[00:00.000 --> 00:05.800]  The following news flash is brought to you by The Low Star Lowdown, providing your deli
[00:05.800 --> 00:13.520]  bulletins for the commodity market, today's history, news updates, and the inside scoop
[00:13.520 --> 00:21.300]  into the tides of the alternative.
[00:21.300 --> 00:29.080]  Markets for Wazeva 6th of February 2019 open with gold at $1,313.70 an ounce, silver $15.77
[00:29.080 --> 00:36.680]  an ounce, copper $2.83 an ounce, oil Texas Crude $53.66 a barrel, Brent Crude $61.98
[00:36.680 --> 00:43.320]  an ounce, and cryptos in order of market capitalization, Bitcoin $3,401.64, Ripple
[00:43.320 --> 00:51.640]  XRP $0.29, Ethereum $10.10 and Eos is at $2.32 a crypto coin.
[00:51.640 --> 00:59.640]  Today in History, the year 1918, British women over the age of 30 who meet minimum property
[00:59.640 --> 01:04.600]  qualifications get the right to vote when the representation of the People Act of 1918
[01:04.600 --> 01:06.120]  was passed by Parliament.
[01:06.120 --> 01:12.880]  Today in History, and recent news, several Texas-based organizations filed a lawsuit
[01:12.880 --> 01:17.400]  today requesting that a federal court stop the state from flagging about 95,000 people
[01:17.400 --> 01:21.960]  as potentially illegally registered to vote, the list was compiled after an 11 month long
[01:21.960 --> 01:26.320]  investigation by the office of the Texas Secretary of State and the Texas Department
[01:26.320 --> 01:31.320]  of Public Safety which sought to identify non-U.S. citizens who were registered to vote
[01:31.320 --> 01:33.360]  when obtaining age orders license.
[01:33.360 --> 01:37.040]  Over half of the 95,000 did indeed vote, it seems.
[01:37.040 --> 01:41.080]  However, further controversy was raised when it became clear that some of the names were
[01:41.080 --> 01:45.640]  not in fact belonging to those who were non-citizens and registered.
[01:45.640 --> 01:50.880]  Only around 25% of all Latino immigrants become naturalized, gaining the right to vote.
[01:50.880 --> 01:55.240]  Registered voters who receive letters querying their citizenship have 30 days to respond
[01:55.240 --> 01:57.080]  with proof of eligibility.
[01:57.080 --> 02:01.240]  Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and David Whitley, the Texas Secretary of State, have
[02:01.240 --> 02:09.000]  yet to officially comment regarding this list and any updates pertaining to it.
[02:09.000 --> 02:14.400]  A Texas man of only 24 years old, William Brown, died from a severed artery in his neck after
[02:14.400 --> 02:16.960]  a vape pen exploded while he was using it.
[02:16.960 --> 02:20.680]  It apparently happened in the parking lot of the vape shop where he got it.
[02:20.680 --> 02:24.280]  An x-ray revealed that a piece of metal was embedded in his brainstem.
[02:24.280 --> 02:30.480]  The vape store, Smoke and Vape DZ, has refused to comment.
[02:30.480 --> 02:34.560]  First edition anchor woman, Kristen Diaz, interviewed Aislin Campbell, the executive
[02:34.560 --> 02:39.520]  director of Grow Local, South Texas, concerning the upcoming Texas Organic Farmers and Gardeners
[02:39.520 --> 02:44.240]  Association Conference which will be taking place at the Corpus Christi Omni Hotel from
[02:44.240 --> 02:47.480]  February 14th to 16th, 6 to 9 p.m.
[02:47.480 --> 02:51.480]  You can find the interview at kiitv.com.
[02:51.480 --> 03:17.960]  This is Rick Rodeo with your lowdown for February 6th, 2019.
[03:17.960 --> 03:22.960]  Okay, howdy howdy, Randy Kelton, rule of law radio.
[03:22.960 --> 03:33.920]  On this Friday, the 31st day of May, 2019, I am turning on the phones.
[03:33.920 --> 03:36.720]  We will have the phone lines open all night.
[03:36.720 --> 03:41.480]  I'll call in number 512-646-1984.
[03:41.480 --> 03:46.520]  If you have a question or comment, give us a call.
[03:46.520 --> 03:53.440]  Start out with a little update on the electronic lawyer engine.
[03:53.440 --> 04:01.360]  I've been talking to my programmer and I want to bring him on the air.
[04:01.360 --> 04:07.480]  He's in St. Petersburg, Russia and I've almost got him talked into it.
[04:07.480 --> 04:13.320]  He speaks the language but not terribly well.
[04:13.320 --> 04:22.480]  The main reason I wanted to bring him on is so everybody could get a feel of what it's
[04:22.480 --> 04:25.920]  like to live in Russia.
[04:25.920 --> 04:36.640]  The impression I got from him is nothing like the impression we get from our government.
[04:36.640 --> 04:42.400]  The guy spends a third of his time on vacation, he vacationed in the Canary Islands this
[04:42.400 --> 04:54.520]  year and he vacationed for a while in Spain and then in Finland and I've got videos of
[04:54.520 --> 05:04.880]  him ski sailing on a frozen Baltic Sea and they do all kind of crazy stuff.
[05:04.880 --> 05:18.120]  They're just like us, economically and technologically they are as advanced as us if not more so.
[05:18.120 --> 05:27.880]  This is an image we don't get from our government and the one thing I think there is something
[05:27.880 --> 05:33.800]  different about the way he dealt with me and the way he dealt with other people that was
[05:33.800 --> 05:41.800]  somewhat different than Americans and it took a while to put my finger on what it was and
[05:41.800 --> 05:45.200]  it was respect.
[05:45.200 --> 05:52.600]  They treat one another with an underlying level of respect that I don't see here.
[05:52.600 --> 06:04.200]  I grew up in the Deep South and where I'm at now, I'm in Tennessee now and this older gentility
[06:04.200 --> 06:13.800]  that the South was known for, it was about respect but we pretty well lost that and he
[06:13.800 --> 06:22.720]  was a demonstration of respect for other people in ordinary interaction, it's not something
[06:22.720 --> 06:28.520]  you ever spoke of and never said anything about it, it was just the way he dealt with
[06:28.520 --> 06:37.800]  me, I would like you, everyone to experience what it's like to live in Russia and what
[06:37.800 --> 06:44.200]  you'll find is there are absolutely no different than we are.
[06:44.200 --> 06:49.160]  They think the same way we do, they react to things the same way we do, they just admire
[06:49.160 --> 06:53.920]  cultural differences.
[06:53.920 --> 07:07.040]  We are moving ahead with the litigation engine, with the electronic lawyer, I'm in the process
[07:07.040 --> 07:16.360]  of launching a site focused on the exchange commission codes as a proof of concept, all
[07:16.360 --> 07:20.720]  of that's coming together very well.
[07:20.720 --> 07:29.720]  We're at the point where the programmer and marketer are telling me stop working on the
[07:29.720 --> 07:38.120]  questionnaires did good enough, shift gears, now it's time to go to the market with it
[07:38.120 --> 07:44.560]  and I could not be more pleased so after all these years we're finally getting to the point
[07:44.560 --> 07:52.680]  where we actually may get this thing launched, okay we have a caller, Tina from California
[07:52.680 --> 08:00.240]  so I won't bore you with all of these technical details of what we're doing but we do have
[08:00.240 --> 08:06.240]  some exciting things coming online, I have a programmer out of North Carolina who is
[08:06.240 --> 08:14.520]  an expert in artificial intelligence and he's doing some really incredible things with the
[08:14.520 --> 08:22.880]  codes, he's taken all of the U.S. codes and he's broken them down into the number of words
[08:22.880 --> 08:29.880]  first is 50,000 words in all of the U.S. codes, separate individual terms and he's running
[08:29.880 --> 08:34.600]  a routine on them to apply definitions to them.
[08:34.600 --> 08:39.960]  If you've listened to the show a while you've had occasion where we've had someone on, most
[08:39.960 --> 08:45.160]  of the time this happens when we have someone that comes on the show to try to preach an
[08:45.160 --> 08:55.720]  agenda and they use terms that are defined in one code and try to apply it to another
[08:55.720 --> 09:03.640]  code, we find this most often when they bring terms from the IRS code and try to apply the
[09:03.640 --> 09:11.680]  idiom generally to other codes and it is one of the hardest things to get someone to understand
[09:11.680 --> 09:19.040]  the problem with, well my programmer is building a tool that will create definitions for all
[09:19.040 --> 09:28.240]  of these terms for levels of definitions, first level is if the term is defined specifically
[09:28.240 --> 09:41.600]  in this code, if it's not then is it defined legally or in this general statutory section,
[09:41.600 --> 09:52.440]  if not is it defined in legalese and the law dictionaries, blacks, abbreviates, if not
[09:52.440 --> 09:59.800]  then it goes to the general definition and if it's defined in all of them you'll have
[09:59.800 --> 10:03.640]  access to all of those definitions.
[10:03.640 --> 10:10.520]  This will be a great tool to make sure that we're using the terms appropriately in the
[10:10.520 --> 10:17.960]  context and this is something that is not out there anywhere and from that he's now
[10:17.960 --> 10:24.280]  teaching the tool to recognize parts of speech within the sentences.
[10:24.280 --> 10:31.720]  Subjects, objects, prepositional phrases, verb phrases and when you take English apart
[10:31.720 --> 10:40.440]  in its pieces, you need a subject, you need an object, the object can come before the
[10:40.440 --> 10:45.400]  subject but they both have to be there and you generally need some verbs to describe
[10:45.400 --> 10:53.560]  them. Well by looking at how these different parts of speech must occur in a sentence,
[10:53.560 --> 11:03.240]  he's beginning to teach the tool how to read legalese, there's been a lot of disappointment
[11:03.240 --> 11:11.040]  in artificial intelligence in trying to get it to parse the human language and part of
[11:11.040 --> 11:25.080]  it is that common tongue, common English is so incredibly complex, I speak, I'm multilingual,
[11:25.080 --> 11:33.360]  I speak hillbilly, I speak redneck and I speak Yankee, they're all different, they don't
[11:33.360 --> 11:40.280]  seem so different to you and I who are natural speakers of the language but if you're not
[11:40.280 --> 11:48.240]  a natural speaker of the language, you won't understand them, I have a partner in England
[11:48.240 --> 11:57.440]  that the Russian Nikolai commented today that he had a real hard time understanding
[11:57.440 --> 12:07.400]  Colin and I said join the club, I'm a native speaker of English and I had a lot of trouble
[12:07.400 --> 12:16.960]  understanding Colin so to teach an AI engine to understand English when a native speaker
[12:16.960 --> 12:23.760]  has trouble understanding it, that's quite a feat but here we're teaching an AI engine
[12:23.760 --> 12:34.200]  to understand a very specifically defined subset of English, legalese, legalese as it
[12:34.200 --> 12:43.280]  applies to statutory construction where the legislature takes great pains to ensure that
[12:43.280 --> 12:47.480]  every word is precisely the way they want it to be.
[12:47.480 --> 12:57.720]  So now we have a clearly defined set, we develop all of our basic tools on a defined set and
[12:57.720 --> 13:05.640]  from this set, once we can teach the tool to read the statutes, the purpose is to read
[13:05.640 --> 13:13.360]  the statute and turn the statute into a question and that's turning out not to be very difficult
[13:13.360 --> 13:22.400]  at all when the language is consistent, once you get that down then we will move to transcripts
[13:22.400 --> 13:34.080]  from trials, language as it's used in the trial is not as formatted and strict as it's
[13:34.080 --> 13:44.240]  used in statutory construction but it's still very closely controlled, it's still legalese
[13:44.240 --> 13:51.720]  so it extends our tool, once we get our tool to be able to understand the statutory language
[13:51.720 --> 13:59.400]  then we extend it to the language used in court and from there we go to depositions.
[13:59.400 --> 14:10.840]  Depositions are an intermediary between the general language and legalese and then from
[14:10.840 --> 14:19.040]  there we should be able to move on out to the common language, that's our plan but right
[14:19.040 --> 14:26.320]  now we have very good luck in parsing all the codes, getting them all carefully defined
[14:26.320 --> 14:35.720]  and teaching the engine how to recognize the structures of a sentence so when it's, the
[14:35.720 --> 14:42.800]  thing he's doing now is teaching you what parts of the sentence aren't really important.
[14:42.800 --> 14:50.440]  He shot my vicious dog, he shot my dog is all that's important to the sentence, vicious
[14:50.440 --> 14:57.240]  is just a modifier that's really not important to the sentence and we try to teach the engine
[14:57.240 --> 15:03.320]  how to recognize those modifiers and those portions of the sentence that don't go to
[15:03.320 --> 15:08.280]  the primary elements of a sentence, I don't know if this is making sense to anybody or
[15:08.280 --> 15:18.080]  not but it's kind of exciting, it turns out understanding the language is more straightforward
[15:18.080 --> 15:23.960]  than we might have thought it was and once we get the basic language down then we can
[15:23.960 --> 15:33.720]  introduce it to Redneck, Redneck has variations and we just extend from the basic structure
[15:33.720 --> 15:39.800]  to the Redneck variations and into the Hillbilly variations, into the Yankee variations and
[15:39.800 --> 15:44.880]  we can extend it out pretty soon, we'll have a tool that can understand the whole language.
[15:44.880 --> 15:52.520]  Okay, enough of that, kind of excited things are going well, going to Tina in California
[15:52.520 --> 15:56.000]  Tina, what do you have for us today?
[15:56.000 --> 16:05.400]  Well, we're going to follow up on the bank's answer to my declaratory judgment, my very
[16:05.400 --> 16:06.400]  simple one.
[16:06.400 --> 16:11.360]  Okay, let's start as if you were not on the show last night because a lot of our people
[16:11.360 --> 16:16.880]  didn't hear what went on last night, Tina was on the show last night, we ran out of
[16:16.880 --> 16:20.920]  time, so let's start back at the beginning so we cover everything.
