[00:00.000 --> 00:11.000] UK spy chiefs are pressing ahead with secret plans to monitor all internet use and telephone [00:11.000 --> 00:12.000] calls. [00:12.000 --> 00:18.280] GCHQ, the government's eavesdropping centre, is developing classified technology to intercept [00:18.280 --> 00:24.960] and monitor all emails, website visits and social networking sessions in Britain. [00:24.960 --> 00:29.640] Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Shapiro said it's not enough to register [00:29.640 --> 00:36.600] the 1.3 trillion hedge fund industry, instead the SEC should be given authority to regulate [00:36.600 --> 00:42.960] what hedge funds can buy and how much money they can borrow to maximise bets. [00:42.960 --> 00:48.920] The Centres for Disease Control said swine flu's potential to reconfigure its genetic [00:48.920 --> 00:55.040] material and become more deadly is a major concern, however the newest outbreak has proved [00:55.040 --> 01:00.920] to be relatively mild outside Mexico. Human cases of the disease have been confined to [01:00.920 --> 01:07.500] 30 US states and 19 countries. [01:07.500 --> 01:12.560] A growing number of industries including electric utilities, auto makers and oil and natural [01:12.560 --> 01:18.880] gas refineries are lobbying for free pollution permits under legislation capping greenhouse [01:18.880 --> 01:25.240] gas emissions. This poses a potential threat to the funding for Barack Obama's proposed [01:25.240 --> 01:32.640] middle class tax cut. Industry lobbying intensified after a push by electric utilities to secure [01:32.640 --> 01:38.640] up to 40% of the emissions permits for free. The measure calls for reducing US greenhouse [01:38.640 --> 01:47.200] gas emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% by mid-century. Obama wants to auction [01:47.200 --> 01:52.320] off all the emissions allowances and use the bulk of the revenue to fund tax credits for [01:52.320 --> 01:57.640] the middle class, but Obama may now be willing to compromise on giving away the pollution [01:57.640 --> 02:03.120] permits. The bill's fate could hinge on how willing the bill's sponsors are to give [02:03.120 --> 02:09.560] in to the demands of Democrats whose districts depend on coal, manufacturing oil or natural [02:09.560 --> 02:14.480] gas for jobs. [02:14.480 --> 02:20.000] A recent letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates from Senators Claire McCaskill, Chairman [02:20.000 --> 02:25.280] of a Contracting Oversight Committee and Susan Collins, the committee's ranking Republican, [02:25.280 --> 02:31.200] says the Pentagon has become too close to defense contractor KBR. The May 1st letter [02:31.200 --> 02:36.840] states the Pentagon has done little to collect at least $100 million in overcharges paid [02:36.840 --> 02:42.960] in deals arranged by corrupt former officials of KBR. The corrupt officials pleaded guilty [02:42.960 --> 02:48.320] to the wrongdoing years ago. The Senator's letter also said the Army had failed to move [02:48.320 --> 02:54.520] away from the monopolistic nature of their logistics contract with KBR. The government [02:54.520 --> 03:15.520] has paid KBR $31 billion for logistics operations in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan. [03:54.680 --> 04:00.280] When you were eight and you had bad dreams You'd go to school and learn the golden rule [04:00.280 --> 04:05.520] So why are you acting like a bloody fool If you get hot then you must get cool [04:05.520 --> 04:08.440] Bad boys, bad boys What you gonna do [04:08.440 --> 04:12.760] Oh what you gonna do when they come for you? Bad boys, bad boys [04:12.760 --> 04:16.720] What you gonna do Oh what you gonna do when they come for you? [04:16.720 --> 04:21.160] You took it on that one, you took it on this one You took it on your mother and you took [04:21.160 --> 04:23.960] it on your father You took it on your brother and you took it [04:23.960 --> 04:51.640] This is the rule of law. [04:51.640 --> 04:56.440] Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens. [04:56.440 --> 05:05.720] We're here, it's Monday, May 4th with Randy Kelton and also John Bush from Texans for [05:05.720 --> 05:07.240] Accountable Government. [05:07.240 --> 05:13.720] He is our newest host on the rule of law, rule of law radio network. [05:13.720 --> 05:19.240] He's got his show on Wednesdays at 6 p.m. called Austin Liberty Beat and John, you're [05:19.240 --> 05:24.840] here tonight to talk about some, a very important bill that's coming up for public hearing on [05:24.840 --> 05:28.360] Wednesday concerning checkpoints in Texas. [05:28.360 --> 05:33.640] Can you explain what this is all about, SB 298, is that correct? [05:33.640 --> 05:41.400] Yes, SB 298, up on Wednesday, the capital, it's a bill that would authorize basically [05:41.400 --> 05:47.400] legalize, quote unquote, sobriety checkpoints, so it's a pretty big deal as far as our basic [05:47.400 --> 05:53.480] right to be left alone, freedom to travel, freedom from movement and our right to privacy [05:53.480 --> 05:58.920] and I think if we don't put up a serious fight and make some phone calls to go up there on [05:58.920 --> 06:05.880] Wednesday for the hearing, this thing could pass and on the other hand, we could get ourselves [06:05.880 --> 06:13.560] a major victory and have a wonderful boost to move forward and get a kick butt for liberty. [06:13.560 --> 06:15.320] Well yeah, that's awesome. [06:15.320 --> 06:17.640] So what time is the hearing, John? [06:17.640 --> 06:23.800] I'd say it starts at 2 p.m. but it's basically as soon as the session ends, so it could be [06:23.800 --> 06:26.760] anywhere from 2 to 3, 4 o'clock. [06:26.760 --> 06:38.120] Right, right and John, well what Sheila Dean from 511 Campaign did and also Karen from [06:38.120 --> 06:44.040] Vote Rescue when their bills came up for public hearing is that people can write a written [06:44.040 --> 06:49.960] testimony and in fact it's almost more powerful or can be because it goes into the permanent [06:49.960 --> 06:55.880] record and so what people can do if you can't make it down to the Capitol or you can't sit [06:55.880 --> 07:02.320] around and wait all day and all night sometimes in some cases, write out your written testimony [07:02.320 --> 07:08.280] and put in the testimony at the beginning that you authorized John Bush of Texas for [07:08.280 --> 07:14.240] Accountable Government to submit your testimony and email it to John so that he can print [07:14.240 --> 07:17.320] it out and bring it down there and file it. [07:17.320 --> 07:20.880] That way we can get in as many statements as possible. [07:20.880 --> 07:25.360] So John, can you give people email address or website where they can check this out where [07:25.360 --> 07:27.240] they can email you their testimony? [07:27.240 --> 07:37.080] Yeah, you can go to tagtexas.org for information on the location and also a list of the committee [07:37.080 --> 07:43.200] members and the phone numbers you can reach them at so if you can't show up you can write [07:43.200 --> 07:52.920] an email, a little testimony and you can email it to me at libertylover512 at yahoo.com or [07:52.920 --> 07:54.200] you can call them. [07:54.200 --> 07:58.240] I would recommend calling and showing up, doing whatever you can and put all the phone [07:58.240 --> 08:03.960] numbers on there and you can simply let them know that you're opposed to Senate Bill 298. [08:03.960 --> 08:07.280] The ramifications, if this were to pass, are pretty severe. [08:07.280 --> 08:13.520] In California, 2008, California Highway Patrol in conjunction with the San Bernardino Sheriff's [08:13.520 --> 08:18.600] Department and the United States Military Police, they went ahead and conducted a sobriety [08:18.600 --> 08:19.600] checkpoint. [08:19.600 --> 08:25.000] So here we have Posse Comentatus getting slapped in the face in the name of stopping DUI and [08:25.000 --> 08:31.120] we definitely don't want to see that come to Texas. [08:31.120 --> 08:38.120] Yeah absolutely, I don't see how these checkpoints are constitutional at all. [08:38.120 --> 08:43.720] Now Randy was saying, we discussed this I believe on another show and Randy was saying [08:43.720 --> 08:53.240] that the courts have ruled that it's okay if they stop everybody at a checkpoint without [08:53.240 --> 08:54.240] a warrant. [08:54.240 --> 08:59.280] They just can't single certain people out to stop without a warrant and I say that is [08:59.280 --> 09:09.520] a bunch of horse hockey because the Constitution is very clear that there has to be a warrant [09:09.520 --> 09:17.640] in order to search people, in order for people to be searched. [09:17.640 --> 09:23.880] So what's the deal Randy, can you explain what's going on here, how they're trying [09:23.880 --> 09:26.480] to squirm out of this? [09:26.480 --> 09:32.680] Every state keeps trying this same thing, they keep passing these laws and these laws [09:32.680 --> 09:40.240] keep getting shot down by the courts but they really don't care and they pass the law and [09:40.240 --> 09:46.160] before it gets shot down they extract a tremendous amount of money from the public. [09:46.160 --> 09:51.840] Well now wait a minute Randy, I thought you had told me that the courts are actually upholding [09:51.840 --> 09:53.440] these checkpoints. [09:53.440 --> 10:01.200] Well they have ruled that if they apply equally to everybody that a right is not being deprived. [10:01.200 --> 10:08.200] Oh so if you deprive everyone of their rights it's okay, that they're not really depriving [10:08.200 --> 10:13.520] anyone of their rights because they're depriving everyone of their rights, what kind of convoluted [10:13.520 --> 10:14.520] logic is that? [10:14.520 --> 10:21.000] You have to ask the Supreme Court about that but this particular type of law has been passed [10:21.000 --> 10:29.520] and shot down and passed