[00:00.000 --> 00:05.680]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[00:05.680 --> 00:11.120]  Ugandan rebels of the Lord's Resistance Army hacked 12 people to death with machetes and
[00:11.120 --> 00:15.920]  kidnapped 40 more in a remote Congolese village.
[00:15.920 --> 00:20.560]  South Africa barred Tibet's spiritual leader the Dalai Lama from entering the country to
[00:20.560 --> 00:23.200]  take part in a peace conference.
[00:23.200 --> 00:29.560]  Local media said the Dalai Lama's visit was refused due to pressure from the Chinese government.
[00:29.560 --> 00:34.920]  British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has revealed some 60,000 civilians, including shop managers
[00:34.920 --> 00:44.880]  and council workers, have been trained to deal with terrorist attacks.
[00:44.880 --> 00:49.400]  Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced Monday the Treasury is planning to buy up
[00:49.400 --> 00:54.520]  toxic assets using low-interest loans to private investors.
[00:54.520 --> 00:59.360]  The plan is to offer generous subsidies to coax investors into forming partnerships with
[00:59.360 --> 01:03.280]  the government to buy toxic assets from the bank.
[01:03.280 --> 01:08.160]  Critics say the idea that auctioning the assets for the highest bidder would protect the taxpayers'
[01:08.160 --> 01:11.280]  forced investment is nonsense.
[01:11.280 --> 01:15.840]  Critics point out if the assets had any real worth, they would not be considered toxic
[01:15.840 --> 01:16.840]  to begin with.
[01:16.840 --> 01:22.560]  The goal is to leverage the dwindling resources of the bailout program to buy up as many of
[01:22.560 --> 01:28.480]  these toxic assets as possible, freeing the banks to make much-needed loans.
[01:28.480 --> 01:33.440]  Geithner provoked scathing criticism from investors in February by announcing the broad
[01:33.440 --> 01:38.680]  outlines of the plan without addressing the tough questions like sharing the risk with
[01:38.680 --> 01:51.920]  investors or arriving at a price that would neither cheat taxpayers nor harm the banks.
[01:51.920 --> 01:57.360]  Barack Obama has appointed two experts, one in food, the other in drugs, to head up the
[01:57.360 --> 02:03.040]  Food and Drug Administration in preparation for the agencies to be split in two.
[02:03.040 --> 02:06.720]  One agency will oversee foods and the other drugs.
[02:06.720 --> 02:10.320]  People are worried about where the government will put dietary supplements.
[02:10.320 --> 02:15.680]  The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act declares dietary supplements to be products
[02:15.680 --> 02:18.040]  intended to supplement the diet.
[02:18.040 --> 02:23.880]  Unlike drugs, which must be approved for safety and efficacy before entering the market, dietary
[02:23.880 --> 02:28.400]  supplements marketed before 1994 are presumed to be safe.
[02:28.400 --> 02:34.600]  The FDA must demonstrate that a product presents a significant public risk to get it off the
[02:34.600 --> 02:35.600]  market.
[02:35.600 --> 02:39.960]  The FDA in the past has approved deadly or problematic drugs.
[02:39.960 --> 02:44.520]  Yet despite no reported deaths for dietary supplements, the federal government is aiming
[02:44.520 --> 02:48.240]  to regulate vitamin, mineral, and herbal pills.
[02:48.240 --> 03:02.240]  Surveys show dietary supplements to be the safest products of all.
[03:02.240 --> 03:07.160]  Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo is seeking federal funding to implement a program for
[03:07.160 --> 03:10.560]  training police to withdraw blood from DWI suspects.
[03:10.560 --> 03:15.520]  Do you want our police to be able to stick a needle in your arm and take your blood on
[03:15.520 --> 03:19.400]  the side of the road with no search warrant or court order?
[03:19.400 --> 03:25.280]  This program is patently illegal, reckless, unconstitutional, and life-threatening.
[03:25.280 --> 03:31.200]  Join us March 30th at 6 p.m. at Austin City Hall in the City Council Chambers for the
[03:31.200 --> 03:36.440]  Public Forum on Police Blood Withdrawals, sponsored by Texans for Accountable Government
[03:36.440 --> 03:38.840]  and Austin Campaign for Liberty.
[03:38.840 --> 03:44.640]  Speakers include Police Chief Art Acevedo, City Council Member Mike Martinez, TAGS Steering
[03:44.640 --> 03:50.640]  Committee Rep John Bush, ACLU Central Texas Chapter President Debbie Russell, and MAD
[03:50.640 --> 03:52.760]  Rep Karen Housewright.
[03:52.760 --> 03:58.640]  Be there March 30th at 6 p.m. at Austin City Hall and make your voice be heard on this
[03:58.640 --> 04:00.640]  very serious issue.
[04:00.640 --> 04:10.520]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at ruleoflawradio.com, live free speech
[04:10.520 --> 04:17.520]  talk radio at its best.
[04:40.520 --> 04:47.520]  This program is patently illegal, reckless, unconstitutional, and life-threatening.
[04:47.520 --> 04:57.520]  Join us March 30th at 6 p.m. at Austin City Hall in the City Council Chambers for the
[04:57.520 --> 05:06.520]  Public Forum on Police Blood Withdrawals, sponsored by Texans for Accountable Government
[05:06.520 --> 05:14.520]  and Austin Campaign for Liberty.
[05:14.520 --> 05:21.520]  You are listening to the Rule of Law on Rule of Law Radio.
[05:21.520 --> 05:23.520]  This is Deborah Stevens.
[05:23.520 --> 05:27.520]  I'm here with Randy Kelton and Tony Davis.
[05:27.520 --> 05:33.520]  We've got a very special guest, Sam Davis tonight.
[05:33.520 --> 05:37.520]  And Tony, why don't you go ahead and introduce our guest?
[05:37.520 --> 05:44.520]  Yeah, I met Sam through a friend of ours in the Philippines that used to live in Idaho.
[05:44.520 --> 05:48.520]  And I was invited to a couple of Sam's seminars.
[05:48.520 --> 05:51.520]  I haven't gone to any of them yet, but I understand they're excellent.
[05:51.520 --> 05:53.520]  And they were highly recommended.
[05:53.520 --> 06:00.520]  And Sam and another couple of people were invited about two weeks ago in Las Vegas on
[06:00.520 --> 06:08.520]  Thursday, I guess, and then they, Sam got, was able to leave the courtroom on Friday.
[06:08.520 --> 06:14.520]  And I assume that I understand now the judges recused themselves in that case.
[06:14.520 --> 06:16.520]  Yes, that's correct.
[06:16.520 --> 06:17.520]  Okay.
[06:17.520 --> 06:19.520]  Maybe, Sam, you could kind of fill us in on what happened.
[06:19.520 --> 06:20.520]  Yeah, I will.
[06:20.520 --> 06:21.520]  Thank you.
[06:21.520 --> 06:25.520]  And thank you all for having me on.
[06:25.520 --> 06:37.520]  I, like you said, myself and another fairly well-known fellow in the country,
[06:37.520 --> 06:43.520]  Sean Rice, were indicted and arrested on Thursday, two weeks ago,
[06:43.520 --> 06:46.520]  on the charge of money laundering.
[06:46.520 --> 06:53.520]  And a couple other friends of mine from the Las Vegas area that were leaders of the
[06:53.520 --> 07:00.520]  local chapter of the lawmen group were also indicted for various charges.
[07:00.520 --> 07:07.520]  Jan Lindsay is a fairly well-known fellow that appeared in Aaron Russo's film
[07:07.520 --> 07:14.520]  America, Freedom to Fascism, a 25-year retired veteran of the FBI.
[07:14.520 --> 07:20.520]  And we believe that his indictment was purely retaliatory for making
[07:20.520 --> 07:23.520]  or appearing in the movie.
[07:23.520 --> 07:30.520]  And then Harold Call is a 67-year-old veteran, and Jan, by the way,
[07:30.520 --> 07:34.520]  is a veteran of Vietnam, and Harold is a veteran of Korea and a little bit
[07:34.520 --> 07:42.520]  in Vietnam, and he was basically entrapped in making parts for a machine gun
[07:42.520 --> 07:49.520]  that was faulty and furnished to him to fix after several months of cajoling
[07:49.520 --> 07:51.520]  and trying to get him to do so.
[07:51.520 --> 08:00.520]  So anyway, they're all really good people, and this whole scenario is,
[08:00.520 --> 08:07.520]  all I can say is I find it hard to believe that all the government has to do is
[08:07.520 --> 08:14.520]  sit around and think up ways to get people to do things and entrap them
[08:14.520 --> 08:16.520]  just to shut them up.
[08:16.520 --> 08:25.520]  And I believe that that is the sole focus of the action against me.
[08:25.520 --> 08:32.520]  Of course, what we're doing as a result and what we're doing in response is
[08:32.520 --> 08:37.520]  really going to be of great interest, I believe, around the country.
[08:37.520 --> 08:44.520]  And with the assistance of some folks over in Hawaii,
[08:44.520 --> 08:51.520]  that I met just in the January meeting that we hold in Las Vegas,
[08:51.520 --> 08:54.520]  we held a bimonthly meeting down there.
[08:54.520 --> 09:03.520]  And in this meeting, we were able to learn a lot about something called
[09:03.520 --> 09:08.520]  ratification of commencement that comes right out of Rule 17,
[09:08.520 --> 09:12.520]  Real Parties and Interest, and it was just uncanny the way that I believe
[09:12.520 --> 09:20.520]  the hand of God moves in all of these situations that we sometimes find
[09:20.520 --> 09:28.520]  ourselves in, because literally we, I had debated doing this little process
[09:28.520 --> 09:30.520]  that we do down there once in a while.
[09:30.520 --> 09:35.520]  Several years ago, a friend of mine up in the Seattle area built,
[09:35.520 --> 09:44.520]  he was kind of a set maker, he did a lot of display things for trade shows
[09:44.520 --> 09:52.520]  and things, and he built us a judicial bench courtroom setting with a judge's
[09:52.520 --> 09:57.520]  bench and a backdrop and columns and the American flag with gold fringe
[09:57.520 --> 10:03.520]  and a gavel and a microphone and a robe and the whole deal.
[10:03.520 --> 10:09.520]  And so we had what we called from time to time moot court sessions down there,
[10:09.520 --> 10:15.520]  and I was playing the role of the judge in this particular Sunday afternoon,
[10:15.520 --> 10:19.520]  and I asked for volunteers that might want to be arraigned,
[10:19.520 --> 10:23.520]  and this fellow stepped up and said, sure, I'd like you to arraign me.
[10:23.520 --> 10:34.520]  And so the prosecutor and I colluded on a charge, and we proceeded to begin
[10:34.520 --> 10:39.520]  to arraign him, and this man says, Your Honor, I object.
[10:39.520 --> 10:42.520]  And I said, what are the grounds for your objection?
[10:42.520 --> 10:46.520]  And he says, Your Honor, there's been no ratification of commencement
[10:46.520 --> 10:48.520]  in this matter.
[10:48.520 --> 10:54.520]  And I just stopped right there, much the same as I did two or three years ago
[10:54.520 --> 10:58.520]  when we were roleplaying and Winston happened to be at the meeting,
[10:58.520 --> 11:03.520]  and he dropped the certification of the charges on me,
[11:03.520 --> 11:09.520]  and I didn't know what that was at the time, and it was really very interesting
[11:09.520 --> 11:15.520]  as this fellow took about 20 minutes to explain what this was all about,
[11:15.520 --> 11:22.520]  and, of course, he and I have collaborated almost weekly since that time
[11:22.520 --> 11:32.520]  and shot documents back and forth and different scenarios back and forth,
[11:32.520 --> 11:39.520]  and I actually believe, folks and fellows, that this ratification
[11:39.520 --> 11:46.520]  of commencement has the potential to be the literal undoing
[11:46.520 --> 11:50.520]  of the entire judicial system.
[11:50.520 --> 11:57.520]  And I believe that that, along with the other inroads and other things
[11:57.520 --> 12:04.520]  that everyone in the study has been making around the country,
[12:04.520 --> 12:09.520]  regardless of what it is or which thing they're studying,
[12:09.520 --> 12:12.520]  I think the system is unraveling around us all,
[12:12.520 --> 12:18.520]  and I think that the system is desperate to maintain its control,
[12:18.520 --> 12:24.520]  and I think that that's the reason for these extended actions.
[12:24.520 --> 12:30.520]  This particular undercover operation is instigated by the FBI at least
[12:30.520 --> 12:38.520]  three years ago against us, the fellows and myself down in Las Vegas,
[12:38.520 --> 12:42.520]  and although I will say that Sean is a newcomer,
[12:42.520 --> 12:45.520]  Sean Rice was a newcomer to this whole thing,
[12:45.520 --> 12:50.520]  and I'm personally responsible that I asked him to come and help me
[12:50.520 --> 12:55.520]  to do some things that even brought him into this.
[12:55.520 --> 13:04.520]  He's more or less, I don't think, I think, hold collateral damage in all of this.
[13:04.520 --> 13:09.520]  And so anyway, that's kind of the gist of what has gone on
[13:09.520 --> 13:15.520]  and some of the things that I certainly am working on
[13:15.520 --> 13:17.520]  and would like to talk about with you guys
[13:17.520 --> 13:25.520]  and get some serious brain power going here on some of these things
[13:25.520 --> 13:31.520]  and try and bring some relief to people around the country.
[13:31.520 --> 13:40.520]  While I look at this as I'm in the hot seat right now, and I guess it's my turn,
[13:40.520 --> 13:48.520]  but this is so important that I think that if we don't all come together
[13:48.520 --> 13:56.520]  and, you know, share what information we have and what experiences we have,
[13:56.520 --> 14:08.520]  then I think that we sit like bowling pins waiting to be knocked over one at a time.
[14:08.520 --> 14:12.520]  Can you kind of define what you mean by ratification of commencement?
[14:12.520 --> 14:14.520]  Sure.
[14:14.520 --> 14:22.520]  In Rule 17, real parties in interest, and during the break I will grab the rule
[14:22.520 --> 14:24.520]  and just read it.
[14:24.520 --> 14:28.520]  I don't have it in this location where I am in the house right now,
[14:28.520 --> 14:31.520]  but I will have it momentarily when you go to a break.
[14:31.520 --> 14:33.520]  Rule 17 of what?
[14:33.520 --> 14:35.520]  Rules of civil procedure.
[14:35.520 --> 14:37.520]  Thank you.
[14:37.520 --> 14:45.520]  It's actually 17A, and it says that all actions must be brought
[14:45.520 --> 14:48.520]  in the name of the real party in interest.
[14:48.520 --> 14:52.520]  And then it goes on to say, and I can come close to quoting it,
[14:52.520 --> 15:02.520]  but it goes on to say that no action shall be dismissed until after objection
[15:02.520 --> 15:09.520]  to the ratification of commencement brought by the real party in interest.
[15:09.520 --> 15:11.520]  And that's, again, that's paraphrased.
[15:11.520 --> 15:12.520]  That's close.
[15:12.520 --> 15:16.520]  That's not it word for word.
[15:16.520 --> 15:22.520]  But the whole idea is that it's the ratification of commencement that is the claim.
[15:22.520 --> 15:25.520]  It's the actual contract.
[15:25.520 --> 15:27.520]  It's the claim.
[15:27.520 --> 15:33.520]  It's the foundation and basis for the action brought by the injured party,
[15:33.520 --> 15:36.520]  the real party in interest.
[15:36.520 --> 15:45.520]  And the experience that really triggered this whole thing for me was it actually
[15:45.520 --> 15:53.520]  took place in Hawaii about a week after our meeting in Las Vegas,
[15:53.520 --> 15:55.520]  and I got a call from the fellow over there,
[15:55.520 --> 15:57.520]  and he says, you're not going to believe what's going on over here.
[15:57.520 --> 16:02.520]  And he says, a friend of mine was picked up on an IRS warrant issued back in
[16:02.520 --> 16:10.520]  December on a criminal warrant, six figures that the IRS was after him for.
[16:10.520 --> 16:15.520]  And he says, I took down this one-page document that literally consisted of one
[16:15.520 --> 16:20.520]  paragraph, and two hours later there was an emergency hearing.
[16:20.520 --> 16:25.520]  The judge recalled the warrant, and the man was set out at a convenience store
[16:25.520 --> 16:28.520]  somewhere in town in Hawaii.
[16:28.520 --> 16:30.520]  All right, listen, listen, we're going back on the air.
[16:30.520 --> 16:33.520]  I mean, we're going to break now, so if you want to please hold on,
[16:33.520 --> 16:35.520]  we're going to take this up on the other side.
[16:35.520 --> 16:38.520]  This is the rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens.
[16:38.520 --> 16:49.520]  We'll be right back.
[16:49.520 --> 16:53.520]  Are you looking for an investment that has no stock market risk,
[16:53.520 --> 16:56.520]  has a 100 percent track record of returning profits,
[16:56.520 --> 17:01.520]  is not affected by fluctuations in oil prices and interest rates,
[17:01.520 --> 17:04.520]  is publicly traded and SEC regulated?
[17:04.520 --> 17:08.520]  If this kind of peace of mind is what you have been looking for in an investment,
[17:08.520 --> 17:11.520]  then Life Settlements is the investment for you.
[17:11.520 --> 17:17.520]  Our annual rate of return has been 15.83 percent for the last 17 years.
[17:17.520 --> 17:21.520]  Our investments are insurance and banking commission regulated.
[17:21.520 --> 17:25.520]  Our returns are assured by the largest insurance companies.
[17:25.520 --> 17:31.520]  Even qualified retirement plans such as 401Ks and IRAs are eligible for transfer.