[16:20.920 --> 16:32.960]  Okay, so I filed a petition for declaratory judgment on whether the California Statute
[16:32.960 --> 16:45.000]  2941 states that a mortgageor can request the original note back as paid in full once
[16:45.000 --> 16:50.440]  it's been fully satisfied, that is what the statute says, it doesn't say anything about
[16:50.440 --> 16:57.520]  whether it was foreclosed upon or anything, are we going to music, I can take it.
[16:57.520 --> 17:00.440]  Yes, we'll be right back.
[17:00.440 --> 17:05.400]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law Traffic Seminar, in today's America
[17:05.400 --> 17:08.760]  we live in a NUS against them society, if we the people are ever going to have a free
[17:08.760 --> 17:12.840]  society then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights, among those rights
[17:12.840 --> 17:16.080]  are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private
[17:16.080 --> 17:20.040]  capacity and most importantly the right to do process of law, the traffic courts afford
[17:20.040 --> 17:23.920]  us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through
[17:23.920 --> 17:27.880]  due process, former sheriff's deputy Eddie Craig in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio
[17:27.880 --> 17:31.600]  has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand
[17:31.600 --> 17:35.600]  what due process is and how to hold the courts to the rule of law, you can get your own copy
[17:35.600 --> 17:40.480]  of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today, by ordering
[17:40.480 --> 17:44.080]  now you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus
[17:44.080 --> 17:48.360]  the Life, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents
[17:48.360 --> 17:51.680]  and other useful resource material, learn how to fight for your rights with the help
[17:51.680 --> 17:56.200]  of this material for ruleoflawradio.com, order your copy today and together we can have the
[17:56.200 --> 18:00.720]  free society we all want and deserve.
[18:00.720 --> 18:06.040]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters or even lawsuits?
[18:06.040 --> 18:10.280]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mearris Proven Method, Michael Mearris has
[18:10.280 --> 18:15.200]  won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win two, you'll
[18:15.200 --> 18:20.040]  get step by step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil
[18:20.040 --> 18:25.480]  rights statutes, what to do when contacted by phones, mail or court summons, how to answer
[18:25.480 --> 18:30.080]  letters and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the
[18:30.080 --> 18:34.280]  financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[18:34.280 --> 18:39.400]  The Michael Mearris Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:39.400 --> 18:44.840]  Personal consultation is available as well, for more information please visit ruleoflawradio.com
[18:44.840 --> 18:50.160]  and click on the blue Michael Mearris banner or email MichaelMearris at yahoo.com, that's
[18:50.160 --> 18:59.600]  ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors
[18:59.600 --> 19:00.600]  now.
[19:00.600 --> 19:20.760]  If you are listening to the Logos Radio Network, www.logosradionetworks.com, please visit
[19:20.760 --> 19:34.680]  the Logos Radio Network and click on the blue Michael Mearris banner or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s
[19:34.680 --> 19:40.920]  Okay we are back, Wayne DeKilton, rule of law radio, and I apologize at the end of a segment
[19:40.920 --> 19:50.040]  I have picked up a 60 cycle hum and I don't have a producer here to trace it down.
[19:50.040 --> 19:54.560]  So Tina, do you hear a humming?
[19:54.560 --> 19:57.040]  No I don't.
[19:57.040 --> 20:01.200]  Okay good, then it must be only my side.
[20:01.200 --> 20:05.480]  It's definitely coming out on my headset, I just can't, it may be coming in my microphone
[20:05.480 --> 20:10.400]  and coming back out, Deb was a lot better at sorting these things out than I am.
[20:10.400 --> 20:12.400]  Okay, go ahead Tina.
[20:12.400 --> 20:20.280]  So anyway, I filed this declaratory judgment as, you know, what you said it's very simple,
[20:20.280 --> 20:28.440]  it's just asking the court to clarify a point of law and you know to me it's very clear
[20:28.440 --> 20:36.200]  and I would like my original note back, a mark just paid in full, in most cases because
[20:36.200 --> 20:40.640]  I think that there is something on it they don't want me to see which is why they won't
[20:40.640 --> 20:47.200]  send it to me even though they claimed they would and they claim they have it and then
[20:47.200 --> 20:53.960]  they claimed they would send it after the case was finished then they refused and now
[20:53.960 --> 21:02.320]  they are saying they filed a law to it and basically they're saying everything's barred
[21:02.320 --> 21:10.600]  by the doctrine of registered carter and then they say Colbert's first cause of action fails
[21:10.600 --> 21:16.360]  to state facts to constitute a valid cause of action.
[21:16.360 --> 21:20.760]  We don't have any causes of action in it.
[21:20.760 --> 21:27.120]  This is what I was talking about, that these lawyers just don't understand declaratory
[21:27.120 --> 21:36.880]  judgment, they just always they want to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
[21:36.880 --> 21:45.680]  I had a federal judge in Fort Worth, Texas dismiss my declaratory judgment with prejudice
[21:45.680 --> 21:50.400]  for failure to state a claim on which recovery can be had.
[21:50.400 --> 21:59.040]  I immediately filed criminal charges against him with the special agent charge of the FBI.
[21:59.040 --> 22:06.560]  That was so much fun and a number of people have filed the same document just adjusted
[22:06.560 --> 22:12.760]  for different cases after that and he has not dismissed one of them.
[22:12.760 --> 22:21.440]  So you should ask for sanctions against these lawyers for bringing these frivolous arguments.
[22:21.440 --> 22:24.040]  For bringing frivolous arguments, okay.
[22:24.040 --> 22:30.800]  Now the second thing I notice they have done is again on the second page in the introduction
[22:30.800 --> 22:36.800]  it states, I filed no less than five lawsuits blah blah, the complaint fails under the doctrine
[22:36.800 --> 22:43.720]  of Residucata, then it says the complaint fails as a mentor of law because plaintiff
[22:43.720 --> 22:51.120]  is neither a beneficiary nor trustee under the deed of trust.
[22:51.120 --> 22:55.280]  With the code of civil procedure, how can that be found?
[22:55.280 --> 23:00.520]  That should get a motion for sanctions for filing a frivolous argument.
[23:00.520 --> 23:04.080]  Another one.
[23:04.080 --> 23:09.600]  There are no claims being made before the court.
[23:09.600 --> 23:23.880]  So nothing can be barred by Residucata unless the court had already ruled that on whether
[23:23.880 --> 23:34.440]  or not the law required the lender to return the original note.
[23:34.440 --> 23:42.640]  No, in California they do not have to produce the note in order to be in foreclosure and
[23:42.640 --> 23:44.920]  to start a foreclosure.
[23:44.920 --> 23:47.600]  It's not a show me the note state.
[23:47.600 --> 23:56.040]  However, this is a statute that says once a loan has been satisfied, fully satisfied
[23:56.040 --> 24:04.680]  then the person who had that mortgage can ask for return of the original note marked
[24:04.680 --> 24:06.520]  paid in full.
[24:06.520 --> 24:12.480]  And the note was fully satisfied when they took out more than they should at the foreclosure
[24:12.480 --> 24:18.080]  zone, they were fully satisfied that note was.
[24:18.080 --> 24:21.560]  And they took all their extra fees and blah.
[24:21.560 --> 24:27.360]  It doesn't say in the statute that only if you're not in foreclosure, you can get it.
[24:27.360 --> 24:28.720]  It says nothing about that.
[24:28.720 --> 24:30.760]  It just says fully satisfied.
[24:30.760 --> 24:31.760]  Okay.
[24:31.760 --> 24:37.160]  That should get a motion for sanctions for frivolous argument.
[24:37.160 --> 24:38.440]  Okay.
[24:38.440 --> 24:44.280]  It's because it's in a relevant argument.
[24:44.280 --> 24:51.320]  Resjudicata does not attach to a petition for declaratory judgment unless a judgment
[24:51.320 --> 24:56.960]  has already been rendered on the specific question before the court.
[24:56.960 --> 24:57.960]  Okay.
[24:57.960 --> 25:03.520]  That's where I bring that in, specific question before the court.
[25:03.520 --> 25:09.120]  Now how do they, how are they able to say that the complaint fails as a matter of law
[25:09.120 --> 25:15.560]  because plaintiff is neither a beneficiary nor trustee under the deed of trust?
[25:15.560 --> 25:19.120]  Objection relevance.
[25:19.120 --> 25:20.120]  Objection relevance.
[25:20.120 --> 25:22.040]  And I can put that in the paper.
[25:22.040 --> 25:23.040]  Yes.
[25:23.040 --> 25:30.880]  It's irrelevant whether someone is a beneficiary or has nothing to do with anything.
[25:30.880 --> 25:41.240]  The only thing before the court is must the holder of note return the note when the note
[25:41.240 --> 25:42.240]  is satisfied.
[25:42.240 --> 25:46.800]  That's the only issue before the court.
[25:46.800 --> 25:54.040]  And this is one, what it says is within 30 days after the obligation secured by any deed
[25:54.040 --> 25:59.520]  of trust has been satisfied, the beneficiary or the assignee of the beneficiary shall
[25:59.520 --> 26:06.120]  execute and deliver to the trustee, the original note deed of trust, request for recombinance,
[26:06.120 --> 26:11.720]  which they don't have to do the full recombinance after foreclosure because that's what it
[26:11.720 --> 26:12.720]  is.
[26:12.720 --> 26:23.120]  But then it says that upon the written request of the mortgageor or the mortgageor's pair,
[26:23.120 --> 26:30.040]  successes or assignees, as the case may be, the original note and mortgage must be sent
[26:30.040 --> 26:35.960]  to the person making the request.
[26:35.960 --> 26:38.240]  That's the only thing before the court.
[26:38.240 --> 26:41.760]  Everything else they argue is frivolous.
[26:41.760 --> 26:47.560]  And each separate issue they bring should get a separate bargaining.
[26:47.560 --> 26:55.400]  Okay, then that I like, giving them a bar grievance is always good.
[26:55.400 --> 27:04.400]  So I do it to each action on the attorney that's signed this.
[27:04.400 --> 27:15.120]  And whoever the head of the law firm is, because under the American Bar Association standards
[27:15.120 --> 27:22.960]  and I almost certainly the California Bar Association standards because most every state
[27:22.960 --> 27:31.640]  adopted the American Bar Association standards, a partner in a law firm is responsible for
[27:31.640 --> 27:37.440]  the juniors, the behavior of the juniors in the law firm.
[27:37.440 --> 27:44.560]  So you file against the partner or the owner for what the juniors did because it was his
[27:44.560 --> 27:50.640]  job to direct them and control their behavior.
[27:50.640 --> 27:52.640]  That won't make them happy.
[27:52.640 --> 27:53.640]  No.
[27:53.640 --> 28:00.120]  They're saying that here it's indisputable that Civil Code section does not apply to
[28:00.120 --> 28:01.120]  Colbert.
[28:01.120 --> 28:05.520]  The loan was subject to a foreclosure sale that took place as part of the foreclosure
[28:05.520 --> 28:08.520]  sale.
[28:08.520 --> 28:17.000]  Almost as the designated beneficiary under the deed of trust substituted Barrett Daffin
[28:17.000 --> 28:19.920]  as trustee under the deed of trust.
[28:19.920 --> 28:23.400]  Following the substitution, Barrett Daffin as trustee proceeded with the foreclosure
[28:23.400 --> 28:30.280]  sale because they refused to accept my offer purchase and issued the trustee's deed
[28:30.280 --> 28:31.280]  upon sale.
[28:31.280 --> 28:35.480]  Accordingly, Colbert cannot maintain a claim for declaratory relief based on Civil Code
[28:35.480 --> 28:40.120]  2939 because Colbert is neither a beneficiary nor a trustee.
[28:40.120 --> 28:43.760]  I was the holder of the note.
[28:43.760 --> 28:47.400]  They're the ones who took it away from me and it's due to the foreclosure sale Colbert
[28:47.400 --> 28:50.720]  is not the trustee under the deed of trust.
[28:50.720 --> 28:51.720]  I never was a trustee.
[28:51.720 --> 28:54.040]  I was a trustee all, wasn't I?
[28:54.040 --> 28:59.320]  Well, deed of trust is irrelevant.
[28:59.320 --> 29:05.360]  What does a deed of trust have to do with the requirement of the holder of the mortgage
[29:05.360 --> 29:13.240]  to return the note to the mortgagee once the note has been satisfied?
[29:13.240 --> 29:15.600]  What does a deed of trust have to do with that?
[29:15.600 --> 29:16.600]  Yeah.
[29:16.600 --> 29:21.520]  So, deed of trust is irrelevant.
[29:21.520 --> 29:30.120]  And they also bring up something about, you know, I should have, I brought up this declaratory
[29:30.120 --> 29:36.960]  relief before but not under this particular point and it says I should have brought, you
[29:36.960 --> 29:41.760]  know, they bring in somewhere in here that I should have brought all this up before.
[29:41.760 --> 29:51.960]  But where I have found in that section I read to you last night, and we'll read it again,
[29:51.960 --> 29:59.120]  is California Law of Evidence 623.
[29:59.120 --> 30:07.120]  Thousands of Florida motorists convicted of DUI may very well have been driving under
[30:07.120 --> 30:08.640]  the blood alcohol image.
[30:08.640 --> 30:13.520]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be back with a tale of bad breathalysers and a government
[30:13.520 --> 30:16.040]  cover-up in a moment.
[30:16.040 --> 30:17.640]  Privacy is under attack.
[30:17.640 --> 30:21.240]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[30:21.240 --> 30:26.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:26.000 --> 30:27.440]  So protect your rights.
[30:27.440 --> 30:31.200]  Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[30:31.200 --> 30:33.760]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[30:33.760 --> 30:38.080]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search
[30:38.080 --> 30:41.600]  engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[30:41.600 --> 30:45.040]  Start over with StartPage.
