01:00:51.000]  Today in history, Saturday, July 31, 1999, the Lunar Prospector Drone, part of NASA's Discovery Program, comes to a crashing end.
[01:00:51.000 --> 01:01:00.000]  The 19th-month-long mission was designed for a low-polar orbital analysis of the Moon, including mapping of the surface and detection of possible polar ice deposits,
[01:01:00.000 --> 01:01:04.000]  measurements in the magnetic and gravitational field, and the study of lunar outgassing.
[01:01:04.000 --> 01:01:14.000]  The orbiter was deliberately crashed into a crater near the South Pole after the presence of water ice was successfully detected.
[01:01:14.000 --> 01:01:21.000]  In recent news, Facebook is planning on using solar-powered drones with wingspans comparable to a Boeing 737,
[01:01:21.000 --> 01:01:25.000]  crisscrossing the planet for providing roughly 4 billion people across the world with Internet.
[01:01:25.000 --> 01:01:33.000]  Facebook announced yesterday that its first drone, the Aquila, is already in flight testing in the upper atmosphere as part of its Internet.org initiative.
[01:01:33.000 --> 01:01:37.000]  It's the goal to have hundreds of drones floating upwards with the help of helium balloons,
[01:01:37.000 --> 01:01:43.000]  which would then circle the globe at roughly 60,000 to 90,000 feet, way above commercial airliners and weather systems.
[01:01:43.000 --> 01:01:51.000]  It turns out that this is more valuable of a solution than building infrastructure in many remote places in Africa, which would be quantitatively much more expensive.
[01:01:51.000 --> 01:01:54.000]  The company still has plenty of work to do before this project becomes a reality.
[01:01:54.000 --> 01:02:02.000]  It needs to develop a longer-lasting battery and test its lasers, which it says already can send a signal to a target the size of a dime from 10 miles away.
[01:02:02.000 --> 01:02:09.000]  Google is also looking into similar solutions.
[01:02:09.000 --> 01:02:14.000]  The New York Police Department handed 54 participants body cameras when it started its pilot program last December.
[01:02:14.000 --> 01:02:18.000]  Today, they released a 71-page report reviewing the program thus far.
[01:02:18.000 --> 01:02:25.000]  The report calls for stricter guidelines before the program expands and offers 23 suggestions that can both improve police-community relations
[01:02:25.000 --> 01:02:34.000]  and protect the safety of officers and the public, covering issues such as camera activation, protecting the anonymity of certain groups, retention periods, and footage access.
[01:02:34.000 --> 01:02:41.000]  A notable issue, NYPD Inspector General Philip Ure said, was that they found that officers generally don't know when it's appropriate to use the cameras.
[01:02:41.000 --> 01:02:50.000]  NYPD officers are trained to turn on their cameras only when there's reasonable suspicion of a crime happening during traffic stops and during incidents where force is used.
[01:02:50.000 --> 01:02:55.000]  But those limits are too restrictive to fully capture the wide range of police-community encounters.
[01:02:55.000 --> 01:03:00.000]  This has been the Lowdown for July 31, 2013.
[01:03:00.000 --> 01:03:10.000]  It's all according to the will of the Almighty.
[01:03:10.000 --> 01:03:17.000]  I read his book and it says he cares not for the unsightly.
[01:03:17.000 --> 01:03:30.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton with our radio. We're talking to Steve in Illinois and we have a statute that says if a person here in Texas,
[01:03:30.000 --> 01:03:42.000]  that says if a person commits simple assault, as defined by 2201, and that's offensive touching or offensive threatening language,
[01:03:42.000 --> 01:03:51.000]  and the person is prominently displaying a deadly weapon, that's a second-degree felony in the state of Texas,
[01:03:51.000 --> 01:04:03.000]  unless the person is a public official acting under the color or pretense of an official capacity, in which case it's a first-degree felony.
[01:04:03.000 --> 01:04:09.000]  So you might look to see if there's something similar in Illinois.
[01:04:09.000 --> 01:04:18.000]  If the guy wants to play hardball, you're getting a lot of background noise.
[01:04:18.000 --> 01:04:26.000]  If the guy wants to play hardball, just introducing to the deep end of the pool.
[01:04:26.000 --> 01:04:33.000]  Okay, there's Steve. I am getting horrible background noise.
[01:04:33.000 --> 01:04:44.000]  If you're dragging something across the table or removing something, things, especially if you have a headset on, things you can hardly hear really blast through the mic.
[01:04:44.000 --> 01:05:00.000]  Okay, that's better. Okay, have you looked at the arresting officer's potential criminal behavior?
[01:05:00.000 --> 01:05:06.000]  Steve, are you there? I'm sorry. Yeah, I'm here. I'm sorry, say that one more time.
[01:05:06.000 --> 01:05:14.000]  Have you looked into the potential criminal behavior of the police officer?
[01:05:14.000 --> 01:05:33.000]  Well, I assumed, not much, but I assumed it was false arrests. I've heard of the aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and things of that nature.
[01:05:33.000 --> 01:05:40.000]  But as far as getting the exact codes and stuff down here in Illinois, no, I have not.
[01:05:40.000 --> 01:05:49.000]  And as far as the letter to the commissioner, the tort letter, is there any sort of form?
[01:05:49.000 --> 01:05:52.000]  No. What are the elements of that?
[01:05:52.000 --> 01:06:03.000]  No, you just, in a tort letter, you basically, I'd like to write the tort letter in the form of a lawsuit.
[01:06:03.000 --> 01:06:20.000]  In order to get them to take this serious, you need to write up what occurred and then pepper your letter with statute and case law, establishing that what occurred was improper.
[01:06:20.000 --> 01:06:31.000]  I write it up just like a lawsuit. The only difference between it and a lawsuit is the heading is a business letter heading instead of a court heading.
[01:06:31.000 --> 01:06:38.000]  And I leave out jurisdiction and parties, so I essentially put in parties, but I leave out jurisdiction.
[01:06:38.000 --> 01:06:50.000]  And the closing, it doesn't contain a prayer. It contains a demand to make me hold or be sued.
[01:06:50.000 --> 01:07:06.000]  But otherwise it looks like a lawsuit. And when they see one that looks like a lawsuit for aggravated assault, false imprisonment, official oppression, then they're likely to take this real serious.
[01:07:06.000 --> 01:07:13.000]  What's going to happen when the commissioner's court gets this tort letter?
[01:07:13.000 --> 01:07:28.000]  They're going to call the sheriff and ask the sheriff, what is going on? Why are we being sued? And the sheriff's going to talk to the captain, the captain to the sergeant, and the sergeant to the time they get to this officer, everybody's going to be really, really upset.
[01:07:28.000 --> 01:07:34.000]  Have you ever been in the military?
[01:07:34.000 --> 01:07:37.000]  Steve?
[01:07:37.000 --> 01:07:38.000]  Yeah, I'm here.
[01:07:38.000 --> 01:07:41.000]  Okay. Have you ever been in the military?
[01:07:41.000 --> 01:07:43.000]  No, I have not.
[01:07:43.000 --> 01:07:52.000]  Okay. Then the hierarchies of this type are similar to the military.
[01:07:52.000 --> 01:08:03.000]  When the guy at the top gets annoyed, he transfers that annoyance down the line, and the further down the line it gets, the worse it gets.
[01:08:03.000 --> 01:08:18.000]  By the time the commissioner's courts have talked to the sheriff, and the sheriff's talked to the captain, and the captain has talked to this guy's sergeant, the sergeant is going to be really, really unhappy with this guy.
[01:08:18.000 --> 01:08:21.000]  He's not going to care what happened.
[01:08:21.000 --> 01:08:29.000]  All he knows is this guy's threatened to sue the county because of what you did.
[01:08:29.000 --> 01:08:39.000]  And then when you bring accusations against the officer, then that will tend to discredit him.
[01:08:39.000 --> 01:08:44.000]  If they're looking at a lawsuit against you, they want to collect money from you.