[17:31.520 --> 17:34.520]  We charge absolutely no commissions.
[17:34.520 --> 17:37.520]  One hundred percent of your investment goes to work for you.
[17:37.520 --> 17:46.520]  Please visit sleepwellinvestment.com or call Bill Shelbur at 817-975-2431.
[17:46.520 --> 17:55.520]  That's sleepwellinvestment.com or call 817-975-2431.
[17:55.520 --> 18:17.520]  Thank you.
[18:17.520 --> 18:40.520]  All right.
[18:40.520 --> 18:42.520]  You are listening to The Rule of Law.
[18:42.520 --> 18:45.520]  This is Deborah Stevens here with Randy Kelton.
[18:45.520 --> 18:50.520]  We are here with Sam Davis and Tony Davis
[18:50.520 --> 18:54.520]  and discussing the situation about Rule 17.
[18:54.520 --> 18:57.520]  Okay, so please continue, guys.
[18:57.520 --> 18:59.520]  Okay.
[18:59.520 --> 19:06.520]  Tony and Randy, I pulled this out of my Rules of Civil Procedure book here.
[19:06.520 --> 19:12.520]  It says, no action shall be dismissed on the ground that it is not prosecuted
[19:12.520 --> 19:17.520]  in the name of the real party in interest until a reasonable time has been allowed
[19:17.520 --> 19:21.520]  after objection for ratification of commencement of the action
[19:21.520 --> 19:24.520]  by the real party in interest.
[19:24.520 --> 19:30.520]  Now, that's the basics of the law itself.
[19:30.520 --> 19:35.520]  Now you just have to go and look at or determine what constitutes ratification
[19:35.520 --> 19:40.520]  of commencement, and as much as you guys know about the law,
[19:40.520 --> 19:46.520]  you know full well that when the state comes or the United States comes,
[19:46.520 --> 19:50.520]  it's simply coming as a corporation, and whoever the damaged
[19:50.520 --> 19:55.520]  or alleged damaged party is, is nothing more than a witness.
[19:55.520 --> 20:00.520]  They are not alleged to be the injured party or the real party in interest.
[20:00.520 --> 20:03.520]  The state takes that position, and there's no one in the state
[20:03.520 --> 20:05.520]  that can make the ratification.
[20:05.520 --> 20:13.520]  And let me just give you the most blatant or the most obvious example
[20:13.520 --> 20:23.520]  and one that I think is going to absolutely turn the foreclosure industry on its head.
[20:23.520 --> 20:29.520]  If you go into Google or anywhere else in a search engine
[20:29.520 --> 20:33.520]  and you type in ratification of commencement,
[20:33.520 --> 20:41.520]  you're going to find several cases, but the one most prominent is Wells Fargo v. Bird.
[20:41.520 --> 20:47.520]  And in that case, it explains that Wells Fargo purchased a mortgage
[20:47.520 --> 20:53.520]  from another bank and then began to try and foreclose,
[20:53.520 --> 20:58.520]  and when they began the foreclosure proceedings, they did not have the note.
[20:58.520 --> 21:01.520]  They may have had all the contracts, all the notes, whatever,
[21:01.520 --> 21:05.520]  but somebody was sharp enough on the other side to say,
[21:05.520 --> 21:08.520]  wait a minute, where's the ratification of commencement?
[21:08.520 --> 21:11.520]  Where is your standing to sue?
[21:11.520 --> 21:15.520]  Ratification goes directly to standing to sue.
[21:15.520 --> 21:20.520]  And Wells Fargo lost in that case, and they lost on appeal,
[21:20.520 --> 21:25.520]  because they could not provide ratification of commencement.
[21:25.520 --> 21:30.520]  Now, I've had several people say, well, you know, Sam, when you stood up at arraignment
[21:30.520 --> 21:38.520]  and the judge began to arraign you, and this is exactly what happened.
[21:38.520 --> 21:44.520]  And right after we started, I said, Your Honor, I object.
[21:44.520 --> 21:47.520]  And he said, what are you objecting to?
[21:47.520 --> 21:54.520]  And I said, Your Honor, I have a right to know the nature and the cause of this matter before us,
[21:54.520 --> 21:59.520]  because it's in the nature of a criminal indictment and the cause is money laundering.
[21:59.520 --> 22:01.520]  And I said, Your Honor, I object.
[22:01.520 --> 22:03.520]  And he says, what are you objecting to now?
[22:03.520 --> 22:08.520]  And I said, Your Honor, there's been no ratification of commencement in this matter,
[22:08.520 --> 22:12.520]  to which he says, I don't know what that is.
[22:12.520 --> 22:17.520]  And I said, it's Rule 17, Your Honor, rules for real parties in interest.
[22:17.520 --> 22:23.520]  And he says, Rule 17, he says, are you talking about the rules of civil procedure?
[22:23.520 --> 22:24.520]  And I said, I am.
[22:24.520 --> 22:26.520]  And he said, this is a criminal action.
[22:26.520 --> 22:32.520]  I said, Your Honor, there's only one form of action, and that's a civil action, according to the rules.
[22:32.520 --> 22:35.520]  And he says, well, we'll take that up later.
[22:35.520 --> 22:39.520]  And I said, please note my objection for the record.
[22:39.520 --> 22:41.520]  And he said, so noted.
[22:41.520 --> 22:44.520]  That is exactly what I wanted him to do.
[22:44.520 --> 22:49.520]  He then proceeded to move forward with arraignment.
[22:49.520 --> 22:50.520]  He didn't even look at me.
[22:50.520 --> 22:51.520]  He didn't ask me.
[22:51.520 --> 22:59.520]  He just said, I'm going to enter a plea of not guilty for the defendant, to which I said, I'll accept that for value.
[22:59.520 --> 23:03.520]  And then we moved to the detention part of the hearing.
[23:03.520 --> 23:07.520]  By the way, he also said when I said that, I don't know what that means.
[23:07.520 --> 23:11.520]  And I said, I'm not here to tell you the law.
[23:11.520 --> 23:15.520]  So that was the event that led up to that.
[23:15.520 --> 23:26.520]  And this is the whole focus of my study at this moment in time, because everything stops when there's no real party in interest.
[23:26.520 --> 23:39.520]  And it says right here in the rule, it says, no action shall be dismissed on the ground that it is not prosecuted in the name of the real party in
[23:39.520 --> 23:51.520]  interest until a reasonable time has been allowed after objection for ratification of commencement of the action by the real party in interest.
[23:51.520 --> 23:58.520]  And, Bill, as I'm telling you, this is the keys to the kingdom as far as I'm concerned.
[23:58.520 --> 24:05.520]  From this so far, I don't understand what the ratification of commencement really is.
[24:05.520 --> 24:10.520]  How does the real party in interest ratify commencement?
[24:10.520 --> 24:11.520]  They can't.
[24:11.520 --> 24:14.520]  That's the whole point.
[24:14.520 --> 24:18.520]  The only – let's just take a simple foreclosure.
[24:18.520 --> 24:28.520]  The only way that who's ever foreclosing can come forward with the ratification of commencement is if they hold the actual promissory note that
[24:28.520 --> 24:30.520]  they're foreclosing.
[24:30.520 --> 24:34.520]  And we all know that none of them do, or rarely if ever do they.
[24:34.520 --> 24:43.520]  It's not that I was asking if they could or not, but what constitutes a ratification of commencement?
[24:43.520 --> 24:52.520]  It has to be an affidavit of a claim, a proof of claim.
[24:52.520 --> 24:56.520]  In other words, the promissory note becomes the proof of claim.
[24:56.520 --> 25:01.520]  And the holder of it can make a ratification of commencement.
[25:01.520 --> 25:12.520]  It can make an affidavit that says attached to – as Exhibit A is the note in question or the charge in question,
[25:12.520 --> 25:20.520]  I am the injured party and I have a right to be made whole.
[25:20.520 --> 25:21.520]  Interesting.
[25:21.520 --> 25:24.520]  On the Byrd case, do you have the citation?
[25:24.520 --> 25:25.520]  No.
[25:25.520 --> 25:34.520]  All I can tell you is it's Wells Fargo B Byrd, B-Y-R-D, and it will come up in the first – what?
[25:34.520 --> 25:36.520]  I just Googled it and didn't find it.
[25:36.520 --> 25:45.520]  It should be there in the first four – if you type in ratification of commencement, it should be in the first four hits.
[25:45.520 --> 25:48.520]  Oh, you're talking about a net search?
[25:48.520 --> 25:49.520]  Yes.
[25:49.520 --> 25:50.520]  Oh, okay.
[25:50.520 --> 25:52.520]  I'll try that.
[25:52.520 --> 25:55.520]  If you just type in ratification of commencement.
[25:55.520 --> 26:02.520]  Now, over the weekend, someone sent me – and, you know, I get things from all over the country,
[26:02.520 --> 26:10.520]  but someone sent me a link that there's an upcoming judicial conference
[26:10.520 --> 26:18.520]  and a bankruptcy judge in central California is being quoted and there's some writing going on
[26:18.520 --> 26:26.520]  that after he deals with lost, destroyed, or stolen notes under UCC 3-309,
[26:26.520 --> 26:32.520]  he goes on down and talks about real parties in interest in Rule 17.
[26:32.520 --> 26:37.520]  And the interesting thing is that he says, and he's quoted,
[26:37.520 --> 26:44.520]  that the problem we're going to find, he's saying, is that it is impossible.
[26:44.520 --> 26:50.520]  And then he pauses and there's like a parenthesis or a dash and he says,
[26:50.520 --> 27:00.520]  not difficult, not just difficult, but impossible to proceed on a foreclosure without the note.
[27:00.520 --> 27:08.520]  And basically what he's saying is without someone there withstanding to ratify the commencement of the action.
[27:08.520 --> 27:17.520]  And it is just absolutely stunning what the height and breadth and width of this thing is
[27:17.520 --> 27:22.520]  because it is applicable in every case.
[27:22.520 --> 27:24.520]  Okay, I found it.
[27:24.520 --> 27:33.520]  The case, the citation is 178 Ohio, Appellate 3D 285.
[27:33.520 --> 27:36.520]  Okay, well, you legal scholars will understand all that.
[27:36.520 --> 27:39.520]  I'm just a simple farmer in Idaho.
[27:39.520 --> 27:42.520]  Well, that's for someone who's doing a specific search.
[27:42.520 --> 27:48.520]  That'll, if you're in a search like in Lexis or Westlaw, that'll hit you dead on the document.
[27:48.520 --> 27:51.520]  Okay.
[27:51.520 --> 27:57.520]  I hope because I'm fixing to try it.
[27:57.520 --> 28:01.520]  Well, all I know is that this is amazing stuff.
[28:01.520 --> 28:07.520]  So they're saying, okay, so this appears to go directly to standing.
[28:07.520 --> 28:08.520]  Yes.
[28:08.520 --> 28:16.520]  Well, it goes to proof of claim and standing because without no proof of claim you don't have standing.
[28:16.520 --> 28:17.520]  Right, yeah.
[28:17.520 --> 28:26.520]  And it kind of looked like an abatement based on standing.
[28:26.520 --> 28:28.520]  Well, is this Randy?
[28:28.520 --> 28:29.520]  Yes.
[28:29.520 --> 28:38.520]  Okay, the way I analyze it is that it goes all the way back to the fundamental tenets of common law,
[28:38.520 --> 28:41.520]  who is the injured party.
[28:41.520 --> 28:53.520]  And so, you know, just like I heard people 10 years ago tell me that acceptance for value was a dilatory plea
[28:53.520 --> 28:57.520]  or a plea in abatement.
[28:57.520 --> 29:05.520]  And, you know, not knowing a whole lot about those things, I neither agreed nor disagreed.
[29:05.520 --> 29:11.520]  I began to, you know, study and look those things up.
[29:11.520 --> 29:17.520]  But this goes hand in hand with do you have a claim against me?
[29:17.520 --> 29:21.520]  And that is exactly the way that I'm using it.
[29:21.520 --> 29:27.520]  So what happened in the, okay, the proceedings, so then you went through this issue.
[29:27.520 --> 29:28.520]  Okay, wait a minute.
[29:28.520 --> 29:29.520]  We're going to have to pick that up on the other side.
[29:29.520 --> 29:30.520]  We're going to break.
[29:30.520 --> 29:31.520]  Okay.
[29:31.520 --> 29:32.520]  All right.
[29:32.520 --> 29:37.520]  We're talking about nature of standing and have to have it if you're going to sue.
[29:37.520 --> 29:38.520]  I will be right back.
[29:38.520 --> 29:41.520]  This is the rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens.
[29:41.520 --> 29:43.520]  We're here with Sam Davis and Tony Davis.
[29:43.520 --> 29:50.520]  We'll be right back.
[29:50.520 --> 29:52.520]  Gold prices are at historic highs.
[29:52.520 --> 29:55.520]  And with the recent pullback, this is a great time to buy.
[29:55.520 --> 29:59.520]  With the value of the dollar, risks of inflation, geopolitical uncertainties
[29:59.520 --> 30:03.520]  and instability in world financial systems, I see gold going up much higher.
[30:03.520 --> 30:06.520]  Hi, I'm Tim Fry at Roberts and Roberts Brokerage.
[30:06.520 --> 30:10.520]  Everybody should have some of their assets in investment grade precious metals.
[30:10.520 --> 30:14.520]  At Roberts and Roberts Brokerage, you can buy gold, silver and platinum with confidence
[30:14.520 --> 30:19.520]  from a brokerage that specialized in the precious metals market since 1977.
[30:19.520 --> 30:22.520]  If you are new to precious metals, we will happily provide you
[30:22.520 --> 30:25.520]  with the information you need to make an informed decision
[30:25.520 --> 30:27.520]  whether or not you choose to purchase from us.
[30:27.520 --> 30:30.520]  Also, Roberts and Roberts Brokerage values your privacy
[30:30.520 --> 30:35.520]  and will always advise you in the event that we would be required to report any transaction.
[30:35.520 --> 30:38.520]  If you have gold, silver or platinum you'd like to sell,
[30:38.520 --> 30:40.520]  we can convert it for immediate payment.
[30:40.520 --> 30:44.520]  Call us at 800-874-9760.
[30:44.520 --> 30:50.520]  We are Roberts and Roberts Brokerage, 800-874-9760.
[30:50.520 --> 31:15.520]  Yeah, Mr. Office, I will take in the light ahead. Won't you follow the law of the land?
[31:15.520 --> 31:31.520]  All right, we are back.
[31:31.520 --> 31:38.520]  This is the rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens.
[31:38.520 --> 31:40.520]  All right, please continue, Tony.
[31:40.520 --> 31:42.520]  You were asking Sam a question before we went to break.
[31:42.520 --> 31:45.520]  Okay, you were kind of walking through the process of what happened.
[31:45.520 --> 31:47.520]  Yeah, in court, you mean?
[31:47.520 --> 31:48.520]  Right, uh-huh.
[31:48.520 --> 31:51.520]  Okay, yeah.
[31:51.520 --> 31:52.520]  Go ahead.
[31:52.520 --> 31:56.520]  After I said what I said, you know, I'm not here to tell you the law,
[31:56.520 --> 32:03.520]  then they moved to either detention or release hearing right there in the immediate.
[32:03.520 --> 32:14.520]  And, of course, I was proclaimed by the press as the national leader of the anti-government sovereignty movement,
[32:14.520 --> 32:23.520]  which, you know, number one, I've never considered myself anti-government.
[32:23.520 --> 32:33.520]  And I left what we used to call the sovereignty movement.
[32:33.520 --> 32:36.520]  You know, I don't really participate in those types of things.
[32:36.520 --> 32:41.520]  That's not what, I mean, although my seminars go through status,
[32:41.520 --> 33:06.520]  and sovereignty is certainly a status, and I do talk.
[33:06.520 --> 33:12.520]  I will occupy my father's house until he returns.
[33:12.520 --> 33:16.520]  I will occupy my father's house.
[33:16.520 --> 33:23.520]  He has left me with the strength and with the aid of my concern.
[33:23.520 --> 33:27.520]  I will occupy my father's house.
[33:27.520 --> 33:39.520]  He has left me with the strength and with the aid of my concern.
[33:39.520 --> 33:44.520]  I will occupy my father's house.
[33:44.520 --> 33:47.520]  You know, I don't really participate in those types of things.
[33:47.520 --> 33:52.520]  That's not what, I mean, although my seminars go through status,
[33:52.520 --> 33:57.520]  and sovereignty is certainly a status, and I do talk.
[33:57.520 --> 34:03.520]  If I tell you that I'm going to show up in your court on the date and time appointed, that's what I'm going to do.
[34:03.520 --> 34:08.520]  And he looks at me and he says, I believe that you will.
[34:08.520 --> 34:12.520]  And the U.S. Attorney started to object, and the judge turned to him and said,
[34:12.520 --> 34:15.520]  the man has given me his word and I believe him.
[34:15.520 --> 34:19.520]  And I said into the microphone, Your Honor, I believe that's a meeting of the minds.
[34:19.520 --> 34:22.520]  And the judge looked at me and he says, I believe it is.
[34:22.520 --> 34:25.520]  And then I said, and I believe that's a contract.
[34:25.520 --> 34:29.520]  And he said, I'm going to release you.
[34:29.520 --> 34:32.520]  And so then they put a couple of minor restrictions on me,
[34:32.520 --> 34:39.520]  and they released me and moved on to the rest of the fellows that were there.
[34:39.520 --> 34:44.520]  In the federal system now, I'm told that there's no bond.
[34:44.520 --> 34:46.520]  You just sign that you'll show up.