[30:45.040 --> 30:47.200]  Ever hear the term fine farming?
[30:47.200 --> 30:51.720]  It's when cops find innocent people to bring in revenue, and it's apparently big business
[30:51.720 --> 30:53.640]  in the Sunshine State of Florida.
[30:53.640 --> 30:59.800]  This case involves breathalysers used to convict thousands of Florida motorists for DUI violations.
[30:59.800 --> 31:04.600]  Recently, reporters discovered that the devices were improperly calibrated.
[31:04.600 --> 31:08.240]  And officials knew about it for two and a half years, but did nothing.
[31:08.240 --> 31:13.240]  In fact, the head of Florida's breath testing program ordered inspectors not to document
[31:13.240 --> 31:14.240]  the problem.
[31:14.240 --> 31:19.080]  A DUI conviction can ruin somebody's life, but now that the cover-up has been exposed,
[31:19.080 --> 31:21.880]  perhaps Florida drivers can breathe a bit easier.
[31:21.880 --> 31:23.840]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[31:23.840 --> 31:27.080]  More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[31:27.080 --> 31:31.760]  I lost my son.
[31:31.760 --> 31:32.760]  My nephew.
[31:32.760 --> 31:33.760]  My uncle.
[31:33.760 --> 31:34.760]  My uncle.
[31:34.760 --> 31:35.760]  My nephew.
[31:35.760 --> 31:36.760]  My son.
[31:36.760 --> 31:37.760]  Go to buildingwhat.org.
[31:37.760 --> 31:38.760]  Why it fell?
[31:38.760 --> 31:39.760]  Why it matters?
[31:39.760 --> 31:40.760]  And what you can do.
[31:40.760 --> 32:03.280]  Hey, it's Danny here for Hill Country Home Improvements.
[32:03.280 --> 32:06.400]  Did your home receive hail or wind damage from the recent storms?
[32:06.400 --> 32:10.080]  Come on, we all know the government caused it with their chemtrails, but good luck getting
[32:10.080 --> 32:11.080]  them to pay for it.
[32:11.080 --> 32:14.680]  Okay, I might be kidding about the chemtrails, but I'm serious about your roof.
[32:14.680 --> 32:18.480]  That's why you have insurance, and Hill Country Home Improvements can handle the claim for
[32:18.480 --> 32:21.240]  you with little to no out-of-pocket expense.
[32:21.240 --> 32:25.520]  And we accept Bitcoin as a multi-year A-plus member of the Better Business Bureau with
[32:25.520 --> 32:26.840]  zero complaints.
[32:26.840 --> 32:31.040]  You can trust Hill Country Home Improvements to handle your claim and your roof right
[32:31.040 --> 32:32.280]  the first time.
[32:32.280 --> 32:40.960]  Just call 512-992-8745 or go to hillcountryhomeimprovements.com, mention the crypto show and get $100 off, and
[32:40.960 --> 32:45.560]  we'll donate another $100 to the Logos Radio Network to help continue this programming.
[32:45.560 --> 32:50.720]  So if those out-of-town roofers come knocking, your door should be locked in.
[32:50.720 --> 32:56.720]  That's 512-992-8745 or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[32:56.720 --> 32:59.000]  Discounts are based on full roof replacement.
[32:59.000 --> 33:04.000]  And I actually be kidding about chemtrails.
[33:04.000 --> 33:09.000]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[33:09.000 --> 33:23.000]  Yeah, I got the warrant, and I'm going to solve that to the head of the government.
[33:23.000 --> 33:24.000]  Okay, we are back.
[33:24.000 --> 33:29.320]  Randy Kelton with Logo Radio, and Tina, I don't believe it.
[33:29.320 --> 33:31.480]  You ran off the cliff.
[33:31.480 --> 33:33.360]  It was not me, I promise.
[33:33.360 --> 33:34.360]  No, no, no.
[33:34.360 --> 33:39.360]  I'm a guy you can't expect a guy to take responsibility.
[33:39.360 --> 33:41.880]  We never take responsibility.
[33:41.880 --> 33:43.680]  Just this once.
[33:43.680 --> 33:45.800]  Ask my wife.
[33:45.800 --> 33:50.920]  Okay, you were quoting the statute.
[33:50.920 --> 33:59.680]  So yes, California Evidence Code 623 provides, and please tell me if I'm reading this wrong,
[33:59.680 --> 34:06.000]  whenever a party has, by his own statement, or conduct, intentionally and deliberately
[34:06.000 --> 34:12.720]  led another to believe a particular thing true and to act upon such belief, he is not
[34:12.720 --> 34:18.640]  in any litigation arising out of such statement or conduct, permitted to contradict it.
[34:18.640 --> 34:25.160]  Now, Mr. McGinnity, in his letter on behalf of CIT, stated in writing, not once but twice,
[34:25.160 --> 34:31.480]  that the original note would be forward to me, and therefore I believed that and did
[34:31.480 --> 34:38.240]  not go forward with it during my suit because he insisted it would be sent after the litigation
[34:38.240 --> 34:41.360]  was over.
[34:41.360 --> 34:46.240]  That would come under promissory estoppel, wouldn't it, because I don't like it.
[34:46.240 --> 34:48.240]  No, no, not promissory estoppel.
[34:48.240 --> 34:51.720]  Not a promissory estoppel.
[34:51.720 --> 35:03.520]  Once you take a position, wasn't it you that had a mortgage that was being apparently held
[35:03.520 --> 35:15.480]  by Deutsche Bank, and Deutsche Bank went into a court with, I think Bank of America, Bank
[35:15.480 --> 35:21.440]  of America was suing based on a block of mortgages, and Deutsche Bank said, we don't have anything
[35:21.440 --> 35:27.320]  to do with those mortgages, and your mortgage was included in that, and then Deutsche Bank
[35:27.320 --> 35:29.200]  was trying to foreclose on that mortgage.
[35:29.200 --> 35:30.200]  Wasn't that you?
[35:30.200 --> 35:32.200]  No, that wasn't me.
[35:32.200 --> 35:41.240]  Okay, well, we had someone from California, and that goes to collateral estoppel.
[35:41.240 --> 35:50.080]  The lawyer, the opposing side said in court, or in court documents, that they would return
[35:50.080 --> 36:00.760]  these notes to you, and because of that, there was no necessity for you to adjudicate anything
[36:00.760 --> 36:04.320]  concerning the return of the note.
[36:04.320 --> 36:10.560]  They cannot subsequently come back and say, we will not give that note to you, and then
[36:10.560 --> 36:18.280]  argue that you didn't adjudicate this issue in court, that collateral will be stopped.
[36:18.280 --> 36:23.040]  That's exactly what this statute said.
[36:23.040 --> 36:27.920]  When you were reading it, I'm thinking, this goes to collateral estoppel.
[36:27.920 --> 36:28.920]  Okay.
[36:28.920 --> 36:40.480]  Also, Evident Code 622 says, the fact recited in a written instrument will conclusively presume
[36:40.480 --> 36:46.360]  to be true as between the parties there, too, or their successes and interests, but this
[36:46.360 --> 36:50.600]  rule does not apply to the recital of a consideration.
[36:50.600 --> 36:55.800]  I don't know what it means by the, does not apply to a recital of a consideration, but
[36:55.800 --> 36:57.680]  would that not apply?
[36:57.680 --> 37:04.160]  The facts recited in his letter saying, we have the note, we will send it to you, and
[37:04.160 --> 37:08.600]  it didn't come, and then they said, well, you filed an appeal, we'll send you the note
[37:08.600 --> 37:11.080]  after the litigation's over.
[37:11.080 --> 37:12.800]  Those two statements.
[37:12.800 --> 37:24.040]  A consideration is something one party gives to another party in consideration for something
[37:24.040 --> 37:29.440]  the second party gave to the first party.
[37:29.440 --> 37:35.160]  Returning the note to you was a statutory requirement, had nothing to do with consideration.
[37:35.160 --> 37:37.160]  Okay.
[37:37.160 --> 37:44.640]  So, you didn't gain anything by receiving the note or not receiving the note other than
[37:44.640 --> 37:47.160]  you were potentially harmed by not having it.
[37:47.160 --> 37:52.000]  This was something every statutory required to do, so it's not like they didn't give
[37:52.000 --> 37:59.080]  you money they owed you, you know, for there could be arguments as to who, you know, how
[37:59.080 --> 38:04.840]  much money or who had a right to money, whatever, that's consideration, but this is a statutory
[38:04.840 --> 38:07.440]  requirement doesn't fall under consideration.
[38:07.440 --> 38:08.440]  Okay.
[38:08.440 --> 38:13.720]  So, 622 saying, the facts recited in a written instrument are conclusive and presumed to
[38:13.720 --> 38:14.720]  be true.
[38:14.720 --> 38:22.040]  So, if they wrote in that letter that we have the note, we will send it to you, that facts
[38:22.040 --> 38:24.320]  recited in a written instrument, correct?
[38:24.320 --> 38:34.720]  Yes, and you receive that notice and you acted, you accepted that notice is true.
[38:34.720 --> 38:45.160]  And your future behavior was based on the acceptance of that notice.
[38:45.160 --> 38:50.560]  And then they failed to respond in accordance with that notice and now the lawyer would
[38:50.560 --> 38:58.800]  come back and say you did not adjudicate this at the time, absolutely you did.
[38:58.800 --> 39:03.120]  That's a frivolous argument, that should get a request for sanctions.
[39:03.120 --> 39:06.880]  So, I'll just write something up simply now.
[39:06.880 --> 39:13.120]  Do I just go on that part or do I do that as a main focus?
[39:13.120 --> 39:14.120]  Okay.
[39:14.120 --> 39:16.520]  None of that is relevant.
[39:16.520 --> 39:22.200]  Your argument is the argument they're making is frivolous, it's not relevant.
[39:22.200 --> 39:23.200]  Yeah.
[39:23.200 --> 39:24.200]  Not relevant.
[39:24.200 --> 39:33.720]  The only issue before the court is does the party have a duty to return the document?
[39:33.720 --> 39:39.520]  That's the only thing before the court, anything that does not speak to that does not speak
[39:39.520 --> 39:40.920]  to the court.
[39:40.920 --> 39:41.920]  Okay.
[39:41.920 --> 39:50.880]  And do I bring in the evidence code 623 to show that I relied upon his own statement?
[39:50.880 --> 39:58.000]  No, that's not even an issue.
[39:58.000 --> 40:02.520]  Whether you relied on it, whether you didn't rely on it, not before the court.
[40:02.520 --> 40:06.560]  But it's not should be, but as the reason I want to bring it before the court because
[40:06.560 --> 40:13.440]  of all that they filed and to say show that he can't change his stance once you wrote
[40:13.440 --> 40:14.440]  something.
[40:14.440 --> 40:19.640]  That's not before the court, this is declaratory judgment.
[40:19.640 --> 40:27.360]  And what they will try to do is lead you into an irrelevant argument, whether they promise
[40:27.360 --> 40:32.080]  to give you the note or not is irrelevant.
[40:32.080 --> 40:42.400]  The only issue before the court, is there a statutory or does the party have a duty
[40:42.400 --> 40:45.800]  either statutory or contractual?
[40:45.800 --> 40:51.360]  And in this case it's statutory or does the party have a statutory duty to return that
[40:51.360 --> 40:54.240]  document to you?
[40:54.240 --> 40:56.240]  Only question before the court.
[40:56.240 --> 40:57.240]  Okay.
[40:57.240 --> 41:02.360]  That should be helpful enough to answer.
[41:02.360 --> 41:05.080]  And it makes it easier for the court.
[41:05.080 --> 41:13.560]  You don't get, they're trying to drag you out into the briar patch.
[41:13.560 --> 41:18.520]  That's for sanctions for each one of the irrelevant arguments.
[41:18.520 --> 41:25.560]  And if I've done this before a number of times in court, just address the issue, it's irrelevant,
[41:25.560 --> 41:32.200]  it's not before the court, and we will not waste the court's time with a rebuttal.
[41:32.200 --> 41:36.280]  And the courts tend to appreciate that.
[41:36.280 --> 41:40.000]  They don't want to argue irrelevant issues.
[41:40.000 --> 41:45.720]  They'll make the lawyers look bad, give you a reason to bar grieve them for each time
[41:45.720 --> 41:49.480]  they do it.
[41:49.480 --> 41:53.120]  You never know what the politics is.
[41:53.120 --> 41:59.240]  These guys might not have paid the judge his pay off money this month, they may be late
[41:59.240 --> 42:03.920]  so he may want to sting them.
[42:03.920 --> 42:09.840]  This judge is not in their area, this judge is in my area, where I live now.
[42:09.840 --> 42:12.600]  This is not where they are.
[42:12.600 --> 42:14.600]  So that might be helpful.
[42:14.600 --> 42:18.840]  He may be paid off, but not paid off by them.
[42:18.840 --> 42:19.840]  Yeah.
[42:19.840 --> 42:27.400]  But it was a female judge and she was very nice to me in the court.
[42:27.400 --> 42:28.400]  Good.
[42:28.400 --> 42:35.200]  And he will like the fact that you don't get let off arguing irrelevant issues.
[42:35.200 --> 42:36.200]  Okay.
[42:36.200 --> 42:41.920]  And when they start to bring it up, objection relevance.
[42:41.920 --> 42:42.920]  Yeah.
[42:42.920 --> 42:46.120]  Well, she didn't do this, she didn't do that.
[42:46.120 --> 42:47.120]  Objection relevance.
[42:47.120 --> 42:53.920]  And you might tell the court apparently council does not understand the nature of a petition
[42:53.920 --> 42:56.680]  for declaratory judgment.
[42:56.680 --> 43:02.800]  You might ask the court to instruct council if what the nature of a declaratory judgment
[43:02.800 --> 43:04.800]  suit is.