[01:08:44.000 --> 01:08:51.000]  They want to collect fines from you, and they want to do it as easy as possible.
[01:08:51.000 --> 01:09:04.000]  If you want this to go away, and you're not being prosecuted for it, and you want this policeman not to do that again, you need to take the fight back to him.
[01:09:04.000 --> 01:09:11.000]  Well, didn't any way fight harder against me to railroad me in order to...
[01:09:11.000 --> 01:09:16.000]  Oh, no, no, no, no. That's not how it works.
[01:09:16.000 --> 01:09:23.000]  The problem with fighting harder against you is then that comes back retaliation.
[01:09:23.000 --> 01:09:28.000]  Now they've got to be really, really careful.
[01:09:28.000 --> 01:09:43.000]  Once you have filed that tort letter, if anybody says anything to you that you can in any way construe as threatening or intimidating,
[01:09:43.000 --> 01:09:47.000]  that goes to tampering with the witness and structure to justice.
[01:09:47.000 --> 01:09:50.000]  Those are felonies in most every state.
[01:09:50.000 --> 01:09:54.000]  When you send the tort letter, you become a witness.
[01:09:54.000 --> 01:10:01.000]  And when you make... you know, the police officer is a witness against you.
[01:10:01.000 --> 01:10:08.000]  If you file criminal accusations against him, then you become a witness against him.
[01:10:08.000 --> 01:10:14.000]  And if anybody says anything to you like, oh, man, you better be careful.
[01:10:14.000 --> 01:10:20.000]  You could get in a lot of trouble doing this. Bam, tampering with a witness.
[01:10:20.000 --> 01:10:25.000]  They're trying to influence a witness, and police would do that all the time.
[01:10:25.000 --> 01:10:32.000]  They're not used to people reading the law and taking them to task.
[01:10:32.000 --> 01:10:35.000]  I do this kind of stuff all the time.
[01:10:35.000 --> 01:10:47.000]  I deliberately craft a information request in order to get an officer to ask me why I want to see this information.
[01:10:47.000 --> 01:10:50.000]  I just got one to do it a couple of weeks ago.
[01:10:50.000 --> 01:10:53.000]  And I'll go into court as somebody else's ticket,
[01:10:53.000 --> 01:11:02.000]  but I'll go into court and present a criminal complaint against that person to the judge in his capacity as a magistrate.
[01:11:02.000 --> 01:11:06.000]  And he is really, really going to be unhappy.
[01:11:06.000 --> 01:11:11.000]  But they kind of feel like you're bushwhacking them when you do that.
[01:11:11.000 --> 01:11:15.000]  That's exactly what you need to be doing.
[01:11:15.000 --> 01:11:23.000]  If you want this case to go away, you're not going to get it to go away by trying to be reasonable with them.
[01:11:23.000 --> 01:11:27.000]  They don't care about that. They care about adjudicating the case and collecting money.
[01:11:27.000 --> 01:11:33.000]  So you make this case really, really difficult to adjudicate.
[01:11:33.000 --> 01:11:45.000]  First time the prosecutor says anything to you that you feel is improper, you file a bar grievance against him.
[01:11:45.000 --> 01:11:48.000]  Now, maybe it's not improper. Maybe he can do this.
[01:11:48.000 --> 01:11:54.000]  And the state borough will let you know, oh, it's okay. He can do this. He's within his rights.
[01:11:54.000 --> 01:12:03.000]  But if he's not within his rights, the state bar is going to say, oh, that's okay. He can do that.
[01:12:03.000 --> 01:12:08.000]  It doesn't make any difference what you file in terms of a bar grievance.
[01:12:08.000 --> 01:12:16.000]  They're going to tell you that you examined into your accusation it does not rise to the level of misconduct.
[01:12:16.000 --> 01:12:28.000]  However, his problem is that his insurance carrier, the bond, the county, whoever holds the bond for the prosecuting attorney,
[01:12:28.000 --> 01:12:33.000]  they're going to get that and they're going to raise his bond rating.
[01:12:33.000 --> 01:12:43.000]  If he's a lawyer, you bar grievance. If it's his first year in practice, his insurance carrier cancels him immediately.
[01:12:43.000 --> 01:12:52.000]  A lawyer, if you've been in business more than one year, they double your malpractice insurance.
[01:12:52.000 --> 01:12:56.000]  They want to play hardball, introduce them to the deep end of the pool.
[01:12:56.000 --> 01:13:00.000]  If the judge gets himself an attitude, just judicial conduct, complain him.
[01:13:00.000 --> 01:13:10.000]  And if they do anything that would tend to intimidate you and prevent you from taking action
[01:13:10.000 --> 01:13:16.000]  based on crimes that have been committed against you, that goes to felony charges against them.
[01:13:16.000 --> 01:13:23.000]  Give them a reason to make your case one go away.
[01:13:23.000 --> 01:13:31.000]  And I've done this lots of times. When you start hammering them every time they do something stupid,
[01:13:31.000 --> 01:13:38.000]  you're going to get the courts and other prosecutors trying to shield these guys from prosecution.
[01:13:38.000 --> 01:13:42.000]  When you file a complaint, you file it with a magistrate.
[01:13:42.000 --> 01:13:48.000]  And the magistrate's going to say, oh, well, you need to file this with the police department or some other garbage.
[01:13:48.000 --> 01:13:51.000]  No, you don't.
[01:13:51.000 --> 01:14:00.000]  Now, they have a policy where police take complaints from citizens, and that's their business.
[01:14:00.000 --> 01:14:05.000]  But that's their policy. You're not bound by their policy.
[01:14:05.000 --> 01:14:10.000]  They're all public servants. You're the master.
[01:14:10.000 --> 01:14:18.000]  They may only do what the law specifically authorizes them to do.
[01:14:18.000 --> 01:14:28.000]  You, on the other hand, can do anything you want to unless the law specifically forbids you to.
[01:14:28.000 --> 01:14:34.000]  Pay close attention to that when you deal with them, because I get them all the time.
[01:14:34.000 --> 01:14:39.000]  I go in with a criminal complaint and the judge will say, oh, you have to file this with the police department.
[01:14:39.000 --> 01:14:44.000]  I don't have to do any such thing. I'm filing this with you.
[01:14:44.000 --> 01:14:49.000]  Are you going to act on it or are you going to refuse to act on it?
[01:14:49.000 --> 01:14:52.000]  And they'll generally say, well, I'm not going to act on it.
[01:14:52.000 --> 01:14:57.000]  Mr. Bailiff, did you hear that? And that's where I go to the bailiff.
[01:14:57.000 --> 01:15:01.000]  I want you to arrest the judge.
[01:15:01.000 --> 01:15:05.000]  You haven't lived until you've asked the bailiff to arrest the judge.
[01:15:05.000 --> 01:15:15.000]  Every time I've done that, the judge had sat there and kept his mouth shut.
[01:15:15.000 --> 01:15:21.000]  Now, tell me, why did he not speak?
[01:15:21.000 --> 01:15:23.000]  I'll tell you why he didn't speak.
[01:15:23.000 --> 01:15:30.000]  One word out of the judge, when I'm making a criminal complaint against him to the bailiff, that's witness tampering.
[01:15:30.000 --> 01:15:33.000]  And he knows it.
[01:15:33.000 --> 01:15:36.000]  The judge sits there and keeps his mouth shut.
[01:15:36.000 --> 01:15:41.000]  And you also haven't lived until you called 911 on the police.
[01:15:41.000 --> 01:15:45.000]  Oh, that is great fun.
[01:15:45.000 --> 01:15:51.000]  If I get a policeman and he gets himself an attitude, I was in Bowie, Texas,
[01:15:51.000 --> 01:15:56.000]  and this policeman was getting an attitude that I reached in to get myself a phone.
[01:15:56.000 --> 01:15:58.000]  Don't stick your hand in that car.