[34:46.520 --> 34:52.520]  Of course, in every document that I signed, I accepted for value because that's my belief system.
[34:52.520 --> 34:55.520]  And I walked away.
[34:55.520 --> 34:58.520]  Several hours later, I walked away.
[34:58.520 --> 35:11.520]  But nonetheless, here we are, and now, you know, I'm in the battle of my life for my belief system.
[35:11.520 --> 35:19.520]  And that's where I am, and while I don't welcome it, I'm not afraid of it.
[35:19.520 --> 35:23.520]  You know, I knew this day would come along for a long time.
[35:23.520 --> 35:27.520]  Ten years ago, they tried to indict me, and for the life of me,
[35:27.520 --> 35:32.520]  it's only an act of God that they didn't because I sat on the witness stand
[35:32.520 --> 35:37.520]  and in a good friend of mine's trial and took all of the responsibility
[35:37.520 --> 35:40.520]  and all of the blame on myself.
[35:40.520 --> 35:43.520]  I said, I'm the one that did this.
[35:43.520 --> 35:46.520]  I put these documents in the printer.
[35:46.520 --> 35:48.520]  I loaded the software.
[35:48.520 --> 35:49.520]  I filled them out.
[35:49.520 --> 35:52.520]  I did everything but sign them.
[35:52.520 --> 36:01.520]  If they had said not to do it, they wouldn't have done it, and I took it all on me.
[36:01.520 --> 36:07.520]  And then they tried to get me in front of a grand jury for several months, and that didn't work.
[36:07.520 --> 36:11.520]  And finally, the FBI lady called me one day,
[36:11.520 --> 36:16.520]  and we were discussing a hearing that I was supposedly ordered to attend
[36:16.520 --> 36:24.520]  from an order from a federal judge that did not have a date and time on it for me to fulfill this order.
[36:24.520 --> 36:31.520]  And the question was asked of me, Sam, let me ask you this, the FBI lady said,
[36:31.520 --> 36:36.520]  if we have this hearing, will you grant the judge jurisdiction?
[36:36.520 --> 36:40.520]  To which, of course, I said, I don't believe I'll grant anyone anything.
[36:40.520 --> 36:51.520]  So, you know, as the investigator who was with the 25 agents of the military SWAT team
[36:51.520 --> 36:56.520]  that knocked in my door at home while I was under arrest in Las Vegas
[36:56.520 --> 37:02.520]  and threw two some kind of smoke-distractive devices into my home
[37:02.520 --> 37:06.520]  and held my wife at gunpoint in handcuffs,
[37:06.520 --> 37:10.520]  as they interviewed her and told her what a terrible person I was
[37:10.520 --> 37:15.520]  and that they had been investigating me all these years, she simply said to them,
[37:15.520 --> 37:22.520]  if he's such a terrible person, why didn't you arrest him ten years ago or five years ago?
[37:22.520 --> 37:30.520]  And I couple that now with saying, if I've done all these terrible things these last several years,
[37:30.520 --> 37:36.520]  why did you have to go undercover and entrap me for the last three years
[37:36.520 --> 37:40.520]  to get me into a position where you could arrest me and indict me?
[37:40.520 --> 37:45.520]  And that's where it stands right now.
[37:45.520 --> 37:49.520]  So what do you think is going to be the result of the revocation of commencement?
[37:49.520 --> 37:52.520]  Did you file a motion on that?
[37:52.520 --> 38:05.520]  No, I'm going to be – now they have appointed me a public defender, and he called today,
[38:05.520 --> 38:10.520]  and we're talking about the fellow that I'm working with,
[38:10.520 --> 38:13.520]  we're talking about exactly how we're going to handle that,
[38:13.520 --> 38:16.520]  and we're going to file another objection.
[38:16.520 --> 38:18.520]  I've never filed a document yet.
[38:18.520 --> 38:23.520]  There's 35 documents on the docket, and not one of them have I filed.
[38:23.520 --> 38:32.520]  And so sometime next week I will probably go in,
[38:32.520 --> 38:38.520]  and we're still debating on exactly what it will say and how we will say it,
[38:38.520 --> 38:49.520]  and it will be something to do with another objection as to the ratification of commencement.
[38:49.520 --> 38:50.520]  Okay.
[38:50.520 --> 38:53.520]  So you're going to prepare something to actually file a document in the court on that then?
[38:53.520 --> 38:56.520]  Yes, yes.
[38:56.520 --> 38:59.520]  What kind of restrictions have you placed on you?
[38:59.520 --> 39:04.520]  The only restriction I have is that, you know, for all this militia talk
[39:04.520 --> 39:09.520]  and all these – you know, the news report said that I was charged with tax evasion,
[39:09.520 --> 39:16.520]  machine guns, and money laundering, and they – you know, I have five sons,
[39:16.520 --> 39:21.520]  and only one of them left at home, but they all pretty much hunt,
[39:21.520 --> 39:26.520]  and so we had several rifles and a pistol here at the house,
[39:26.520 --> 39:31.520]  and they basically told – they said that those had to be removed
[39:31.520 --> 39:34.520]  from what they called the pendency of this action,
[39:34.520 --> 39:39.520]  and so my sons took their guns and took them down to the neighbors or friends,
[39:39.520 --> 39:46.520]  and then the only other restriction I have is that – and the judge told me that I could go anywhere I wanted.
[39:46.520 --> 39:52.520]  I just had to notify people when I was traveling and where I was going outside of Idaho and Nevada.
[39:52.520 --> 39:55.520]  So those are the only restrictions on me.
[39:55.520 --> 40:00.520]  Pre-trial services recommended that not only should I be released immediately,
[40:00.520 --> 40:06.520]  I should not have any restrictions, and the U.S. attorney managed to get his two sons' worth then.
[40:06.520 --> 40:08.520]  Okay.
[40:08.520 --> 40:14.520]  Dee, you said there was a case that actually somebody won on the ratification of commencement?
[40:14.520 --> 40:17.520]  Well, they haven't necessarily won, but they were released from jail.
[40:17.520 --> 40:18.520]  Okay.
[40:18.520 --> 40:24.520]  And the warrant was recalled, and that case is absolutely silent and static at this moment.
[40:24.520 --> 40:25.520]  Oh, I see.
[40:25.520 --> 40:27.520]  And it's been on two and a half months.
[40:27.520 --> 40:30.520]  What's the name of the party in that case?
[40:30.520 --> 40:32.520]  I'm not going to say that on air.
[40:32.520 --> 40:33.520]  Okay.
[40:33.520 --> 40:34.520]  Okay.
[40:34.520 --> 40:35.520]  I understand.
[40:35.520 --> 40:37.520]  Okay.
[40:37.520 --> 40:44.520]  I want to go back to ratification of commencement of a criminal action.
[40:44.520 --> 40:52.520]  How does the government become a party in interest?
[40:52.520 --> 40:53.520]  That's the whole key.
[40:53.520 --> 40:55.520]  They can't.
[40:55.520 --> 40:59.520]  Well, in Texas, we have a statute that says,
[40:59.520 --> 41:06.520]  when a penal statute of the state of Texas is violated, a state is the injured party.
[41:06.520 --> 41:13.520]  Is there a corresponding federal statute that you know of?
[41:13.520 --> 41:14.520]  Yeah.
[41:14.520 --> 41:20.520]  Under the rules, in fact, if you read the dissertations on Rule 17,
[41:20.520 --> 41:27.520]  it says that the United States can be the real party in interest.
[41:27.520 --> 41:31.520]  However, neither the state of Texas, nor the United States,
[41:31.520 --> 41:34.520]  nor any other state, being a corporation,
[41:34.520 --> 41:42.520]  can make a claim against an individual, a natural man or a man, a living, breathing being.
[41:42.520 --> 41:44.520]  Okay.
[41:44.520 --> 41:50.520]  There can be an injured party, but that injured party is always substituted by the state,
[41:50.520 --> 41:54.520]  and the state cannot bring the proof of claim.
[41:54.520 --> 41:56.520]  They can bring witnesses.
[41:56.520 --> 41:58.520]  Okay.
[41:58.520 --> 42:04.520]  I don't understand why a corporation cannot make a claim against a natural person.
[42:04.520 --> 42:08.520]  Does a corporation bleed?
[42:08.520 --> 42:09.520]  Non-sequitur.
[42:09.520 --> 42:15.520]  Well, corporations, too, I see businesses as parties in litigation all the time.
[42:15.520 --> 42:16.520]  Listen, we're going to break.
[42:16.520 --> 42:17.520]  We'll be right back.
[42:17.520 --> 42:28.520]  As soon as we get back, we're going to talk about this.
[42:28.520 --> 42:31.520]  Stock markets are taking hit after hit.
[42:31.520 --> 42:35.520]  Corrupt bankers are choking on subprime debt.
[42:35.520 --> 42:41.520]  The Fed is busy printing dollars, dollars and more dollars to bail out Wall Street banks
[42:41.520 --> 42:43.520]  and the U.S. car industry.
[42:43.520 --> 42:49.520]  As investors scramble for safety in the metals in the face of a further devaluation of the dollar,
[42:49.520 --> 42:52.520]  the price of silver will only increase.
[42:52.520 --> 42:59.520]  Some of the world's leading financial analysts believe that silver is one of the world's most important commodities,
[42:59.520 --> 43:02.520]  with unparalleled investment opportunity for the future.
[43:02.520 --> 43:08.520]  Now is the time to buy silver before it heads for $75 an ounce,
[43:08.520 --> 43:14.520]  and the yellow metal roars back past $1,000 an ounce to new highs.
[43:14.520 --> 43:24.520]  Call Maximus Holdings now at 407-608-5430 to find out how you can turn your IRA and 401K
[43:24.520 --> 43:29.520]  into a solid investment, silver, without any penalties for early withdrawal.
[43:29.520 --> 43:35.520]  Even if you don't have a retirement account yet, we have fantastic investment opportunities for you.
[43:35.520 --> 43:59.520]  Call Maximus Holdings at 407-608-5430 for more information.
[44:05.520 --> 44:08.520]  We don't have the answer.
[44:08.520 --> 44:10.520]  We don't have the answer.
[44:10.520 --> 44:13.520]  We've got the question.
[44:13.520 --> 44:15.520]  It's not gonna break it.
[44:15.520 --> 44:18.520]  And we don't have the answer.
[44:18.520 --> 44:20.520]  So can't sleep this night.
[44:20.520 --> 44:21.520]  I can't not sleep.
[44:21.520 --> 44:24.520]  You can see, Lord, how they want to make it easy.
[44:24.520 --> 44:29.520]  They might not wait too politically and then get it not done on me.
[44:29.520 --> 44:34.520]  But they must have enough time to fight and fight for the freedom and the freedom.
[44:34.520 --> 44:38.520]  And they let them love slavery and get hanged up.
[44:38.520 --> 44:39.520]  Okay, we are back.
[44:39.520 --> 44:43.520]  This is the rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens.
[44:43.520 --> 44:48.520]  All right, we're speaking with Sam Davis and Joe Davis.
[44:48.520 --> 44:58.520]  And, yeah, I was asking what the story is or what the law says about companies or corporations
[44:58.520 --> 45:03.520]  or businesses suing people or people suing businesses or corporations
[45:03.520 --> 45:12.520]  because I see cases all the time where names of businesses are listed as parties on litigation
[45:12.520 --> 45:15.520]  and so forth and so on.
[45:15.520 --> 45:22.520]  So I'm just wondering, is there some statute or law or case law that says that a corporation can't sue a person
[45:22.520 --> 45:26.520]  or that a person cannot sue a corporation or vice versa?
[45:26.520 --> 45:29.520]  So what is the law on this?
[45:29.520 --> 45:31.520]  Okay, that's a great question.
[45:31.520 --> 45:36.520]  And here's my very simplistic answer.
[45:36.520 --> 45:42.520]  For the last ten years we have used the rules.
[45:42.520 --> 45:52.520]  I almost never look at the law because in my belief system basically the law is irrelevant.
[45:52.520 --> 45:55.520]  I'm looking at the rules.
[45:55.520 --> 46:04.520]  Years ago in a criminal case up in Seattle a fellow was in jail and waiting extradition to Texas.
[46:04.520 --> 46:12.520]  And he and his wife both on a charge of running a gifting program.
[46:12.520 --> 46:18.520]  And he was in jail in Washington State on a traffic violation that was a year old,
[46:18.520 --> 46:23.520]  driving without a license, driving all suspended and driving without insurance.
[46:23.520 --> 46:31.520]  And for some reason we were allowed to go into the jail cell and meet with him
[46:31.520 --> 46:40.520]  where I handed him what we termed then an affidavit of specific negative impairment done in Rule 9A
[46:40.520 --> 46:44.520]  of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and this is in a criminal matter.
[46:44.520 --> 46:51.520]  Now I told him exactly what to do and he did exactly what he was told.
[46:51.520 --> 46:57.520]  And 45 minutes of the judge literally leaning over the bench, shaking his fist, screaming,
[46:57.520 --> 47:02.520]  throwing his glasses across the room and finally collapsing in his chair exhausted.
[47:02.520 --> 47:08.520]  He said that he was going to hold the matter over for another week and they would try it again later.
[47:08.520 --> 47:12.520]  The following week that case was completely gone.
[47:12.520 --> 47:19.520]  And when that man was finally extradited, he and his wife to Texas three weeks later,
[47:19.520 --> 47:22.520]  as they got on the bus to be taken to Texas,
[47:22.520 --> 47:30.520]  a person representing the governor of the state of Washington ended the man and his wife a pardon
[47:30.520 --> 47:34.520]  for the last 12 and a half years for anything they may have done
[47:34.520 --> 47:38.520]  and their names were expunged from all the records in the state of Washington.
[47:38.520 --> 47:41.520]  And that was done with two pieces of paper.
[47:41.520 --> 47:49.520]  So I have always simply used the rules and I've asked attorney after attorney after attorney
[47:49.520 --> 47:57.520]  that has come into my life, if I can get a case dismissed with two pieces of paper, why can't you?
[47:57.520 --> 48:04.520]  And of course their answer is, well, I don't know what you're doing and I don't know how that works.
[48:04.520 --> 48:08.520]  But the bottom line is if they could get the case dismissed with two pieces of paper,
[48:08.520 --> 48:11.520]  they wouldn't make any money.
[48:11.520 --> 48:17.520]  And so I look at this from a very simple, because I'm a simple guy, I don't know the law,
[48:17.520 --> 48:21.520]  I don't care to know the law, I don't study the law.
[48:21.520 --> 48:28.520]  The rules are laid out step by step by step in a very efficient procedural manner.
[48:28.520 --> 48:36.520]  And if you just use and apply the rules, you can defeat just about every case out there.
[48:36.520 --> 48:40.520]  Okay, so Sam, are you saying that it's in the rules of court somewhere,
[48:40.520 --> 48:45.520]  the rules of procedure somewhere, that a corporation cannot sue a person?
[48:45.520 --> 48:48.520]  No, no, anybody can sue anybody.
[48:48.520 --> 48:50.520]  That's not the issue.
[48:50.520 --> 48:54.520]  The issue is can they have standing, can they maintain the suit,
[48:54.520 --> 48:58.520]  and the moment you address the merits of the suit, you lose.
[48:58.520 --> 49:04.520]  Okay, so you're saying that a corporation doesn't have standing to sue a person?
[49:04.520 --> 49:08.520]  Only if they have proof of claim.
[49:08.520 --> 49:09.520]  Okay.
[49:09.520 --> 49:16.520]  Only if they have a proof of a claim, an actual contract that has been breached that they can prove.
[49:16.520 --> 49:28.520]  Now, in this dissertation that we got over the weekend, the judge is actually saying that an affidavit from
[49:28.520 --> 49:34.520]  and he used an example of MERS who is the servicing agent for millions of mortgages.
[49:34.520 --> 49:40.520]  He said an affidavit from an agent at MERS who looks at a couple screen shots
[49:40.520 --> 49:48.520]  and then makes an affidavit is wholly inadequate to create standing
[49:48.520 --> 49:52.520]  and wholly inadequate to make a proof of claim.
[49:52.520 --> 49:56.520]  Well, that means that every credit card case that's ever been sued
[49:56.520 --> 50:04.520]  can be unwound and undone on a 60-B motion, a void judgment, and here's the reasons why it's void.
[50:04.520 --> 50:07.520]  There was no proof of claim.
[50:07.520 --> 50:16.520]  And I am solely 100 percent in the rules here, and I just use them back and forth.
[50:16.520 --> 50:23.520]  And this rule goes right along hand in hand with everything in my belief system.
[50:23.520 --> 50:31.520]  I very much like this approach because it's, I don't know how to say it.
[50:31.520 --> 50:34.520]  It's so different than what the way I normally think.
[50:34.520 --> 50:37.520]  I think in terms of statute.
[50:37.520 --> 50:47.520]  And something seems intuitively right about paying as much if not a whole lot more attention to the rules than the statutes.
[50:47.520 --> 50:53.520]  Well, it's certainly, you know, Randy, with all the techniques that you have perfected and that, you know,
[50:53.520 --> 51:00.520]  what we've come up with together, you and me, I mean, certainly applying some of these tactics
[51:00.520 --> 51:05.520]  would just make what we do all that much more powerful.
[51:05.520 --> 51:14.520]  Well, look, Hartford Van Dyke 10 years ago told me, Sam, every case fails at its first defect.
[51:14.520 --> 51:17.520]  Every case fails at its first defect.
[51:17.520 --> 51:23.520]  Find the first defect, attack it, and never leave it, and you will win every time.
[51:23.520 --> 51:26.520]  That's pretty much what Randy does with due process.
[51:26.520 --> 51:27.520]  Okay.