[43:04.800 --> 43:07.600]  And the judge might like it.
[43:07.600 --> 43:12.520]  He might get it like the opportunity to dress down a lawyer.
[43:12.520 --> 43:17.960]  Do I put that in my response or wait till we go to the court next?
[43:17.960 --> 43:21.280]  Well, you go to the court, do that in the courtroom.
[43:21.280 --> 43:22.280]  Okay.
[43:22.280 --> 43:24.720]  This time we're not running off the cliff.
[43:24.720 --> 43:25.720]  No.
[43:25.720 --> 43:32.480]  I actually looked at the clock, which is Brandy Kelton's rule of our radio.
[43:32.480 --> 43:38.760]  And I did want to speak to this new funding program we've got going on.
[43:38.760 --> 43:44.400]  We're asking everybody to donate $1 a month.
[43:44.400 --> 43:50.640]  If we've got to have a thousand listeners, if we had a $1 a month from each one of them,
[43:50.640 --> 43:53.040]  it would support this radio session.
[43:53.040 --> 43:55.520]  It doesn't take that much to keep it going.
[43:55.520 --> 43:56.520]  And that would do it.
[43:56.520 --> 43:57.520]  Hang on.
[43:57.520 --> 43:58.520]  We'll be right back.
[43:58.520 --> 44:04.880]  At Capital Coin and Bullion, our mission is to be your preferred shopping destination
[44:04.880 --> 44:09.280]  by delivering excellent customer service and outstanding value at an affordable price.
[44:09.280 --> 44:13.160]  We provide a wide assortment of favorite products featuring a great selection of high quality
[44:13.160 --> 44:14.760]  coins and precious metals.
[44:14.760 --> 44:19.000]  We cater to beginners in coin collecting as well as large transactions for investors.
[44:19.000 --> 44:23.360]  We believe in educating our customers with resources from top accredited metal dealers
[44:23.360 --> 44:24.360]  and journalists.
[44:24.360 --> 44:27.320]  If we don't have what you're looking for, we can find it.
[44:27.320 --> 44:31.560]  In addition, we carry popular young Jebedee products such as Beyond Tangy Tangerine and
[44:31.560 --> 44:32.560]  Pollen Burks.
[44:32.560 --> 44:37.440]  We also offer one-world-way mountain house storeable foods, Berkey water products, ammunition
[44:37.440 --> 44:39.600]  at 10% above wholesale, and more.
[44:39.600 --> 44:43.560]  We broker metals IRA accounts, and we also accept big coins as payment.
[44:43.560 --> 44:46.560]  Call us at 512-646-6440.
[44:46.560 --> 44:51.520]  We're located at 7304 Burnett Road, Suite A, about a half mile south of Anderson.
[44:51.520 --> 44:54.640]  We're open Monday through Friday, 10 to 6, Saturdays, 10 to 2.
[44:54.640 --> 45:01.400]  Visit us at CapitalCoinandBullion.com or call 512-646-6440.
[45:01.400 --> 45:04.600]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[45:04.600 --> 45:11.360]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand 4-CD course
[45:11.360 --> 45:14.360]  that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[45:14.360 --> 45:19.520]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[45:19.520 --> 45:23.280]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[45:23.280 --> 45:28.160]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[45:28.160 --> 45:34.760]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[45:34.760 --> 45:39.560]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the
[45:39.560 --> 45:43.680]  principles and practices that control our American courts.
[45:43.680 --> 45:49.920]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[45:49.920 --> 45:56.640]  prosay tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner
[45:56.640 --> 46:23.640]  or call toll-free 866-LAW-E-Z.
[46:23.640 --> 46:34.520]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, ruleoflawradio on this Friday, the 31st day of May, 2019,
[46:34.520 --> 46:37.960]  and when we went off, I was speaking to our fund drive.
[46:37.960 --> 46:44.240]  The way we've been doing it hasn't yielded enough to keep this going.
[46:44.240 --> 46:54.080]  For the most part, the broadcasters chip in and add what it needs. Over the years, we've
[46:54.080 --> 47:01.360]  put a lot of money into this to keep it up, and that's okay. I certainly don't complain
[47:01.360 --> 47:11.360]  about it. One of these days, I will have the opportunity to look back at my life and ask
[47:11.360 --> 47:23.040]  myself, well, what did you do with your time that left this country in better shape than
[47:23.040 --> 47:32.080]  you got it for your children? Whatever it costs me to do this is worthless. I get paid back,
[47:32.080 --> 47:39.520]  but I'm limited. Once I get the engine launched and I get that thing up and working, I'll
[47:39.520 --> 47:43.600]  be able to fund the show with no problem, and we can stop doing these fund drives.
[47:43.600 --> 47:52.240]  Until I get that done, Deborah is really struggling to keep this thing going. This year, she had
[47:52.240 --> 47:58.400]  to redo all of the insulation in the house for all the equipment. She's got four or five
[47:58.400 --> 48:05.040]  computers running, and they produce a lot of heat. Her air conditioning bill was between
[48:05.040 --> 48:12.880]  $7,900 a month. The summer in Texas, it gets pretty hot. I don't know how much she paid
[48:12.880 --> 48:18.080]  to have all this redone, but it dropped her monthly payments dramatically, but she still
[48:18.080 --> 48:26.400]  has to cover the cost of this insulation. Everything else she has to do, she really
[48:26.400 --> 48:33.120]  struggles. I'm amazed that she's able to keep it working with as little revenue as it generates.
[48:33.120 --> 48:41.200]  If you could just a dollar a month, I think anybody could do that. If we can get enough
[48:41.200 --> 48:47.200]  people doing that, it won't be a hardship on anyone. I could stop coming on the air having to
[48:47.920 --> 48:54.640]  talk about finances. I would rather talk about interesting issues. Speaking of interesting
[48:54.640 --> 49:02.800]  issues, our call lines are open. We have a pretty well open board tonight. What do you
[49:02.800 --> 49:08.400]  only happen as we fill up toward the end? Have a question or comment. Give us a call,
[49:08.400 --> 49:18.320]  512-646-1984. We're going back to Tina in California. Tina, did you get a contact yet from
[49:20.400 --> 49:28.160]  Leslie in Arizona? I did, and she said, I do not have to read very far to see that the bank
[49:28.160 --> 49:33.120]  is out to screw you because you filed other lawsuits. I'm inclined to believe the courts
[49:33.120 --> 49:37.840]  will help them. She said, I've tried something you might consider that takes it out of the court
[49:37.840 --> 49:44.400]  and into common arbitration, something the California courts do like, and the federal
[49:44.400 --> 49:52.320]  courts obligated to uphold, as specified in 9 USC 9, 10, 11, 12, send a conditional offer to pay
[49:52.320 --> 49:59.840]  if they reject your offer. You can use that as a declamation of payment. But then I said,
[49:59.840 --> 50:03.200]  because it removes the indebtedness, I said, well, I've already lost the house.
[50:04.800 --> 50:10.320]  And she said, I would still file a unilateral contract of an offer to pay and then go to
[50:10.320 --> 50:15.120]  arbitration because even if you lost your house, they will owe you money for damages.
[50:15.120 --> 50:21.920]  But I'm not sure how that works. I think she doesn't understand what you're in
[50:21.920 --> 50:27.600]  right now. Did you tell her you were litigating a petition for declaratory judgment?
[50:27.600 --> 50:29.440]  Yes. Yes, I did.
[50:30.640 --> 50:39.760]  She's kind of focused on this mediation thing. And I think it's a great idea, but I don't think
[50:39.760 --> 50:50.960]  it's appropriate to this particular circumstance by stiffening them on everything and objecting to
[50:50.960 --> 50:55.760]  everything they're doing, you'll make the lawyers look stupid in front of the judge
[50:57.760 --> 51:01.200]  because they simply don't seem to understand what's going on.
[51:03.120 --> 51:08.880]  And then from what I've heard so far, their arguments are such that,
[51:09.520 --> 51:18.000]  have they addressed whether or not they are required to produce that note?
[51:18.000 --> 51:25.920]  I don't. Well, they keep saying that they're not everything as far, but I will go through
[51:26.480 --> 51:28.160]  their answer very carefully.
[51:28.160 --> 51:31.600]  Okay. Okay. Hold on. Let me explain why I asked that question.
[51:34.080 --> 51:40.240]  If they argue 100 issues, if they're not on point, they don't matter.
[51:40.240 --> 51:54.880]  I once sat as a judge in a mock trial in Massachusetts. And the guy who was preparing for trial,
[51:56.400 --> 52:02.320]  who was going to be tried, he got up and he's arguing all these patriot issues.
[52:02.320 --> 52:10.640]  And this was the first time I sat in the position of the judge. And it was a telling experience.
[52:10.640 --> 52:17.200]  I think everybody should do that at least once. Maybe we should put together some mock courts
[52:17.200 --> 52:25.520]  and pick someone to sit as the judge. When you have to sit as the judge, it dramatically changes
[52:25.520 --> 52:36.800]  your perspective. I'm into legal reform. I understood his arguments. For the most part,
[52:36.800 --> 52:44.480]  I agreed with his arguments. But I was sitting to adjudicate an issue.
[52:44.480 --> 52:57.360]  So all I can hear is what goes to that issue. You can give me all the most convincing arguments
[52:57.360 --> 53:05.680]  as to why I should rule in your favor. But if you don't give me facts concerning the issue before
[53:05.680 --> 53:14.880]  me, and the law as it applies to those facts, I don't have anything to use to rule in your favor.
[53:17.120 --> 53:21.280]  And at one point, he had someone helping him. At one point, I called a recess.
[53:22.560 --> 53:27.840]  They had actually picked a jury off the street, told him it was a mock trial,
[53:27.840 --> 53:34.640]  and got six people to sit as a jury. They didn't know any of us. And turned out it was really
[53:34.640 --> 53:40.800]  easy. A lot of people really agreed to do that. That was great. I called a continuance, and I
[53:40.800 --> 53:46.080]  told Annie that this guy, Jerry here, who's been trying to help him and getting up here,
[53:46.080 --> 53:53.200]  making these arguments, if he says one more word, you have my permission to shoot him.
[53:53.200 --> 54:03.440]  He's going to get you put in jail. We had the trial, the jury found him guilty.
[54:04.720 --> 54:12.480]  They had a second mock trial, the jury found him guilty. He kept arguing these patriot issues
[54:12.480 --> 54:18.160]  that had nothing to do with the case at Bar. He went to trial, they found him guilty, and gave
[54:18.160 --> 54:26.800]  him four years in prison. That was absolutely disheartening. He just could not stop arguing
[54:26.800 --> 54:33.600]  irrelevant issues. And what you've told me so far is these lawyers are arguing irrelevant issues.
[54:36.000 --> 54:42.160]  So the judge, you'll sit there and listen to those and say, so what?
[54:42.160 --> 54:50.080]  Whenever somebody argues an issue, I'm always thinking so what? I was talking to Eddie Craig
[54:50.080 --> 55:00.800]  today about an issue, and I said, well, what if they did that? So what? How are you harmed by it?
[55:02.480 --> 55:07.280]  And he said, well, you didn't know. I said, well, that would go to no harm, no foul.
[55:07.280 --> 55:14.080]  Yes, they did something wrong. But since there was no harm, there was no remedy.
[55:15.440 --> 55:24.400]  So what? So he did something. How does it apply to this case? How does anything that's gone before
[55:25.440 --> 55:36.160]  apply to whether or not the law commands the holder of the note to return it once the note
[55:36.160 --> 55:44.640]  is satisfied? If they have not addressed that issue, move for some re-judgment.
[55:47.040 --> 55:55.920]  Don't even argue all their trash. Ignore it. If they have not put forth facts and
[55:55.920 --> 56:07.200]  law that show why they don't have to produce this note, move for some re-judgment. Or why a party
[56:08.320 --> 56:14.560]  under law is not required to produce this note. It's the only thing before the court.
[56:16.480 --> 56:19.680]  Okay. Well, I'm not sure. One of the things they've said and
[56:19.680 --> 56:26.320]  addressed is that, so I'll cut and paste that and copy it. They've also asked for judicial notice of
[56:26.320 --> 56:31.120]  a whole bunch of stuff, you know, which is irrelevant, the note, the deed of trust,
[56:31.120 --> 56:37.760]  all these things they've asked for judicial notice of. Do I ask the court for judicial notice of the
[56:37.760 --> 56:44.560]  statute? Object to judicial notice. Yes, you asked for judicial notice of the statute.
[56:44.560 --> 56:53.120]  And object to the judicial notice concerning the deed of trust. Any adjudication that has went on
[56:53.120 --> 57:04.880]  that does not go directly to the requirement that the lender return the note. Anything that doesn't
[57:04.880 --> 57:12.400]  go to that is relevant to the case and you object to it. It's just they're asking for judicial notice
[57:12.400 --> 57:17.680]  of all the orders of the courts, the bankruptcy. Subjection, the relevance.
[57:17.680 --> 57:25.040]  Subjection of trustee, yep. So I object to all their request for judicial notice and I ask the
[57:25.040 --> 57:31.840]  court for judicial notice of the statute and the statute alone. Yeah, that's the only thing before
[57:31.840 --> 57:44.080]  the court and then move for some judgment. Okay. If they did not address the statute and notice
[57:44.080 --> 57:56.480]  the court of a exception to the requirement to produce the note, then they haven't put anything
[57:56.480 --> 58:08.160]  before the court. Okay. Yeah, and I think your judge will like that. Okay. Judges like it when
[58:08.160 --> 58:14.320]  you give them, when you get around all the garbage in the obfuscation and get right to the point.
[58:15.680 --> 58:23.200]  And for a prosa to come in and sting the lawyers, what we're talking about here is what prosa's
[58:23.200 --> 58:29.840]  generally do. They argue they're on issues. The lawyers are coming into court and they
[58:29.840 --> 58:35.520]  don't have an issue to argue. So they're just throwing up smoke screen.