[01:15:58.000 --> 01:16:03.000]  I was getting my phone, I reached in and pulled it out, and he put his hand on his pistol.
[01:16:03.000 --> 01:16:07.000]  I said, Bubba, you need to get your hand away from that pistol.
[01:16:07.000 --> 01:16:09.000]  I told you not to reach for that cell phone.
[01:16:09.000 --> 01:16:11.000]  I said, yes, you did, and I did it on 911.
[01:16:11.000 --> 01:16:15.000]  I get the operator, and I told him that I need you to get an officer out here.
[01:16:15.000 --> 01:16:21.000]  I've got a policeman here in front of me, and he is so terrified of me, I'm afraid he's going to wet his drawers.
[01:16:21.000 --> 01:16:24.000]  But my problem is he's got his hand on his pistol.
[01:16:24.000 --> 01:16:26.000]  I'm afraid he might shoot me first.
[01:16:26.000 --> 01:16:29.000]  Can you get somebody out here to get him in control?
[01:16:29.000 --> 01:16:39.000]  And the policeman is looking at me like, I don't believe you just said that to my dispatcher.
[01:16:39.000 --> 01:16:43.000]  Sometimes it's good to introduce them to the pro-safe of hell.
[01:16:43.000 --> 01:16:47.000]  You have rights, there are things you can do.
[01:16:47.000 --> 01:16:50.000]  They're going to do everything they can to hide it from you.
[01:16:50.000 --> 01:16:56.000]  Pick this up on the other side of River Kelton with our radio, our call in number 512-646-1984.
[01:16:56.000 --> 01:17:00.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:17:00.000 --> 01:17:04.000]  Chances are you've heard of My Magic Mud, but have you used it?
[01:17:04.000 --> 01:17:09.000]  Thousands of people are blown away by the clean and healthy feeling they experience after just one use.
[01:17:09.000 --> 01:17:13.000]  Here's what Harlan Dietrich, owner of Brave New Books, has to say about the product.
[01:17:13.000 --> 01:17:16.000]  Hey everybody, this is Harlan Dietrich, owner of Brave New Books.
[01:17:16.000 --> 01:17:18.000]  I just want to tell everybody about My Magic Mud.
[01:17:18.000 --> 01:17:21.000]  I use the product and it makes my teeth feel clean and healthy.
[01:17:21.000 --> 01:17:23.000]  I think it makes them stronger.
[01:17:23.000 --> 01:17:25.000]  I've got lots of customers that come in and say the same thing.
[01:17:25.000 --> 01:17:27.000]  You can pick yours up at Brave New Books.
[01:17:27.000 --> 01:17:33.000]  If that wasn't enough, Dr. Griffin Cole, DDS, who's been featured on the Alex Jones show, loves it too.
[01:17:33.000 --> 01:17:37.000]  Hi, I'm Dr. Griffin Cole, and I've got to tell you, I really love this Magic Mud plant.
[01:17:37.000 --> 01:17:43.000]  Because charcoal is so absorbent, it's very effective at taking off all the sticky plaque and debris that gets stuck on our teeth every day.
[01:17:43.000 --> 01:17:45.000]  I highly recommend My Magic Mud.
[01:17:45.000 --> 01:17:51.000]  If you haven't yet experienced My Magic Mud, it's never too late to brighten your smile and strengthen your teeth.
[01:17:51.000 --> 01:17:54.000]  Get your jar of My Magic Mud today at Brave New Books,
[01:17:54.000 --> 01:18:00.000]  located at 1904 Guadalupe Street or order online today at MyMagicMud.com.
[01:18:00.000 --> 01:18:05.000]  At Capital Coin and Bullion, our mission is to be your preferred shopping destination
[01:18:05.000 --> 01:18:09.000]  by delivering excellent customer service and outstanding value at an affordable price.
[01:18:09.000 --> 01:18:15.000]  We provide a wide assortment of your favorite products featuring a great selection of high quality coins and precious metals.
[01:18:15.000 --> 01:18:19.000]  We cater to beginners in coin collecting as well as large transactions for investors.
[01:18:19.000 --> 01:18:24.000]  We believe in educating our customers with resources from top accredited metals dealers and journalists.
[01:18:24.000 --> 01:18:27.000]  If we don't have what you're looking for, we can find it.
[01:18:27.000 --> 01:18:32.000]  In addition, we carry popular longevity products such as Beyond Tangy Tangerine and Polynbers.
[01:18:32.000 --> 01:18:40.000]  We also offer One World Way, Mountain House Storable Foods, Berkey Water Products, ammunition at 10% above wholesale, and more.
[01:18:40.000 --> 01:18:43.000]  We broker metals IRA accounts and we also accept Bitcoins as payment.
[01:18:43.000 --> 01:18:47.000]  Call us at 512-646-6440.
[01:18:47.000 --> 01:18:52.000]  We're located at 7304 Burnett Road, Suite A, about a half mile south of Anderson.
[01:18:52.000 --> 01:18:55.000]  We're open Monday through Friday 10 to 6, Saturdays 10 to 2.
[01:18:55.000 --> 01:19:20.000]  Visit us at capitalcoin and bullion.com or call 512-646-6440.
[01:19:20.000 --> 01:19:25.600]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, U of Law Radio. It looks like we lost Steve from Illinois,
[01:19:27.120 --> 01:19:34.560]  but I hope you got the idea. Sometimes the best defense is a good effective offense.
[01:19:35.120 --> 01:19:41.840]  Now we're going to go to Ms. Leslie in Pennsylvania and you've got some news about the
[01:19:41.840 --> 01:19:50.800]  clerk that sued Merz. Hello, Ms. Leslie. Yes. Hi. Not good news, I'm afraid.
[01:19:52.080 --> 01:19:58.320]  I got a chance to talk to Nancy the other day and she was so upset. It seems that
[01:19:59.200 --> 01:20:09.520]  Donald Trump's sister is an appellate court judge. She was put in there by Ronald Reagan
[01:20:09.520 --> 01:20:16.480]  so you would think she would be a little bit conservative. And she was
[01:20:18.960 --> 01:20:25.360]  put into the federal system by Ronald Reagan and then bumped up, I think it was by Bill Clinton,
[01:20:25.360 --> 01:20:32.640]  to the Court of Appeals. But she ruled against Mrs. Becker and former that they don't have to
[01:20:32.640 --> 01:20:39.760]  record anything if they don't want to. Now I haven't had a chance to review
[01:20:41.440 --> 01:20:47.280]  the order itself. I just know that Ms. Becker was extremely upset and now they're considering
[01:20:47.280 --> 01:20:54.800]  going higher. Okay, was this a Pennsylvania state judge, a state appellate court? No, no,
[01:20:54.800 --> 01:21:06.160]  no. It's the Third Court of Appeals. This would be an interesting case to go to the Supreme.
[01:21:07.920 --> 01:21:15.040]  Yes, that's what I thought. And I talked to her, I sent an email to her attorney and showed him
[01:21:15.040 --> 01:21:23.520]  what I was doing with the RICO and how I was saying this is criminal. It's not just a civil
[01:21:23.520 --> 01:21:30.320]  matter, it's a criminal matter. And I said you have to take it higher. You just have to.
[01:21:31.760 --> 01:21:41.440]  So we'll see what he does. But we're coping. Okay, I have a question. How did one judge make the
[01:21:41.440 --> 01:21:48.160]  ruling? There should be a panel of judges. There was a panel and from what Ms. Becker said,
[01:21:48.160 --> 01:21:53.600]  she said they seemed, when we were in argument, they seemed like they were really on her side.
[01:21:53.600 --> 01:21:57.040]  Like, you know, we have to keep recording these things. It doesn't make sense
[01:21:57.840 --> 01:22:01.680]  not to have a record. Otherwise, why have it at all? You're not going to record everything.
[01:22:04.320 --> 01:22:10.720]  I would certainly like to see that ruling. Yeah, me too. I'm trying to find it online,
[01:22:10.720 --> 01:22:13.120]  but I don't think it's supposed to get it. It's only been a couple days.