[51:27.520 --> 51:31.520]  And due process, this goes right to the heart of due process.
[51:31.520 --> 51:33.520]  This is due process.
[51:33.520 --> 51:35.520]  Who's the real party in interest?
[51:35.520 --> 51:39.520]  Who are you and what is this?
[51:39.520 --> 51:42.520]  And you're just asking them to prove up and they can't do it, right?
[51:42.520 --> 51:44.520]  That's exactly correct.
[51:44.520 --> 51:54.520]  The issue I keep coming back to is in criminal prosecutions, does the federal government
[51:54.520 --> 52:03.520]  or the executive branch of the federal government have standing by statute like they do in Texas?
[52:03.520 --> 52:06.520]  Well, can I address that?
[52:06.520 --> 52:07.520]  Yes.
[52:07.520 --> 52:08.520]  Okay.
[52:08.520 --> 52:14.520]  There's no such thing as a criminal statute until you stand under,
[52:14.520 --> 52:19.520]  and the judge uses that term understand, the charges against you.
[52:19.520 --> 52:27.520]  Every case brought is brought in commerce, and every case brought is civil until you cross the line
[52:27.520 --> 52:34.520]  on the sheet of the, on the front sheet of the paper where you see the court caption and heading.
[52:34.520 --> 52:41.520]  When you cross those little parentheses over there to the charge, by understanding or standing under,
[52:41.520 --> 52:44.520]  it's civil, and I never did that.
[52:44.520 --> 52:46.520]  I never crossed over.
[52:46.520 --> 52:50.520]  I objected.
[52:50.520 --> 52:52.520]  I objected to the crossover.
[52:52.520 --> 52:56.520]  I objected to go from civil to criminal.
[52:56.520 --> 53:01.520]  There is no such thing as a criminal case until you make it so.
[53:01.520 --> 53:04.520]  Are you saying that applies to both federal and state?
[53:04.520 --> 53:05.520]  Absolutely.
[53:05.520 --> 53:06.520]  Okay.
[53:06.520 --> 53:07.520]  All crime is commercial.
[53:07.520 --> 53:09.520]  Okay.
[53:09.520 --> 53:12.520]  27 CFR 7211.
[53:12.520 --> 53:13.520]  How do I?
[53:13.520 --> 53:20.520]  The following crimes, state or federal, are commercial crimes.
[53:20.520 --> 53:21.520]  I've read that statute.
[53:21.520 --> 53:23.520]  Let me go back and read it again.
[53:23.520 --> 53:26.520]  It specifies.
[53:26.520 --> 53:27.520]  No, sir.
[53:27.520 --> 53:28.520]  No, sir.
[53:28.520 --> 53:29.520]  It does not.
[53:29.520 --> 53:30.520]  Read above it.
[53:30.520 --> 53:36.520]  It says, meaning of terms, and then it goes through the masculine and the feminine.
[53:36.520 --> 53:44.520]  And then it says this, the terms includes and including do not exclude things not enumerated
[53:44.520 --> 53:49.520]  which are in the same general class.
[53:49.520 --> 53:51.520]  That's legal speak.
[53:51.520 --> 53:59.520]  As you will know, the terms includes and including do not exclude things not enumerated
[53:59.520 --> 54:08.520]  which are in the same general class.
[54:08.520 --> 54:11.520]  All crime is commercial.
[54:11.520 --> 54:15.520]  What exactly does that mean, what you just stated there?
[54:15.520 --> 54:22.520]  Well, if you look at how includes and including is defined in law,
[54:22.520 --> 54:30.520]  when a definition, state, includes, then that is exclusive of everything else unless otherwise stated.
[54:30.520 --> 54:32.520]  So what it's saying here is...
[54:32.520 --> 54:39.520]  So you're saying that the word includes means mutually, exclusively including?
[54:39.520 --> 54:40.520]  That's correct.
[54:40.520 --> 54:42.520]  Okay.
[54:42.520 --> 54:43.520]  That's absolutely correct.
[54:43.520 --> 54:51.520]  When you see a definition and it says includes, then the only thing that it includes is what follows the word includes.
[54:51.520 --> 55:01.520]  Now, what this particular CFR says, the terms includes and including do not exclude things not enumerated
[55:01.520 --> 55:05.520]  or listed or named which are in the same general class.
[55:05.520 --> 55:07.520]  It doesn't say specific class.
[55:07.520 --> 55:08.520]  It says general class.
[55:08.520 --> 55:11.520]  That's everything.
[55:11.520 --> 55:18.520]  Do you have general appearance or do you have special appearance?
[55:18.520 --> 55:23.520]  Okay, I'm looking at 27 CFR 211.
[55:23.520 --> 55:26.520]  27.11.
[55:26.520 --> 55:30.520]  And you have to look above it at the meaning of terms.
[55:30.520 --> 55:31.520]  Wait a minute.
[55:31.520 --> 55:32.520]  What am I looking at?
[55:32.520 --> 55:34.520]  27.11 what?
[55:34.520 --> 55:37.520]  27 CFR 72.11.
[55:37.520 --> 55:38.520]  Okay.
[55:38.520 --> 55:40.520]  72.11?
[55:40.520 --> 55:41.520]  Yes.
[55:41.520 --> 55:43.520]  Okay.
[55:43.520 --> 55:54.520]  So let me understand what you mentioned before.
[55:54.520 --> 56:07.520]  Let's say the United States or the state since it's an incorporated entity and it's not actually a government anymore or government per se, okay,
[56:07.520 --> 56:15.520]  they do not have any standing to arraign or indict you unless you give them standing, is that right?
[56:15.520 --> 56:17.520]  That is exactly correct.
[56:17.520 --> 56:18.520]  Okay.
[56:18.520 --> 56:25.520]  That's why one of the Supreme Court justices said there's no person in America in prison today who hasn't volunteered to be there.
[56:25.520 --> 56:28.520]  Oh, okay.
[56:28.520 --> 56:33.520]  Because the attorneys don't understand.
[56:33.520 --> 56:34.520]  That's correct.
[56:34.520 --> 56:39.520]  And on top of that, what is it the judge says when the jury comes in?
[56:39.520 --> 56:43.520]  Will the defendant please rise?
[56:43.520 --> 56:46.520]  He doesn't say Mr. Davis, please rise and face the jury.
[56:46.520 --> 56:49.520]  He says will the defendant please rise?
[56:49.520 --> 56:58.520]  Well, if you look up the definition of dummy in Black's Law Dictionary, you'll find that a dummy is a straw man who stands in place of another
[56:58.520 --> 57:04.520]  or who stands until the proper person is named or available to take his place.
[57:04.520 --> 57:07.520]  Will the defendant please rise and take the place of the dummy?
[57:07.520 --> 57:10.520]  Oh, okay.
[57:10.520 --> 57:14.520]  Now I watched this in action in federal court 10 years ago.
[57:14.520 --> 57:15.520]  I watched it.
[57:15.520 --> 57:17.520]  I lived it.
[57:17.520 --> 57:19.520]  That's in your case you're talking about?
[57:19.520 --> 57:21.520]  No, in my friend's case.
[57:21.520 --> 57:22.520]  Oh, I didn't know that.
[57:22.520 --> 57:29.520]  They were on trial on a federal indictment and they were on the trial started on Monday.
[57:29.520 --> 57:30.520]  They went to jail Monday night.
[57:30.520 --> 57:32.520]  Trial began again on Tuesday morning.
[57:32.520 --> 57:34.520]  They were in jail Tuesday night.
[57:34.520 --> 57:36.520]  Trial began again on Wednesday morning.
[57:36.520 --> 57:43.520]  And on Wednesday morning their federal public defender stood up and says my name is such and such and I don't believe you've met my clients,
[57:43.520 --> 57:44.520]  the defendants.
[57:44.520 --> 57:49.520]  He named their names and he tugged up on my friend's coat until he and his wife stood up,
[57:49.520 --> 57:56.520]  at which point the federal judge dropped the gavel and said let the record reflect the defendants have appeared in the courtroom.
[57:56.520 --> 57:57.520]  Oh, my goodness.
[57:57.520 --> 57:59.520]  What a trick.
[57:59.520 --> 58:04.520]  Well, wouldn't you believe that they were already there?
[58:04.520 --> 58:08.520]  Would that not be your thought process right now?
[58:08.520 --> 58:10.520]  Well, not after I hear this.
[58:10.520 --> 58:11.520]  Well, okay.
[58:11.520 --> 58:12.520]  I'm going to have to admit.
[58:12.520 --> 58:13.520]  That's my point.
[58:13.520 --> 58:14.520]  I'm over my head.
[58:14.520 --> 58:15.520]  I'm drowning here.
[58:15.520 --> 58:20.520]  Well, I'm sorry, but, you know, I've lived this stuff, folks.
[58:20.520 --> 58:21.520]  Okay.
[58:21.520 --> 58:22.520]  Well, listen, we're about to go to break.
[58:22.520 --> 58:24.520]  We're at the top of the hour.
[58:24.520 --> 58:26.520]  We're here with Sam Davis and Tony Davis.
[58:26.520 --> 58:28.520]  This is Deborah Stevens and Randy Kelton.
[58:28.520 --> 58:33.520]  This is the rule of law, rule of law radio network.
[58:33.520 --> 58:40.520]  And callers, if you'd like to call in and ask our guests some questions, you can call in 512-646-1984.
[58:40.520 --> 58:45.520]  We'll be right back.
[59:10.520 --> 59:37.520]  Thank you very much.
[59:37.520 --> 59:56.520]  Do you feel like you're shouting into the wind when it comes to speaking with politicians?
[59:56.520 --> 01:00:00.520]  Texans for Accountable Government believes your voices should be heard loud and clear.
[01:00:00.520 --> 01:00:04.520]  On Monday, March 30th at 6 p.m. in the council chambers at Austin City Hall,
[01:00:04.520 --> 01:00:09.520]  Texans for Accountable Government will be hosting a public forum regarding police blood withdrawals.
[01:00:09.520 --> 01:00:12.520]  The forum will be sponsored by council member Randy Shade and will allow you,
[01:00:12.520 --> 01:00:17.520]  the people of Austin, the opportunity to express your opinion regarding whether or not you believe
[01:00:17.520 --> 01:00:21.520]  the city should take federal funds in order to train Austin police officers to withdraw blood.
[01:00:21.520 --> 01:00:24.520]  The panelists will include Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo,
[01:00:24.520 --> 01:00:27.520]  Mad State Executive Director Karen Housewright,
[01:00:27.520 --> 01:00:31.520]  City Council Member Mike Martinez, ACLU Chapter President Debbie Russell,
[01:00:31.520 --> 01:00:34.520]  and Texans for Accountable Government Executive Director John Bush.
[01:00:34.520 --> 01:00:39.520]  The forum will be moderated by local Austin TV host David Koporowski and open for questions from the public.
[01:00:39.520 --> 01:00:42.520]  Be there early as attendance is expected to be high.
[01:00:42.520 --> 01:00:45.520]  For more information, please visit tagtexas.org.
[01:00:45.520 --> 01:00:48.520]  Be there Monday, March 30th at 6 p.m. in Austin City Hall.
[01:00:48.520 --> 01:00:56.520]  This is our time to speak up and be heard.
[01:00:56.520 --> 01:01:11.520]  Turn in truth creation
[01:01:11.520 --> 01:01:25.520]  Turn in truth creation
[01:01:25.520 --> 01:01:36.520]  Turn in truth creation
[01:01:36.520 --> 01:01:37.520]  All right, we are back.
[01:01:37.520 --> 01:01:40.520]  This is the rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens.
[01:01:40.520 --> 01:01:46.520]  We're here with Sam Davis, Tony Davis, and also Joe Edwards has called in.
[01:01:46.520 --> 01:01:47.520]  He's going to be joining us.
[01:01:47.520 --> 01:01:49.520]  He has some comments to make.
[01:01:49.520 --> 01:01:52.520]  We've had Joe on the air several times as a guest on our show.
[01:01:52.520 --> 01:01:55.520]  And Joe, thank you again for calling in.
[01:01:55.520 --> 01:01:59.520]  And please tell us what you were telling us on the break.
[01:01:59.520 --> 01:02:04.520]  You said that you have some comments that's on point with what Sam is saying.
[01:02:04.520 --> 01:02:10.520]  Well, the most recent coming to mind is when Sam was talking about the defendant.
[01:02:10.520 --> 01:02:20.520]  And, you know, most people stand up and they're representing this fiction that's there.
[01:02:20.520 --> 01:02:27.520]  And I think about the most recent controversy I was involved in where at the end of the trial,
[01:02:27.520 --> 01:02:29.520]  the defendant was found guilty,
[01:02:29.520 --> 01:02:34.520]  but you, Mr. Edwards, will not be held to account for the defendant's actions.
[01:02:34.520 --> 01:02:35.520]  There you go.
[01:02:35.520 --> 01:02:37.520]  Separated me from the defendant.
[01:02:37.520 --> 01:02:39.520]  That's correct.
[01:02:39.520 --> 01:02:47.520]  I'm telling you, the straw man is alive and well, and that's why they're trying to shut me up.
[01:02:47.520 --> 01:02:54.520]  There's a number of people that appear to be trying to shut up in this same area.
[01:02:54.520 --> 01:02:59.520]  Now, that's why it keeps me so intrigued.
[01:02:59.520 --> 01:03:02.520]  How do I...?
[01:03:02.520 --> 01:03:08.520]  I don't know if everyone else out there is as dense as I am on this, but...
[01:03:08.520 --> 01:03:11.520]  Well, it's not that I'm dense, Randy.
[01:03:11.520 --> 01:03:14.520]  This is very complex material here.
[01:03:14.520 --> 01:03:24.520]  Talk to me about how I conceive myself separate from my straw man
[01:03:24.520 --> 01:03:30.520]  in a way that I don't wind up tripping over the straw man.
[01:03:30.520 --> 01:03:35.520]  Well, here's the way that, of course, I've had ten years to practice this,
[01:03:35.520 --> 01:03:38.520]  but here's the way I look at it.
[01:03:38.520 --> 01:03:48.520]  For years prior to 1999, for 20 years I didn't use my Social Security number for anything.
[01:03:48.520 --> 01:03:52.520]  When I got this information and I began to understand it
[01:03:52.520 --> 01:03:58.520]  and I looked at the scriptural context of it and the scriptural principles behind it,
[01:03:58.520 --> 01:04:02.520]  I wrote off a letter to Social Security and got a new card.
[01:04:02.520 --> 01:04:08.520]  And anybody that wanted to do business with me, I simply gave them anything they wanted,
[01:04:08.520 --> 01:04:11.520]  and I would even make the comment once in a while,
[01:04:11.520 --> 01:04:13.520]  oh, you want to do business with my straw man.
[01:04:13.520 --> 01:04:16.520]  And some people would look at me and say, that's correct,
[01:04:16.520 --> 01:04:20.520]  and others would just look at me like I was crazy.
[01:04:20.520 --> 01:04:23.520]  The Wizard of Oz tells the whole story.
[01:04:23.520 --> 01:04:29.520]  You got the straw man, you got the tin man, the T-I-N man, the taxpayer identification number man,
[01:04:29.520 --> 01:04:32.520]  and you got the cowardly lion.
[01:04:32.520 --> 01:04:39.520]  And we're off to see the wizard in the land of Oz, or I.D., or K.S., or M.O., or N.Y.,
[01:04:39.520 --> 01:04:43.520]  in the federal zone where everything's in living color.
[01:04:43.520 --> 01:04:49.520]  And, you know, you just have to contemplate, you know, who it is.
[01:04:49.520 --> 01:04:52.520]  The straw man is the transmitting utility.
[01:04:52.520 --> 01:04:55.520]  Christ was the transmitting utility.
[01:04:55.520 --> 01:04:59.520]  Christ said, no man comes to the Father but by me.
[01:04:59.520 --> 01:05:04.520]  He was put up in our name, in our place, and he paid the debt.
[01:05:04.520 --> 01:05:08.520]  Well, the straw man is there as the transmitting utility,
[01:05:08.520 --> 01:05:16.520]  and it transmits our liabilities and our assets back and forth in commerce throughout the system,
[01:05:16.520 --> 01:05:18.520]  and I use him every day.
[01:05:18.520 --> 01:05:23.520]  And right now my straw man is charged with 31 counts of money laundering,
[01:05:23.520 --> 01:05:29.520]  and I've allowed those charges to pass through to me, and I've accepted those charges,
[01:05:29.520 --> 01:05:34.520]  and I'm sending them back through the straw man to the court for settlement.
[01:05:34.520 --> 01:05:36.520]  Now, they don't want to settle.
[01:05:36.520 --> 01:05:39.520]  They want to put me in prison.
[01:05:39.520 --> 01:05:41.520]  They don't want to perform the settlement.
[01:05:41.520 --> 01:05:44.520]  And that's been the issue for 10 years.
[01:05:44.520 --> 01:05:51.520]  No one wants to perform the settlement because they don't want the illusion to go away.
[01:05:51.520 --> 01:05:54.520]  And, you know, I have seen it.
[01:05:54.520 --> 01:05:55.520]  I have lived it.
[01:05:55.520 --> 01:06:00.520]  I have, I have.
[01:06:00.520 --> 01:06:04.520]  I want to brief it.
[01:06:04.520 --> 01:06:10.520]  I need to brief it.
[01:06:10.520 --> 01:06:13.520]  Sam, are you there?
[01:06:13.520 --> 01:06:16.520]  I think we may have lost Sam for the moment.
[01:06:16.520 --> 01:06:21.520]  Joe, are you there?
[01:06:21.520 --> 01:06:22.520]  I'm not quite sure what's going on.