[58:38.160 --> 58:43.920]  And if you don't bite on that smoke screen, then they've presented nothing. Hang on,
[58:43.920 --> 58:47.600]  about to go to break. Grantic Elton, we have our radio. We'll be right back.
[58:47.600 --> 58:54.080]  Would you like to make more definite progress in your walk with God?
[58:54.080 --> 58:59.680]  Bibles for America is offering a free study Bible and a set of free Christian books that
[58:59.680 --> 59:04.480]  can really help. The New Testament recovery version is one of the most comprehensive study
[59:04.480 --> 59:10.000]  Bibles available today. It's an accurate translation and it contains thousands of footnotes that will
[59:10.000 --> 59:16.000]  help you to know God and to know the meaning of life. The free books are a three volume set called
[59:16.000 --> 59:21.360]  basic elements of the Christian life. Chapter by chapter, basic elements of the Christian life
[59:21.360 --> 59:27.760]  clearly presents God's plan of salvation, growing in Christ and how to build up the church.
[59:27.760 --> 59:33.280]  To order your free New Testament recovery version and basic elements of the Christian life,
[59:33.840 --> 59:45.040]  call Bibles for America toll free at 888-551-0102. That's 888-551-0102.
[59:45.040 --> 59:49.040]  Or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:00:15.920 --> 01:00:27.280]  Markets for Wednesday, the 6th of February, 2019. Opened with gold at $1,313.70 an ounce.
[01:00:27.280 --> 01:00:34.720]  Silver, $15.77 an ounce. Copper, $2.83 an ounce. Oil, Texas crude, $3.66 a barrel.
[01:00:34.720 --> 01:00:39.680]  Brand crude, $61.98 a barrel. And cryptos in order of market capitalization,
[01:00:39.680 --> 01:00:49.680]  Bitcoin, $3,401.64. Ripple, XRP, $0.29 a theory of $103.10 and Eos is at $2.32 a
[01:00:49.680 --> 01:00:59.680]  crypto coin. History, the year 1918. British women over the age of 30 who meet minimum property
[01:00:59.680 --> 01:01:04.720]  qualifications get the right to vote when the representation of the People Act of 1918 was
[01:01:04.720 --> 01:01:12.080]  passed by parliament today in history. In recent years, several Texas-based organizations
[01:01:12.080 --> 01:01:17.040]  filed a lawsuit today requesting that a federal court stop the state from flagging about 95,000
[01:01:17.040 --> 01:01:21.600]  people as potentially illegally registered to vote. The list was compiled after an 11th month
[01:01:21.600 --> 01:01:26.240]  long investigation by the office of the Texas Secretary of State and the Texas Department
[01:01:26.240 --> 01:01:31.840]  of Public Safety, which sought to identify non-U.S. citizens who were registered to vote when obtaining
[01:01:31.840 --> 01:01:37.760]  age arbitrage license. Over half of the 95,000 didn't indeed vote, it seems. However, further
[01:01:37.760 --> 01:01:42.720]  controversy was raised when it became clear that some of the names were not in fact belonging to
[01:01:42.720 --> 01:01:47.840]  those who were non-citizens and registered. Apparently, around 25% of all Latino immigrants
[01:01:47.840 --> 01:01:52.800]  become naturalized, gaining the right to vote. Registered voters who receive letters querying
[01:01:52.800 --> 01:01:57.920]  their citizenship have 30 days to respond with proof of eligibility. Texas Attorney General Ken
[01:01:57.920 --> 01:02:02.960]  Paxton and David Whitley, the Texas Secretary of State, have yet to officially comment regarding
[01:02:02.960 --> 01:02:11.840]  this list and any updates pertaining to it. A Texas man of only 24 years old, William Brown,
[01:02:11.840 --> 01:02:16.720]  died from a severed artery in his neck after a vape pen exploded while he was using it.
[01:02:16.720 --> 01:02:20.480]  It apparently happened in the parking lot of the vape shop where he got it.
[01:02:20.480 --> 01:02:24.880]  An X-ray revealed that a piece of metal was embedded in his brainstem. The vape store,
[01:02:24.880 --> 01:02:32.640]  Smoke and Vape DZ, has refused to comment. First edition anchorwoman, Kristen Diaz interviewed
[01:02:32.640 --> 01:02:37.600]  Aislin Campbell, the executive director of Grow Local, South Texas, concerning the upcoming
[01:02:37.600 --> 01:02:42.160]  Texas Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association conference, which will be taking place at the
[01:02:42.160 --> 01:02:48.560]  Corpus Christi Omni Hotel from February 14th to 16th, 6 to 9 p.m. You can find the interview at
[01:02:48.560 --> 01:02:57.920]  kiitv.com. This is Rick Rody with your lowdown for February 6th, 2019.
[01:03:18.960 --> 01:03:35.440]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Rula Royal Radio, and we're talking to Tina in California.
[01:03:36.400 --> 01:03:45.040]  Okay, and I'm glad you went to this because this is a subtle issue, Tina. We get a pleading and we
[01:03:45.040 --> 01:03:51.680]  want to just, we should see these stupid arguments and we want to just jump in there and land on
[01:03:51.680 --> 01:03:59.120]  those arguments and demonstrate how stupid they are. Please, Mr. Farmer, don't throw me in that
[01:03:59.120 --> 01:04:08.880]  bribe patch. That's exactly what that is. We're being had. We're being manipulated into arguing
[01:04:08.880 --> 01:04:20.400]  and a relevant issue. First thing, back up. What is before the court? What must be shown to the court
[01:04:20.400 --> 01:04:27.920]  and is what they're arguing actually before the court? It's hard sometimes. It's so...
[01:04:28.880 --> 01:04:34.240]  Yes, it is hard because you want to go back at them because they're attacking you and trying to
[01:04:34.240 --> 01:04:40.000]  make you look bad and you want to say, no, they're lying. They're lying. And I'd like to
[01:04:40.000 --> 01:04:46.000]  keep it simple and say this argument is not before the court. Just one thing.
[01:04:46.000 --> 01:05:05.760]  Right. Yeah, and the court will recognize that you didn't... Excuse me, choking your...
[01:05:05.760 --> 01:05:22.320]  Yeah. Something went the wrong way. Okay, this is where I need a cold. Talk, Tina. I can't talk.
[01:05:22.960 --> 01:05:29.760]  Well, I think what you're trying to say, Randy, and I like it, is that the court will appreciate
[01:05:29.760 --> 01:05:35.600]  that I didn't fight and that I'm not taking up time with the relevant issues and that I'm not
[01:05:35.600 --> 01:05:43.440]  being emotional because most of us are emotional about these issues. And I think that I see where
[01:05:43.440 --> 01:05:50.560]  your point is there, that they will see me being calm and collected and not jumping at anything
[01:05:50.560 --> 01:05:59.120]  they throw at me to make me look bad. I think it's a very good point to go on, but it's a very
[01:05:59.120 --> 01:06:08.320]  hard thing for I think all of us doing this to listen to you. I think I need to bring you in
[01:06:08.320 --> 01:06:17.040]  as a co-host. Well, maybe one day when I've learned as much as you have, that would be good.
[01:06:17.040 --> 01:06:24.400]  By the way, while we were talking, I was trying to start to send to you and it said it was all
[01:06:24.400 --> 01:06:31.040]  going through. I went on your donation site and I'm doing $2 a month, but then it said there
[01:06:31.040 --> 01:06:39.280]  was a problem, so I don't know that you will have got it. So I will check tomorrow with PayPal and
[01:06:39.280 --> 01:06:45.280]  see what the issue was. I'll have Deborah look at PayPal and make sure it's working right.
[01:06:45.280 --> 01:06:53.920]  But thank you for that. If everybody did $2 a month, we'd be rocking and rolling here.
[01:06:55.920 --> 01:07:02.640]  Because Deborah's gotten pretty good at keeping things going on a shoestring.
[01:07:03.600 --> 01:07:10.800]  Deborah and I spent probably three weeks backing forth. I'm an electrical engineer.
[01:07:10.800 --> 01:07:21.440]  One of our major mixers went down and she has a little bit of experience in this area,
[01:07:21.440 --> 01:07:27.360]  but she called me and told me what was going on and we kicked this back and forth.
[01:07:27.360 --> 01:07:33.360]  It took us a month and a half. I didn't have it in front of me, so I couldn't do my own testing,
[01:07:33.360 --> 01:07:38.880]  but it turned out to be some Silicon Control rectifiers deep inside the unit
[01:07:38.880 --> 01:07:46.960]  that we went through the schematics. Finally, after I was able to understand the schematics,
[01:07:46.960 --> 01:07:57.120]  I sent her to these SCRs and she changed the SCRs. It came back up. It would come on and
[01:07:57.680 --> 01:08:02.640]  be on for a couple of seconds and shut off. Then it would come back on, be on, and shut off.
[01:08:02.640 --> 01:08:08.960]  I was saying, that sounds like something heating up and we finally figured out what it was,
[01:08:08.960 --> 01:08:15.120]  but that's the kind of stuff she does to keep this thing on the air. She's got equipment
[01:08:15.120 --> 01:08:22.000]  that should have been long dead. She's using some machines that still run Windows XP
[01:08:23.680 --> 01:08:28.000]  because some of the primary software that she uses to keep this show going
[01:08:28.000 --> 01:08:36.640]  and only runs on XP to upgrade that software would cost on the order of $15,000 to $20,000.
[01:08:37.840 --> 01:08:43.360]  So she's got these old obsolete machines that she keeps running. It's quite a feat
[01:08:44.480 --> 01:08:53.360]  for her to keep these things going. I watched her write the software for this radio station.
[01:08:53.360 --> 01:09:01.120]  She wrote all of it and frankly, she's not qualified. She just had to learn it as she went along.
[01:09:02.400 --> 01:09:13.040]  These were one of the few broadcasters that our broadcast times exactly to the standard
[01:09:13.040 --> 01:09:21.440]  radio broadcast networks. When I say exactly to the half a second, we come in, we bring ourselves
[01:09:21.440 --> 01:09:27.600]  in. We can delay coming in, but when we go out, we go out to the half a second so that the
[01:09:29.600 --> 01:09:36.320]  commercials can start exactly on time no matter what station pools our stream.
[01:09:37.120 --> 01:09:43.760]  And it took a tremendous amount to do that. Right now, I'm producing the show myself and
[01:09:43.760 --> 01:09:52.960]  I have a tool that she wrote and I can just do a couple of minor things with it. I can
[01:09:52.960 --> 01:09:59.840]  barely keep the show going with it. If anything goes wrong, this is way too complex for me to
[01:09:59.840 --> 01:10:07.040]  understand and she did all of this and maintains all of it. So anything you can do to help us
[01:10:07.040 --> 01:10:18.160]  we greatly appreciate it. And thanks for being with us. You're welcome. You do so much for us
[01:10:18.160 --> 01:10:24.880]  and I really appreciate it. So I'm going to start trying to write this and come see if I can get
[01:10:24.880 --> 01:10:33.360]  someone to figure out if I've done it correctly and then I will make these answers. Is it good
[01:10:33.360 --> 01:10:40.720]  to wait till the last minute you have to answer and look good to do it as soon as you can?
[01:10:41.520 --> 01:10:45.200]  I'm going to suggest that you file a motion for summary judgment
[01:10:48.240 --> 01:10:58.880]  and or even default judgment because they did not know I'm sorry not default they did answer.
[01:10:58.880 --> 01:11:06.960]  Yes. So file a motion for summary judgment since they failed to address the only issue before the
[01:11:06.960 --> 01:11:13.840]  court. I like that part that's very simple and I'm betting the judge is going to like that too
[01:11:15.840 --> 01:11:21.760]  because he's going to get to to tell these litigants the lawyers when they start arguing
[01:11:21.760 --> 01:11:29.600]  these issues. Don't waste my time with that trash. It's not before the court. We have this one issue
[01:11:29.600 --> 01:11:38.560]  before the court. Did you argue this issue and if they didn't it's too late. They had to put it
[01:11:38.560 --> 01:11:53.280]  in their answer. Yes that's very good. Any issues in the live pleadings not objected to
[01:11:54.480 --> 01:12:03.440]  are construed to give judicial admission and they're forbidden to argue it. I can't quote that
[01:12:03.440 --> 01:12:08.720]  exactly but it says in a subsequent hearing they're forbidden to argue those issues if they haven't
[01:12:09.600 --> 01:12:16.240]  responded to them. So they responded to the court but they didn't respond to the issue so it was an
[01:12:16.240 --> 01:12:25.200]  unresponse and I bet they won't see that coming. No they probably won't. They won't see it coming
[01:12:25.200 --> 01:12:37.040]  for me not biting at their two and a half inch thick response. The judge will probably get a
[01:12:37.040 --> 01:12:44.160]  kick out of it if you ask him to take their two and a half inch thick response and throw it in
[01:12:44.160 --> 01:12:51.680]  trash because it didn't address anything before the court and it may teach these lawyers a little
[01:12:51.680 --> 01:13:02.560]  bit about declaratory judges. Yeah well you know they probably as you said they're trying to do
[01:13:02.560 --> 01:13:13.840]  some churning and then they will come in and ask the court for a call to whatever they tried to do
[01:13:13.840 --> 01:13:19.840]  last time was $50,000. They already added $30,000 to the note without the court permission and took
[01:13:19.840 --> 01:13:27.520]  that at the foreclosures now so they'll come in for more because that's what they do. Very unlikely
[01:13:27.520 --> 01:13:33.440]  here they're not likely to get anything. I don't think they can get I know in Texas there are
[01:13:33.440 --> 01:13:42.080]  restrictions on attorney fees and petitions for declaratory judgment. Declareatory judgment was
[01:13:42.080 --> 01:13:54.800]  put in to avoid having to go to trial and adjudicate issues that could be done without trial.