[01:22:13.120 --> 01:22:17.600]  Okay. Well, if you find it, please send me a copy.
[01:22:18.560 --> 01:22:24.000]  I most certainly will. And I'm so upset about it. You know, I mean, we've got enough other things.
[01:22:24.000 --> 01:22:30.240]  I'm still, like I said, we haven't even gotten response one yet from my defendants and they
[01:22:30.240 --> 01:22:38.560]  don't expect to before the end of September. It's been planned that way in my RICO case.
[01:22:38.560 --> 01:22:43.440]  Wait, wait a minute. No one's responded to your RICO case?
[01:22:45.120 --> 01:22:54.800]  No, I filed it in June, served them by mail at the end of July. They just sent in their waiver of
[01:22:57.520 --> 01:23:05.200]  service at the end of July. You know what I mean? They sent in their
[01:23:05.200 --> 01:23:12.800]  July 30th. They sent in their waiver of service and there were three lawyers that didn't bother.
[01:23:12.800 --> 01:23:20.000]  So that means I had to pay someone for civil service or service to process or process service,
[01:23:20.000 --> 01:23:25.360]  whatever they call it. And so that there was still another 30 days before they're due.
[01:23:25.360 --> 01:23:30.640]  And just before that happens, I'm going to amend my complaint because I've had other things happen.
[01:23:30.640 --> 01:23:37.360]  So I don't expect to get a response, like I said, until the middle,
[01:23:37.360 --> 01:23:39.440]  about the 20th of September or something like that.
[01:23:41.600 --> 01:23:48.080]  Okay. So I was thinking, and you might talk to the clerk,
[01:23:50.480 --> 01:23:57.120]  Ms. Becker, it may well be that this is being pushed to the Fed.
[01:23:57.120 --> 01:24:00.560]  That's why I want to see the ruling. If the ruling is not strong enough,
[01:24:00.560 --> 01:24:06.560]  it could well be that they're sending this to the Fed and asking the Fed to make this ruling.
[01:24:07.520 --> 01:24:10.000]  You mean the Supreme Court, the federal Supreme Court?
[01:24:10.000 --> 01:24:18.320]  Yes. But since this is a longstanding state law and this goes strictly to state issues,
[01:24:18.320 --> 01:24:21.600]  there's no federal issue involved here other than diversity.
[01:24:23.120 --> 01:24:24.080]  Right.
[01:24:24.080 --> 01:24:32.880]  Or for the federal court to rule that a state law making something a crime is optional,
[01:24:34.320 --> 01:24:35.840]  that's pretty astounding.
[01:24:37.280 --> 01:24:39.840]  Yeah. Yeah.
[01:24:40.800 --> 01:24:45.680]  So that may be that they're setting this up for the Supreme to rule on it.
[01:24:47.520 --> 01:24:47.840]  Yeah.
[01:24:47.840 --> 01:24:54.240]  There's more than one reason they'll give you a ruling. It's especially a bad ruling.
[01:24:54.240 --> 01:25:02.720]  They may well have another agenda because on the service, this seems outrageous.
[01:25:04.480 --> 01:25:09.280]  This is preemption way beyond anything reasonable.
[01:25:09.280 --> 01:25:17.040]  The Fed, in this case, will undermine every county registrar in the country.
[01:25:19.040 --> 01:25:19.520]  Yeah.
[01:25:19.520 --> 01:25:25.120]  So nobody in their right mind would invest in property in the United States
[01:25:25.760 --> 01:25:35.360]  with this kind of ruling in place because you can have claims against any property you purchase
[01:25:35.360 --> 01:25:40.000]  just come out of the clear blue sky. Yeah.
[01:25:41.200 --> 01:25:47.760]  Don't see this standard, but I would like to see the ruling when you find it.
[01:25:49.280 --> 01:25:57.840]  In Pennsylvania, interfering with the records of the recorder of deeds under the criminal code
[01:25:57.840 --> 01:26:06.640]  under tampering with public records is a third degree felony. And that includes concealing records
[01:26:06.640 --> 01:26:20.400]  that are recordable. And under the civil side of it, under Title 21, 621, there's a law that says
[01:26:20.400 --> 01:26:28.000]  if you have transferred interest in property, whether it's deed or mortgage, and it's been
[01:26:28.000 --> 01:26:36.400]  transferred to you, and you do not record that interest, you can never transfer it to another
[01:26:36.400 --> 01:26:45.840]  party if it's not recorded within six months. I think that says it pretty clearly.
[01:26:45.840 --> 01:26:59.200]  Then that might lead to a different tactic where MERS purports to transfer to another entity.
[01:26:59.200 --> 01:27:05.680]  Now you can use this statute to go in, and they haven't filed it, and the Fed said that's okay
[01:27:05.680 --> 01:27:12.240]  for them not to file it, but there are consequences, and this would go to consequences.
[01:27:12.240 --> 01:27:19.360]  Well, in my objection to my foreclosure, I bring that in, in my response, that they can't have an
[01:27:19.360 --> 01:27:25.120]  assignment or mortgage because it's been seven years, and if they don't record it in six months,
[01:27:25.120 --> 01:27:30.240]  it's no good. So how can they have it if they haven't recorded it? They can't transfer it now
[01:27:30.240 --> 01:27:36.240]  because they didn't record it. Is the original lender still in business?
[01:27:36.240 --> 01:27:42.720]  No. Is the original lender still in business? Yes, the original lender said they had nothing
[01:27:42.720 --> 01:27:46.960]  whatsoever to do with the assignment or mortgage. That's right. That's right. I remember that.
[01:27:50.000 --> 01:27:57.200]  So did the original lender claim any interest in the mortgage?
[01:27:58.160 --> 01:27:58.960]  No.
[01:27:58.960 --> 01:28:10.720]  Boo for quiet title action as to the deed of trust?
[01:28:13.120 --> 01:28:18.160]  It's a mortgage. Well, we filed the quiet title, and they dismissed it because my husband wasn't
[01:28:18.160 --> 01:28:24.800]  available. They filed the case in foreclosure. So I'm just putting a counterclaim in for quiet title.
[01:28:24.800 --> 01:28:30.960]  So you did file a counterclaim as a quiet title?
[01:28:32.080 --> 01:28:37.760]  Oh, yes. It's because of the forge you had assigned them a mortgage.
[01:28:39.760 --> 01:28:42.800]  That's fraud. That should be interesting.
[01:28:44.320 --> 01:28:50.560]  Yes. To see how this comes out. I think they got a hold of the wrong grandma here.
[01:28:50.560 --> 01:28:58.400]  Oh, yeah. Well, there's so many things going on with the foreclosure because on the assignment
[01:28:58.400 --> 01:29:02.960]  and mortgage, number one, it's forgery. It's forgery because if the date is five years off
[01:29:04.080 --> 01:29:12.720]  and under the criminal code, if it's off at all, if it's not a date, if the transfer occurred
[01:29:13.280 --> 01:29:17.920]  on a date other than what is stated on the assignment and mortgage, that's forgery.
[01:29:17.920 --> 01:29:25.840]  If it's purported to be from the original lender, and the original lender did not authorize it,
[01:29:26.720 --> 01:29:31.040]  that's forgery. So in two cases, that's forgery.
[01:29:31.840 --> 01:29:35.440]  Have you pursued criminal complaints on the forgery issue?
[01:29:36.560 --> 01:29:41.360]  Oh, yeah. They're holding them until all the legal stuff is out of the way.
[01:29:41.360 --> 01:29:48.080]  The legal stuff is out of the way. So has the prosecutor, hold on, about to go to break,
[01:29:48.080 --> 01:29:54.880]  Brandy Kelton, rule of our radio, our call in number 512-646-1984. We'll be right back.