and shot down over and over and over, the criminal justice system [10:29.520 --> 10:35.440] wants to be able to stop every person any time they want to and the public does not [10:35.440 --> 10:40.600] want to be stopped at their whim. [10:40.600 --> 10:46.400] So there's always been this pressure back and forth, even if they pass this law it's [10:46.400 --> 10:52.080] not going to stand, it will get shot down like they always have but in the meantime [10:52.080 --> 10:53.560] they'll give us a lot of grief. [10:53.560 --> 10:56.560] Yeah for real. [10:56.560 --> 10:59.680] You're a paper that's had a doctor. [10:59.680 --> 11:06.600] The Supreme Court ruled on it in 1990, Michigan Department of State Police v. fit and they [11:06.600 --> 11:13.800] applied the balance set from Brown v. Texas in that as long as the violation of personal [11:13.800 --> 11:22.040] liberty is minor in comparison with potential effectiveness of batting, drunk driving fatalities [11:22.040 --> 11:28.040] then it passes the balance set so yeah, total convoluted logic and here we have the Supreme [11:28.040 --> 11:31.760] Court stabbing the people in the back once again. [11:31.760 --> 11:35.960] That's the most collectivist socialist piece of crap kind of argument I've ever heard [11:35.960 --> 11:42.280] in my life that well you know, as long as you're only kind of sort of just a little [11:42.280 --> 11:49.440] bit disrespecting or taking away people's individual liberties and freedoms for the [11:49.440 --> 11:55.000] sake of a more common good, well then it's okay. [11:55.000 --> 11:57.240] I don't think so. [11:57.240 --> 11:59.800] That's what democracy is people. [11:59.800 --> 12:03.640] We do not have a form of government that is a democracy. [12:03.640 --> 12:10.040] We don't want democracy okay, this is a constitutional republic and the way it's structured is set [12:10.040 --> 12:18.400] up to protect individual rights and liberties and individual property ownership okay because [12:18.400 --> 12:24.120] you don't want a democracy because then 51% of the people could vote to take away the [12:24.120 --> 12:28.720] rights of the other 49 or even the property of the other 49 for that matter. [12:28.720 --> 12:34.320] We don't want mob rule, we don't want democracy, we have to protect individual rights and liberties [12:34.320 --> 12:38.040] and property at all costs I say. [12:38.040 --> 12:42.200] There's no, if you really want to protect the common good you have to protect the individual [12:42.200 --> 12:49.040] because there is no group without the individual and there's no such thing as group rights. [12:49.040 --> 12:55.440] You do not derive, inside I don't agree with these women's rights movements and you know [12:55.440 --> 12:58.000] minority rights and all these kinds of things. [12:58.000 --> 13:00.480] You don't derive your rights from being a part of a group. [13:00.480 --> 13:04.800] You derive your rights as you, yourself, as an individual. [13:04.800 --> 13:10.680] Really all rights derive from property ownership anyway okay so number one you own your body [13:10.680 --> 13:16.040] so that's where you have the right to your personal freedom and liberty. [13:16.040 --> 13:19.800] All rights derive from property ownership, you don't get your rights as a member of a [13:19.800 --> 13:26.000] group so there's really no such thing as a common good or the greater good anyway. [13:26.000 --> 13:27.760] It makes no sense at all. [13:27.760 --> 13:35.080] I like to think that we can have a democracy as long as it's under the chains of the constitutional [13:35.080 --> 13:36.080] republic. [13:36.080 --> 13:37.080] Right. [13:37.080 --> 13:43.080] So you can have 51% rule on something but you can't even go there if it violates the [13:43.080 --> 13:45.640] liberties on an individual. [13:45.640 --> 13:49.360] Exactly, exactly right John. [13:49.360 --> 13:56.160] So this is what the, this is the kind of logic that the judge, the court ruling, that's what [13:56.160 --> 13:57.160] they used? [13:57.160 --> 14:01.640] Yeah well even if they use that logic and even if we take that for a sound argument [14:01.640 --> 14:06.440] which obviously it's not, checkpoints have been found to be ineffective all across the [14:06.440 --> 14:07.440] country. [14:07.440 --> 14:09.440] Here's a quick stat from Ohio. [14:09.440 --> 14:15.480] From 2001 through 2003 the state highway patrol staff found six checkpoints that averaged [14:15.480 --> 14:18.160] 5.18 DUI arrests. [14:18.160 --> 14:25.280] Of the 75,930 drivers stopped, fewer than 1% were arrested for drunken driving. [14:25.280 --> 14:31.480] So this isn't even effective, not to mention the rights that, liberties that are violated [14:31.480 --> 14:36.240] when you're stopped without reason and it's actually a seizure out of search. [14:36.240 --> 14:38.640] So we're affected from unreasonable seizures. [14:38.640 --> 14:39.640] Exactly. [14:39.640 --> 14:44.800] They argue that this is reasonable because it's effective but it's a total crop. [14:44.800 --> 14:47.120] Oh boy. [14:47.120 --> 14:53.840] Well you know, what are these checkpoints allegedly for anyway? [14:53.840 --> 14:55.400] Return. [14:55.400 --> 14:58.320] Oh so what are they going to do? [14:58.320 --> 15:02.640] They're just going to look at you or try to, you know, make some determination of whether [15:02.640 --> 15:04.320] you're possibly drunk or not? [15:04.320 --> 15:06.040] Is that what this is all about? [15:06.040 --> 15:10.560] They'll have you, well there's another bill that we've got to stop too, Dan Patrick's [15:10.560 --> 15:15.840] show me your papers bill but they'll basically stop you, you'll drive through in line, they're [15:15.840 --> 15:21.760] going to stop every, like one out of every five at random and they'll probably ask you [15:21.760 --> 15:25.160] to roll your window down, they'll check you out and say how are you doing, do you have [15:25.160 --> 15:27.160] anything to drink tonight ma'am or what not. [15:27.160 --> 15:31.840] Now if Dan Patrick's bill passed, they'll be able to ask for our papers by simply painting [15:31.840 --> 15:38.040] us but they, basically the act of seizing takes place once they stop us and begin to [15:38.040 --> 15:44.560] question us without reasonable cause or without probable cause and I think that's the moment [15:44.560 --> 15:49.920] that the constitution is violated but we can't even begin to, you know, you can't stop me [15:49.920 --> 15:56.160] even if it's randomly unless I've swerved or unless I'm speeding or unless maybe my [15:56.160 --> 16:00.880] tags are out, I'm in violation of the law but up until that point I'm just bruising [16:00.880 --> 16:06.440] minding my own business, totally free and then I'm stopped, detained, seized and my [16:06.440 --> 16:12.160] liberties are being violated so if this does pass, which it won't as long as we all rally [16:12.160 --> 16:17.720] around it to fight but if it does pass, there's definitely going to be a lot of lawsuits working [16:17.720 --> 16:20.120] away and cramming the system down. [16:20.120 --> 16:21.120] Yeah. [16:21.120 --> 16:24.880] And I'm going to be helping them with that. [16:24.880 --> 16:26.920] Yeah, for real. [16:26.920 --> 16:27.920] Absolutely. [16:27.920 --> 16:34.320] Yeah, but the important thing is, regardless of what the Supreme Court has cited and interpreting [16:34.320 --> 16:39.320] the United States Constitution, we have the opportunity in the state of Texas to legislate [16:39.320 --> 16:45.240] it away here and to file it away and they can bring it back next session but we'll just [16:45.240 --> 16:48.360] fight it and battle it down then, everybody show up please. [16:48.360 --> 16:49.360] Alright, well listen. [16:49.360 --> 16:50.360] Thanks.org. [16:50.360 --> 16:51.360] Yes, Sean, hang on the line. [16:51.360 --> 16:53.360] I want to talk to you a few more minutes on the other side. [16:53.360 --> 16:54.360] Okay. [16:54.360 --> 16:57.360] Okay, we'll be right back. [16:57.360 --> 17:05.880] Are you looking for an investment that has no stock market risk, has a 100% track record [17:05.880 --> 17:12.600] of returning profits, is not affected by fluctuations in oil prices and interest rates, is publicly [17:12.600 --> 17:17.680] traded and SEC regulated, if this kind of peace of mind is what you have been looking [17:17.680 --> 17:22.440] for in an investment, then life settlements is the investment for you. [17:22.440 --> 17:28.360] Our annual rate of return has been 15.83% for the last 17 years. [17:28.360 --> 17:32.120] Our investments are insurance and banking commission regulated. [17:32.120 --> 17:35.960] Our returns are assured by the largest insurance companies. [17:35.960 --> 17:42.040] Even qualified retirement plans such as 401Ks and IRAs are eligible for transfer. [17:42.040 --> 17:44.000] We charge absolutely no commissions. [17:44.000 --> 17:47.760] 100% of your investment goes to work for you. [17:47.760 --> 17:59.880] Please visit sleepwellinvestment.com or call Bill Shelbur at 817-975-2431 at sleepwellinvestment.com [17:59.880 --> 18:26.520] or call 817-975-2431. [18:26.520 --> 18:33.520] If I can't believe my eyes, I've got to believe my heart. [18:33.520 --> 18:44.520] If I can't believe my ears, I've got to believe my heart. [18:44.520 --> 18:57.520] If I can't believe the newspapers, I've got to believe my heart. [18:57.520 --> 19:08.520] If I can't believe the radio, I've got to believe my heart. [19:08.520 --> 19:14.520] You know I'm out here in this wilderness alone. [19:14.520 --> 19:19.520] Troubles you bring to me make me feel like home. [19:19.520 --> 19:46.520] Just because you can't find the sleep in the street. [19:46.520 --> 19:54.520] Okay, we are back. The rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens on Rule of Law Radio Network. [19:54.520 --> 19:59.520] We're here with John Bush from Texans for Accountable