[01:13:57.680 --> 01:14:09.280]  It's kind of like a pre litigation discovery. I have some a guy in west Texas that he had a
[01:14:09.280 --> 01:14:15.440]  bunch of houses that he's renting out and he got sick a couple years ago and immediately the bank
[01:14:15.440 --> 01:14:27.360]  tried to foreclose on everything and he brought me out of there. The banker filed a notice of
[01:14:27.360 --> 01:14:34.400]  acceleration and he was terrified he's going to lose everything so I come out and filed since
[01:14:34.400 --> 01:14:42.080]  everything was given in his personal name we filed a a qualified written request on each mortgage and
[01:14:42.080 --> 01:14:48.000]  the lawyer objected saying that these were commercial loans and he said okay so we petitioned
[01:14:48.000 --> 01:14:56.480]  for a different for a pre litigation discovery. It's like a declaratory judgment. It's something
[01:14:56.480 --> 01:15:06.560]  you do to determine if you actually have a case so that before you get into a protracted lawsuit
[01:15:06.560 --> 01:15:15.040]  with these people you get a ruling on a point of law and if the judge rules against you there is no
[01:15:15.040 --> 01:15:25.360]  case so it just goes away. If the judge rules in your favor they're screwed then when you go to court
[01:15:25.360 --> 01:15:35.200]  your primary issue is res judicata and then the only issue is is harm that they caused you but
[01:15:35.200 --> 01:15:44.560]  not providing that document. Declare to I mean the pre litigation discovery is similar. Whenever
[01:15:44.560 --> 01:15:52.880]  you are in a mortgage situation a foreclosure situation the bank will do everything they can
[01:15:52.880 --> 01:16:01.840]  to avoid discovery. They did in my case. That's they want to avoid that like the plague and a couple
[01:16:01.840 --> 01:16:09.040]  years ago the law changed in Texas. Texas was the only state that allowed anything beyond
[01:16:10.240 --> 01:16:16.560]  depositions in pre litigation discovery. A couple years ago they changed the law and when I read it
[01:16:16.560 --> 01:16:24.800]  it was a holy mackerel. Now in Texas you can get the same discovery in pre litigation that you can
[01:16:24.800 --> 01:16:33.760]  get in trial so you can ask for everything. So we just hammered them and asked for everything in
[01:16:33.760 --> 01:16:41.440]  pre litigation discovery. Okay hang on about to go to break. John I see you both there we'll get
[01:16:41.440 --> 01:16:48.720]  to everybody. We'll be right back. Well actually I did that a little too soon. My timing is still
[01:16:48.720 --> 01:17:02.560]  a little bit off. Okay hang on we'll be right back. Are you being harassed by debt collectors with
[01:17:02.560 --> 01:17:08.960]  phone calls, letters or even lawsuits? Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mirris proven method.
[01:17:08.960 --> 01:17:14.560]  Michael Mirris has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win two.
[01:17:14.560 --> 01:17:19.360]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal
[01:17:19.360 --> 01:17:25.120]  civil rights statutes. What to do when contacted by phone, mail or court summons. How to answer
[01:17:25.120 --> 01:17:29.680]  letters and phone calls. How to get debt collectors out of your credit reports. How to turn the
[01:17:29.680 --> 01:17:35.680]  financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away. The Michael Mirris proven method is
[01:17:35.680 --> 01:17:40.960]  the solution for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well.
[01:17:40.960 --> 01:17:46.640]  For more information please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mirris banner
[01:17:46.640 --> 01:17:56.080]  or email michaelmirris at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s
[01:17:56.080 --> 01:18:02.160]  at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now. I love logos without the shows on this
[01:18:02.160 --> 01:18:06.800]  network. I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends. I'm so addicted to the truth now that there's no
[01:18:06.800 --> 01:18:12.720]  going back. I need my truth fit. I'd be lost without logos and I really want to help keep this network
[01:18:12.720 --> 01:18:16.800]  on the air. I'd love to volunteer as a show producer but I'm a bit of a Luddite and I really
[01:18:16.800 --> 01:18:22.080]  don't have any money to give because I spent it all on supplements. How can I help logos?
[01:18:22.080 --> 01:18:27.040]  Well I'm glad you asked. Whenever you order anything from Amazon you can help logos.
[01:18:27.040 --> 01:18:32.000]  But ordering your supplies or holiday gifts. First thing you do is clear your cookies. Now
[01:18:32.000 --> 01:18:38.960]  go to logosradio network.com. Click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it. Now when you order anything
[01:18:38.960 --> 01:18:45.440]  from Amazon you use that link and logos gets a few pesos. Do I pay extra? No. Do I have to do
[01:18:45.440 --> 01:18:52.320]  anything different when I order? No. Can I use my Amazon Prime? No. I mean yes. Wow giving without
[01:18:52.320 --> 01:18:58.720]  doing anything or spending any money. This is perfect. Thank you so much. We are logos. Happy
[01:18:58.720 --> 01:19:21.920]  holidays Logos. This is the Logos Logos Radio Network. I ain't gonna blind me. Don't want me.
[01:19:21.920 --> 01:19:39.760]  Well you ain't gonna fool me with that same old thing again. I was blindsided but now I can see
[01:19:40.800 --> 01:19:48.640]  you. Okay we are back. Randy Kelton with Love Radio and we're talking to Tina in California.
[01:19:48.640 --> 01:19:56.560]  Okay Tina. Do you pretty well have what to do now? Yes I do and I'm going to start getting that
[01:19:56.560 --> 01:20:02.000]  written and I want to bring your attention. You know you was talking about discovery. This is for
[01:20:02.000 --> 01:20:09.040]  everybody especially in Texas but you know everyone. One of the attorneys for Barrett,
[01:20:09.040 --> 01:20:14.560]  Daphne, Fraffia, Trader, and Weiss you know those foreclosure mill attorneys based in Texas.
[01:20:14.560 --> 01:20:21.120]  You know they have a patent for producing any document that is needed in order to foreclose on
[01:20:21.120 --> 01:20:33.920]  a property. Wait a minute I missed part of that. One of the attorneys to BDFTW the foreclosure
[01:20:33.920 --> 01:20:41.600]  mill in Texas has a patent. A U.S. patent for producing any document that is needed
[01:20:41.600 --> 01:20:50.720]  to foreclose on a property and it states in the Texas Task Force meeting that 90% of the cases
[01:20:50.720 --> 01:20:57.600]  there isn't the documents that needed to say this person owns the note. They're all basically MSRs
[01:20:57.600 --> 01:21:07.200]  which is mortgage servicing rights. Well Barrett, Daphne, Frappin, and Kiss My Behind but they were
[01:21:07.200 --> 01:21:17.920]  out of I think Farmersville or Carrollton just in northwest corner of Dallas and they're probably
[01:21:17.920 --> 01:21:26.160]  right now the biggest foreclosure mill in the country and they're the only ones the big ones
[01:21:26.160 --> 01:21:33.840]  that haven't been shut down yet and I look for that to come. Yeah but it's amazing that they're
[01:21:33.840 --> 01:21:40.560]  allowed to have this patent to produce any document that's needed. If they're not there they shouldn't
[01:21:40.560 --> 01:21:46.640]  be able to foreclose. Right they just create them. I'm having a little trouble understanding your
[01:21:47.600 --> 01:21:55.200]  quality of your sound that's dropped down. Maybe the hearing aid my hearing aid battery went out.
[01:21:56.560 --> 01:22:00.400]  You know you're getting old when you forget where you put your hearing aid batteries.
[01:22:00.400 --> 01:22:07.520]  Study what they said and where the patent is. I think there's just a way we need to bring this up
[01:22:07.520 --> 01:22:22.960]  and get it stocked. Okay well mom's here going to bed for the third time. Good night mom.
[01:22:22.960 --> 01:22:27.760]  She's going to beat me with a board.
[01:22:31.120 --> 01:22:35.440]  Well before she beats you I'm going to let you go and go to other callers and I'm going to go
[01:22:35.440 --> 01:22:41.840]  onto the other line to listen only. Okay thank you Tina now we're going to go to Tim in Texas.
[01:22:41.840 --> 01:22:52.160]  Hello Tim. Hello sir how are you? I am good and you're in a position similar to what Tina was in.
[01:22:52.880 --> 01:23:06.080]  Yeah. Where they just filed a 33 page brief and almost all of it's trash. Yeah well that's what
[01:23:06.080 --> 01:23:15.440]  I was saying is what I was thinking to myself. You know when I had to dig it out but we had
[01:23:15.440 --> 01:23:22.080]  filed with the defendant's original answer pleaded jurisdiction special exception counterclaim and
[01:23:22.080 --> 01:23:33.600]  request for disclosure. And it's original we had mentioned to the I said when we got to the
[01:23:33.600 --> 01:23:41.920]  counterclaim we were talking about baritry, malpractice, denied access to the court.
[01:23:42.800 --> 01:23:50.560]  Those are all things that we eventually can use isn't it because the administrative hearing
[01:23:50.560 --> 01:23:58.000]  is the sole issue to anything that we actually have because it was not legal.
[01:23:58.000 --> 01:24:02.640]  Did you lose me?
[01:24:05.680 --> 01:24:10.960]  Somebody muted me when I wasn't looking. I'm still having a little throat issue from that.
[01:24:10.960 --> 01:24:22.000]  That's spasm earlier. We argued to the court that they started out adjudicating this issue
[01:24:22.000 --> 01:24:29.360]  under a criminal statute and then illegally switched it to an administrative procedure.
[01:24:30.080 --> 01:24:34.880]  Yeah. But the court looked at it and they never got to our argument.
[01:24:36.320 --> 01:24:45.920]  That's right the district judge just tossed it. Well because they said that the city did not have
[01:24:45.920 --> 01:24:55.200]  the jurisdiction to hold an administrative hearing at all. No I thought you were talking about when
[01:24:55.200 --> 01:25:03.440]  they threw my counterclaim out. No no no I'm talking about when the judge threw their case out
[01:25:05.040 --> 01:25:11.680]  based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. What judge are you talking about? We said that
[01:25:11.680 --> 01:25:19.120]  moving from a criminal charge to a hearing to an administrative hearing in mid-process was improper
[01:25:19.840 --> 01:25:23.200]  and because of that they didn't have subject matter jurisdiction and the court said
[01:25:24.000 --> 01:25:33.600]  they didn't say this but they couldn't get there because the city could not hold the
[01:25:33.600 --> 01:25:40.560]  administrative hearing period. So whether they could hold an administrative hearing in place of
[01:25:40.560 --> 01:25:47.680]  criminal became moot because they couldn't hold an administrative hearing at all because there was
[01:25:47.680 --> 01:25:58.000]  a filing they were required to have made that they didn't make. But our claim in the counterclaim was
[01:25:58.880 --> 01:26:06.640]  that the city did not have subject matter jurisdiction. Right. The fact that our argument
[01:26:06.640 --> 01:26:13.440]  on subject matter jurisdiction was not the subject matter jurisdiction cause for which it was
[01:26:13.440 --> 01:26:21.440]  dismissed as irrelevant. Right. It still dismissed for like subject matter jurisdiction. So that made
[01:26:21.440 --> 01:26:28.080]  our claim accurate and correct. What these guys are saying is we didn't didn't appeal it in time but we
[01:26:28.080 --> 01:26:38.400]  did. Well when they did the motion for severance and so we immediately did it. Yeah. We appealed
[01:26:38.400 --> 01:26:44.720]  right then. Yeah. And they're saying they're saying that we didn't. Yeah. But that's going to go in
[01:26:44.720 --> 01:26:51.120]  the trash and all their other arguments they argued the whole case again in this appeal.
[01:26:51.120 --> 01:27:05.120]  Yeah. And they're arguing they alleged in the appeal that we sued the individuals in their
[01:27:05.120 --> 01:27:11.600]  official capacity and they were immune from sued in their official capacity. Yeah. And we very
[01:27:11.600 --> 01:27:19.920]  carefully did no such thing. They alleged that we sued the city and since we sued the city and
[01:27:19.920 --> 01:27:28.080]  city employees then we necessarily sued the city for all of them and the employees had a right to
[01:27:28.080 --> 01:27:35.280]  immunity. Well that was not exactly the case either. Well that's the question that I have because
[01:27:35.280 --> 01:27:41.040]  that's what the whole thing they're standing on is that they should be thrown out because of
[01:27:41.040 --> 01:27:48.560]  their immunity because of the way we filed it. Yeah. The city had no immunity because we sued
[01:27:48.560 --> 01:27:58.800]  the city for declaratory judgment. Only declaratory judgment. We made the claim that the application
[01:27:58.800 --> 01:28:06.480]  of a city ordinance to a private citizen rendered the city ordinance a law.
[01:28:09.280 --> 01:28:16.000]  The legislature authorized the city to write city ordinances. They did not
[01:28:16.000 --> 01:28:24.080]  authorize them to write laws. And that's because the legislature had no power.
[01:28:25.040 --> 01:28:34.080]  I'm sorry. The legislature had no power to delegate judicial authority to a municipal
[01:28:34.080 --> 01:28:41.040]  corporation. Right. That's why they call them ordinances and not laws. So you mentioned something
[01:28:41.040 --> 01:28:47.360]  last night. As Brett if that's what I heard he said yeah I heard he said that's that's what you
[01:28:47.360 --> 01:28:57.440]  heard. You said something about basically just trying to get the with prejudice so that we can
[01:28:57.440 --> 01:29:07.040]  still have this counterclaim to come back on and just name the attorneys. Well yes the what they're
[01:29:07.040 --> 01:29:15.520]  going to want to do is say that our counterclaims are res judicata. And we've got that covered but
[01:29:15.520 --> 01:29:25.200]  it still clouds the issue. In the federal court we will make separate federal claims claims that
[01:29:25.200 --> 01:29:31.200]  were not made in the state court but they will still claim that the issues have been adjudicated
[01:29:31.200 --> 01:29:38.880]  in the state court if we can't get the with prejudice tossed. And I was surprised they even
[01:29:38.880 --> 01:29:44.080]  mentioned the fact that we told the court that we intended to dismiss. Yeah.