[01:30:04.080 --> 01:30:09.600]  Ew. What's the most bacteria-filled object in a hotel room? Not to be a germaphobe,
[01:30:09.600 --> 01:30:13.280]  but a new study shows there's one thing you may not want to touch.
[01:30:13.280 --> 01:30:16.640]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and when I come back, I'll tell you what it is.
[01:30:17.440 --> 01:30:23.040]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:30:23.040 --> 01:30:27.440]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:30:28.080 --> 01:30:34.320]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy,
[01:30:34.320 --> 01:30:40.240]  it's worth hanging on to. This message is brought to you by Startpage.com, the private search engine
[01:30:40.240 --> 01:30:44.960]  alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with Startpage.
[01:30:46.640 --> 01:30:51.360]  When I stay at hotels, I'm generally suspicious of the carpet, and I always give the bedspread
[01:30:51.360 --> 01:30:57.600]  a wide berth. Okay, call me a germaphobe, but a new study vindicates at least some of my paranoia.
[01:30:57.600 --> 01:31:03.120]  In a survey of hotels in three states, the American Society for Microbiology found that
[01:31:03.120 --> 01:31:10.800]  81% of hotel room surfaces contain fecal bacteria, yuck. The worst offenders? TV remotes,
[01:31:10.800 --> 01:31:17.040]  followed by toilets and bathroom sinks. Light switches and phones also tested high for bacteria.
[01:31:17.040 --> 01:31:22.400]  Before using them, a little hand sanitizer might be in order. So which surface is safest?
[01:31:22.400 --> 01:31:27.760]  The headboard, but good luck eating off of it. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for Startpage.com,
[01:31:27.760 --> 01:31:35.360]  the world's most private search engine. This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell
[01:31:35.360 --> 01:31:39.440]  on the afternoon of September 11. The government says that fire brought it down. However,
[01:31:39.440 --> 01:31:45.280]  1,500 architects and engineers concluded it was a controlled demolition. Over 6,000 of my fellow
[01:31:45.280 --> 01:31:49.920]  service members have given their lives. Thousands of my fellow first responders are dying. I'm not
[01:31:49.920 --> 01:31:53.360]  a conspiracy theorist. I'm not a structural engineer. I'm a New York City correctional.
[01:31:53.360 --> 01:31:58.640]  I'm an Air Force pilot. I'm a father who lost his son. We're Americans, and we deserve the truth.
[01:31:58.640 --> 01:32:04.560]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today. Hey, it's Danny here for Hill Country Home Improvements. Did your
[01:32:04.560 --> 01:32:08.640]  home receive hail or wind damage from the recent storms? Come on, we all know the government
[01:32:08.640 --> 01:32:12.640]  caused it with their chemtrails, but good luck getting them to pay for it. Okay, I might be
[01:32:12.640 --> 01:32:16.880]  kidding about the chemtrails, but I'm serious about your roof. That's why you have insurance,
[01:32:16.880 --> 01:32:21.360]  and Hill Country Home Improvements can handle the claim for you with little to no out-of-pocket
[01:32:21.360 --> 01:32:26.480]  expense, and we accept Bitcoin. As a multi-year A-plus member of the Better Business Bureau with
[01:32:26.480 --> 01:32:31.760]  zero complaints, you can trust Hill Country Home Improvements to handle your claim and your roof
[01:32:31.760 --> 01:32:39.840]  right the first time. Just call 512-992-8745 or go to hillcountryhomeimprovements.com. Mention the
[01:32:39.840 --> 01:32:45.040]  crypto show and get $100 off, and we'll donate another $100 to the Logos Radio Network to help
[01:32:45.040 --> 01:32:50.480]  continue this programming. So if those out-of-town roofers come knocking, your door should be
[01:32:50.480 --> 01:32:58.160]  locked in. That's 512-992-8745 or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com. Discounts are
[01:32:58.160 --> 01:33:01.840]  based on full roof replacement. May not actually be kidding about chemtrails.
[01:33:01.840 --> 01:33:19.600]  Looking for some truth? You found it. Logosradionetwork.com.
[01:33:19.600 --> 01:33:33.760]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking to Leslie in Pennsylvania.
[01:33:35.280 --> 01:33:41.200]  Well, Leslie, this would be interesting to see how this second case works out.
[01:33:41.200 --> 01:33:50.560]  I have recently filed a rescission myself. We had someone who was facing foreclosure. They wrote us
[01:33:50.560 --> 01:33:57.200]  a quick claiming warranty deed, and we ran a set of calculations from the HUD-1 Settlements
[01:33:57.200 --> 01:34:10.000]  Statement and filed a rescission. And the bank, or the lender, responded to the homeowner offering
[01:34:10.000 --> 01:34:17.520]  to work with them. They never responded to the rescission. I was kind of surprised by that.
[01:34:19.520 --> 01:34:26.320]  They just pretended like it wasn't here. So the 21 days are up. Now I'll go in with a quiet title
[01:34:26.320 --> 01:34:34.000]  action against the Deed of Trust claiming that since there was a rescission and there was no
[01:34:34.000 --> 01:34:41.360]  objection made to the rescission, that the Deed of Trust is now void as a matter of law.
[01:34:43.360 --> 01:34:50.480]  Oh, hold on. We have gotten my foreclosure off, though. We rescinded and it's been, and they sent
[01:34:50.480 --> 01:34:57.760]  me, let me see, it was last year. We rescinded five years ago, and last year they sent us
[01:34:57.760 --> 01:35:06.960]  three offers of loan modification. And after we came back with our notice of dismissal of the quiet
[01:35:06.960 --> 01:35:14.000]  title action from the Court of Appeals, then they came back another time with an offer to modify the
[01:35:14.000 --> 01:35:19.920]  loan. And I said, are you out of your mind? It's been rescinded five years. You know?
[01:35:19.920 --> 01:35:21.120]  What loan?
[01:35:21.120 --> 01:35:27.760]  One of two businesses. It's a loan.
[01:35:27.760 --> 01:35:37.600]  Reading the case on that, once you have rescinded the note and Deed of Trust are abolished, you can't
[01:35:38.560 --> 01:35:47.360]  unresend. The only thing you can do is either both parties do tender or enter into a new contract,
[01:35:47.360 --> 01:35:52.160]  but it's gone. It's kaput.
[01:35:52.160 --> 01:36:00.640]  Well, from what Neil Garfield has said on his blog, Living Life, he was saying that they have to,
[01:36:00.640 --> 01:36:08.320]  within 20 days, file an objection to void the rescission, but they're limited to 20 days.
[01:36:11.200 --> 01:36:14.640]  And it's been five years, so what are they going to do? How can they void it now?
[01:36:14.640 --> 01:36:18.400]  And they never raised an objection within that time period.
[01:36:19.920 --> 01:36:20.800]  Not even a letter.
[01:36:21.520 --> 01:36:32.240]  I think they were depending on the notion that you had a certain amount of time to sue them
[01:36:33.120 --> 01:36:40.000]  in order to force the rescission. And that's what they were resting on. And then the Supreme
[01:36:40.000 --> 01:36:46.320]  Court did come down and dropped a bomb on them. Now they're screwed.
[01:36:48.480 --> 01:36:54.240]  With mine, they didn't respond within the 20 days. I waited another couple of weeks
[01:36:55.600 --> 01:37:00.400]  because I didn't want to go on the 21st day like I was sitting there like a vulture waiting.
[01:37:02.400 --> 01:37:07.920]  Well, what we did is we paid it for an additional six months because I know here in Pennsylvania,
[01:37:07.920 --> 01:37:12.000]  if they file a claim, they have six months to serve you.
[01:37:15.760 --> 01:37:18.800]  And then the case is dropped.
[01:37:18.800 --> 01:37:22.000]  Oh, okay. Yeah, that's the same here in Texas.
[01:37:23.760 --> 01:37:26.960]  So we kept paying it for six months thinking that, well,
[01:37:28.160 --> 01:37:31.840]  if we're served, it'll be within that six months, but nothing happened.