[01:06:22.520 --> 01:06:24.520]  We might have lost the caller bridge.
[01:06:24.520 --> 01:06:25.520]  Is there a chance?
[01:06:25.520 --> 01:06:26.520]  I'm here.
[01:06:26.520 --> 01:06:27.520]  Oh, okay, good.
[01:06:27.520 --> 01:06:28.520]  Tony's there.
[01:06:28.520 --> 01:06:31.520]  Sammy, you there?
[01:06:31.520 --> 01:06:35.520]  Okay, it looks like Joe has called back in.
[01:06:35.520 --> 01:06:36.520]  I'm here.
[01:06:36.520 --> 01:06:37.520]  Hey, okay, good.
[01:06:37.520 --> 01:06:38.520]  I don't know what's going on with Sam.
[01:06:38.520 --> 01:06:40.520]  Sammy, you there?
[01:06:40.520 --> 01:06:42.520]  He's probably trying to call back.
[01:06:42.520 --> 01:06:45.520]  Joe, perform the settlement.
[01:06:45.520 --> 01:06:48.520]  Can you elaborate on that?
[01:06:48.520 --> 01:06:50.520]  I got cut off.
[01:06:50.520 --> 01:06:52.520]  I didn't even know what happened there.
[01:06:52.520 --> 01:06:59.520]  But what he's talking, the settlement part, some people call it settlement.
[01:06:59.520 --> 01:07:02.520]  I just, you know, we all have these different tapes.
[01:07:02.520 --> 01:07:03.520]  Mine was this.
[01:07:03.520 --> 01:07:07.520]  I know that this person over here that they're identifying,
[01:07:07.520 --> 01:07:12.520]  that they're directing this activity towards, this enforcement is not me.
[01:07:12.520 --> 01:07:16.520]  It's this straw man fiction creation.
[01:07:16.520 --> 01:07:21.520]  Now, he's saying he accepts it and is returning it back for settlement.
[01:07:21.520 --> 01:07:26.520]  I'm saying when I accept, I accept it under these conditions.
[01:07:26.520 --> 01:07:33.520]  So I put conditions out that they have to agree to, and that way I'm not,
[01:07:33.520 --> 01:07:38.520]  in other words, I'm not saying I don't accept your offer entirely and then return it back.
[01:07:38.520 --> 01:07:43.520]  I put conditions there and put the onus on them to accept the conditions.
[01:07:43.520 --> 01:07:51.520]  And what I'm finding is that I've done this thing now that I'm writing up called
[01:07:51.520 --> 01:07:53.520]  conditional acceptance of offer to contract.
[01:07:53.520 --> 01:07:55.520]  And you know what the contract is.
[01:07:55.520 --> 01:07:58.520]  They're oaths of office.
[01:07:58.520 --> 01:08:02.520]  And their oath means that I'm protected in my rights.
[01:08:02.520 --> 01:08:07.520]  And I just make sure that I haven't caused an injury to anybody.
[01:08:07.520 --> 01:08:14.520]  So if anybody makes a claim against me, like for exercising a right,
[01:08:14.520 --> 01:08:21.520]  where the statute says that it's unlawful to exercise this right,
[01:08:21.520 --> 01:08:24.520]  what they're doing is they're saying if you're this creation,
[01:08:24.520 --> 01:08:29.520]  this picture of the straw man created by the state, yeah, it is unlawful for that straw man.
[01:08:29.520 --> 01:08:31.520]  But I'm not the straw man.
[01:08:31.520 --> 01:08:33.520]  You're coming at me.
[01:08:33.520 --> 01:08:38.520]  And I'm not in possession of any documents that identifies me as the straw man.
[01:08:38.520 --> 01:08:44.520]  So I can't really, I can understand the gist of what Sam's saying about returning it for settlement.
[01:08:44.520 --> 01:08:48.520]  He's saying, your action with the straw man, I accept it in the straw man's condo
[01:08:48.520 --> 01:08:50.520]  and I'm returning it back for action.
[01:08:50.520 --> 01:08:53.520]  Action with the straw man, it has no effect on me.
[01:08:53.520 --> 01:08:57.520]  But nobody wants to take the action other than to send him to prison.
[01:08:57.520 --> 01:09:02.520]  What he's saying about the debt is that the straw man incurred the debt,
[01:09:02.520 --> 01:09:06.520]  so get the debt out of the straw man's bonding account.
[01:09:06.520 --> 01:09:08.520]  Yeah, and it looks like also Sam has called back in.
[01:09:08.520 --> 01:09:09.520]  Sam, are you with us?
[01:09:09.520 --> 01:09:10.520]  Yeah, yeah.
[01:09:10.520 --> 01:09:12.520]  I don't know why, but my phone dropped.
[01:09:12.520 --> 01:09:18.520]  Well, I think it's very bizarre that Joe Edwards' phone and Sam Davis' phone
[01:09:18.520 --> 01:09:21.520]  both dropped at exactly the same time.
[01:09:21.520 --> 01:09:23.520]  So obviously what we're discussing.
[01:09:23.520 --> 01:09:27.520]  So obviously, well, no, that's not what I think.
[01:09:27.520 --> 01:09:30.520]  I think they hit the switch they intended to,
[01:09:30.520 --> 01:09:34.520]  but Joe and Sam both seem to know what they're talking about.
[01:09:34.520 --> 01:09:38.520]  Well, it happens to me occasionally.
[01:09:38.520 --> 01:09:43.520]  I mean, did I hit the switch or did you know what you're talking about?
[01:09:43.520 --> 01:09:45.520]  Both.
[01:09:45.520 --> 01:09:47.520]  Yeah, both.
[01:09:47.520 --> 01:09:51.520]  And still all lowercase, by the way.
[01:09:51.520 --> 01:09:52.520]  Of course.
[01:09:52.520 --> 01:09:57.520]  So how do you separate yourself, you as a person,
[01:09:57.520 --> 01:10:01.520]  from the straw man, how do you go about doing that?
[01:10:01.520 --> 01:10:11.520]  Well, you know, I don't, I guess I do it just in my simple correspondence.
[01:10:11.520 --> 01:10:15.520]  You know, it depends on what the correspondence is.
[01:10:15.520 --> 01:10:18.520]  It's not something that I continually worry about,
[01:10:18.520 --> 01:10:21.520]  oh, is this the straw man or is this this or is this that.
[01:10:21.520 --> 01:10:30.520]  No, in a court proceeding, of course, I'm on full alert and I'm listening very carefully to every word.
[01:10:30.520 --> 01:10:34.520]  And, you know, I've been around it enough.
[01:10:34.520 --> 01:10:39.520]  I've written enough scripts for people that I pretty much know, you know,
[01:10:39.520 --> 01:10:41.520]  what they're going to say when.
[01:10:41.520 --> 01:10:48.520]  And so, you know, it's just a matter of paying attention and being aware.
[01:10:48.520 --> 01:10:54.520]  I know that years ago over in Oregon in federal court two friends of mine were on trial
[01:10:54.520 --> 01:10:59.520]  and the judge would say, if they wanted to question a witness,
[01:10:59.520 --> 01:11:03.520]  he would say, would the defendants like to question the witness?
[01:11:03.520 --> 01:11:05.520]  And nobody would say a word.
[01:11:05.520 --> 01:11:08.520]  And he would look at his computer when he asked this.
[01:11:08.520 --> 01:11:13.520]  And then he would turn and he would ask each of them individually by name,
[01:11:13.520 --> 01:11:15.520]  would you like to question the witness?
[01:11:15.520 --> 01:11:18.520]  And this went on the whole trial.
[01:11:18.520 --> 01:11:25.520]  And, in fact, one of the fellows at the break, his standby counsel walked up and said,
[01:11:25.520 --> 01:11:27.520]  are you going to put me on the witness stand?
[01:11:27.520 --> 01:11:29.520]  To which my friend said, well, I don't know.
[01:11:29.520 --> 01:11:31.520]  I hadn't considered it yet.
[01:11:31.520 --> 01:11:34.520]  And he said, well, I have to tell you that if you put me on the witness stand
[01:11:34.520 --> 01:11:39.520]  and ask me if I have a claim against you, I have to tell you I do.
[01:11:39.520 --> 01:11:43.520]  Well, the guy didn't realize what he had just been told.
[01:11:43.520 --> 01:11:48.520]  It's the attorney, his defense attorney, holding the claim against the straw man
[01:11:48.520 --> 01:11:51.520]  because that attorney is there representing the straw man
[01:11:51.520 --> 01:11:55.520]  waiting for you to stand up and take his place.
[01:11:55.520 --> 01:11:56.520]  Okay.
[01:11:56.520 --> 01:11:59.520]  That's what you have to be aware of.
[01:11:59.520 --> 01:12:00.520]  Okay.
[01:12:00.520 --> 01:12:11.520]  How do I get an understanding of when I would trip over the straw man?
[01:12:11.520 --> 01:12:15.520]  Well, that's an interesting question.
[01:12:15.520 --> 01:12:19.520]  You know, most people, and is it Debbie or Deborah?
[01:12:19.520 --> 01:12:21.520]  It's Deborah.
[01:12:21.520 --> 01:12:22.520]  Deborah.
[01:12:22.520 --> 01:12:26.520]  When she was asking the question about the corporations being able to sue people
[01:12:26.520 --> 01:12:32.520]  and she sees these pleadings on lawsuits all the time, and I couldn't agree more.
[01:12:32.520 --> 01:12:36.520]  I mean, anybody, we're the most litigious society in the world
[01:12:36.520 --> 01:12:40.520]  and all these suits flying back and forth.
[01:12:40.520 --> 01:12:49.520]  But the real power, if an attorney would exercise it, is in the rules.
[01:12:49.520 --> 01:12:53.520]  And he can separate you or you can separate you.
[01:12:53.520 --> 01:12:57.520]  We have abdicated our responsibility to people to practice on us
[01:12:57.520 --> 01:12:59.520]  in the form of attorneys.
[01:12:59.520 --> 01:13:05.520]  And I look at this as that that suit has to be brought in the name of the fiction,
[01:13:05.520 --> 01:13:09.520]  in the name of the straw man, because it's the transmitting utility.
[01:13:09.520 --> 01:13:14.520]  The United States of America is a straw man for the United States.
[01:13:14.520 --> 01:13:19.520]  Look at the pleadings.
[01:13:19.520 --> 01:13:24.520]  And by the way, once you appear in court, the pleadings will change
[01:13:24.520 --> 01:13:27.520]  from your upper case name throughout the pleadings
[01:13:27.520 --> 01:13:30.520]  to your upper and lower case name throughout the pleadings,
[01:13:30.520 --> 01:13:34.520]  once you've appeared and taken the place of the straw man.
[01:13:34.520 --> 01:13:38.520]  And I've seen it for years, over and over and over.
[01:13:38.520 --> 01:13:45.520]  And so you can send me a pleading that the government or whoever has sent you,
[01:13:45.520 --> 01:13:49.520]  and I can tell you in three minutes if you have appeared or not,
[01:13:49.520 --> 01:13:51.520]  just by reading the pleading.
[01:13:51.520 --> 01:13:54.520]  Is there anything you can do after you've appeared?
[01:13:54.520 --> 01:13:59.520]  Yeah, you can do a 9B mistake, affidavit of mistake.
[01:13:59.520 --> 01:14:02.520]  You have to be able to unwind your mistakes.
[01:14:02.520 --> 01:14:06.520]  If you go to Rules of Civil Procedure 9B instead of 9A,
[01:14:06.520 --> 01:14:11.520]  you'll see fraud, mistake, inadvertence of mind, misplaced confidence.
[01:14:11.520 --> 01:14:17.520]  And it says exactly what's supposed to be pled and how it's supposed to be pled.
[01:14:17.520 --> 01:14:21.520]  And in matters of affidavit of mistake or inadvertence of mind,
[01:14:21.520 --> 01:14:27.520]  you're supposed to plead those with particularity or peculiarity and say,
[01:14:27.520 --> 01:14:33.520]  I misplaced my confidence in this attorney, and he sold me down the river.
[01:14:33.520 --> 01:14:38.520]  Therefore, I want to back up and do this all again.
[01:14:38.520 --> 01:14:40.520]  And does the court have to allow you to do that?
[01:14:40.520 --> 01:14:47.520]  Well, once you put in the affidavit, an affidavit is a responsive pleading.
[01:14:47.520 --> 01:14:51.520]  And so when you put in the petition, some people want to call it a motion,
[01:14:51.520 --> 01:14:53.520]  I always put in petitions.
[01:14:53.520 --> 01:14:55.520]  And I support that with an affidavit of mistake.
[01:14:55.520 --> 01:14:58.520]  And I say what the mistake was.
[01:14:58.520 --> 01:15:05.520]  Now I go to, if they do not respond with another responsive pleading,
[01:15:05.520 --> 01:15:11.520]  then Rule 8D, which has now been changed a little bit, it's actually 8B6,
[01:15:11.520 --> 01:15:14.520]  is effective failure to deny.
[01:15:14.520 --> 01:15:20.520]  And the effective failure to deny in a responsive pleading is to admit and concede.
[01:15:20.520 --> 01:15:23.520]  And so I just follow my way through the rules back and forth,
[01:15:23.520 --> 01:15:27.520]  and I don't ever leave the issue.
[01:15:27.520 --> 01:15:29.520]  I'm sorry, I can't go forward.
[01:15:29.520 --> 01:15:32.520]  This issue over here hasn't been resolved.
[01:15:32.520 --> 01:15:36.520]  Could you even do that, of course, to anything if you'd been found guilty?
[01:15:36.520 --> 01:15:41.520]  Well, that remains to be seen.
[01:15:41.520 --> 01:15:47.520]  That, I mean, you know, all of these things that everybody talks about,
[01:15:47.520 --> 01:15:50.520]  it's just like the different forms, 28, 90, 91.
[01:15:50.520 --> 01:15:56.520]  I'm waiting to talk to anyone that's used those and got out of prison.
[01:15:56.520 --> 01:15:58.520]  And I want to talk to them.
[01:15:58.520 --> 01:16:01.520]  I want to say, okay, what did you do, how did you do it?
[01:16:01.520 --> 01:16:03.520]  Because here's the bottom line.
[01:16:03.520 --> 01:16:08.520]  I don't care what it takes or what the process is.
[01:16:08.520 --> 01:16:10.520]  I just want to win.
[01:16:10.520 --> 01:16:11.520]  Right.
[01:16:11.520 --> 01:16:12.520]  I don't care.
[01:16:12.520 --> 01:16:15.520]  I'm willing to be wrong all day long.
[01:16:15.520 --> 01:16:17.520]  I just want to win.
[01:16:17.520 --> 01:16:21.520]  Okay.
[01:16:21.520 --> 01:16:22.520]  Okay, I understand.
[01:16:22.520 --> 01:16:25.520]  Okay.
[01:16:25.520 --> 01:16:28.520]  All right, we're going to break now.
[01:16:28.520 --> 01:16:30.520]  This is very interesting.
[01:16:30.520 --> 01:16:35.520]  Yeah, if there seems to be a long silent place there,
[01:16:35.520 --> 01:16:38.520]  that's because I'm sitting here with my mouth hanging open.
[01:16:38.520 --> 01:16:40.520]  Okay, listen, we'll be right back.
[01:16:40.520 --> 01:16:42.520]  This is the rule of law, Ray Kelton and Deborah Stevens.
[01:16:42.520 --> 01:16:46.520]  We're here with Tony Davis, Joe Edwards, and Sam Davis.
[01:16:46.520 --> 01:16:53.520]  We'll be right back.
[01:16:53.520 --> 01:16:58.520]  Are you looking for an investment that has no stock market risk,
[01:16:58.520 --> 01:17:01.520]  has a 100% track record of returning profits,
[01:17:01.520 --> 01:17:06.520]  is not affected by fluctuations in oil prices and interest rates,
[01:17:06.520 --> 01:17:09.520]  is publicly traded and SEC regulated?
[01:17:09.520 --> 01:17:13.520]  If this kind of piece of mind is what you have been looking for in an investment,
[01:17:13.520 --> 01:17:16.520]  then Live Settlements is the investment for you.
[01:17:16.520 --> 01:17:22.520]  Our annual rate of return has been 15.83% for the last 17 years.
[01:17:22.520 --> 01:17:26.520]  Our investments are insurance and banking commission regulated.
[01:17:26.520 --> 01:17:30.520]  Our returns are assured by the largest insurance companies.
[01:17:30.520 --> 01:17:36.520]  Even qualified retirement plans such as 401Ks and IRAs are eligible for transfer.
[01:17:36.520 --> 01:17:38.520]  We charge absolutely no commissions.
[01:17:38.520 --> 01:17:41.520]  100% of your investment goes to work for you.
[01:17:41.520 --> 01:17:51.520]  Please visit sleepwellinvestment.com or call Bill Schober at 817-975-2431.
[01:17:51.520 --> 01:17:59.520]  That's sleepwellinvestment.com or call 817-975-2431.
[01:18:21.520 --> 01:18:26.520]  Okay, we are back.
[01:18:26.520 --> 01:18:30.520]  This is the rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens.
[01:18:30.520 --> 01:18:34.520]  Okay, Joe, you were about to ask Sam a question when we were on break.
[01:18:34.520 --> 01:18:37.520]  Why don't you go ahead and ask him and let Sam answer on the air.
[01:18:37.520 --> 01:18:38.520]  Correct.
[01:18:38.520 --> 01:18:43.520]  Sam, my question is for me but also for the listeners.