[01:29:44.080 --> 01:29:59.360]  Just without prejudice. You're fixing to go off there. Yes. So we'll be right back.
[01:30:02.720 --> 01:30:08.240]  This performance enhancing drug shows up on drug tests but it hasn't been banned from professional
[01:30:08.240 --> 01:30:13.600]  sports. I'm Dr. Catherine Alvrect and I'll bet you're taking this drug too. I'll be back to tell
[01:30:13.600 --> 01:30:20.000]  you what it is. Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself you'll never get it back
[01:30:20.000 --> 01:30:26.080]  again. And once your privacy is gone you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. So protect
[01:30:26.080 --> 01:30:32.080]  your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy it's worth
[01:30:32.080 --> 01:30:37.360]  hanging on to. This public service announcement is brought to you by start page dot com the private
[01:30:37.360 --> 01:30:45.920]  search engine alternative to Google Yahoo and then start over with start page caffeine. Can it make
[01:30:45.920 --> 01:30:51.840]  you a better athlete. The verdict is as muddy as a cup of Joe researchers studying cyclist runners
[01:30:51.840 --> 01:30:57.760]  and rowers found caffeine does boost performance for short term power events tennis players accuracy
[01:30:57.760 --> 01:31:02.240]  and speed improved and they had more endurance to get through the match. The caffeine doesn't help in
[01:31:02.240 --> 01:31:08.640]  all sports and the correct dose varies widely between individuals caffeine contributes to dehydration
[01:31:08.640 --> 01:31:13.360]  plus it can give you the jitters and nervousness is the last thing you want in a competition.
[01:31:13.360 --> 01:31:18.320]  Athletes quickly build up a tolerance to caffeine and it's addictive as anyone who's ever had a
[01:31:18.320 --> 01:31:23.680]  caffeine headache can tell you. I'm Dr. Catherine Alvrect more news and information at Catherine
[01:31:23.680 --> 01:31:35.200]  Alvrect dot com. This is building seven a 47 story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of
[01:31:35.200 --> 01:31:40.720]  September 11. The government says that fire brought it down. However 1500 architects and engineers
[01:31:40.720 --> 01:31:45.120]  have concluded it was a controlled demolition. Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have
[01:31:45.120 --> 01:31:49.680]  given their lives and thousands of my fellow force responders are dying. I'm not a conspiracy
[01:31:49.680 --> 01:31:53.360]  theorist. I'm a structural engineer. I'm a New York City correction officer. I'm an Air Force pilot.
[01:31:53.360 --> 01:32:00.000]  I'm a father who lost his son. We're Americans and we deserve the truth. Go to RememberBuilding7.org
[01:32:00.000 --> 01:32:06.080]  today. Rule of law radio is proud to offer the rule of law traffic seminar. In today's America
[01:32:06.080 --> 01:32:09.920]  we live in an us against them society and if we the people are ever going to have a free society
[01:32:09.920 --> 01:32:14.000]  then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights. Among those rights are the right to
[01:32:14.000 --> 01:32:18.000]  travel freely from place to place the right to act in our own private capacity and most importantly
[01:32:18.000 --> 01:32:22.480]  the right to due process of law. Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to
[01:32:22.480 --> 01:32:26.640]  learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process. Former sheriff's deputy
[01:32:26.640 --> 01:32:30.240]  Eddie Craig in conjunction with rule of law radio has put together the most comprehensive
[01:32:30.240 --> 01:32:34.000]  teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is and how to hold
[01:32:34.000 --> 01:32:37.920]  courts to the rule of law. You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to
[01:32:37.920 --> 01:32:42.480]  ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today. By ordering now you'll receive a copy of Eddie's
[01:32:42.480 --> 01:32:47.280]  book the Texas Transportation Code the law versus the lie video and audio of the original 2009
[01:32:47.280 --> 01:32:51.120]  seminar. Hundreds of research documents and other useful resource material. Learn how to
[01:32:51.120 --> 01:32:55.040]  fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. Order your
[01:32:55.040 --> 01:32:58.640]  copy today and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[01:32:58.640 --> 01:33:16.000]  Looking for some truth? You found it. LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:33:16.000 --> 01:33:27.840]  Okay we are back. Randy Kelton, rule of law radio and we're talking to Tim in Texas.
[01:33:29.120 --> 01:33:33.120]  Another thing I'm sitting here looking at this thing about actual damages.
[01:33:33.920 --> 01:33:40.880]  About we told that they had done intentional infliction of emotional distress which they did.
[01:33:40.880 --> 01:33:48.320]  I mean if you look at it for all intents and purposes exemplary damages.
[01:33:50.080 --> 01:33:57.280]  And then the other thing is our jury demand. We demanded a jury trial and tenders the
[01:33:57.280 --> 01:34:04.880]  appropriate fee with the answers what you said. Is that something once they have taken us into
[01:34:04.880 --> 01:34:14.400]  civil court. Now they took us into civil court and because they're saying that in the municipal court
[01:34:15.360 --> 01:34:23.120]  they took it from being criminal to administrative civil in the municipal court with under an
[01:34:23.120 --> 01:34:31.520]  administrative hearing but the administrative board had never been voted to where that municipality
[01:34:31.520 --> 01:34:38.160]  could do it. So they can't get off by just saying they made a mistake because they could have went
[01:34:38.160 --> 01:34:47.840]  back and checked couldn't they? No they can't say they made a mistake. Right. I want to stop the
[01:34:47.840 --> 01:34:55.760]  sign and you're walking across the crosswalk and I run over you and I say oops I made a mistake.
[01:34:55.760 --> 01:35:08.080]  They've already created harm. Right. So and the issue that we crafted that lawsuit very carefully.
[01:35:09.920 --> 01:35:15.280]  We only claim we made against the city was a petition for declaratory judgment
[01:35:16.880 --> 01:35:22.560]  addressing the constitutionality of the application of an ordinance to the general public.
[01:35:22.560 --> 01:35:31.920]  We asked for no damages from the city. Right. These lawyers didn't understand just like
[01:35:31.920 --> 01:35:34.880]  Tina's lawyers didn't understand declaratory judgment.
[01:35:38.000 --> 01:35:48.720]  So we sued the individuals in their personal capacity claiming that the municipality lacked
[01:35:48.720 --> 01:35:57.200]  subject matter jurisdiction and therefore lack the legal capacity to invoke the authority of
[01:35:57.200 --> 01:36:05.120]  these people their official capacity of these people. So they were acting under the color or
[01:36:05.120 --> 01:36:12.240]  pretense of an official capacity that the court of appeals has already ruled did not exist.
[01:36:12.240 --> 01:36:20.400]  Okay. So they're arguing all of their arguments are frivolous. Yeah I'm just trying to find in
[01:36:20.400 --> 01:36:31.840]  this document where it says that we were asking for declaratory judgment. It doesn't really say
[01:36:31.840 --> 01:36:42.320]  that. Okay. This document you're talking about in our amended petition or amended answer and
[01:36:42.320 --> 01:36:53.120]  counterfeit. Yeah. Yeah it doesn't say declaratory judgment. Okay. But we asked the court to rule on
[01:36:53.120 --> 01:37:02.160]  the constitutionality of the application of municipal ordinances to the general public. Okay.
[01:37:02.160 --> 01:37:07.680]  We asked for no damages against the city that makes it a declaratory judgment suit.
[01:37:07.680 --> 01:37:15.280]  It could have very easily done that. But why would you think that he would not do? I mean I'm
[01:37:15.280 --> 01:37:20.000]  trying to get in his head here a little bit. You've been around attorneys and you've been around
[01:37:20.000 --> 01:37:25.680]  that specific attorney who is now a judge for years. So you know the guy.
[01:37:27.360 --> 01:37:35.760]  What would make him just ignore this document? Is it because it doesn't look like your normal
[01:37:35.760 --> 01:37:46.160]  everyday run of the mill attorney? Yeah. He's a lawyer and he's had to put up with pro se clients
[01:37:46.160 --> 01:37:54.720]  for years and lawyers tend to hate pro se because they don't pay lawyers. He showed that. He did show
[01:37:54.720 --> 01:38:00.720]  that when he told me to shut up and sit down and that's the day we gave him our first recusal
[01:38:01.920 --> 01:38:12.880]  to him. He was shocked looking. He didn't know what to do. But I'm just trying to understand
[01:38:12.880 --> 01:38:18.800]  this Randy. This is this stuff. You know I've been working on cars my life. Not working on
[01:38:18.800 --> 01:38:25.920]  law documents. And everything is written. You know I know that people call us patronates but
[01:38:25.920 --> 01:38:31.760]  it's written to where people... It's hard to understand. Words don't mean what you think the
[01:38:31.760 --> 01:38:39.440]  words mean. Exactly. That's when we spoke early in the show about a tool we're developing
[01:38:39.440 --> 01:38:47.360]  that will dramatically help in that regard. Yeah. As you produce a document and it will
[01:38:47.360 --> 01:38:53.920]  be filled with hyperlinks. You click on any one of these words and it'll pop up a definition
[01:38:53.920 --> 01:39:07.200]  for that word in this context. Okay. Well I was going to ask you a question. I asked Brett what
[01:39:07.200 --> 01:39:13.360]  he thought about it. I asked Eddie on his Facebook page and he answered. His answer was of course not.
[01:39:14.800 --> 01:39:24.880]  But you know how we talk about even though it's not illegal for us to do the cop with the gun on
[01:39:24.880 --> 01:39:32.320]  his waist doesn't know that. He's told to do a certain job whether it's abide by the law
[01:39:32.320 --> 01:39:41.600]  or any part of the Constitution at all. He's going to do it. And so I have a record that I've had for
[01:39:41.600 --> 01:39:49.120]  years. A rollback record. And I want to use it to tow some of my own personal cars from one location
[01:39:49.120 --> 01:39:55.920]  to another from my house to my shop up in Rome. Put them inside because you know I work on older
[01:39:55.920 --> 01:40:04.000]  cars and things like that. But I don't want to have to go through all the TDLR stuff that they
[01:40:04.000 --> 01:40:12.080]  have now. You have to license the truck. You have to get a license yourself. Then you have to license
[01:40:12.080 --> 01:40:18.480]  a company. And then you have to get this huge insurance policy. That's if you're doing it
[01:40:18.480 --> 01:40:24.240]  commercially. And I wouldn't be doing it commercially doing it for myself. Brett mentioned
[01:40:24.240 --> 01:40:36.240]  something about what you have done. Something about a DOT license. Yes. I filed with a file for a
[01:40:36.240 --> 01:40:46.080]  DOT number. And you can go on the DOT website and file for a DOT number. Okay. And in that filing
[01:40:46.080 --> 01:40:54.640]  there is a place where you select what type of operator you are. Okay. And in that section
[01:40:54.640 --> 01:41:05.600]  you select private operator not in commerce. Okay. And if you're using a tow truck you would put
[01:41:06.480 --> 01:41:15.280]  in two inch high letters on the door not for hire. Okay. Now I got on you know they changed all this
[01:41:15.280 --> 01:41:25.360]  about 10 years ago all the new laws of towing. So with the statutes and all I was reading where a
[01:41:25.360 --> 01:41:31.360]  guy in 2015 was wanting to know whether he could tow different things. And under a certain weight
[01:41:31.360 --> 01:41:38.400]  class it keeps you from having to do a commercial license. And it keeps you from driving commercially
[01:41:38.400 --> 01:41:44.480]  too. So I could still just use a regular driver's license. I don't have to get a commercial license
[01:41:44.480 --> 01:41:52.400]  right. Right. If you're not in commerce. Okay. I could a lot of guys are retiring from driving
[01:41:52.400 --> 01:41:58.720]  trucks and they're taking their trucks in and having them turned into campers. But that's what
[01:41:58.720 --> 01:42:07.040]  this guy did. Mobile home. So it does make any difference how big that is. Well it said it had
[01:42:07.040 --> 01:42:20.960]  to be under 26,000 pounds I believe. Gross vehicle weight. If it's a camper then you're not going
[01:42:20.960 --> 01:42:27.520]  to have a load on it. So it is what it is. 26,000 pounds. But if you're not using it in commerce
[01:42:27.520 --> 01:42:32.480]  I don't think it applies anyway. Yeah. I wouldn't be towing for anybody but myself.
[01:42:32.480 --> 01:42:40.080]  Yeah. What I'm saying is you could drive a tractor trailer if you're not using it in commerce.
[01:42:40.640 --> 01:42:47.200]  Right. Want to see license. So I could call the department of public safety.
[01:42:48.560 --> 01:42:53.920]  Just for grand record the conversation. Ask specific questions. And then when they tell me
[01:42:54.720 --> 01:43:01.440]  no that I can't do it I would say would you please point me to the law that says that I cannot.
[01:43:01.440 --> 01:43:09.360]  Is that, would that be sufficient? They will refuse because they will claim they can't give
[01:43:09.360 --> 01:43:20.400]  legal advice. Any to ask Eddie he might know where that is. Okay. But it shouldn't be too hard to
[01:43:20.400 --> 01:43:28.560]  find in the code. Okay. All right. I will do that and I'll let you get to John. And I will
[01:43:28.560 --> 01:43:36.560]  pretty soon here I'll get on crafting. I'll determine whether or not we should file a response to
[01:43:36.560 --> 01:43:46.960]  their pleading. Okay. In Tim's case we filed an appeal and the other side got a couple of
[01:43:46.960 --> 01:43:56.240]  extensions at a time and they filed a response appellate brief. And it was 33 pages of trash.