[01:37:31.840 --> 01:37:39.840]  So, you know, we're saved that way. You know, we just claimed it in our objection...
[01:37:42.160 --> 01:37:48.400]  opposition to their preliminary objections to the respondents' reply to the complaint.
[01:37:50.640 --> 01:37:51.600]  That's a mouthful.
[01:37:53.200 --> 01:38:00.720]  Yes, I sent it back to you for something, you know, I just finished tweaking it. We're sending
[01:38:00.720 --> 01:38:06.160]  it out tonight. So you got one of the most recent drafts of it.
[01:38:06.880 --> 01:38:11.280]  Yes, I have it. I haven't had time to go through it yet. I'm in the process of
[01:38:12.080 --> 01:38:19.040]  rehabbing the property and it's reminding me why I got out of the construction business.
[01:38:21.760 --> 01:38:22.880]  I really hate it.
[01:38:22.880 --> 01:38:33.600]  They sent it 165 points on why they should throw out all of my responses to the complaint.
[01:38:36.640 --> 01:38:45.680]  165 points. Man, that's a lot of research on the part of these attorneys.
[01:38:45.680 --> 01:38:52.240]  Man, he's full of it. Not only... I think they're afraid they're going to get a bad decision.
[01:38:53.840 --> 01:38:57.760]  Huh? I think they're afraid they're going to get a bad decision.
[01:38:59.120 --> 01:39:04.800]  No kidding, because I checked all the case law out and read the cases. They don't even apply.
[01:39:07.120 --> 01:39:13.200]  They don't even apply. They tried this one case where a contractor
[01:39:13.200 --> 01:39:19.200]  had a mortgage with a bank and they contracted to do the parking lot at the bank. And then when they
[01:39:19.200 --> 01:39:23.520]  didn't pay their mortgage, they put it in as a counterclaim for the collection of the money.
[01:39:23.520 --> 01:39:29.200]  And they said, you can't do that. Well, he's trying to say that because I'm counterclaiming
[01:39:29.200 --> 01:39:35.440]  for quiet title, that it has nothing to do with the mortgage. Hello?
[01:39:35.440 --> 01:39:36.240]  Duh.
[01:39:36.240 --> 01:39:46.240]  Were you trying to quiet as concerns to title?
[01:39:48.160 --> 01:39:48.560]  Yeah.
[01:39:48.560 --> 01:39:53.600]  The mortgage? That should get motion for sanctions.
[01:39:55.440 --> 01:40:05.440]  And they also tried to say that they put in for malicious civil proceeding as a counterclaim.
[01:40:05.440 --> 01:40:08.400]  And they're trying to say, well, that's not going to do it. Well, yes, it does.
[01:40:10.160 --> 01:40:18.480]  You know, how does that? That's not like a separate contractual event. This is part of the same event.
[01:40:18.480 --> 01:40:22.800]  It's part of the same mortgage loan. What's different about it? It doesn't apply.
[01:40:23.440 --> 01:40:29.760]  But he tried several cases like that and I got all of them and argued them in my points back.
[01:40:29.760 --> 01:40:34.800]  It's ridiculous. The stuff we try to pull thinking you're stupid.
[01:40:35.600 --> 01:40:42.240]  If he's citing cases off point, that should get a motion for sanctions. Especially if he
[01:40:43.440 --> 01:40:51.440]  brought this many points, that's causing you to have to go to a lot of trouble.
[01:40:52.240 --> 01:40:58.800]  You should ask for sanctions and ask for fees for the time you had to spend responding to this
[01:40:58.800 --> 01:41:07.680]  frivolous pleading, this frivolous action. Lawyers are afraid of sanctions.
[01:41:10.160 --> 01:41:18.640]  That's a primal fear that they have because the judge can sanction them anything he wants to.
[01:41:18.640 --> 01:41:29.840]  And you may not be afraid of the judges, the lawyers are. So going after him for sanctions is
[01:41:29.840 --> 01:41:37.840]  going to really tense up this lawyer. Well, I've already filed a motion to dismiss
[01:41:38.800 --> 01:41:45.280]  and a motion to amend my complaint. Not my complaint, my reply to the complaint.
[01:41:45.280 --> 01:41:51.440]  And on top of which, the funny thing was when I sent in my reply to the complaint,
[01:41:51.440 --> 01:42:00.320]  I attached the RICO complaint and the exhibits as Exhibit A. And as a result of that,
[01:42:02.640 --> 01:42:09.120]  the law firm that picked up this case when I decided to fight it, because they put in a,
[01:42:09.120 --> 01:42:19.200]  put in a, what do you call it? A robo, one of them fast track law firms that just whip out
[01:42:19.200 --> 01:42:25.200]  all these foreclosures. And they put it over to Ballard's Bar, which is top of the line.
[01:42:26.800 --> 01:42:36.240]  Well, they put in one of their other attorneys was going to follow this up. Well, when they
[01:42:36.240 --> 01:42:42.560]  saw and put anything in the court yet about the, the assignment of mortgage, anybody that touched
[01:42:42.560 --> 01:42:48.560]  that assignment of mortgage to use that, I filed them with RICO. So, because I already had this
[01:42:48.560 --> 01:42:53.840]  other guy in there, they brought him over from the other firm and put it in their firm. And now he's
[01:42:53.840 --> 01:43:01.120]  the one I'm still with, but he's with a different firm. They didn't want to sell it. That's,
[01:43:01.120 --> 01:43:08.800]  that's interesting. Yeah. I found it very interesting. This would be so good if you beat
[01:43:08.800 --> 01:43:15.840]  that big law firm. Oh yeah. They're the one that's in charge of the bankers, all the bankers.
[01:43:16.880 --> 01:43:21.680]  You should definitely, definitely go for sanctions. This, this hits them where they live.
[01:43:21.680 --> 01:43:29.680]  It does. Yeah. Well, I'll get them. They're lawyers. They can't argue
[01:43:30.560 --> 01:43:38.400]  cases off point. You can, but you're not a learning profession. They are. That's right.
[01:43:39.200 --> 01:43:44.240]  Okay. Thank you. Is that all? Cause we're about to go to break. You want to come back on the other
[01:43:44.240 --> 01:43:51.120]  side? No, that's it for tonight. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Leslie. Don't be a stranger. Randy
[01:43:51.120 --> 01:44:03.120]  Keltman, we'll be right back. You feel tired when talking about important topics like money
[01:44:03.120 --> 01:44:08.560]  and politics? Are you confused by words like the constitution or the federal reserve? If so,
[01:44:08.560 --> 01:44:14.640]  you may be diagnosed with the deadliest disease known today. Stupidity. Hi, my name is Steve Holt.
[01:44:14.640 --> 01:44:19.360]  And like millions of other Americans, I was diagnosed with stupidity at an early age. I
[01:44:19.360 --> 01:44:24.160]  had no idea that the number one cause of the disease is found in almost every home in America,
[01:44:24.160 --> 01:44:28.960]  the television. Unfortunately, that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity,
[01:44:28.960 --> 01:44:33.040]  but there is hope. The staff at Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other
[01:44:33.040 --> 01:44:38.800]  foxaholics suffering from sports zombieism recover. And because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading
[01:44:38.800 --> 01:44:43.920]  and watching educational documentaries without feeling tired or uninterested. So if you or
[01:44:43.920 --> 01:44:52.080]  anybody you know suffers from stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503 or visit them in 1904
[01:44:52.080 --> 01:44:56.720]  Guadalupe or bravenewbookstore.com. Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include
[01:44:56.720 --> 01:44:59.840]  discernment and enlarged vocabulary and an overall increase in mental functioning.