Government. [19:59.520 --> 20:09.520] And John, one thing I wanted to ask you, does it say in the bill how they plan on making this determination [20:09.520 --> 20:14.520] of whether people are intoxicated at these checkpoints? [20:14.520 --> 20:19.520] I mean, are they going to – it seems like it would be unreasonable to try to make everyone get out of their car. [20:19.520 --> 20:22.520] But I mean, are they going to be making people roll their windows down? [20:22.520 --> 20:25.520] Are they going to have to show their IDs too? [20:25.520 --> 20:32.520] Are they going to be shining flashlights in people's eyes and sort of searching around looking in the car at the same time? [20:32.520 --> 20:37.520] I mean, what is involved here? Is it specific? [20:37.520 --> 20:40.520] Yeah, I'm looking at it right now. I'll find the particular language. [20:40.520 --> 20:48.520] But basically it says if they were to see any activity or any of the basic – the usuals that would indicate you being intoxicated. [20:48.520 --> 20:53.520] And of course that's the scent of alcohol on your breath, perhaps haze, red eyes. [20:53.520 --> 21:01.520] And remember sobriety. You can be stoned and they could stop you and bust you for being high. [21:01.520 --> 21:07.520] Especially if they can take blood on the spot, which is eventually what this will culminate into. [21:07.520 --> 21:11.520] But no, they just have the ability to ask you to roll your window down. [21:11.520 --> 21:16.520] And then from there they'll gauge based on your eyes, based on any alcohol, third speech, [21:16.520 --> 21:21.520] contradictory answers to the questions that they're going to barrage you with. [21:21.520 --> 21:30.520] So yeah, basically the usual stuff that they can ask you to step out of your car with if they were to pull you over during a saturation patrol, for example. [21:30.520 --> 21:34.520] Well, yeah, and this is a seizure, okay? [21:34.520 --> 21:36.520] Yeah, the springboard says it is too. [21:36.520 --> 21:42.520] Yeah, you are being seized at this point and the Constitution is very clear. [21:42.520 --> 21:48.520] They cannot search or seize you, either one, without a warrant. [21:48.520 --> 21:52.520] I mean this is just absolutely out of control. [21:52.520 --> 21:56.520] Well, I think the warrant is a separate clause. [21:56.520 --> 22:02.520] This is dealing with our right to be free from unreasonable searches to seizures. [22:02.520 --> 22:03.520] Right. [22:03.520 --> 22:12.520] So again, they argue that it's reasonable because the privacy violation and the inconvenience is minimal. [22:12.520 --> 22:15.520] They're misinterpreting the Fourth Amendment. [22:15.520 --> 22:19.520] It's reasonable if there's a warrant. [22:19.520 --> 22:22.520] It's reasonable if there's probable cause. [22:22.520 --> 22:23.520] Yeah. [22:23.520 --> 22:25.520] You know, it's not reasonable. [22:25.520 --> 22:29.520] It's in the same amendment, you know? [22:29.520 --> 22:32.520] Well, it's reasonable if they see you swerve all over the street. [22:32.520 --> 22:33.520] They don't have to get a warrant. [22:33.520 --> 22:36.520] Right, right. [22:36.520 --> 22:41.520] If you're driving down the road not doing anything wrong, then it's not reasonable at all. [22:41.520 --> 22:47.520] And anybody that I know, my family, my friends, my fellow patriots, you, Randy, [22:47.520 --> 22:53.520] nobody thinks that it's reasonable except nine fools in Washington. [22:53.520 --> 22:55.520] Randy, what do you have to say about this? [22:55.520 --> 22:57.520] Well, I think it's unreasonable. [22:57.520 --> 23:00.520] It's the problem with the slippery slope. [23:00.520 --> 23:08.520] Oh, well, it's okay to violate this right because this really sounds like it's a good idea. [23:08.520 --> 23:10.520] Look at all the lives we're going to save. [23:10.520 --> 23:13.520] Never mind that it doesn't save any lives. [23:13.520 --> 23:16.520] It starts us down the slippery slope. [23:16.520 --> 23:25.520] And that's why our founders were so adamant that the Constitution was not to be breached. [23:25.520 --> 23:30.520] They did not intend us to start down this slippery slope. [23:30.520 --> 23:40.520] But you understand the pressures will always be there from good and like-minded people [23:40.520 --> 23:42.520] because of their focus. [23:42.520 --> 23:49.520] Those who are focused on ending all this death and carnage on the highway, [23:49.520 --> 23:54.520] they want these laws, and they're doing it in good faith. [23:54.520 --> 23:58.520] And those of us who want our liberties, we don't want these laws. [23:58.520 --> 24:01.520] And we're all acting in good faith. [24:01.520 --> 24:11.520] This is a natural and intended struggle that you and I as members of this republic are supposed to have. [24:11.520 --> 24:13.520] And we'll continue to have it. [24:13.520 --> 24:18.520] And that's what will give us good government if we all participate. [24:18.520 --> 24:29.520] Even good intentions are not good enough unless they're checked by the balance of the general public. [24:29.520 --> 24:34.520] So we've got to stand up and do our job. [24:34.520 --> 24:40.520] The conspiracy theorist in me would say that not everybody that's pushing for a variety of checkpoints [24:40.520 --> 24:43.520] and whatnot is acting with good intentions. [24:43.520 --> 24:49.520] I think indicative of that is somebody's made their way all the way to become the CEO of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. [24:49.520 --> 24:55.520] This guy is actually on par to be our next, the head of the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration. [24:55.520 --> 25:00.520] So Mothers Against Drunk Driving has shown how much they respect the Constitution. [25:00.520 --> 25:04.520] And they're about to have their leader as our head of the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration. [25:04.520 --> 25:05.520] So that's no good. [25:05.520 --> 25:06.520] But Randy's right. [25:06.520 --> 25:12.520] Everybody, this is an opportunity for us to get up, get engaged, and participate. [25:12.520 --> 25:17.520] And I think it's beautiful in that whatever the Supreme Court, they can decide whatever they want. [25:17.520 --> 25:20.520] They could put somebody as the head of the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration. [25:20.520 --> 25:24.520] Barry Obama and the federal government can pass whatever laws they want. [25:24.520 --> 25:29.520] But they still have to be in accordance with the Texas Constitution and within the Texas laws. [25:29.520 --> 25:33.520] So we have an opportunity here in Texas to shoot something down. [25:33.520 --> 25:36.520] And it's unfortunate that we have to be reactive in this battle so often. [25:36.520 --> 25:39.520] But unfortunately we're a little bit behind in the score. [25:39.520 --> 25:45.520] So we have the opportunity here in Texas to really stand up and to really take and hold accountable our elected representatives [25:45.520 --> 25:50.520] and show up and make phone calls and write out testimony and get this thing defeated. [25:50.520 --> 25:55.520] And they'll try it again in two years down the road, but we'll still be here to stop it in two years. [25:55.520 --> 25:59.520] And who knows, maybe in two years we'll get a bill passed that says tech checkpoints are illegal, [25:59.520 --> 26:01.520] which a couple states and the Union have. [26:01.520 --> 26:06.520] But the point is none of this is ever going to happen unless we show up and participate. [26:06.520 --> 26:10.520] And I'm encouraging everybody to do that this Wednesday. [26:10.520 --> 26:16.520] It'll be fun, fun for everybody. [26:16.520 --> 26:22.520] Now, John, can you give us this Senate bill number again one more time? [26:22.520 --> 26:30.520] Yes, SB 298 is going to be heard in the Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence. [26:30.520 --> 26:36.520] It's a Senate bill. It's already passed the Senate. It's been hanging out for the past like three weeks in this Committee, [26:36.520 --> 26:39.520] and it's the first time it's scheduled for hearing. [26:39.520 --> 26:47.520] So if we show up in mass, we really have the opportunity to show them that the Texas people are against it. [26:47.520 --> 26:55.520] So John, is there anything in the bill that says anything about that they're going to ID you at the same time, [26:55.520 --> 26:57.520] or is that a separate bill? [26:57.520 --> 27:02.520] What is your take on this? Are they going to be asking for people's IDs anyway? [27:02.520 --> 27:12.520] It's Dan Patrick's bill, Senate Bill 1157, I believe, which also passed the Senate already. [27:12.520 --> 27:20.520] That one allows them to – it makes it a crime if you refuse to identify yourself when a peace officer detains you. [27:20.520 --> 27:24.520] Now, that's a change from when a peace officer arrests you. [27:24.520 --> 27:27.520] I don't know if they're simply detaining you. Would you mind – [27:27.520 --> 27:33.520] Wait a minute. That's not true. That's in the law already, if you are detained. [27:33.520 --> 27:35.520] Not Texas law? [27:35.520 --> 27:37.520] Yes, I just read it. [27:37.520 --> 27:39.520] Where? Where, Randy? [27:39.520 --> 27:44.520] In – well, if I remember the statute off the top of my head. [27:44.520 --> 27:51.520] But the statute clearly said, arrest or detained. [27:51.520 --> 27:58.520] I'm wondering what's going on. It may be that they've already put it in the statute, in the codification of the statute, [27:58.520 --> 28:02.520] and it wasn't in the legislation. [28:02.520 --> 28:11.520] See, this is sometimes a problem where they pass statutes, where they change the codification, the code. [28:11.520 --> 28:18.520] They write the code, and the code doesn't always look like the statute itself. [28:18.520 --> 28:27.520] So, in this case, they may be trying to get the statute to catch up with the