[01:43:56.240 --> 01:43:58.320]  Okay. Hang on. Be right back.
[01:44:00.480 --> 01:44:06.400]  Through advances in technology our lives have greatly improved except in the area of nutrition.
[01:44:06.400 --> 01:44:11.280]  People feed their pets better than they feed themselves and it's time we changed all that.
[01:44:11.280 --> 01:44:17.520]  Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[01:44:17.520 --> 01:44:22.320]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated and mutilated,
[01:44:22.320 --> 01:44:28.480]  young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need. Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse
[01:44:28.480 --> 01:44:34.560]  all sorts of products, most of which we reject. We have come to trust young Jevity so much. We
[01:44:34.560 --> 01:44:40.720]  became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs and many others. When you order
[01:44:40.720 --> 01:44:47.920]  from LogosRadioNetwork.com your health will improve as you help support quality radio. As you
[01:44:47.920 --> 01:44:54.000]  realize the benefits of young Jevity you may want to join us. As a distributor you can experience
[01:44:54.000 --> 01:45:01.600]  improved health, help your friends and family and increase your income. Order now. Are you the
[01:45:01.600 --> 01:45:07.520]  plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary.
[01:45:07.520 --> 01:45:13.920]  The affordable, easy to understand four CD course that will show you how in 24 hours,
[01:45:13.920 --> 01:45:20.800]  step by step. If you have a lawyer know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer
[01:45:20.800 --> 01:45:26.640]  know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step by step course and now
[01:45:26.640 --> 01:45:33.200]  you can too. Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning
[01:45:33.200 --> 01:45:38.960]  experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit you can learn what everyone should understand
[01:45:38.960 --> 01:45:44.560]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio
[01:45:44.560 --> 01:45:52.240]  classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics and much more.
[01:45:52.240 --> 01:46:17.840]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:17.840 --> 01:46:26.960]  Okay we are back. Randy Kelton, rule of law radio and we're talking to Tim in Texas. Are we pretty
[01:46:26.960 --> 01:46:33.200]  well done with you Tim? Yes sir. Yes sir. We sure are. Okay well I will look at that appeal
[01:46:34.000 --> 01:46:42.640]  and it from what I've seen of it it's a lot like Tina's document she was looking at. She's got a
[01:46:42.640 --> 01:46:50.960]  document full of trash. Are you going to just return something to them a brief that just basically
[01:46:50.960 --> 01:47:00.560]  says we we stick to our guns? Okay you filed an appeal they filed a response to the appeal
[01:47:01.680 --> 01:47:09.440]  you don't have to respond to their document. Okay we may I need to look at it a second time
[01:47:09.440 --> 01:47:13.520]  that what the first time through is you always should read it and then set it down a couple
[01:47:13.520 --> 01:47:19.120]  days and then read your second time and it'll make a lot more sense. There may be one or two
[01:47:19.120 --> 01:47:26.640]  issues that we'll address. Okay sure does. All right Laura we'll be back Sunday so
[01:47:27.600 --> 01:47:33.920]  and then she's going to town Monday but anyway all right. Okay thank you Tim. Now we're going to go
[01:47:33.920 --> 01:47:44.320]  to John in New York hello John. Well hello am I off of mute now? You are off of mute. Okay great
[01:47:44.320 --> 01:47:52.960]  okay hi Randy how you doing? I've got these are just how do I say this the subject is the
[01:47:52.960 --> 01:47:59.680]  traffic ticket itself and it's my understanding it but and I've asked you this before I just wanted
[01:47:59.680 --> 01:48:05.440]  to know there's a couple of things I don't understand or that I need clarification. I've seen it written
[01:48:05.440 --> 01:48:12.160]  that a traffic ticket itself is not a proper charging instrument. Now would you agree with that?
[01:48:15.200 --> 01:48:26.320]  Yes for the most part because this traffic ticket itself does not allege all the elements
[01:48:26.320 --> 01:48:36.720]  of the crime. The first element is that you fall within the statutory scheme by the fact that you
[01:48:36.720 --> 01:48:47.680]  are engaging in commerce on the public thoroughfares. Okay. That renders the complaint insufficient on
[01:48:47.680 --> 01:48:56.400]  its face. Right so because it doesn't stay one way or the other is now see if I'm saying this right
[01:48:56.400 --> 01:49:02.800]  because it doesn't stay one way or the other that you are engaging in commerce or you're not engaging
[01:49:02.800 --> 01:49:09.920]  in commerce that's what makes it insufficient. In order for the complaint to be sufficient it would
[01:49:09.920 --> 01:49:19.520]  have to allege all of the elements of the crime and one of the elements is operating in commerce.
[01:49:22.080 --> 01:49:31.040]  Okay. That's never alleged. So how would the ticket have to be worded? What would the exact
[01:49:31.040 --> 01:49:39.600]  wording on the ticket be in order to accommodate that criteria? The officer would have to testify
[01:49:40.320 --> 01:49:50.240]  that he observed the defendant operating a motorized conveyance in commerce.
[01:49:50.240 --> 01:49:59.920]  And should that be in writing on the ticket? Yes. It's a necessary element of the crime.
[01:50:01.200 --> 01:50:10.560]  It requires the assertion of in commerce in order to invoke a duty under the commercial
[01:50:10.560 --> 01:50:20.320]  transportation code. So he has to say that the driver was acting in commerce. Right.
[01:50:22.160 --> 01:50:28.800]  You can't you know if the guy's bouncing around on a pogo stick he wouldn't be subject to the
[01:50:28.800 --> 01:50:34.720]  transportation code. Right. He could pogo stick through a red light
[01:50:34.720 --> 01:50:43.520]  and not get a ticket. Okay. Because he's not acting within the statutory scheme.
[01:50:46.480 --> 01:50:55.840]  All right. Now that's one phase. It's a bill of attainer. Am I right? How can you figure it's a
[01:50:55.840 --> 01:51:04.800]  bill of attainer? What makes it a bill of attainer? It's not a bill of attainer.
[01:51:05.840 --> 01:51:12.240]  Oh a traffic ticket's not a bill of attainer? No. I think what you're I'm not sure what you're going
[01:51:12.240 --> 01:51:19.360]  to I'll have to look up bill of attainer again to see exactly right you know the moment the
[01:51:19.360 --> 01:51:27.120]  actual definition doesn't pop in my brain. Okay. There's a lot that doesn't pop into my brain.
[01:51:29.120 --> 01:51:36.960]  Well bill of attainer the colonists hated bills of attainer and if I'm not mistaken I could be
[01:51:36.960 --> 01:51:43.600]  wrong about this. Bill of attainer was sort of a generic thing. The forfeiture of land and
[01:51:43.600 --> 01:51:50.400]  civil rights suffered as a consequence of a sentence of death for treason or felony.
[01:51:53.920 --> 01:52:01.040]  Oh is that the proper that's a definition of attainer when I look up bill of attainer
[01:52:01.040 --> 01:52:11.280]  referring to attainer. See bill of attainer Wikipedia. Bill of attainer also known as an
[01:52:11.280 --> 01:52:18.000]  active attainer or rid of attainer or bills of pains and penalties is an act of the legislature
[01:52:18.000 --> 01:52:25.200]  declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them often without a trial.
[01:52:27.440 --> 01:52:36.000]  So no it would not be a bill of attainer. Okay all right well I'll be about the rest of this.
[01:52:36.000 --> 01:52:42.720]  All criminal charges now it's my understanding that the constitution I've read this and if
[01:52:42.720 --> 01:52:48.160]  I'm interpreting it right the US Constitution says all criminal charges must be in the form
[01:52:48.160 --> 01:52:55.440]  of an indictment or an information and it seems to me an attorney told me that the legislature
[01:52:55.440 --> 01:53:02.800]  made traffic tickets a shortened information even though the legislature says that it's okay
[01:53:02.800 --> 01:53:09.280]  to have traffic tickets if that's the case if that is correct. Isn't that contradicting the
[01:53:09.280 --> 01:53:15.680]  constitution which means the legislation is now null and void? Yes well no it's not null and void
[01:53:15.680 --> 01:53:22.640]  until it's challenged and ruled null and void. Well yeah but it's from my understanding
[01:53:23.760 --> 01:53:31.680]  at its inception if a law is written and it's contrary to the constitution it is immediately
[01:53:31.680 --> 01:53:39.440]  null and void. No it's not no that's not true it is not null and void until it's declared null
[01:53:39.440 --> 01:53:48.160]  and void. It can be declared null and void of an issue from the beginning but so long as it has
[01:53:48.160 --> 01:53:57.200]  been properly passed by the legislature until it is declared to be null and void it is not null
[01:53:57.200 --> 01:54:06.560]  and void. So my contention is that a traffic ticket is not in the right form and if I had no
[01:54:06.560 --> 01:54:13.840]  other defense I would go into court and say the traffic ticket is not a proper charging instrument
[01:54:13.840 --> 01:54:19.680]  because the US Constitution says it has to be in the form of either an indictment for a felony
[01:54:19.680 --> 01:54:26.640]  or an information if it's a misdemeanor and since the traffic ticket is always in a criminal court
[01:54:26.640 --> 01:54:31.120]  it's a question. Wait a minute the constitution are you talking about the federal constitution
[01:54:31.120 --> 01:54:40.960]  or the New York state constitution? Federal, federal. In all of them. Where in the constitution does it
[01:54:40.960 --> 01:54:47.040]  say that a complaint must be in the form of an indictment or an information? I don't remember
[01:54:47.040 --> 01:54:54.480]  that in there anywhere. Well if I'm correct I remember reading that and it's either in the
[01:54:54.480 --> 01:54:59.440]  federal you know maybe it's in the state constitution I don't remember. That is definitely
[01:54:59.440 --> 01:55:05.520]  not in the federal constitution. You're sure you're positive about that okay. Yes. Well
[01:55:08.400 --> 01:55:14.240]  looking at all of that will be in the Bill of Rights and it's not in there. Okay that would be
[01:55:14.240 --> 01:55:20.880]  in the Bill of Rights if it was anywhere. All right I seem to remember reading it but I'll look
[01:55:20.880 --> 01:55:33.520]  it up. The states okay a information is not a charging instrument. An instrument an information
[01:55:33.520 --> 01:55:44.880]  is an instrument prepared by a prosecutor as a complaint in proper form. The information is
[01:55:44.880 --> 01:55:52.320]  prepared based on a complaint that's filed that's properly filed with the court and that means it's
[01:55:52.320 --> 01:56:04.880]  filed by a credible person under oath. The ideas of the complaint given to a magistrate that initiates
[01:56:04.880 --> 01:56:15.280]  a prosecution. I just had this discussion with a judge here in Tennessee about he said that I
[01:56:15.280 --> 01:56:19.840]  should take my complaints to the prosecuting attorney and I said oh prosecuting attorney doesn't
[01:56:19.840 --> 01:56:25.120]  have anything to do with this he has no standing at this point. He said well he's the prosecutor so
[01:56:25.120 --> 01:56:31.440]  yes he is but there is no prosecution at this point. When I bring a criminal complaint to a
[01:56:31.440 --> 01:56:40.160]  magistrate there is no prosecution for the prosecutor to adjudicate and there won't be a
[01:56:40.160 --> 01:56:51.680]  prosecution unless the magistrate issues a finding of probable cause. Once a finding of probable cause
[01:56:51.680 --> 01:57:04.160]  is determined by a magistrate and the magistrate files that order with a the trial court the court
[01:57:04.160 --> 01:57:11.920]  having jurisdiction then a prosecution commences and there is a prosecution for the prosecuting
[01:57:11.920 --> 01:57:22.800]  attorney to adjudicate. So when I bring a complaint in the it is the prosecutor who is commanded
[01:57:23.760 --> 01:57:32.560]  to prepare an information based on a complaint and the information is intended to be a complaint
[01:57:32.560 --> 01:57:42.240]  in proper form but it is not the complaint. The complaint must be filed by a credible person
[01:57:44.880 --> 01:57:51.360]  and that does not mean a police officer that means anyone over the age of 18 never convicted
[01:57:51.360 --> 01:57:59.040]  of a felony. If a police officer happens to fit within that category well he can file complaints
[01:57:59.040 --> 01:58:05.920]  but being a police officer does not give him some special capacity to file criminal complaints.
[01:58:07.840 --> 01:58:14.800]  Being a credible set definition being a credible citizen by definition gives him that power
[01:58:16.000 --> 01:58:20.480]  and what is defined as credible person is over 18 never convicted of a felony.
[01:58:21.680 --> 01:58:27.120]  I'm making the argument here in Wheatley County that when they've seen me to a prosecutor
[01:58:27.120 --> 01:58:36.800]  with criminal complaints I am being disenfranchised. They've taken a ride away from me and a protection
[01:58:36.800 --> 01:58:42.640]  away from me. Hang on about to go to break Randy Kelvin we'll have our radio we'll be right back.
[01:58:50.240 --> 01:58:55.840]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world yet countless readers are frustrated
[01:58:55.840 --> 01:59:01.040]  because they struggle to understand it. Some new translations try to help by simplifying
[01:59:01.040 --> 01:59:06.000]  the text but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the scripture.
[01:59:06.960 --> 01:59:13.440]  Enter the recovery version. First this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate
[01:59:13.440 --> 01:59:19.520]  but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes. Difficult and profound
[01:59:19.520 --> 01:59:25.440]  passages are opened up in a marvelous way providing an entrance into the riches of the word beyond
[01:59:25.440 --> 01:59:31.200]  which you've ever experienced before. Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery
[01:59:31.200 --> 01:59:37.920]  version simply for the asking. This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us
[01:59:37.920 --> 01:59:50.000]  toll free at 1-888-551-0102 or by ordering online at freestudybible.com. That's freestudybible.com.
[01:59:50.000 --> 01:59:56.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network. LogosRadioNetwork.com.