[01:45:01.120 --> 01:45:07.520]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with JurisDictionary,
[01:45:07.520 --> 01:45:14.880]  the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[01:45:15.520 --> 01:45:20.800]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer,
[01:45:20.800 --> 01:45:26.080]  know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step-by-step course,
[01:45:26.080 --> 01:45:33.280]  and now you can too. JurisDictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning
[01:45:33.280 --> 01:45:39.040]  experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[01:45:39.040 --> 01:45:44.720]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio
[01:45:44.720 --> 01:45:52.400]  classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:45:52.400 --> 01:46:07.280]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:07.280 --> 01:46:25.760]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio, and we're gonna go to Mark in Texas.
[01:46:25.760 --> 01:46:31.280]  Hello, Mark. Wait a minute, we're not really Mark. We've got you down in our database for us.
[01:46:31.280 --> 01:46:40.320]  What's that? Who should I call you? I'm Mark in Texas. I've always been Mark in Texas on
[01:46:40.320 --> 01:46:46.320]  the show. Okay, I'm kind of, you know, on the show, I've got an email from you that indicated
[01:46:46.320 --> 01:46:52.640]  that the Mark in Texas got in our database, but it wasn't correct. You just stay Mark in Texas.
[01:46:52.640 --> 01:47:00.880]  That works for me. We know who you are. That's fine. Anyway, yeah, more or less,
[01:47:00.880 --> 01:47:06.000]  hey, I wanted to connect with you because last night when I called in, it was kind of late,
[01:47:06.000 --> 01:47:12.080]  didn't have much time, and I just yielded my time to someone else. And Deborah Stevens had said that
[01:47:12.720 --> 01:47:18.720]  Mark in Wisconsin had called in earlier, and if the show's up, I'm certainly going to listen to it.
[01:47:18.720 --> 01:47:24.240]  But I definitely want to let you know if Mark in Wisconsin or anyone else that listens to the show
[01:47:25.040 --> 01:47:29.760]  might have any ideas about my case or matter, then I'm certainly happy to have them contact
[01:47:29.760 --> 01:47:37.360]  me and they can do it through you if you would like to put us together. Anyway, let me comment.
[01:47:37.920 --> 01:47:44.720]  Anybody who wants to comment on someone on the show or contact someone that's on the show,
[01:47:44.720 --> 01:47:51.280]  either a caller or a guest, just send me an email and with your contact request, and I will forward
[01:47:51.280 --> 01:47:58.560]  that email to whoever the person is. This way, they can respond to you if they choose, and I
[01:47:58.560 --> 01:48:04.240]  don't give up anybody's personal information and get them all upset at me. But anybody you want to
[01:48:04.240 --> 01:48:12.720]  get ahold of, let me know, and I will forward your email to them. Okay, go ahead. Yeah, well,
[01:48:13.680 --> 01:48:19.280]  I always, as I'm listening or waiting, I'm always hearing things that are relevant to my situation.
[01:48:19.280 --> 01:48:23.040]  I wish I knew everything that Leslie knew. She's in Pennsylvania, but that's got to be the best
[01:48:23.040 --> 01:48:29.600]  place to be in the country relative to fraudulent assignments and such or lack of assignment.
[01:48:29.600 --> 01:48:38.000]  Here it is. Boom, maybe not. In my case, I've got, there's a Supreme Court case where it says
[01:48:38.000 --> 01:48:41.920]  MERS can only act as an agent. They don't take payments. They don't do anything else, blah,
[01:48:41.920 --> 01:48:46.960]  blah, blah. I brought that up in front of the judge in my hearing. He didn't have a damn clue
[01:48:46.960 --> 01:48:52.400]  what I was talking about or didn't want to hear it, didn't say anything about it. And the plaintiff's
[01:48:52.400 --> 01:48:55.760]  attorney, I've heard you say this before. I've heard others say this before and definitely read
[01:48:55.760 --> 01:49:02.240]  it more than I want to. The plaintiff's attorney just said the defendant cannot challenge this
[01:49:02.240 --> 01:49:06.000]  assignment because they're not party to it. I know there's case law that busts that up.
[01:49:08.240 --> 01:49:14.560]  But in any event, when we were last speaking, we were talking about maybe a possibility of a writ
[01:49:14.560 --> 01:49:21.440]  of mandamus or maybe a writ of certiorari. I understand mandamus would be for the first level
[01:49:21.440 --> 01:49:25.680]  and certiorari is when we're going to the Supreme Court. I'm not sure much of the difference there.
[01:49:26.240 --> 01:49:37.280]  Okay. A writ of mandamus, that's a request that a higher court mandate an action by a lower court
[01:49:37.280 --> 01:49:42.800]  where the higher court orders the lower court to do something it's required to do by law.
[01:49:42.800 --> 01:49:52.800]  Got it. A mandamus is similar to a habeas. Matter of fact, in the Fed, they are the same format
[01:49:54.400 --> 01:50:00.000]  and they're in the same section and they are both with extraordinary writs.
[01:50:01.040 --> 01:50:08.320]  Right. Makes them real tough and rare. The case law that I've been reading,
[01:50:08.320 --> 01:50:16.400]  pretty much it all notes a writ of mandamus is appropriate only when an appellate court
[01:50:16.400 --> 01:50:21.440]  or when the appellate process would not be appropriate. I think in my case, there's a
[01:50:21.440 --> 01:50:26.960]  possibility and I'm curious about one thing that has never been clear to me and I know you would
[01:50:26.960 --> 01:50:33.600]  be the man to ask. So that's what I'm mainly calling in about tonight. In my case, there's
[01:50:33.600 --> 01:50:40.800]  a complaint. It's filed past the statute of limitations on the face value of the complaint.
[01:50:40.800 --> 01:50:48.720]  So they are saying that the last payment made was in 2007. They're filing it in 2013,
[01:50:48.720 --> 01:50:52.400]  six years and there's five year statute of limitations, actually a little more than six
[01:50:52.400 --> 01:50:59.600]  there. And so I would hope that it wouldn't be any harder than to say this complaint is a nullity on
[01:50:59.600 --> 01:51:04.320]  its face. It's void ab initio or whatever we might say as I read this in case law.
[01:51:07.600 --> 01:51:15.920]  That does seem appropriate for mandamus because you have a judge purporting to rule in the case
[01:51:15.920 --> 01:51:21.840]  when the judge lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Right. And I challenged it in the hearing.
[01:51:21.840 --> 01:51:27.120]  Exactly. I did it just like you told me to for the most part. I could have probably had
[01:51:27.120 --> 01:51:31.360]  a little better case law and there's very little in the state of Arkansas where this case is.
[01:51:32.320 --> 01:51:35.840]  But what I put in was relevant. And here's the question here.
[01:51:37.520 --> 01:51:43.680]  The judge does have some discretion in some instances, I suppose. And I'm wondering about
[01:51:43.680 --> 01:51:49.280]  that. Because it's never been clear to me when we've talked about it before,
[01:51:49.280 --> 01:51:54.480]  if the complaint has to be perfect. I know the complaint can be amended. Let's say they
[01:51:54.480 --> 01:51:59.360]  got it wrong. Later on, they want to assert something else and say, we were wrong about
[01:51:59.360 --> 01:52:05.040]  that. The last payment was actually in 2010. And maybe that changed everything. But they never
[01:52:05.040 --> 01:52:12.160]  amended the complaint in this case. When I responded, I made a mistake that has confused
[01:52:12.160 --> 01:52:16.720]  things. It hasn't put a nail in my coffin in terms of what's right and what's true.
[01:52:16.720 --> 01:52:25.120]  But I said to the court in my response that I had made payments. And as part of a workout
[01:52:25.120 --> 01:52:33.440]  as late as 2010, if those payments were essentially made to the lender in this state,
[01:52:33.920 --> 01:52:38.800]  they would toll the statute of limitations. But they weren't made to the original lender.
[01:52:38.800 --> 01:52:45.200]  They were made to a third party. And the third part, there's real estate code there. I don't
[01:52:45.200 --> 01:52:51.200]  know if it's in Texas or not. I need to look it up just for fun. But in the state of Arkansas,
[01:52:51.200 --> 01:52:55.600]  there was, I read this on an article. This is beautiful. You're going to love this.