[01:18:43.520 --> 01:18:47.520]  When you're talking about the straw man and the action,
[01:18:47.520 --> 01:18:54.520]  whether it's misdirected enforcement activity or effective enforcement activity against the straw man,
[01:18:54.520 --> 01:19:00.520]  that being the conduit and you're accepting it and returning it for settlement,
[01:19:00.520 --> 01:19:05.520]  you're accepting it, first of all, I presume, because you don't want to be seen as dishonorable.
[01:19:05.520 --> 01:19:06.520]  You're a man of honor.
[01:19:06.520 --> 01:19:13.520]  Second, you're identifying that the injury, supposed or presumed injury, was caused by the straw man,
[01:19:13.520 --> 01:19:18.520]  so you're returning it back and there was another little component there that you had gotten into
[01:19:18.520 --> 01:19:26.520]  about the settlement portion of that, which has to do with the straw man's account and not on your account.
[01:19:26.520 --> 01:19:31.520]  Well, let me, I know exactly where you are here and let me clarify something.
[01:19:31.520 --> 01:19:34.520]  The straw man didn't do the act.
[01:19:34.520 --> 01:19:37.520]  Okay, the straw man didn't cause the injury.
[01:19:37.520 --> 01:19:41.520]  The straw man is not the guy that ran the stop sign.
[01:19:41.520 --> 01:19:44.520]  Okay, the straw man better not be driving the car.
[01:19:44.520 --> 01:19:51.520]  The straw man is the one that's licensed to drive the car because he's the one that the contract moves through.
[01:19:51.520 --> 01:20:02.520]  Okay, and so the contract on your driver's license that you signed as basically a surety for is with the straw man
[01:20:02.520 --> 01:20:04.520]  and you just have to recognize that.
[01:20:04.520 --> 01:20:10.520]  Now, here's where the Scripture comes into play.
[01:20:10.520 --> 01:20:15.520]  The Scripture says, agree with your adversary quickly while you're on your way to court with them.
[01:20:15.520 --> 01:20:19.520]  Lest the adversary turn you over to the judge, the judge turn you over to the officer
[01:20:19.520 --> 01:20:21.520]  and the officer casts you into prison.
[01:20:21.520 --> 01:20:26.520]  Verily I say unto you, you will not come out until you've paid your last penny.
[01:20:26.520 --> 01:20:37.520]  Now, I don't ever argue the merits or the facts in any case because I'll lose.
[01:20:37.520 --> 01:20:41.520]  I don't care what the facts are.
[01:20:41.520 --> 01:20:43.520]  The facts are what they are.
[01:20:43.520 --> 01:20:45.520]  They are as they are.
[01:20:45.520 --> 01:20:52.520]  Now, and let me back up from that and say that there in North Carolina here in the last two or three years,
[01:20:52.520 --> 01:21:02.520]  there was a case where a prosecuting attorney that's very well known in the Duke-La Crosse rape case,
[01:21:02.520 --> 01:21:10.520]  that case befuddled me forever because if those four or five boys had done what I'm saying to do,
[01:21:10.520 --> 01:21:13.520]  their lives would be ruined.
[01:21:13.520 --> 01:21:22.520]  And fortunately somebody was a good enough attorney to get to the bottom of that deal and get it figured out.
[01:21:22.520 --> 01:21:36.520]  But I digress a little bit because in fact Christ who was crucified and went to the cross
[01:21:36.520 --> 01:21:48.520]  as the result of the actions of the attorneys and the government and those in power of that day was innocent as well.
[01:21:48.520 --> 01:21:50.520]  But he went willingly anyway.
[01:21:50.520 --> 01:21:56.520]  And I think that the picture that I've always approached is that picture.
[01:21:56.520 --> 01:21:59.520]  And so I don't ever argue.
[01:21:59.520 --> 01:22:01.520]  I'm always in agreement.
[01:22:01.520 --> 01:22:04.520]  And yeah, you can use the term honor and dishonor.
[01:22:04.520 --> 01:22:07.520]  I don't care for those terms.
[01:22:07.520 --> 01:22:11.520]  But that's a good way of explaining it.
[01:22:11.520 --> 01:22:19.520]  I just view it as there's a negotiable instrument handed to me in the form of a true bill and I'm accepting it.
[01:22:19.520 --> 01:22:23.520]  I always want to be the acceptor, not the offeror.
[01:22:23.520 --> 01:22:26.520]  That's why I don't do conditional acceptances.
[01:22:26.520 --> 01:22:32.520]  I understand where they come from and I understand that sometimes they work very well.
[01:22:32.520 --> 01:22:40.520]  I don't do conditional acceptances because I'm going to accept the offer being made and now I'm the holder of it
[01:22:40.520 --> 01:22:45.520]  and I get it directed where it needs to go and then I'm going to ask the court,
[01:22:45.520 --> 01:22:53.520]  I've accepted this matter for value and I've asked for my account to be adjusted.
[01:22:53.520 --> 01:23:01.520]  Who's refusing to do that and why and if that's the case, now what is my remedy?
[01:23:01.520 --> 01:23:07.520]  And that's the flow of my conversation.
[01:23:07.520 --> 01:23:14.520]  We actually had a prosecutor over in South Dakota the other day actually tell three people charged
[01:23:14.520 --> 01:23:16.520]  that there is no remedy.
[01:23:16.520 --> 01:23:18.520]  Well, how about that?
[01:23:18.520 --> 01:23:20.520]  Somebody finally said it, there is no remedy.
[01:23:20.520 --> 01:23:22.520]  So now what?
[01:23:22.520 --> 01:23:26.520]  You can't possibly leave the populace without a remedy.
[01:23:26.520 --> 01:23:33.520]  And yet we're coming very close to that reality that there is no remedy.
[01:23:33.520 --> 01:23:41.520]  And I think that's why moving back in the simplistic form as it can be in the ratification of commencement
[01:23:41.520 --> 01:23:48.520]  is so powerful that you just stand on that objection and let them go do whatever they're going to do.
[01:23:48.520 --> 01:23:50.520]  Wait a minute, was any of that the claim?
[01:23:50.520 --> 01:23:55.520]  Was any of that the ratification of commencement and go forward?
[01:23:55.520 --> 01:23:57.520]  All right, I got you.
[01:23:57.520 --> 01:24:05.520]  So, you know, to further answer your question about settlement, I term it as a pass-through.
[01:24:05.520 --> 01:24:11.520]  They pass through my straw man and that account has a number on it and that's a prepaid account.
[01:24:11.520 --> 01:24:17.520]  And they can take whatever they want out of it because they're the ones operating the account.
[01:24:17.520 --> 01:24:24.520]  They just don't want to do it because then the gig is up.
[01:24:24.520 --> 01:24:34.520]  So how do we bring them in a position to where we hold them to their responsibility
[01:24:34.520 --> 01:24:39.520]  or do they have a responsibility to extract you from the straw man?
[01:24:39.520 --> 01:24:40.520]  They have one.
[01:24:40.520 --> 01:24:41.520]  They don't want to carry it out.
[01:24:41.520 --> 01:24:46.520]  And, in fact, I was telling somebody just yesterday several years ago in Michigan,
[01:24:46.520 --> 01:24:53.520]  they actually had the sheriff's office and the city police force go to the prosecutor and the U.S. attorney
[01:24:53.520 --> 01:25:00.520]  and say, we know or we believe we have a liability here when someone accepts something for value
[01:25:00.520 --> 01:25:04.520]  and the attorneys would not tell them what the liability was.
[01:25:04.520 --> 01:25:10.520]  And it really upset the law enforcement in the area.
[01:25:10.520 --> 01:25:12.520]  They felt like that they had a liability.
[01:25:12.520 --> 01:25:15.520]  They just did not know what it was.
[01:25:15.520 --> 01:25:18.520]  And the attorneys wouldn't tell them?
[01:25:18.520 --> 01:25:20.520]  And the attorneys would not tell them, no.
[01:25:20.520 --> 01:25:25.520]  So how do we take them to task on the liability?
[01:25:25.520 --> 01:25:34.520]  Well, I simply answer that with this, vengeance is mine, saith the Lord.
[01:25:34.520 --> 01:25:39.520]  And I don't get involved in, I don't sue people.
[01:25:39.520 --> 01:25:45.520]  You know, 25 people with automatic weapons broke into my house
[01:25:45.520 --> 01:25:51.520]  and my wife was not served with the warrant for three and a half hours after, in fact,
[01:25:51.520 --> 01:25:57.520]  they were leaving when they finally actually presented her and served her with a warrant.
[01:25:57.520 --> 01:26:01.520]  And, you know, we had a meeting today down in town at the commissioners
[01:26:01.520 --> 01:26:06.520]  and everyone was trying to get an explanation from the sheriff's office.
[01:26:06.520 --> 01:26:08.520]  And they said, well, it was the FBI.
[01:26:08.520 --> 01:26:11.520]  They can basically do whatever they want.
[01:26:11.520 --> 01:26:16.520]  And, you know, so I've looked at, okay, do I want to file an action?
[01:26:16.520 --> 01:26:22.520]  And, you know, we haven't decided, but in 10 years,
[01:26:22.520 --> 01:26:26.520]  I have never filed a lawsuit against anybody for anything.
[01:26:26.520 --> 01:26:28.520]  No, no, that wasn't what I was asking.
[01:26:28.520 --> 01:26:29.520]  Oh, okay.
[01:26:29.520 --> 01:26:36.520]  I was asking, under law, how do we bring them, what law binds them?
[01:26:36.520 --> 01:26:40.520]  I'm not interested in actually harming anyone.
[01:26:40.520 --> 01:26:44.520]  I just filed a stack of criminal complaints with the grand jury today
[01:26:44.520 --> 01:26:49.520]  and told the prosecutor attorney I sure hope they don't indict these guys, any of these people.
[01:26:49.520 --> 01:26:50.520]  Yeah.
[01:26:50.520 --> 01:26:55.520]  My only purpose is to correct improper procedures,
[01:26:55.520 --> 01:27:02.520]  but I do that by holding my public officials to the rule of law I lay down for them.
[01:27:02.520 --> 01:27:04.520]  That's my duty.
[01:27:04.520 --> 01:27:07.520]  It's not about my personal preference.
[01:27:07.520 --> 01:27:10.520]  It's my responsibility as the sovereign.
[01:27:10.520 --> 01:27:15.520]  And so the question was, how do I hold them to the straw man?
[01:27:15.520 --> 01:27:21.520]  How do I, if they have a duty, say, on the offering acceptance,
[01:27:21.520 --> 01:27:24.520]  how do I hold them to that duty?
[01:27:24.520 --> 01:27:28.520]  Well, I think that that's been the dilemma for 10 years.
[01:27:28.520 --> 01:27:35.520]  And I don't think that anybody has, including me, an adequate answer for you as to how to do that.
[01:27:35.520 --> 01:27:40.520]  And I think that, you know, part of the, 10 years ago, I always tell everybody,
[01:27:40.520 --> 01:27:43.520]  10 years ago we were asking for a 1099-OID.
[01:27:43.520 --> 01:27:50.520]  The only difference between today and 10 years ago is 10 years ago we asked for it, today we furnish it.
[01:27:50.520 --> 01:27:53.520]  Okay.
[01:27:53.520 --> 01:27:59.520]  Judging, that's the accountability, is the IRS is the accountability.
[01:27:59.520 --> 01:28:04.520]  You turn them over because they have a, somebody is delinquent.
[01:28:04.520 --> 01:28:09.520]  When that charge is filed, okay, there's a bond filed.
[01:28:09.520 --> 01:28:13.520]  And who's holding the bond and who's filing the tax on that bond?
[01:28:13.520 --> 01:28:15.520]  Who's reporting the tax on that bond?
[01:28:15.520 --> 01:28:25.520]  And so Winston and I for years have said the IRS has to be the people that are responsible to make these people accountable.
[01:28:25.520 --> 01:28:32.520]  And, of course, the system is a mutual protection society and, you know, nobody wants to do their job.
[01:28:32.520 --> 01:28:36.520]  Well, you know, this goes to what I do.
[01:28:36.520 --> 01:28:43.520]  I want to give the individuals involved in the system plausible deniability.
[01:28:43.520 --> 01:28:56.520]  So they can go to their fellow public official and say, yes, I'm aware of the professional courtesy we normally pay one another.
[01:28:56.520 --> 01:29:02.520]  But in this case, I got this guy kicking my butt every week from Sunday.
[01:29:02.520 --> 01:29:08.520]  So I'm sorry I have to give your butt a little swift kick, but life is tough, Bubba.
[01:29:08.520 --> 01:29:13.520]  That's essentially where I try to go and that's what I keep looking for.
[01:29:13.520 --> 01:29:22.520]  If there is a fire and someone has cold feet, how do I hold his feet a little closer to that fire?
[01:29:22.520 --> 01:29:29.520]  Well, I've always said if I don't know, I'm going to say I don't know.
[01:29:29.520 --> 01:29:42.520]  And that's why I'm hoping that some of these other forms and some of these other processes can join with what I've been doing,
[01:29:42.520 --> 01:29:46.520]  what Winston's been doing, what Sam Kennedy's been doing around the country.
[01:29:46.520 --> 01:29:48.520]  All right. Well, listen, we're going to break.
[01:29:48.520 --> 01:29:51.520]  We'll be right back and we're going to talk more about this from the other side.
[01:29:51.520 --> 01:29:55.520]  The rule of law, we'll be right back.
[01:29:55.520 --> 01:30:00.520]  Gold prices are at historic highs and with the recent pullback, this is a great time to buy.
[01:30:00.520 --> 01:30:06.520]  With the value of the dollar, risks of inflation, geopolitical uncertainties and instability in rural financial systems,
[01:30:06.520 --> 01:30:08.520]  I see gold going up much higher.
[01:30:08.520 --> 01:30:11.520]  Hi, I'm Tim Fry at Roberts and Roberts Brokerage.
[01:30:11.520 --> 01:30:15.520]  Everybody should have some of their assets in investment grade precious metals.
[01:30:15.520 --> 01:30:19.520]  At Roberts and Roberts Brokerage, you can buy gold, silver and platinum with confidence
[01:30:19.520 --> 01:30:24.520]  from a brokerage that's specialized in the precious metals market since 1977.
[01:30:24.520 --> 01:30:30.520]  If you are new to precious metals, we will happily provide you with the information you need to make an informed decision
[01:30:30.520 --> 01:30:32.520]  whether or not you choose to purchase from us.
[01:30:32.520 --> 01:30:35.520]  Also, Roberts and Roberts Brokerage values your privacy
[01:30:35.520 --> 01:30:40.520]  and will always advise you in the event that we would be required to report any transaction.
[01:30:40.520 --> 01:30:45.520]  If you have gold, silver or platinum you'd like to sell, we can convert it for immediate payment.
[01:30:45.520 --> 01:30:55.520]  Call us at 800-874-9760. We are Roberts and Roberts Brokerage, 800-874-9760.
[01:31:15.520 --> 01:31:17.520]  Thank you.
[01:31:45.520 --> 01:31:50.520]  All right, we are back. The rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens.
[01:31:50.520 --> 01:31:57.520]  We are here with Joe Edwards, Sam Davis and Tony Davis.
[01:31:57.520 --> 01:32:00.520]  Okay, go ahead guys, please continue.
[01:32:00.520 --> 01:32:02.520]  Okay.
[01:32:02.520 --> 01:32:08.520]  Still, okay, that was still my question of how we take care of ourselves.
[01:32:08.520 --> 01:32:16.520]  Go ahead guys, please continue.
[01:32:16.520 --> 01:32:20.520]  Right, how do we hold them to this, to these contracts?
[01:32:20.520 --> 01:32:24.520]  One thing, is Joe up?
[01:32:24.520 --> 01:32:26.520]  He should be, yeah.
[01:32:26.520 --> 01:32:34.520]  The best understanding I've got was when Joe was talking about his traffic case
[01:32:34.520 --> 01:32:38.520]  and how he handled himself in court.
[01:32:38.520 --> 01:32:45.520]  Joe, you kind of go through that court proceeding again just quickly.
[01:32:45.520 --> 01:32:51.520]  I would like to get Sam's take on that.
[01:32:51.520 --> 01:32:54.520]  You're dealing primarily with the judge and how you approach the judge.
[01:32:54.520 --> 01:32:56.520]  Yeah, with the judge.
[01:32:56.520 --> 01:33:04.520]  The judge that didn't enter the gate, stood outside the gate, was merely responding
[01:33:04.520 --> 01:33:11.520]  as a third party of interest intervener on behalf of John Doe, all caps,
[01:33:11.520 --> 01:33:18.520]  and or alias Joseph Edwards, all caps.
[01:33:18.520 --> 01:33:26.520]  And that as a third party of interest intervener, I would only interact with the court
[01:33:26.520 --> 01:33:31.520]  in a restricted capacity and under the maximum of being able to remain at arm's length.
[01:33:31.520 --> 01:33:36.520]  In other words, the judge would stay in her jurisdiction, I would stay on mine.
[01:33:36.520 --> 01:33:44.520]  And, you know, we had a little battle of wills there, and in the end she accepted my capacity
[01:33:44.520 --> 01:33:48.520]  and had determined to her satisfaction upon the paperwork that I submitted
[01:33:48.520 --> 01:33:52.520]  that I was capable to come into the court in that manner,
[01:33:52.520 --> 01:33:59.520]  and so granted the permission for me to enter in such capacity.
[01:33:59.520 --> 01:34:05.520]  The end result of all of it, and I had to argue at one point about a motion to quash a subpoena
[01:34:05.520 --> 01:34:09.520]  that the state was trying to quash, but the end result was this.