code, where they've changed the code. [28:27.520 --> 28:35.520] Because I specifically read that recently, because that's what I was – what occurred to me with the DPS. [28:35.520 --> 28:39.520] Yeah. Let me see. I have it here in front of me. This is the bill. [28:39.520 --> 28:51.520] It's SB 1175, and it would amend Section 38.02 of the penal code, and basically they add the person commits an offense [28:51.520 --> 28:59.520] if the person intentionally refuses to give the person's name, resident, address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has – [28:59.520 --> 29:06.520] and now here's what it used to be – lawfully arrested the person and, two, requested the information. [29:06.520 --> 29:11.520] They have it where it adds, or lawfully detain the person, [29:11.520 --> 29:14.520] lawfully arrested the person or lawfully detained the person. [29:14.520 --> 29:15.520] Okay. [29:15.520 --> 29:17.520] So that's what the bill is. [29:17.520 --> 29:22.520] What is the statute number that they're amending here, John? [29:22.520 --> 29:28.520] 38.02 of the penal code. [29:28.520 --> 29:31.520] Let me read you 38.02. [29:31.520 --> 29:37.520] Failure to identify. A person commits an offense if the intentionally refuses to give his name, resident's address, [29:37.520 --> 29:42.520] or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information. [29:42.520 --> 29:45.520] Okay. Hold on. We're going to break. We're going to break. [29:45.520 --> 29:49.520] Hold on. Hold on. We'll be right back. We'll be right back. This is the rule of law. [29:49.520 --> 29:58.520] And Kathy, we see you on the line. We'll be taking your call when we get back on the other side. [29:58.520 --> 30:03.520] Gold prices are at historic highs, and with the recent pullback, this is a great time to buy. [30:03.520 --> 30:09.520] With the value of the dollar, risks of inflation, geopolitical uncertainties, and instability in world financial systems, [30:09.520 --> 30:11.520] I see gold going up much higher. [30:11.520 --> 30:14.520] Hi. I'm Tim Fry at Roberts and Roberts Brokerage. [30:14.520 --> 30:18.520] Everybody should have some of their assets in investment-grade precious metals. [30:18.520 --> 30:23.520] At Roberts and Roberts Brokerage, you can buy gold, silver, and platinum with confidence from a brokerage [30:23.520 --> 30:27.520] that specialized in the precious metals market since 1977. [30:27.520 --> 30:33.520] If you are new to precious metals, we will happily provide you with the information you need to make an informed decision [30:33.520 --> 30:35.520] whether or not you choose to purchase from us. [30:35.520 --> 30:38.520] Also, Roberts and Roberts Brokerage values your privacy [30:38.520 --> 30:43.520] and will always advise you in the event that we would be required to report any transaction. [30:43.520 --> 30:48.520] If you have gold, silver, or platinum you'd like to sell, we can convert it for immediate payment. [30:48.520 --> 30:52.520] Call us at 800-874-9760. [30:52.520 --> 30:58.520] We are Roberts and Roberts Brokerage, 800-874-9760. [31:22.520 --> 31:34.520] Okay, we are back. [31:34.520 --> 31:38.520] The Rule of Law on ruleoflawradio.com. [31:38.520 --> 31:49.520] Okay, we're talking with Randy and John about 38.02 of the Texas penal code. [31:49.520 --> 31:53.520] Okay, let me read paragraph B. [31:53.520 --> 32:02.520] A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth [32:02.520 --> 32:07.520] to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person, lawfully detained the person, [32:07.520 --> 32:14.520] or requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense. [32:14.520 --> 32:22.520] So, you don't have to give them your name unless you've been arrested. [32:22.520 --> 32:28.520] But you can't, it's a crime right now to give them a false name if you've been detained, [32:28.520 --> 32:36.520] but right now we still have the right to say no, we don't want to give you our ID at all when we've been detained. [32:36.520 --> 32:38.520] We just can't give them a false ID. [32:38.520 --> 32:39.520] Right. [32:39.520 --> 32:40.520] Okay. [32:40.520 --> 32:45.520] I was mistaken, I made a mistake, first time. [32:45.520 --> 32:47.520] Okay, we forgive you. [32:47.520 --> 32:52.520] So, Randy, can you please explain what the difference is between being detained and being arrested? [32:52.520 --> 32:55.520] What is the technicality there? [32:55.520 --> 33:00.520] You can be detained, that goes to a Terry stop. [33:00.520 --> 33:06.520] If the officer has reason to believe that a crime has been committed, [33:06.520 --> 33:11.520] he doesn't have sufficient probable cause to make an arrest. [33:11.520 --> 33:15.520] He can detain for the purpose of questioning. [33:15.520 --> 33:18.520] Okay, wait, wait, hold on, stop there. [33:18.520 --> 33:26.520] This is all vague because if the cop believes that a crime has been committed, [33:26.520 --> 33:30.520] but there's not probable cause to make an arrest, [33:30.520 --> 33:37.520] where does the line get drawn between the belief and the, I mean, what if he believes with all his heart, you know, or something? [33:37.520 --> 33:39.520] I mean, this doesn't make any sense. [33:39.520 --> 33:47.520] He must have articulatable facts and evidence to support probable cause. [33:47.520 --> 33:50.520] Hunches don't get it. [33:50.520 --> 33:56.520] So he has to have cause that he can articulate, and that's what it says in the case law. [33:56.520 --> 34:00.520] So they can, an officer can stop you and question you. [34:00.520 --> 34:05.520] You're being detained, but you do not have to answer the questions. [34:05.520 --> 34:13.520] If he arrests you, then you have to identify yourself, but that is all. [34:13.520 --> 34:16.520] He has to have probable cause to arrest you. [34:16.520 --> 34:22.520] Yes, he has to have more probable cause than just to detain. [34:22.520 --> 34:29.520] I think it's important to draw the distinction, and as long as the officer is acting reasonably, [34:29.520 --> 34:35.520] they should have the ability to detain to question if there's a suspected crime being involved. [34:35.520 --> 34:40.520] But with the sobriety checkpoints, of course, there's no crime in simply driving down the highway. [34:40.520 --> 34:50.520] Exactly, and there's no reason for the officers to believe that everyone is driving drunk to detain everyone. [34:50.520 --> 34:54.520] That's right. That's absolutely just completely off the deep end. [34:54.520 --> 34:56.520] It's terrible. [34:56.520 --> 35:03.520] And here we have the opportunity for something that's obviously very, very, very bad for various reasons. [35:03.520 --> 35:06.520] You know, we haven't even gotten into the fiscal impact that it's going to have, [35:06.520 --> 35:12.520] having to have N-plus police personnel occupy a checkpoint for three or four hours. [35:12.520 --> 35:15.520] That's going to cost the taxpayers money. [35:15.520 --> 35:21.520] But it's all across the board. It's just about anybody that has any semblance of reason and logic [35:21.520 --> 35:27.520] can agree that sobriety checkpoints should not be authorized in the state of Texas. [35:27.520 --> 35:33.520] So here we have the opportunity to get out, merge different political – we're working with the ACLU on this one. [35:33.520 --> 35:35.520] There are some hardcore lefties. [35:35.520 --> 35:39.520] The Florida Department of Homeland Security wears some hardcore right-wing extremists. [35:39.520 --> 35:44.520] But everybody agrees that checkpoints are terrible, and we should not have them. [35:44.520 --> 35:51.520] So let's get out, speak up, let's show up, and let's stop them from coming to the great state of Texas. [35:51.520 --> 35:56.520] And people, if you can't go – because I'm going to be one of the ones that can't go. [35:56.520 --> 35:58.520] I have to work. All right? [35:58.520 --> 36:04.520] And then I got to, you know, deal with radio network and stuff when I get home. [36:04.520 --> 36:11.520] So I'm going to write a testimony and email it to you so that you can turn mine in. [36:11.520 --> 36:17.520] And so, John, will you please give out your Web site and email address one more time for us? [36:17.520 --> 36:24.520] Yeah, we have the info on the bill at tagtexas.org, T-A-G-Texas.org. [36:24.520 --> 36:31.520] And you can email me at libertylover512 at yahoo.com. [36:31.520 --> 36:37.520] And I will definitely faithfully turn in the testimony and be greatly appreciative. [36:37.520 --> 36:44.520] Now, Randy, do you know – what about people who live in other states that are listening to this radio broadcast right now? [36:44.520 --> 36:47.520] Can they submit written testimonies, too? [36:47.520 --> 36:53.520] Like saying things like, we have it in our state, and it's horrible, and this is all the problems it's been causing, [36:53.520 --> 36:55.520] and I don't think you guys should do this. [36:55.520 --> 36:58.520] Can people in other states submit a testimony? [36:58.520 --> 37:01.520] Absolutely, and that would be a great thing to do. [37:01.520 --> 37:03.520] All right, so you hear all that, listeners. [37:03.520 --> 37:08.520] We've got people in South Dakota, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Omaha, Nebraska. [37:08.520 --> 37:10.520] We've got Oklahoma, four cities in Oklahoma. [37:10.520 --> 37:12.520] We've got Madison, Wisconsin. [37:12.520 --> 37:15.520] We've got St. Louis, Missouri. [37:15.520 --> 37:17.520] We've got Corvallis, Oregon. [37:17.520 --> 37:19.520] There's more coming on board every day. [37:19.520 --> 37:24.520] All you people out there in all these other states, please help us, okay? [37:24.520 --> 37:32.520] And please write a testimony how you feel on this in any way, whether or not your state has it or not, and please email it to John. [37:32.520 --> 37:39.520] We need to bond together here, you know, with our fellow patriots in other