[01:52:55.600 --> 01:53:00.000]  This is something you would have done. I read this in an article that I found online
[01:53:00.800 --> 01:53:05.840]  that was on a blog that was done by an attorney who ordinarily is on the side of
[01:53:05.840 --> 01:53:13.120]  the big evil baddies with money. And he was warning them about it. So boom, I go and I read
[01:53:13.120 --> 01:53:18.880]  these statutes. And it says that a payment made to a third party shall not serve to toll the
[01:53:18.880 --> 01:53:25.600]  statute of limitations with respect to the rights of third parties to take action in the future.
[01:53:25.600 --> 01:53:31.040]  I'm just paraphrasing there. So anyway, I'm sorry, I'm taking a while to go to this question.
[01:53:32.000 --> 01:53:38.400]  If I mentioned other payments later on, because I did, the plaintiff's attorney just said,
[01:53:38.400 --> 01:53:44.720]  the defendant did acknowledge that he made payments as late as 2010. And I said,
[01:53:44.720 --> 01:53:50.640]  your honor, I need to read the motion. It says this. But anyway, what I'm wondering is,
[01:53:51.360 --> 01:53:57.040]  if I made my plea to the jurisdiction, would the plea to the jurisdiction be,
[01:53:57.040 --> 01:54:04.400]  would it appropriately, would it by its very nature cause the judge to be required to consider
[01:54:04.400 --> 01:54:09.520]  just the complaint or could the judge consider information in the pleadings that have come
[01:54:09.520 --> 01:54:15.520]  afterward? I guess I'm asking, is subject my, go ahead, you tell me.
[01:54:15.520 --> 01:54:23.440]  It would have to be just the complaint. The original petition has to establish
[01:54:23.440 --> 01:54:26.960]  the jurisdiction of the court. Okay.
[01:54:26.960 --> 01:54:32.880]  If it is unable, if they're unable in the original petition to establish the jurisdiction,
[01:54:32.880 --> 01:54:37.440]  it doesn't matter what they do later. They toss it out and then they file another suit.
[01:54:37.440 --> 01:54:46.960]  That's the remedy, right? That's the remedy. Okay. Now, you know what? I have a writ of mandamus,
[01:54:46.960 --> 01:54:51.920]  if that is true. I was so worried as I read through these things, because there have been
[01:54:51.920 --> 01:54:58.480]  plenty of people who have looked for this and they have been spanked. And I have over the last
[01:54:58.480 --> 01:55:03.520]  few weeks been looking for an attorney that knew something about it. Some of the brightest people
[01:55:03.520 --> 01:55:08.240]  that I've talked to who couldn't help me at the time or who did other things, I've gone to them.
[01:55:08.240 --> 01:55:12.960]  They don't know a thing about it. They should, but they don't. And in that state, there's almost
[01:55:12.960 --> 01:55:18.800]  nobody who fights foreclosures. Here in Texas, I spoke to someone because I was trying to see
[01:55:18.800 --> 01:55:25.040]  if I could find someone who could help me with an FDCPA complaint, because there the lawyers get
[01:55:25.040 --> 01:55:29.760]  their fees, and I can go find the most brilliant attorney that does that, and I've got an ace.
[01:55:30.400 --> 01:55:35.920]  And I talked to one here in Austin. I won't name him unless you want to know. But I talked to one
[01:55:35.920 --> 01:55:40.880]  here in Austin, and he was very frank about it, beautifully frank. I can't even use the words that
[01:55:40.880 --> 01:55:46.000]  he used on your show, but people can figure. People who really care about the truth would be
[01:55:46.000 --> 01:55:53.840]  a little bit PO'd about injustice and things that happen. And he said, if the circuit court
[01:55:53.840 --> 01:55:58.000]  did not have jurisdiction, the appellate court does not have jurisdiction. Why would you even
[01:55:58.000 --> 01:56:01.440]  think about an appeal? Because that was what I was talking to you about. I don't know what to do,
[01:56:01.440 --> 01:56:07.680]  you know? And an appeal, generally, from what I hear is about 12,000 bucks. And then going and
[01:56:07.680 --> 01:56:14.640]  buying the transcript involved, I know I can buy the pieces that I would need, but going and buying
[01:56:14.640 --> 01:56:21.360]  the transcript from mine, my hearing, which took about five hours, would be pretty expensive. And
[01:56:21.360 --> 01:56:27.760]  I was like, thinking to myself, this is not something I really want to do. And I can't do it
[01:56:27.760 --> 01:56:34.880]  right now. I can come up with some strategies. But anyway, I'm going way off. Paul, I tell you,
[01:56:34.880 --> 01:56:42.480]  let me be sure that I have this clear. And I want to ask you if you could tell me what the text,
[01:56:42.480 --> 01:56:48.160]  is it in the, say, the rules of civil procedure? There should be something that clarifies that on
[01:56:48.160 --> 01:56:53.360]  its face, the original petition must establish subject matter jurisdiction?
[01:56:53.360 --> 01:57:02.000]  No, this is going to be in case law. Okay. Yeah, it will strictly be in case law. But this is well
[01:57:02.000 --> 01:57:12.720]  established all over the country. This is not a issue that's in contention. Okay. It's an issue
[01:57:12.720 --> 01:57:22.560]  that could never pass appeal. I tell you, I was so scared seeing what I've seen. If the judge could
[01:57:22.560 --> 01:57:27.840]  possibly say, you know, the plaintiff said that he made payments, and I'm not sure if they were
[01:57:27.840 --> 01:57:32.960]  made to a third party or not. So we need to hear this case. If he can even begin to do something
[01:57:32.960 --> 01:57:38.720]  like that, then I could figure that the real strategy between the judge and maybe the plaintiff's
[01:57:38.720 --> 01:57:43.200]  attorney, who's, you know, with a huge firm, and could be good for him later on, and he's no longer
[01:57:43.200 --> 01:57:48.160]  a judge if he really messes up. He's already done that a few times. It very well could be that
[01:57:48.160 --> 01:57:53.200]  they're just thinking, hey, here's a guy who's representing himself pro se. He's kind of smart,
[01:57:53.200 --> 01:57:56.640]  but he's definitely not that smart. And we're probably never going to see him again, because
[01:57:56.640 --> 01:58:01.520]  he doesn't have enough money to file this appeal. And that's exactly how a lot of people who are
[01:58:01.520 --> 01:58:07.600]  right end up essentially being disenfranchised by the system, which we're all taught to revere. And
[01:58:07.600 --> 01:58:13.520]  we should all, basically, as you very commonly, you know, say, be participants in, be the masters
[01:58:13.520 --> 01:58:19.200]  of. I'm sorry, I'm going off on the soapbox, but let me tell you, I fear everything you say.
[01:58:20.160 --> 01:58:25.040]  Hang on. We're about to go to break, but they kick the soapbox up under your feet. You get to
[01:58:25.040 --> 01:58:34.800]  stand squarely on it. Hang on. This is Randy Kelton. You've got radio. I call the number 512-646-1984.
[01:58:34.800 --> 01:58:40.000]  Carlos, Roger, Shane, I see you there. We'll get to all of you. We'll be right back.
[01:59:04.800 --> 01:59:11.760]  Meaning of the scripture. Enter the recovery version. First, this new translation is extremely
[01:59:11.760 --> 01:59:17.440]  faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes.
[01:59:18.080 --> 01:59:23.920]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance into the
[01:59:23.920 --> 01:59:29.280]  riches of the word beyond which you've ever experienced before. Bibles for America would
[01:59:29.280 --> 01:59:35.040]  like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking. This comprehensive yet compact
[01:59:35.040 --> 01:59:45.280]  study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102 or by ordering online
[01:59:45.280 --> 01:59:53.360]  at freestudybible.com. That's freestudybible.com. You are listening to the Logos Radio Network,
[01:59:53.360 --> 02:00:00.000]  logosradio network.com.