[01:34:09.520 --> 01:34:16.520]  Over a 90-day period of three appearances was that the defendant was found guilty,
[01:34:16.520 --> 01:34:21.520]  but I, in my normal, natural self, she stated,
[01:34:21.520 --> 01:34:26.520]  you though Mr. Edwards will not be held to task for the defendant's action.
[01:34:26.520 --> 01:34:32.520]  So I had maintained that separation between the straw man and myself,
[01:34:32.520 --> 01:34:39.520]  and she continued with that separation by having accepted me in the capacity in which I was there.
[01:34:39.520 --> 01:34:41.520]  And so that was the end result of it.
[01:34:41.520 --> 01:34:48.520]  And then asked, you know, there was an offer put on the table, which was a prayer for judgment,
[01:34:48.520 --> 01:34:52.520]  which came actually from the district attorney's office,
[01:34:52.520 --> 01:34:56.520]  and that's not common in North Carolina, normally defendant pleas for that,
[01:34:56.520 --> 01:35:03.520]  and a prayer for judgment is usually just a vacay, it's like setting aside the judgment
[01:35:03.520 --> 01:35:06.520]  for a set period of time under certain conditions.
[01:35:06.520 --> 01:35:13.520]  And in this case, the typical condition would be that not to be driving without a driver's license
[01:35:13.520 --> 01:35:15.520]  over the year, that would be typical.
[01:35:15.520 --> 01:35:16.520]  That was not the condition.
[01:35:16.520 --> 01:35:24.520]  The condition was that I would not be allowed to appeal to a court of record.
[01:35:24.520 --> 01:35:27.520]  That was the only stipulation.
[01:35:27.520 --> 01:35:33.520]  And we do have some callers on the line, if you gentlemen would like to take calls from the audience.
[01:35:33.520 --> 01:35:34.520]  That would be fine.
[01:35:34.520 --> 01:35:45.520]  Could I just say to Joe on that, status is freedom, and you maintained a status.
[01:35:45.520 --> 01:35:50.520]  Yes, that's what I did.
[01:35:50.520 --> 01:35:59.520]  And, you know, statusisfreedom.com is my website, and it's all about status and standing.
[01:35:59.520 --> 01:36:01.520]  That's excellent.
[01:36:01.520 --> 01:36:04.520]  Randy, were you trying to ask him something?
[01:36:04.520 --> 01:36:07.520]  No, I was just going to ask him to comment on what Joe did.
[01:36:07.520 --> 01:36:15.520]  Well, I just think that what Joe did there is the very definition of public policy.
[01:36:15.520 --> 01:36:23.520]  And public policy talks in great general terms about all the common health, safety, welfare,
[01:36:23.520 --> 01:36:32.520]  and then the last sentence says having due regard to each and every situation and relationship
[01:36:32.520 --> 01:36:36.520]  or circumstance that is come across.
[01:36:36.520 --> 01:36:44.520]  So while Joe was charged with a particular thing, that if there would have been nine other people there in the room
[01:36:44.520 --> 01:36:49.520]  and Joe's number 10, all nine of them would have been found guilty, just like the defendant was.
[01:36:49.520 --> 01:36:59.520]  But Joe was able to establish a different status, and in that particular case, Joe was free to go.
[01:36:59.520 --> 01:37:03.520]  All because he was able to show a particular status.
[01:37:03.520 --> 01:37:05.520]  Wow.
[01:37:05.520 --> 01:37:08.520]  All right, well, let's start going to some calls so that we can,
[01:37:08.520 --> 01:37:10.520]  we've got about 20 minutes left to be on the air here.
[01:37:10.520 --> 01:37:12.520]  Let's start going to some calls.
[01:37:12.520 --> 01:37:15.520]  We've got Randy from Texas, and I do ask our callers to please stay on point.
[01:37:15.520 --> 01:37:20.520]  Randy, what is the question for our guest?
[01:37:20.520 --> 01:37:25.520]  I'm very interested in talking to you guys about this.
[01:37:25.520 --> 01:37:29.520]  I got a situation with a homeowners association,
[01:37:29.520 --> 01:37:37.520]  and basically the neighbor came over and broke the law, tore down my fence,
[01:37:37.520 --> 01:37:40.520]  because he said it was slightly over the property line,
[01:37:40.520 --> 01:37:43.520]  then called the homeowners association and said,
[01:37:43.520 --> 01:37:49.520]  hey, restricted covenant violation, you can see the dog right.
[01:37:49.520 --> 01:37:52.520]  How would you handle that?
[01:37:52.520 --> 01:37:59.520]  I hate homeowners association.
[01:37:59.520 --> 01:38:03.520]  Well, okay, who's at fault, you or your neighbor?
[01:38:03.520 --> 01:38:05.520]  My fence, he tore it down.
[01:38:05.520 --> 01:38:07.520]  I didn't give him permission.
[01:38:07.520 --> 01:38:11.520]  Okay, so that's a trespass, right?
[01:38:11.520 --> 01:38:17.520]  Yeah, criminal violation, according to the penal code and text.
[01:38:17.520 --> 01:38:27.520]  Okay, well, so if you go in criminally, or you go and file a charge,
[01:38:27.520 --> 01:38:33.520]  then the state's going to take your place as the injured party in the criminal action.
[01:38:33.520 --> 01:38:38.520]  If you go civilly and you make a demand letter and you say,
[01:38:38.520 --> 01:38:41.520]  you tore down my fence, it's on, you know, whatever,
[01:38:41.520 --> 01:38:47.520]  we can dispute the boundary lines or whatever, but you breached the peace doing it,
[01:38:47.520 --> 01:38:51.520]  you didn't have my permission, you didn't handle this correctly,
[01:38:51.520 --> 01:38:54.520]  you do have a claim,
[01:38:54.520 --> 01:39:00.520]  and you can make a ratification of commencement in a civil matter.
[01:39:00.520 --> 01:39:05.520]  But as far as the dog run or whatever, you're saying that now you can see it
[01:39:05.520 --> 01:39:08.520]  or now they can see it or what?
[01:39:08.520 --> 01:39:11.520]  Well, what he did is he came out, tore down the fence,
[01:39:11.520 --> 01:39:14.520]  used the sawzall and just cut it down.
[01:39:14.520 --> 01:39:15.520]  I caught him doing it.
[01:39:15.520 --> 01:39:18.520]  It was probably 90% done.
[01:39:18.520 --> 01:39:21.520]  I'm thinking, hmm, okay.
[01:39:21.520 --> 01:39:24.520]  Then I take off because I have something to do,
[01:39:24.520 --> 01:39:30.520]  and my daughter says the Homeowner Association guy comes over because he called him.
[01:39:30.520 --> 01:39:35.520]  So they take pictures of the dog run that you now can see from the street,
[01:39:35.520 --> 01:39:39.520]  which is a violation according to the Covenant.
[01:39:39.520 --> 01:39:40.520]  Okay.
[01:39:40.520 --> 01:39:43.520]  So I called the Homeowner Association today and I said,
[01:39:43.520 --> 01:39:48.520]  hey, this guy cut the damn fence down, called you over to get me in trouble.
[01:39:48.520 --> 01:39:52.520]  Now, what the hell is that about?
[01:39:52.520 --> 01:39:54.520]  We don't care.
[01:39:54.520 --> 01:39:59.520]  Fix it.
[01:39:59.520 --> 01:40:04.520]  You guys do things a big way down there in Texas.
[01:40:04.520 --> 01:40:06.520]  Big state.
[01:40:06.520 --> 01:40:13.520]  All I can tell you is that you're going to have to either one of two things.
[01:40:13.520 --> 01:40:19.520]  Either you're going to have to wait for them to start an action against you,
[01:40:19.520 --> 01:40:22.520]  and that will be a process,
[01:40:22.520 --> 01:40:27.520]  or you're going to have to go on the other side in the civil process
[01:40:27.520 --> 01:40:30.520]  and you're going to have to start an action.
[01:40:30.520 --> 01:40:36.520]  But you've got a trespass that has now caused a breach of contract.
[01:40:36.520 --> 01:40:39.520]  That's in the way I analyze it.
[01:40:39.520 --> 01:40:40.520]  You've been trespassed.
[01:40:40.520 --> 01:40:46.520]  Your property has been destroyed, and you're the injured party,
[01:40:46.520 --> 01:40:49.520]  and you have a right to be made whole.
[01:40:49.520 --> 01:40:55.520]  How you do that is going to be an interesting scenario.
[01:40:55.520 --> 01:41:00.520]  And I will tell you that if you start an administrative procedure in this,
[01:41:00.520 --> 01:41:03.520]  and this is for free, fellas, okay,
[01:41:03.520 --> 01:41:07.520]  for all of those folks out there that love to do administrative procedures,
[01:41:07.520 --> 01:41:12.520]  and then when you go through it all and you can't collect, here's how you do that.
[01:41:12.520 --> 01:41:17.520]  Before you start the administrative procedure, you add an arbitration clause
[01:41:17.520 --> 01:41:20.520]  to the administrative procedure.
[01:41:20.520 --> 01:41:26.520]  And then when you go through and you get your administrative procedure default,
[01:41:26.520 --> 01:41:31.520]  now under the arbitration clause in the contract that you have down in default,
[01:41:31.520 --> 01:41:33.520]  you go to arbitration.
[01:41:33.520 --> 01:41:37.520]  And when they ignore that, now you get an arbitration award.
[01:41:37.520 --> 01:41:40.520]  And trust me, when you get the arbitration award
[01:41:40.520 --> 01:41:45.520]  and you take it to court and you get a judgment and then a writ of execution,
[01:41:45.520 --> 01:41:49.520]  all of a sudden they'll sit up and pay attention.
[01:41:49.520 --> 01:41:51.520]  So that's for free.
[01:41:51.520 --> 01:41:56.520]  So if you went through it without the arbitration and got a judgment?
[01:41:56.520 --> 01:42:00.520]  You're going to have to go through an amended complaint.
[01:42:00.520 --> 01:42:02.520]  Ah, okay.
[01:42:02.520 --> 01:42:04.520]  Go ahead.
[01:42:04.520 --> 01:42:07.520]  An amended complaint with an arbitration clause in it this time,
[01:42:07.520 --> 01:42:13.520]  and do it all again and voila, you've got everything in the world you want.
[01:42:13.520 --> 01:42:15.520]  Can I add something to that?
[01:42:15.520 --> 01:42:16.520]  Yep.
[01:42:16.520 --> 01:42:17.520]  That's right on point.
[01:42:17.520 --> 01:42:23.520]  You know, Randall, about my truck, and I told you that I would go directly after the evidence,
[01:42:23.520 --> 01:42:27.520]  which is that the tow truck operator is known to have it.
[01:42:27.520 --> 01:42:30.520]  I went through the administrative process, gave him an opportunity,
[01:42:30.520 --> 01:42:32.520]  and guess where I'm at?
[01:42:32.520 --> 01:42:33.520]  Arbitration.
[01:42:33.520 --> 01:42:34.520]  There you go.
[01:42:34.520 --> 01:42:36.520]  That's what I'm...
[01:42:36.520 --> 01:42:38.520]  And we do have some more callers.
[01:42:38.520 --> 01:42:44.520]  Joe, is there any way I can contact you offline or tomorrow or something?
[01:42:44.520 --> 01:42:47.520]  Yeah, I'll get with you.
[01:42:47.520 --> 01:42:52.520]  Just email me and I will forward your email to Joe.
[01:42:52.520 --> 01:42:56.520]  What do you want me to put on it, Randy, or how do I...
[01:42:56.520 --> 01:42:58.520]  Just put for Joe Edwards.
[01:42:58.520 --> 01:42:59.520]  Okay.
[01:42:59.520 --> 01:43:00.520]  All right, great.
[01:43:00.520 --> 01:43:01.520]  That'll work.
[01:43:01.520 --> 01:43:02.520]  Thanks, guys.
[01:43:02.520 --> 01:43:03.520]  All right, thanks, Randy.
[01:43:03.520 --> 01:43:06.520]  We're going to move on...sorry, I didn't mean to cut him off.
[01:43:06.520 --> 01:43:09.520]  Okay, we're going to move on now to John in Texas.
[01:43:09.520 --> 01:43:11.520]  Okay, John, thanks for calling in.
[01:43:11.520 --> 01:43:14.520]  What is your question for our guests?
[01:43:14.520 --> 01:43:18.520]  Yeah, this is John Bush here in Austin, Texas, with the Texans for Accountable Government.
[01:43:18.520 --> 01:43:19.520]  Yes.
[01:43:19.520 --> 01:43:21.520]  And to George?
[01:43:21.520 --> 01:43:23.520]  No, I don't think so.
[01:43:23.520 --> 01:43:25.520]  I don't think so.
[01:43:25.520 --> 01:43:30.520]  I have a question, but first I want to invite everybody to the public forum we're having in the city of Austin.
[01:43:30.520 --> 01:43:31.520]  Yeah.
[01:43:31.520 --> 01:43:32.520]  At least by the choice.
[01:43:32.520 --> 01:43:34.520]  We'll be broadcasting from there.
[01:43:34.520 --> 01:43:37.520]  We're going to actually...we're going to broadcast the entire event on the air.
[01:43:37.520 --> 01:43:38.520]  Yeah, that's great.
[01:43:38.520 --> 01:43:40.520]  That's great.
[01:43:40.520 --> 01:43:46.520]  Yeah, my question...yeah, it's March 30 at 6 p.m. here in Austin City Hall, and my question pertains to the same thing.
[01:43:46.520 --> 01:43:53.520]  Unfortunately, the Fifth Amendment is not a remedy for police taking your blood and DWI, if you refuse a breathalyzer,
[01:43:53.520 --> 01:44:01.520]  because Schmerber v. California says the Fifth Amendment only applies to communicative testimony, verbal testimony.
[01:44:01.520 --> 01:44:08.520]  However, Article 1...I'm sorry, Article 10 of the Texas Bill of Rights, Section 10, I'm sorry,
[01:44:08.520 --> 01:44:12.520]  it states that he shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself.
[01:44:12.520 --> 01:44:18.520]  However, the headline for Section 10 is the right to be accused in prosecution,
[01:44:18.520 --> 01:44:24.520]  and also the language surrounding he shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself is all dealing with in a prosecution.
[01:44:24.520 --> 01:44:35.520]  So my question is this, can that sentence stand alone and be evidence in general, or is it only specifically talking about prosecution?
[01:44:35.520 --> 01:44:36.520]  Yes, only prosecution.
[01:44:36.520 --> 01:44:39.520]  Fifth only goes to prosecution, criminal.
[01:44:39.520 --> 01:44:46.520]  Well, also, John, everything about this police blood withdrawal thing here in Austin is completely illegal on his face.
[01:44:46.520 --> 01:44:54.520]  I mean, number one, there's statute that says that no one can be forced to give biometric data against their will,
[01:44:54.520 --> 01:44:59.520]  and number two, you have to be a certified phlebotomist, at least,
[01:44:59.520 --> 01:45:06.520]  or have other medical certification under the state medical board in order to stick a needle in someone's arm.
[01:45:06.520 --> 01:45:07.520]  I mean, it just goes on and on.
[01:45:07.520 --> 01:45:13.520]  Randy and I have been doing a lot of legal research on this, and they are breaking so many laws by doing this it's not even funny.
[01:45:13.520 --> 01:45:22.520]  They're putting themselves personally and the city at so much civil liability, and we're going to be preparing criminal charges against them.
[01:45:22.520 --> 01:45:26.520]  My lady I work with told me today they've already started doing it.
[01:45:26.520 --> 01:45:33.520]  They made 45 arrests over this weekend pulling people over and putting needles in their arms,
[01:45:33.520 --> 01:45:42.520]  and so what I'm going to do is I'm going to, under open records, I'm going to find out who all those people were and who the officers were that did that,
[01:45:42.520 --> 01:45:46.520]  and I'm going to be filing criminal charges and taking it from the grand jury, at least.
[01:45:46.520 --> 01:45:48.520]  All right, rock and roll.
[01:45:48.520 --> 01:45:50.520]  Yeah, so what do our guests have to say about this?
[01:45:50.520 --> 01:45:59.520]  In case they don't know the context, the police chief is trying to take federal funding to implement a program for the cops to take blood out of people on the side of the road,
[01:45:59.520 --> 01:46:08.520]  and by the way, also, unless there's a law, a specific statute that says that the police chief can take federal funding, he can't,
[01:46:08.520 --> 01:46:17.520]  because I'll tell you what, John, if I went to the police chief with a bunch of money to give to him to implement a program that I wanted to see happen, that's called bribery.
[01:46:17.520 --> 01:46:26.520]  Okay, so right now, as far as I can see from my research, he can only take up appropriations that are authorized by city council,
[01:46:26.520 --> 01:46:31.520]  and this has not been authorized by city council, so that's another law that's been broken.
[01:46:31.520 --> 01:46:33.520]  It would have to go through the city council.
[01:46:33.520 --> 01:46:37.520]  That's another one of our remedies to stop it before they approve the appropriations of the federal funding.
[01:46:37.520 --> 01:46:41.520]  Okay, so Joe, Sam, what do you all have to say about this?
[01:46:41.520 --> 01:46:48.520]  I can't comment on it. You all handle that down there in Texas.
[01:46:48.520 --> 01:46:49.520]  Okay.
[01:46:49.520 --> 01:46:50.520]  Okay.
[01:46:50.520 --> 01:46:52.520]  Yeah, we're going to handle this one.
[01:46:52.520 --> 01:46:54.520]  Yeah, I think we got this one under control.
[01:46:54.520 --> 01:47:03.520]  Randy's going to get up there on the mic when it comes time for the public input, and he's going to lay it all out in law and show the case law, the statutes, everything.