states to stop this thing, [37:39.520 --> 37:45.520] because if we can stop it here, we can either stop it or overturn it in your state, too. [37:45.520 --> 37:50.520] Yeah, and that's the beauty of the rule of law radio network and other networks like it. [37:50.520 --> 37:57.520] Out of a vast network throughout the entire country, we can all come together and assist each other in our activism, [37:57.520 --> 38:04.520] because in my opinion, the focus should be at the local level in our own hometowns, our own cities, and our own state. [38:04.520 --> 38:10.520] And the federal government has shown us that they are not responsive to the needs of the American public. [38:10.520 --> 38:20.520] So the way I see it, we all need to focus in our own backyard in restoring liberty to Central Texas, for example, and the state of Texas. [38:20.520 --> 38:26.520] And we can come together in instances like this to share ideas, share what works, what doesn't work, share testimony, [38:26.520 --> 38:29.520] and to help a brother out across state lines. [38:29.520 --> 38:30.520] Absolutely. [38:30.520 --> 38:33.520] And we'll be able to take place back one city at a time, one state at a time. [38:33.520 --> 38:38.520] Absolutely. Help your brothers and sisters in Texas, everyone out there who's listening to the show. [38:38.520 --> 38:46.520] And then when it comes time for you guys' public hearings in your legislature, then we'll return the favor. [38:46.520 --> 38:47.520] Yeah. [38:47.520 --> 38:54.520] Okay, John, we have a caller on the line, Kathy from Texas, who wanted to ask you a question and add some comments. [38:54.520 --> 38:58.520] Kathy, thanks for calling in. You had some comments or questions for John? [38:58.520 --> 39:01.520] Yes. First of all, thank you, John, for the work you're doing. [39:01.520 --> 39:07.520] It's important to people like me that people like you are looking and watching the bill, [39:07.520 --> 39:10.520] because I don't have any way of knowing when it's coming up. [39:10.520 --> 39:13.520] So I'm watching, and you'll get an email from me. [39:13.520 --> 39:17.520] Well, Kathy, you can go to the Texas Legislature website, [39:17.520 --> 39:24.520] and you can sign up to get emails from certain committees, whichever ones you choose, [39:24.520 --> 39:31.520] and they will email you automatically and let you know when their hearings are coming up for what bills. [39:31.520 --> 39:32.520] Okay. [39:32.520 --> 39:40.520] And I would recommend everybody do that in all the states. [39:40.520 --> 39:42.520] Okay, that's something I will look into. [39:42.520 --> 39:50.520] The other question I have is what I'm hearing is that pretty much we're, if this is able to pass, [39:50.520 --> 39:57.520] we have no right to do anything but be detained wherever we drive for any reason [39:57.520 --> 40:03.520] and even keeping our mouths shut now gets us taken to jail. Is that what I'm hearing? [40:03.520 --> 40:05.520] Well, that's not necessarily true. [40:05.520 --> 40:08.520] That's what it's going to say on paper and on the surface. [40:08.520 --> 40:15.520] But we as free, sovereign individuals have every right to – [40:15.520 --> 40:20.520] well, there's going to have to be some civil disobedience, basically, when it boils down to it. [40:20.520 --> 40:24.520] I'm going to seek out this checkpoint if it were to pass, and they have one in Austin. [40:24.520 --> 40:28.520] I'm personally going to grab a bunch of Liberty lovers, and we're going to show up, [40:28.520 --> 40:33.520] and I'll cruise on by never rolling my window down because I have not committed [40:33.520 --> 40:35.520] or even come close to committing a crime. [40:35.520 --> 40:44.520] So the way I see it, if they pass bills that are so obviously in violation of the United States Constitution [40:44.520 --> 40:51.520] and any state's particular laws, I say, screw it. I'm not breaking the law. [40:51.520 --> 40:54.520] They broke the law in passing this thing. [40:54.520 --> 40:56.520] Now, John, is this – [40:56.520 --> 41:00.520] What else can you do, though, if you cruise by a checkpoint with them waving you down? [41:00.520 --> 41:03.520] Are they going to just go wave you? Bye. See you. [41:03.520 --> 41:09.520] No, I'm sure they'll hop in their cars and turn on the bubblegum machine and pull them over. [41:09.520 --> 41:15.520] And then they have what? Just cause because you're avoiding being detained? [41:15.520 --> 41:23.520] Well, see, Kathy, what I think John's trying to do is he's going to intentionally break this [41:23.520 --> 41:31.520] quote-unquote law if it passes so that he can have standing in court to do something about it, [41:31.520 --> 41:38.520] to either file a lawsuit against them or – Kathy, I think there's some noise on your end – [41:38.520 --> 41:44.520] to either file a lawsuit against them or to file criminal charges against the cops for doing it in the first place [41:44.520 --> 41:50.520] because he's setting himself up to have standing to go back after these guys in court. [41:50.520 --> 41:56.520] And also it makes the statement, it makes the point that what they're doing is illegal. [41:56.520 --> 41:58.520] And John, I had one more question for you. [41:58.520 --> 42:02.520] These are two different bills, the one about showing ID when you're detained. [42:02.520 --> 42:05.520] That's a different bill than the checkpoint. Is that correct? [42:05.520 --> 42:09.520] Yes. Checkpoints is SB-298 and that's Senator Corona's. [42:09.520 --> 42:15.520] And the – I call it the Show Me Your Papers bill. It's SB-1175. [42:15.520 --> 42:16.520] When is that one? [42:16.520 --> 42:17.520] From the Republican, Ben Patrick. [42:17.520 --> 42:20.520] But we don't know when that one is coming up for hearing. Is that correct? [42:20.520 --> 42:21.520] No, but I'm keeping an eye on it. [42:21.520 --> 42:22.520] All right. Good deal. [42:22.520 --> 42:24.520] And as far as I'm concerned right now, it hasn't. [42:24.520 --> 42:31.520] But one quick note on what Kathy was saying, I wouldn't recommend – I'm not encouraging people to break the law, by the way. [42:31.520 --> 42:33.520] I'm already a right-wing extremist. [42:33.520 --> 42:40.520] And I would recommend not just breathing by them, but if you check out like CheckpointUSA.org, [42:40.520 --> 42:45.520] this gentleman goes and tests the waters on all the border and Department of Homeland Security checkpoints [42:45.520 --> 42:48.520] that are in the border region and areas. [42:48.520 --> 42:51.520] And you basically just crack your window, hello, sir. [42:51.520 --> 42:56.520] You don't even have to say hello. Simply ask them, am I being detained? Am I being detained? [42:56.520 --> 42:59.520] Are you permitting my ability to travel? Can I leave? [42:59.520 --> 43:04.520] They'll say, no, we're just asking a few questions, sir, and say, can I leave right now? Have I committed a crime? [43:04.520 --> 43:06.520] Am I being detained? [43:06.520 --> 43:11.520] And usually if you give them – if you know the law and you know the Constitution is on your side, [43:11.520 --> 43:15.520] in some instances they might just point to the supervisor and let you on the way through. [43:15.520 --> 43:17.520] Yes, sir. [43:17.520 --> 43:23.520] Well, I think – I forgot the gentleman's name, but I believe we had him on as a guest a year or so ago. [43:23.520 --> 43:24.520] Great. [43:24.520 --> 43:26.520] Yeah, he does great work. [43:26.520 --> 43:28.520] He was awesome. [43:28.520 --> 43:29.520] Definitely. [43:29.520 --> 43:39.520] So go to the CheckpointUSA.org and definitely email John, and let's try to get down there and stop this thing. [43:39.520 --> 43:43.520] All right, John, thank you for coming on the show with us tonight. We really appreciate it. [43:43.520 --> 43:48.520] John may run a partial archive, like if he's late getting back from the bill hearing, [43:48.520 --> 43:54.520] but just make sure you stay tuned because he will be going live as soon as he gets back from the hearing. [43:54.520 --> 43:55.520] Thanks for having me, Debbie. [43:55.520 --> 43:56.520] All right. [43:56.520 --> 43:57.520] Good work. [43:57.520 --> 43:58.520] Okay. [43:58.520 --> 43:59.520] Bye. [43:59.520 --> 44:06.520] Stock markets are taking hit after hit. Corrupt bankers are choking on subprime debt. [44:06.520 --> 44:14.520] The Fed is busy printing dollars, dollars, and more dollars to bail out Wall Street, banks, and the U.S. car industry. [44:14.520 --> 44:20.520] As investors scramble for safety in the metals in the face of a further devaluation of the dollar, [44:20.520 --> 44:23.520] the price of silver will only increase. [44:23.520 --> 44:30.520] Some of the world's leading financial analysts believe that silver is one of the world's most important commodities [44:30.520 --> 44:33.520] with unparalleled investment opportunity for the future. [44:33.520 --> 44:39.520] Now is the time to buy silver before it heads for $75 an ounce, [44:39.520 --> 44:45.520] and the yellow metal roars back past $1,000 an ounce to new highs. [44:45.520 --> 44:57.520] Call Maximus Holdings now at 407-608-5430 to find out how you can turn your IRA and 401K into a solid investment, [44:57.520 --> 45:00.520] silver, without any penalties for early withdrawal. [45:00.520 --> 45:06.520] Even if you don't have a retirement account yet, we have fantastic investment opportunities for you. [45:06.520 --> 45:13.520] Call Maximus Holdings at 407-608-5430 for more information. [45:13.520 --> 45:19.520] Call Maximus Holdings at 407-608-5430 for more information. [45:43.520 --> 45:49.520] Call Maximus Holdings at 407-608-5430 for more information. [46:13.520 --> 46:19.520] Call Maximus Holdings at 407-608-5430 for more information. [46:43.520 --> 46:49.520] Call Maximus Holdings at 407-608-5430 for more information. [47:13.520 --> 47:19.520] Call Maximus Holdings at 407-608-5430 for more information. [47:44.520 --> 47:52.520] All right, tyranny, Demeter, you, Demeter, me, Demeter, the whole country, [47:52.520 --> 47:58.520] their oath, they're not abiding on the slope and slippery sliding. [47:58.520 --> 48:00.520] They put us on the slippery sliding slope. [48:00.520 --> 48:03.520] At least they're trying to, but we're not going to put up with it. [48:03.520 --> 48:13.520] Okay, now we are going to, Randy and I are going to get into a discussion concerning probate. [48:13.520 --> 48:19.520] And we have Russell Mortland calling in. [48:19.520 --> 48:23.520] So, Randy, you wanted to get into the probate. [48:23.520 --> 48:31.520] So what is the deal with probate and what are the pitfalls and how can we deal with it? [48:31.520 --> 48:36.520] Because from what you were telling me, it's a really bad situation here in Texas [48:36.520 --> 48:41.520] because the probate courts take like 40 percent? [48:41.520 --> 48:44.520] That was, that's what I've heard, but... [48:44.520 --> 48:46.520] Up to 40 percent? This is ridiculous. [48:46.520 --> 48:49.520] I don't know, probate's not my area. [48:49.520 --> 48:51.520] I'm really ignorant on probate. [48:51.520 --> 48:53.520] That's why I called Russell. [48:53.520 --> 48:55.520] Is Russell up? [48:55.520 --> 48:57.520] Yes, there he is. He's there. [48:57.520 --> 48:59.520] Hey, Russell, are you there? [48:59.520 --> 49:00.520] Yeah, I'm here. [49:00.520 --> 49:02.520] Excellent. [49:02.520 --> 49:10.520] If somebody does, how does their estate get into probate? [49:10.520 --> 49:14.520] Well, I have limited knowledge on it, but what I'm going to tell you, [49:14.520 --> 49:17.520] what has happened with my following laws of state, [49:17.520 --> 49:25.520] one of the errors had to go down to the county court at law and they had to fill out some paperwork [49:25.520 --> 49:30.520] and that started a probate course case in the court. [49:30.520 --> 49:34.520] Ah, okay. That's what we didn't know how it got started up. [49:34.520 --> 49:39.520] Now, in your case, apparently you've been in probate for quite a while. [49:39.520 --> 49:42.520] Three years. [49:42.520 --> 49:46.520] What is the problem? How does probate work? [49:46.520 --> 49:52.520] Well, probate works is once a case is started, you can, you know, [49:52.520 --> 49:58.520] all the errors can agree on an executor, but it's up to the court to appoint one [49:58.520 --> 50:01.520] if they don't like that executor. [50:01.520 --> 50:05.520] Now, like my mother-in-law was going to be the executor, [50:05.520 --> 50:10.520] but the judge was concerned that she wouldn't do the errors right, [50:10.520 --> 50:19.520] so she turns around and appoints some attorney in San Marcos to be the executor of the state. [50:19.520 --> 50:26.520] Now, this attorney gathers all the information he can about the estate, [50:26.520 --> 50:33.520] in other words, the bills, any debts that might be owed to the estate, [50:33.520 --> 50:40.520] any property of the state, things like that, and then he does his investigation. [50:40.520 --> 50:48.520] And usually an appropriate case doesn't take right about a year, [50:48.520 --> 50:54.520] but because the IRS came into my file-of-laws probate case [50:54.520 --> 50:58.520] and placed a $1.3 million lien against it, [50:58.520 --> 51:06.520] that started the ball of wax rolling when it comes to all the delays. [51:06.520 --> 51:13.520] Now, this is the same IRS, R.A. Mitchell stuff that's going on in Oklahoma City, [51:13.520 --> 51:21.520] and the lien, the notice of federal tax lien that was filed into Hays County is a bogus lien. [51:21.520 --> 51:29.520] But yet, as soon as the clerk in Hays County files it, it makes an official lien. [51:29.520 --> 51:33.520] That's mind-boggling. [51:33.520 --> 51:36.520] Okay. It's only notice of lien. [51:36.520 --> 51:39.520] How does it become official when she files it? [51:39.520 --> 51:43.520] Because the clerk of the court is making it official by filing it. [51:43.520 --> 51:45.520] You don't file notices. [51:45.520 --> 51:48.520] Of course you do. You can't file a lien. [51:48.520 --> 51:51.520] A lien is something that exists as a matter of law. [51:51.520 --> 51:56.520] It doesn't have a real hard, tangible, physical existence. [51:56.520 --> 52:00.520] But not so much what I see when it comes to the IRS. [52:00.520 --> 52:06.520] They have to have the assessment. They have to have the actual lien paperwork filed. [52:06.520 --> 52:11.520] That's why each federal notice of tax lien has a serial number. [52:11.520 --> 52:13.520] Yes. Well, okay. [52:13.520 --> 52:20.520] There has to be evidence in support of the creation of the lien. [52:20.520 --> 52:25.520] But the lien is created by the assessment. [52:25.520 --> 52:29.520] The assessment is evidence of the existence of a lien. [52:29.520 --> 52:32.520] Absent that, they don't have evidence of the existence of a lien. [52:32.520 --> 52:37.520] And it would appear that filing a notice of lien when there is no assessment, [52:37.520 --> 52:40.520] if there's no assessment, it could be a lien. [52:40.520 --> 52:45.520] They claim right on the tax lien that it was assessed. [52:45.520 --> 52:49.520] So if it was assessed and claimed on the notice of tax lien, [52:49.520 --> 52:52.520] it can't be a notice of federal tax lien, can it? [52:52.520 --> 52:55.520] It only could be a federal lien. [52:55.520 --> 52:58.520] No, no. With the court, you don't file the lien. [52:58.520 --> 53:04.520] You file a notice of the existence of a lien. [53:04.520 --> 53:06.520] But there would have to be evidence in support. [53:06.520 --> 53:08.520] There would have to actually be a lien. [53:08.520 --> 53:12.520] They claim there is an assessment. That's false. They never do an assessment. [53:12.520 --> 53:13.520] Right. [53:13.520 --> 53:16.520] So that's fraudulent. That's filed on the fraudulent document. [53:16.520 --> 53:24.520] That's what Ben Drum went after them for in Dallas and got the liens removed. [53:24.520 --> 53:26.520] Right. [53:26.520 --> 53:29.520] Then the courts come in and legally put them back. [53:29.520 --> 53:34.520] My father-in-law also was a day trader in the stock market. [53:34.520 --> 53:38.520] And that was what part of the liens were from. [53:38.520 --> 53:45.520] But the executor of the estate had trouble with all these different, [53:45.520 --> 53:51.520] I can't remember the legal names of the day trader people, [53:51.520 --> 53:54.520] but he had all kinds of trouble. [53:54.520 --> 53:58.520] He claims he had all kinds of trouble finding out the information [53:58.520 --> 54:04.520] and getting information from those trading companies, from the Wall Street people, [54:04.520 --> 54:09.520] to find out what kind of money he had and what kind of accounts and that kind of thing. [54:09.520 --> 54:15.520] And that was the other reason why it's taken this long. [54:15.520 --> 54:20.520] It sounds more like the attorney is just trying to pad his billing. [54:20.520 --> 54:26.520] Well, that's what I don't understand about this because me and you have been to court and everything else [54:26.520 --> 54:30.520] and we all know that the court doesn't do nothing for nothing. [54:30.520 --> 54:37.520] But yet the court and the executors have told all four heirs to the estate [54:37.520 --> 54:40.520] that they do not have to pay anything for this. [54:40.520 --> 54:43.520] The court pays for it. [54:43.520 --> 54:49.520] But yet I have not seen any kind of bill submitted to the court by the executor [54:49.520 --> 54:51.520] yet. [54:51.520 --> 54:53.520] That's interesting. [54:53.520 --> 54:54.520] I know. [54:54.520 --> 55:01.520] That's why I thought this was a little strange because we all know that somebody is paying this attorney [55:01.520 --> 55:11.520] and I don't see how the court is going to do it to turn around not without declaring it against the estate or something. [55:11.520 --> 55:21.520] The worldly is talking about a state that's valued about maybe $150,000 maximum. [55:21.520 --> 55:25.520] And these guys are struggling for a million dollar lien. [55:25.520 --> 55:28.520] That seems like it's really stretching it. [55:28.520 --> 55:29.520] Right. [55:29.520 --> 55:34.520] But, you know, of course, I talked to the executor one time and he says, [55:34.520 --> 55:41.520] well, we will have a CPA, I will hire a CPA and he will go over all this stuff [55:41.520 --> 55:48.520] and he will come up with a true value of taxes that he actually owes. [55:48.520 --> 55:55.520] It seems like the IRS can just put any amount down they want, whether it's legit or not. [55:55.520 --> 56:00.520] I mean, he may end up owing taxes of only $10,000, $15,000. [56:00.520 --> 56:08.520] But yet they stick a $1.3 million lien against the property. [56:08.520 --> 56:14.520] Do they have – I suppose they have something showing where they came up with that lien? [56:14.520 --> 56:15.520] Oh, no. [56:15.520 --> 56:20.520] No, they just – on the lien itself just says they were assessed so much for this year [56:20.520 --> 56:23.520] and so much for that year and that kind of thing. [56:23.520 --> 56:30.520] And it was done by an IRS officer and then signed over by a different – R.A. Mitchell, [56:30.520 --> 56:35.520] you know, which we all know that by now, if we listen to this program, [56:35.520 --> 56:38.520] we know that there's an ongoing case in Oklahoma. [56:38.520 --> 56:44.520] And R.A. Mitchell just had to give a deposition about a month ago or so. [56:44.520 --> 56:49.520] And this person has worked for the IRS for 30-some-odd years [56:49.520 --> 56:53.520] and they just turn around and use a stamp to stamp her signature on anything. [56:53.520 --> 56:57.520] She's not the one that actually does it. [56:57.520 --> 57:02.520] So – but if she's still working for them and they're using her signature, [57:02.520 --> 57:10.520] she should be charged with about three