[01:47:03.520 --> 01:47:08.520]  I mean, these guys can already get the pant suit off of them for what they've been doing already.
[01:47:08.520 --> 01:47:13.520]  And what I let them know is, is I'm preparing what I call a litigation engine.
[01:47:13.520 --> 01:47:17.520]  You go on the website, when I get it all working, fill out a questionnaire,
[01:47:17.520 --> 01:47:28.520]  and it will demonstrate to you what every document you need to address every due process issue in your case would look like.
[01:47:28.520 --> 01:47:31.520]  It will demonstrate exactly what it would look like.
[01:47:31.520 --> 01:47:36.520]  And all you have to do is fill in your name in the court and sign it and send it in.
[01:47:36.520 --> 01:47:39.520]  That's how exact it looks.
[01:47:39.520 --> 01:47:51.520]  And I will be preparing a civil suit for anyone who has had their blood corrupted by the police.
[01:47:51.520 --> 01:47:57.520]  And since I'm already going to be contacting every single person who's been arrested,
[01:47:57.520 --> 01:48:02.520]  I will also make available to them a way to go after them for taking blood.
[01:48:02.520 --> 01:48:06.520]  So if you guys want to start sticking needles in people and taking blood,
[01:48:06.520 --> 01:48:09.520]  I'll do my best to see that they get sued on every single one.
[01:48:09.520 --> 01:48:13.520]  Well, you know, and the thing is, we really can win on issues like this.
[01:48:13.520 --> 01:48:19.520]  You know, enough of a public outcry, enough of threats of lawsuit and criminal prosecution, and they will back down.
[01:48:19.520 --> 01:48:30.520]  Apparently, we've won in San Marcos about the city council down there trying to pass ordinances to require everyone's pets to be implanted with microchips,
[01:48:30.520 --> 01:48:34.520]  and we made such a stink about it with Catherine Albrecht that they're backing off of it.
[01:48:34.520 --> 01:48:35.520]  So we can win.
[01:48:35.520 --> 01:48:36.520]  Listen, John, I'm sorry.
[01:48:36.520 --> 01:48:37.520]  We really need to move on.
[01:48:37.520 --> 01:48:40.520]  We've only got about 10 minutes left on the call boards stacking up.
[01:48:40.520 --> 01:48:41.520]  All right, thanks, Scott.
[01:48:41.520 --> 01:48:42.520]  All right, thank you.
[01:48:42.520 --> 01:48:45.520]  All right, we're going to move on now to Joseph in Texas.
[01:48:45.520 --> 01:48:48.520]  Joseph, what's your question for our guest?
[01:48:48.520 --> 01:48:51.520]  Well, I just want to make a few comments.
[01:48:51.520 --> 01:49:00.520]  One thing, I believe down there in Texas, you know, you're supposed to know laws got no regard for laws.
[01:49:00.520 --> 01:49:08.520]  But on the straw, man, that's not what I studied a few years ago, and it's not my, you know,
[01:49:08.520 --> 01:49:12.520]  and it appeared like something simple but like just some piece was missing.
[01:49:12.520 --> 01:49:21.520]  But what I'm kind of curious about how can we be a part of that if that is something we did not knowingly
[01:49:21.520 --> 01:49:27.520]  and intentionally and willingly sign into?
[01:49:27.520 --> 01:49:31.520]  How can we be bound to do something or be...
[01:49:31.520 --> 01:49:33.520]  Yeah, excellent.
[01:49:33.520 --> 01:49:34.520]  Yeah, excellent question, guys.
[01:49:34.520 --> 01:49:36.520]  Without full disclosure.
[01:49:36.520 --> 01:49:38.520]  Yeah, guys, what do you all have to say about this?
[01:49:38.520 --> 01:49:43.520]  That's an excellent question and one that I get asked all the time.
[01:49:43.520 --> 01:49:56.520]  And the best thing that I can give you is when all of this happened was in the turmoil of the first part
[01:49:56.520 --> 01:50:07.520]  of the Roosevelt administration and the Depression, and no one was looking when Roosevelt implemented the New Deal.
[01:50:07.520 --> 01:50:14.520]  And everybody, you know, everybody always teaches it in school as Roosevelt's New Deal.
[01:50:14.520 --> 01:50:16.520]  They never teach it like this.
[01:50:16.520 --> 01:50:18.520]  Hey, everybody, there's a New Deal.
[01:50:18.520 --> 01:50:21.520]  Here's what it is, okay?
[01:50:21.520 --> 01:50:28.520]  In other words, there's a different tone, there's a different emphasis on the term the New Deal.
[01:50:28.520 --> 01:50:36.520]  Well, now we hear President Obama saying, now we got a new New Deal, all right?
[01:50:36.520 --> 01:50:43.520]  And so I'm waiting with great anticipation to look at what the new New Deal is,
[01:50:43.520 --> 01:50:52.520]  because this is when they created all this and what, you know, the old Chinese proverb, food on table, many problems.
[01:50:52.520 --> 01:50:55.520]  No food on table, only one problem.
[01:50:55.520 --> 01:51:00.520]  And so everybody was looking at how to get food on the table
[01:51:00.520 --> 01:51:04.520]  and not looking at what the politicians were doing in Washington.
[01:51:04.520 --> 01:51:11.520]  And if you really want to go deep in this thing, somebody produced a birth certificate
[01:51:11.520 --> 01:51:16.520]  with their mother's married name on it instead of their maiden name.
[01:51:16.520 --> 01:51:22.520]  We are all bastard children, illegitimate children with no fathers,
[01:51:22.520 --> 01:51:28.520]  of illegitimate birth and wards of the state.
[01:51:28.520 --> 01:51:33.520]  And that, folks, is the facts, and that's how they've done it.
[01:51:33.520 --> 01:51:37.520]  We didn't agree to it, we didn't consent to it, but guess what?
[01:51:37.520 --> 01:51:45.520]  We are free men on the land, sovereign supposedly, and we're deemed to know the law, and ignorance is no excuse.
[01:51:45.520 --> 01:51:51.520]  And we sit in front of the TV and we sit in front of the football game and with our bag of chips,
[01:51:51.520 --> 01:51:58.520]  our clicker and our six-pack, and I'm as guilty as everybody else, but that's why it's there
[01:51:58.520 --> 01:52:01.520]  and that's why we're in the position that we're in.
[01:52:01.520 --> 01:52:09.520]  You can look in the mirror and say no doubt the problem is with you when you look in the mirror.
[01:52:09.520 --> 01:52:11.520]  That's my view of it.
[01:52:11.520 --> 01:52:16.520]  So what you guys are telling us is there is remedy.
[01:52:16.520 --> 01:52:17.520]  That's correct.
[01:52:17.520 --> 01:52:19.520]  Once we come to knowledge.
[01:52:19.520 --> 01:52:20.520]  Absolutely.
[01:52:20.520 --> 01:52:21.520]  That's correct.
[01:52:21.520 --> 01:52:22.520]  I'm loving it.
[01:52:22.520 --> 01:52:25.520]  I think that answers your question, Joe, doesn't it, is that you're brought into it.
[01:52:25.520 --> 01:52:31.520]  Well, I did not want to play the game, how can I be forced to play a game I want no part of?
[01:52:31.520 --> 01:52:39.520]  Well, then you, sir, need to learn and study all you can so that when the FBI comes to you and says,
[01:52:39.520 --> 01:52:46.520]  well, Joe, if we have this hearing, will you grant the judge jurisdiction?
[01:52:46.520 --> 01:52:53.520]  Well, I'll tell you, I chainfully worked for the state penitentiary for a long time.
[01:52:53.520 --> 01:52:59.520]  I went into the warden's office and told him that I very seriously doubt anyone serving time
[01:52:59.520 --> 01:53:02.520]  upon conviction was legally convicted.
[01:53:02.520 --> 01:53:08.520]  And according to court ruling, any individual that participated in enforcing a void judgment is a trespasser.
[01:53:08.520 --> 01:53:15.520]  I challenge them to show me anyone serving time upon a valid conviction.
[01:53:15.520 --> 01:53:17.520]  Well, I don't disagree with you.
[01:53:17.520 --> 01:53:19.520]  I don't disagree with you.
[01:53:19.520 --> 01:53:21.520]  I mean, look at Joe Bannister.
[01:53:21.520 --> 01:53:27.520]  He went to his superiors and said, just show me the law and I'll go do my job.
[01:53:27.520 --> 01:53:34.520]  And here the other day, a Florida judge ruled that an attorney who hadn't filed taxes for,
[01:53:34.520 --> 01:53:37.520]  I don't know, eight or nine years had not broken the law.
[01:53:37.520 --> 01:53:41.520]  Now, you know, here we come to April 15th, what are we doing?
[01:53:41.520 --> 01:53:47.520]  Now, I've never in my life told anyone not to file a tax return and I never will.
[01:53:47.520 --> 01:53:54.520]  You know, this is a matter of study and concentration and stick to it as courage, okay?
[01:53:54.520 --> 01:54:00.520]  The cowardly lion's got to have courage if you're going to stand up and say, I'm not going to be a part of this.
[01:54:00.520 --> 01:54:02.520]  All right, well, listen, let's move on.
[01:54:02.520 --> 01:54:06.520]  We're going to have Sam and Joe Edwards back.
[01:54:06.520 --> 01:54:09.520]  We've got a couple of cars left and we've only got four minutes.
[01:54:09.520 --> 01:54:11.520]  I'm going to go on to Jim in Texas.
[01:54:11.520 --> 01:54:13.520]  Wait, just one thing before you do.
[01:54:13.520 --> 01:54:14.520]  Joe?
[01:54:14.520 --> 01:54:15.520]  Yes?
[01:54:15.520 --> 01:54:17.520]  Where have you been?
[01:54:17.520 --> 01:54:19.520]  Joe's from Texas.
[01:54:19.520 --> 01:54:21.520]  I'm sorry, I already muted him.
[01:54:21.520 --> 01:54:22.520]  Oh, okay.
[01:54:22.520 --> 01:54:24.520]  Okay, Jim, what is your question for our guest?
[01:54:24.520 --> 01:54:29.520]  Well, I was just looking because of the ratification of commencement,
[01:54:29.520 --> 01:54:32.520]  trying to find something that worked in Texas.
[01:54:32.520 --> 01:54:36.520]  And the closest I come to it right now is the attorney to show authority.
[01:54:36.520 --> 01:54:41.520]  It's similar, but it doesn't quite go to that extent of the federal rules.
[01:54:41.520 --> 01:54:48.520]  Well, it's been a long time since I've looked at the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
[01:54:48.520 --> 01:54:56.520]  Most of the states mirror the federal rules, and I know that Texas is kind of unique
[01:54:56.520 --> 01:55:03.520]  because Texas is its own country and I recognize that, and the republic and all of that.
[01:55:03.520 --> 01:55:10.520]  And they have some unique property laws there and you have some other unique things.
[01:55:10.520 --> 01:55:16.520]  But if I was getting blasted in a foreclosure, I would remove that to federal court
[01:55:16.520 --> 01:55:19.520]  and I would apply the federal rules to it.
[01:55:19.520 --> 01:55:25.520]  And outside of going back and studying and looking through the rules again
[01:55:25.520 --> 01:55:30.520]  and finding all the rules of Texas, and California and Indiana are the worst,
[01:55:30.520 --> 01:55:36.520]  but Texas, I need to go back and look at the rules of civil procedure.
[01:55:36.520 --> 01:55:42.520]  Well, this brings one thing to mind and that's the idea of migration.
[01:55:42.520 --> 01:55:47.520]  If Texas has no statute covering this particular issue,
[01:55:47.520 --> 01:55:53.520]  we can migrate the federal statute in because the courts feel like
[01:55:53.520 --> 01:55:58.520]  if a legislature addressed an issue that we haven't addressed,
[01:55:58.520 --> 01:56:03.520]  we trust other legislatures to pass just law.
[01:56:03.520 --> 01:56:06.520]  You can even migrate in other state law too.
[01:56:06.520 --> 01:56:08.520]  Yeah, it's a full faith and credit clause.
[01:56:08.520 --> 01:56:09.520]  Yeah, full faith and credit.
[01:56:09.520 --> 01:56:13.520]  So if the feds have one covering this issue and Texas doesn't,
[01:56:13.520 --> 01:56:16.520]  we might be able to make it difficult.
[01:56:16.520 --> 01:56:19.520]  You've got another issue also and that's the issue related to fraud
[01:56:19.520 --> 01:56:22.520]  by overcharging on the mortgage too.
[01:56:22.520 --> 01:56:23.520]  Sure.
[01:56:23.520 --> 01:56:26.520]  You can raise that issue and get it into federal court.
[01:56:26.520 --> 01:56:29.520]  Well, you can also raise the issue of what did you risk?
[01:56:29.520 --> 01:56:31.520]  What did you loan?
[01:56:31.520 --> 01:56:33.520]  They don't want the money issue in the court though.
[01:56:33.520 --> 01:56:36.520]  So if you have no risk, then you have no injury.
[01:56:36.520 --> 01:56:39.520]  That's correct.
[01:56:39.520 --> 01:56:41.520]  All right, Jim, does that answer your question?
[01:56:41.520 --> 01:56:42.520]  That was it.
[01:56:42.520 --> 01:56:47.520]  I had done a search on Lois Law for that in the state of Texas
[01:56:47.520 --> 01:56:50.520]  for ratification of commencement.
[01:56:50.520 --> 01:56:53.520]  Look under real parties in interest in Texas.
[01:56:53.520 --> 01:56:55.520]  Real parties in interest, I can do that.
[01:56:55.520 --> 01:56:58.520]  There were 217 hits on the federal.
[01:56:58.520 --> 01:57:00.520]  All right, excellent.
[01:57:00.520 --> 01:57:02.520]  All right, listen, we really need to move on.
[01:57:02.520 --> 01:57:05.520]  We've got two minutes left and I want to take this last caller.
[01:57:05.520 --> 01:57:06.520]  Good morning.
[01:57:06.520 --> 01:57:09.520]  We are going now to Jerry in Oregon.
[01:57:09.520 --> 01:57:11.520]  All right, Jerry, we've got less than two minutes left.
[01:57:11.520 --> 01:57:13.520]  What's the question for our guests?
[01:57:13.520 --> 01:57:15.520]  Hey, I have just a quick question.
[01:57:15.520 --> 01:57:20.520]  When you receive a traffic ticket from a police officer,
[01:57:20.520 --> 01:57:25.520]  can you return that accepted for value because the ticket itself becomes
[01:57:25.520 --> 01:57:27.520]  a security instrument?
[01:57:27.520 --> 01:57:29.520]  Absolutely.
[01:57:29.520 --> 01:57:33.520]  In fact, I had a friend of mine in Ontario, Oregon, do that several years ago.
[01:57:33.520 --> 01:57:38.520]  We learned so much from that that it was just easy.
[01:57:38.520 --> 01:57:43.520]  He had had his license suspended four times for driving without insurance
[01:57:43.520 --> 01:57:48.520]  and I kept telling him, I said, well, they keep suspending it higher and higher.
[01:57:48.520 --> 01:57:51.520]  He went into court and said, I'm not sure why I'm here, Your Honor.
[01:57:51.520 --> 01:57:53.520]  I've accepted this matter for value.
[01:57:53.520 --> 01:57:56.520]  The judge says, I have no idea what that means.
[01:57:56.520 --> 01:57:58.520]  They had a little more conversation.
[01:57:58.520 --> 01:58:02.520]  And finally, my friend says, Your Honor, what's my remedy?
[01:58:02.520 --> 01:58:05.520]  And the judge says, I have no idea what you mean, what's your remedy?
[01:58:05.520 --> 01:58:08.520]  And I told my friend that the judge was going to say that.
[01:58:08.520 --> 01:58:10.520]  And my friend said, look, you're right.
[01:58:10.520 --> 01:58:13.520]  I said, Your Honor, it's not necessary for you and I to stand here
[01:58:13.520 --> 01:58:15.520]  and insult each other's intelligence.
[01:58:15.520 --> 01:58:19.520]  To which the judge says, your only remedy, sir, is to pay $175.
[01:58:19.520 --> 01:58:21.520]  And my friend said, thank you, Your Honor.
[01:58:21.520 --> 01:58:22.520]  You may ask a question.
[01:58:22.520 --> 01:58:23.520]  And the judge says, yes.
[01:58:23.520 --> 01:58:27.520]  And he said, Your Honor, would that be a violation of public policy?
[01:58:27.520 --> 01:58:30.520]  And the judge just absolutely erupted and screamed at him.
[01:58:30.520 --> 01:58:31.520]  Get out of my courtroom.
[01:58:31.520 --> 01:58:32.520]  Get out.
[01:58:32.520 --> 01:58:33.520]  Get out.
[01:58:33.520 --> 01:58:33.520]  All right.
[01:58:33.520 --> 01:58:35.520]  Well, listen, we are at the end of the show.
[01:58:35.520 --> 01:58:40.520]  Thank you so much for joining us tonight, Sam Davis and Tony Davis and Joe Edwards.
[01:58:40.520 --> 01:58:44.520]  And I would love to have you gentlemen back again, of course, for our show.
[01:58:44.520 --> 01:58:51.520]  Well, I would like everybody to visit my website, www.statusesfreedom.com.
[01:58:51.520 --> 01:58:52.520]  And thank you for having me on.
[01:58:52.520 --> 01:58:53.520]  All right.
[01:58:53.520 --> 01:58:55.520]  We'll be back Thursday night.
[01:58:55.520 --> 01:58:57.520]  Thank you.
[01:59:25.520 --> 01:59:27.520]  Thank you.
[01:59:55.520 --> 01:59:57.520]  Thank you.