or four million counts of fraud. [57:10.520 --> 57:13.520] Well, at least that. [57:13.520 --> 57:17.520] Because if her name's on it and she knows they're using her name [57:17.520 --> 57:24.520] and she did nothing to stop them from using her name, she should be charged with fraud. [57:24.520 --> 57:25.520] Well, that's the problem with the government. [57:25.520 --> 57:27.520] They like to charge everybody else with fraud, [57:27.520 --> 57:30.520] but they sure as hell won't charge themselves with fraud [57:30.520 --> 57:34.520] because that's the nature of our government. [57:34.520 --> 57:37.520] We're the ones that need to charge them with fraud. [57:37.520 --> 57:42.520] I'm about to go to court here in a week or so [57:42.520 --> 57:47.520] and I'm going to have a whole handful for them. [57:47.520 --> 57:51.520] I guess a lot of people heard I was arrested again. [57:51.520 --> 57:54.520] The DPS figured out I was coming after them. [57:54.520 --> 57:56.520] The first time they arrested me, they didn't file any charges. [57:56.520 --> 58:00.520] They just left me in jail for 24 hours and then let me out. [58:00.520 --> 58:06.520] Then after that, they issued a warrant when they found out I was coming after them. [58:06.520 --> 58:12.520] And when I was at the FBI office to file papers in Robert Fox's case, [58:12.520 --> 58:18.520] the FBI ran into the IC and found a warrant, and they arrested me. [58:18.520 --> 58:25.520] Now the problem they have is that now I have a criminal case to go after them. [58:25.520 --> 58:27.520] We'll get to that right on the other side of the break. [58:27.520 --> 58:29.520] Yep, we will be right back. [58:29.520 --> 58:32.520] We're talking about probate law here in Texas. [58:32.520 --> 58:36.520] Callers, if you'd like to call in, 512-646-1984. [58:36.520 --> 59:04.520] We will be right back. [59:04.520 --> 59:06.520] Yeah, I'll be right. You know you're right. [59:06.520 --> 59:08.520] I'll be right back, man. [59:08.520 --> 59:35.520] I'll be right back. [59:38.520 --> 01:00:05.520] I'll be right back. [01:00:05.520 --> 01:00:20.520] I'll be right back. [01:00:20.520 --> 01:00:35.520] I'll be right back. [01:00:35.520 --> 01:00:50.520] I'll be right back. [01:00:50.520 --> 01:01:05.520] I'll be right back. [01:01:05.520 --> 01:01:20.520] I'll be right back. [01:01:20.520 --> 01:01:35.520] I'll be right back. [01:01:35.520 --> 01:01:50.520] I'll be right back. [01:01:50.520 --> 01:02:05.520] I'll be right back. [01:02:05.520 --> 01:02:20.520] I'll be right back. [01:02:20.520 --> 01:02:39.520] I'll be right back. [01:02:39.520 --> 01:02:43.520] Okay, we're speaking with Russell in Texas about probate issues, [01:02:43.520 --> 01:02:46.520] and Russell, I was asking Randy earlier, [01:02:46.520 --> 01:02:51.520] and he said he doesn't know at this point in time, we're going to be looking it up. [01:02:51.520 --> 01:03:00.520] Concerning probate, do you know if there's a way to force a property into probate [01:03:00.520 --> 01:03:07.520] if you personally know that the individual who owned the real estate has deceased, [01:03:07.520 --> 01:03:13.520] and say, for example, the heirs or the potential heirs are dragging their feet, [01:03:13.520 --> 01:03:19.520] taking it to probate, or say maybe they're just not wanting to for some reason? [01:03:19.520 --> 01:03:26.520] Is there some way that a person who's not a descendant can bring up the issue [01:03:26.520 --> 01:03:31.520] before the court to try to force the real estate into the probate, [01:03:31.520 --> 01:03:36.520] because say I might want to buy the property, okay, but I can't, [01:03:36.520 --> 01:03:44.520] because the name on the deed, the guy's dead, okay, so what happens then? [01:03:44.520 --> 01:03:52.520] Well, I think you can, but I can't say for sure without doing some research into it. [01:03:52.520 --> 01:04:01.520] My access from it, I was told that only heirs or creditors can come against the estate [01:04:01.520 --> 01:04:06.520] or bring something into court for the estate. [01:04:06.520 --> 01:04:11.520] I've used the approach that I am married to one of the heirs, [01:04:11.520 --> 01:04:15.520] so I've done a few things myself in my father-in-law's case [01:04:15.520 --> 01:04:20.520] to hopefully circumvent the crap that the IRS does. [01:04:20.520 --> 01:04:23.520] Well, this is a community property state, [01:04:23.520 --> 01:04:29.520] so I would expect that you as the spouse of the heir would have equal standing. [01:04:29.520 --> 01:04:35.520] Well, I was told by, and I can't remember who I was told by, another attorney or somebody, [01:04:35.520 --> 01:04:40.520] that the community property part doesn't come into effect when it comes to a probate. [01:04:40.520 --> 01:04:45.520] In other words, if my wife gets something from that probate case, [01:04:45.520 --> 01:04:49.520] then that becomes my wife and it's not community property. [01:04:49.520 --> 01:04:53.520] Interesting. So that would leave you with outstanding. [01:04:53.520 --> 01:04:58.520] Right. Now, I haven't been able to verify that. [01:04:58.520 --> 01:05:02.520] I'm just now getting into the probate court to try to figure out. [01:05:02.520 --> 01:05:05.520] We've been sick and tired of this little thing taking three years. [01:05:05.520 --> 01:05:08.520] We've been sick and tired of the IRS being able to come in [01:05:08.520 --> 01:05:12.520] and just do as they want to stop whatever they want. [01:05:12.520 --> 01:05:16.520] And that's why I've been trying to, I bought a book [01:05:16.520 --> 01:05:24.520] and I've been looking on Lexus and trying to understand this better. [01:05:24.520 --> 01:05:31.520] And your situation, it's a little bit different than the situation that I'm presenting [01:05:31.520 --> 01:05:39.520] because I'm interested in what would happen if the heirs just didn't want to bring it to probate at all [01:05:39.520 --> 01:05:44.520] because maybe they don't want to have to pay the probate taxes [01:05:44.520 --> 01:05:48.520] or they don't want to have to risk losing the property because of probate taxes. [01:05:48.520 --> 01:05:55.520] So they just say, well, you know, dad's dead and so let's just keep things the way it is [01:05:55.520 --> 01:05:59.520] with his name on the deed so that we just don't have to deal with it. [01:05:59.520 --> 01:06:06.520] And I think that that's kind of a problem because how can you have a deceased individual? [01:06:06.520 --> 01:06:10.520] I don't see the taxes as part of it because, you know, [01:06:10.520 --> 01:06:16.520] it used to be that you didn't have to pay any taxes unless the estate was over $650,000. [01:06:16.520 --> 01:06:20.520] Well, what is it now? What is the state taxes for probate now? [01:06:20.520 --> 01:06:23.520] It's like $1.1 million or something. [01:06:23.520 --> 01:06:26.520] Well, then, Randy, why were you saying that for the state? [01:06:26.520 --> 01:06:30.520] That's what I'd always heard. This is not my field. [01:06:30.520 --> 01:06:38.520] Everybody I had talked to about probate said that the taxes, the inheritance taxes always ate them alive. [01:06:38.520 --> 01:06:40.520] No. [01:06:40.520 --> 01:06:42.520] There's no inheritance tax? [01:06:42.520 --> 01:06:47.520] It just depends on the size of the estate. That's why I brought it up to my father-in-law's estate. [01:06:47.520 --> 01:06:50.520] It's only about $150,000. [01:06:50.520 --> 01:06:52.520] Interesting. [01:06:52.520 --> 01:06:58.520] So taxes is not a reason to keep it out. [01:06:58.520 --> 01:07:06.520] What if somebody has possession of a property and the owner dies? [01:07:06.520 --> 01:07:16.520] And say that nobody really knows if the owner is dead? [01:07:16.520 --> 01:07:24.520] Well, that's not it. Say he has a will and nobody knows about it. [01:07:24.520 --> 01:07:28.520] So whoever's got the property, you don't want anything to happen so he doesn't raise an issue. [01:07:28.520 --> 01:07:33.520] Yeah, exactly. That was another reason why I was concerned about this. [01:07:33.520 --> 01:07:37.520] That will is going to be determining who that property goes to. [01:07:37.520 --> 01:07:39.520] Yeah, but here's what I'm saying. [01:07:39.520 --> 01:07:45.520] If the owner of the property died and didn't file the will with the county clerk [01:07:45.520 --> 01:07:49.520] and just left it locked up in a box in the bedroom [01:07:49.520 --> 01:07:56.520] and the person who is inhabiting the real estate finds the will [01:07:56.520 --> 01:08:02.520] and finds out that the deceased owner left it to somebody else, [01:08:02.520 --> 01:08:08.520] it would be in that person's best interest to destroy the will [01:08:08.520 --> 01:08:11.520] or to try to keep it out of probate court. [01:08:11.520 --> 01:08:15.520] Well, that's true, but I don't know if I would call that best interest [01:08:15.520 --> 01:08:22.520] because if it was eventually found out that that person destroyed that will or something like that, [01:08:22.520 --> 01:08:24.520] then they could be charged criminally. [01:08:24.520 --> 01:08:26.520] Indeed. [01:08:26.520 --> 01:08:29.520] Now, my father-in-law had a will. He had it wrote out. [01:08:29.520 --> 01:08:33.520] He just never executed it. [01:08:33.520 --> 01:08:38.520] Okay, so that made it to be in a probate court case like this. [01:08:38.520 --> 01:08:42.520] And even if you have a will, you can still go to probate court [01:08:42.520 --> 01:08:47.520] and then it's done by the will and everything's made official. [01:08:47.520 --> 01:08:48.520] Right. [01:08:48.520 --> 01:08:54.520] Now, an attorney in Travis County told me that if this would have been Travis County instead of Hays, [01:08:54.520 --> 01:09:01.520] this whole will thing would have been over in eight months, this whole probate. [01:09:01.520 --> 01:09:07.520] She said there's no way in hell that they run that long in Travis County. [01:09:07.520 --> 01:09:17.520] Well, so say I had knowledge that this guy has this property, the owner has died, [01:09:17.520 --> 01:09:22.520] there was an existing will that would exclude this person, [01:09:22.520 --> 01:09:29.520] but he knows about the will, but he's not going to bring it to probate, but nobody else knows about it. [01:09:29.520 --> 01:09:41.520] And let's add on top of that that an uninvolved person happens to know that somebody else has a copy of the will. [01:09:41.520 --> 01:09:48.520] Can the uninvolved person somehow seek to have the other person [01:09:48.520 --> 01:09:53.520] who has the copy of the will subpoenaed to get the will? [01:09:53.520 --> 01:09:58.520] I would imagine the person that's wanting to do something with the property, [01:09:58.520 --> 01:10:02.520] not the person that's on it, but the other person you said. [01:10:02.520 --> 01:10:12.520] Say the guy's got the property and the person who owned it died, but the will is someone else, [01:10:12.520 --> 01:10:17.520] and nobody knows about it except this guy, he knows about it. [01:10:17.520 --> 01:10:20.520] Generally speaking, the other person wouldn't know about it. [01:10:20.520 --> 01:10:25.520] Generally speaking, but I'm saying not generally, [01:10:25.520 --> 01:10:32.520] for the guy has a reason to not to interprobate, that the thing I was getting to, [01:10:32.520 --> 01:10:41.520] could a third party approach the probate court, of course, courts amicus curiae, [01:10:41.520 --> 01:10:50.520] to notify the courts of the need for a probate action, to keep this guy from swallowing the property [01:10:50.520 --> 01:10:53.520] and secreting it from the heirs. [01:10:53.520 --> 01:11:00.520] Yes, that's exactly what I was going to. [01:11:00.520 --> 01:11:04.520] I don't know, I've never heard of amicus curiae in a probate court. [01:11:04.520 --> 01:11:07.520] We've got a bunch of callers, some of them might know it. [01:11:07.520 --> 01:11:12.520] It seems like any court system, I mean, whatever court there is, [01:11:12.520 --> 01:11:17.520] Randy, can't you always file an amicus curiae brief with a court? [01:11:17.520 --> 01:11:22.520] Yes, but that doesn't mean you can initiate an action amicus curiae. [01:11:22.520 --> 01:11:26.520] No, you may not be able to initiate the action, but you could still file an amicus curiae. [01:11:26.520 --> 01:11:27.520] Just let them know. [01:11:27.520 --> 01:11:31.520] Yeah, but that's once an action has commenced. [01:11:31.520 --> 01:11:33.520] Oh. [01:11:33.520 --> 01:11:34.520] Yeah, it hadn't started yet. [01:11:34.520 --> 01:11:36.520] Oh, okay, okay. [01:11:36.520 --> 01:11:39.520] You can't even do it after the action has commenced unless you do it properly. [01:11:39.520 --> 01:11:41.520] Right, right, of course. [01:11:41.520 --> 01:11:46.520] Because I've been in bankruptcy court, and because the judge ruled against my amicus curiae [01:11:46.520 --> 01:11:51.520] because neither one of the parties brought up the issue in the bankruptcy court, [01:11:51.520 --> 01:11:54.520] so they just ignored my amicus curiae. [01:11:54.520 --> 01:11:55.520] I see. [01:11:55.520 --> 01:11:57.520] Lack of foundations. [01:11:57.520 --> 01:11:58.520] Right. [01:11:58.520 --> 01:11:59.520] All right, well, let's go to some callers and see. [01:11:59.520 --> 01:12:00.520] Russell, stay on the line. [01:12:00.520 --> 01:12:02.520] We've got Dwayne from Louisiana. [01:12:02.520 --> 01:12:03.520] Dwayne, thanks for calling in. [01:12:03.520 --> 01:12:07.520] Do you have some comments about the probate situation? [01:12:07.520 --> 01:12:09.520] A few comments. [01:12:09.520 --> 01:12:17.520] First, probate court is more incestuous than traffic court. [01:12:17.520 --> 01:12:22.520] The first thing that they're going to look to is their will. [01:12:22.520 --> 01:12:29.520] If there's no will, then the probate goes directly to the discretion of the judge. [01:12:29.520 --> 01:12:35.520] The probate judge, and he can actually assign his own executor. [01:12:35.520 --> 01:12:38.520] If it's a will, which is absolutely... [01:12:38.520 --> 01:12:40.520] A will is better than no will. [01:12:40.520 --> 01:12:48.520] But if it's a will, a will can be challenged by any blood air. [01:12:48.520 --> 01:12:50.520] And then they have to present their case, [01:12:50.520 --> 01:12:55.520] and then it really literally comes down to the opinion of the judge. [01:12:55.520 --> 01:12:57.520] The opinion of the judge. [01:12:57.520 --> 01:13:02.520] What does it take to challenge a will? [01:13:02.520 --> 01:13:04.520] I can answer that question. [01:13:04.520 --> 01:13:09.520] Well, you're in Louisiana, Dwayne, correct? [01:13:09.520 --> 01:13:11.520] I've been in Texas. [01:13:11.520 --> 01:13:13.520] I've been in Illinois. [01:13:13.520 --> 01:13:21.520] I've been in Washington, and yes, Louisiana, and Alabama, and Florida. [01:13:21.520 --> 01:13:27.520] Well, all the probate cases that I have seen, and I have talked to some probate lawyers, [01:13:27.520 --> 01:13:29.520] but who knows if they were telling the truth or not. [01:13:29.520 --> 01:13:36.520] But from all the experience I've had and seen just through my family and my friend's family [01:13:36.520 --> 01:13:41.520] in the state of Texas, if there is a will, [01:13:41.520 --> 01:13:47.520] it is basically almost impossible to succeed at challenging the will [01:13:47.520 --> 01:13:53.520] unless you can prove that the person who wrote the will was insane [01:13:53.520 --> 01:13:57.520] and completely deranged at the time that they wrote the will. [01:13:57.520 --> 01:14:02.520] If you cannot prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt, then the will stands. [01:14:02.520 --> 01:14:04.520] That's everything that I've seen. [01:14:04.520 --> 01:14:09.520] Setting this up in an irrevocable trust is actually the most I feel [01:14:09.520 --> 01:14:13.520] where it doesn't go under probate, but that's a whole other side issue here. [01:14:13.520 --> 01:14:17.520] And you're right, in Texas, in many states, [01:14:17.520 --> 01:14:28.520] but a lot of times it comes down to the opinion of the judge on how crazy is crazy [01:14:28.520 --> 01:14:31.520] or how incompetent is incompetent. [01:14:31.520 --> 01:14:36.520] And there's a lot of subjectiveness in probate across the country, [01:14:36.520 --> 01:14:39.520] and that's just unfortunately the way it is. [01:14:39.520 --> 01:14:44.520] The other thing I wanted to mention was about the IRS. [01:14:44.520 --> 01:14:50.520] The gentleman mentioned that his father-in-law was a day trader, [01:14:50.520 --> 01:14:54.520] and the day traders can notoriously rack up tax bills [01:14:54.520 --> 01:14:57.520] that they don't even know they've racked up according to the IRS. [01:14:57.520 --> 01:15:01.520] And so they could, the IRS, there's a possibility that they weren't necessarily, [01:15:01.520 --> 01:15:07.520] they were filing a lien against the, or at least the potential for a lien against the state [01:15:07.520 --> 01:15:10.520] in lieu of former previous income taxes [01:15:10.520 --> 01:15:17.520] that they may have believed were due from the trading activity. [01:15:17.520 --> 01:15:20.520] Oh, and by the way, that was Russell. [01:15:20.520 --> 01:15:22.520] Yeah, and Russell's still on the line, by the way. [01:15:22.520 --> 01:15:26.520] But listen, listen, guys, Russell, Dwayne, we're going to break. [01:15:26.520 --> 01:15:31.520] Will you both stay on the line so we can continue this on the other side? [01:15:31.520 --> 01:15:32.520] Okay, great. [01:15:32.520 --> 01:15:35.520] We had a couple of other callers that, they dropped off the line callers. [01:15:35.520 --> 01:15:39.520] Please call back in, 512-646-1984. [01:15:39.520 --> 01:15:43.520] We'll be right back. [01:15:43.520 --> 01:15:48.520] Are you looking for an investment that has no stock market risk, [01:15:48.520 --> 01:15:51.520] has a 100% track record of returning profits, [01:15:51.520 --> 01:15:56.520] is not affected by fluctuations in oil prices and interest rates, [01:15:56.520 --> 01:15:59.520] is publicly traded and SEC regulated? [01:15:59.520 --> 01:16:03.520] If this kind of peace of mind is what you have been looking for in an investment, [01:16:03.520 --> 01:16:06.520] then Life Settlements is the investment for you. [01:16:06.520 --> 01:16:12.520] Our annual rate of return has been 15.83% for the last 17 years. [01:16:12.520 --> 01:16:16.520] Our investments are insurance and banking commission regulated. [01:16:16.520 --> 01:16:20.520] Our returns are assured by the largest insurance companies. [01:16:20.520 --> 01:16:26.520] Even qualified retirement plans such as 401Ks and IRAs are eligible for transfer. [01:16:26.520 --> 01:16:28.520] We charge absolutely no commissions. [01:16:28.520 --> 01:16:31.520] 100% of your investment goes to work for you. [01:16:31.520 --> 01:16:41.520] Please visit sleepwellinvestment.com or call Bill Schober at 817-975-2431. [01:16:41.520 --> 01:16:50.520] That's sleepwellinvestment.com or call 817-975-2431. [01:16:50.520 --> 01:17:01.520] Thank you very much. [01:17:20.520 --> 01:17:30.520] Thank you very much. [01:17:50.520 --> 01:18:00.520] Thank you very much. [01:18:20.520 --> 01:18:30.520] Thank you very much. [01:18:50.520 --> 01:19:00.520] Thank you very much. [01:19:20.520 --> 01:19:30.520] Thank you very much. [01:19:50.520 --> 01:20:00.520] Thank you very much. [01:20:20.520 --> 01:20:30.520] Thank you very much. [01:20:50.520 --> 01:21:00.520] Thank you very much. [01:21:20.520 --> 01:21:30.520] Thank you very much. [01:21:50.520 --> 01:21:53.520] All right, we are back. [01:21:53.520 --> 01:21:59.520] The Rule of Law on ruleoflawradio.com. [01:21:59.520 --> 01:22:04.520] Okay, we are here with Russ and Russell and Dwayne, [01:22:04.520 --> 01:22:10.520] and we're discussing the situation of the probate courts and how corrupt they are. [01:22:10.520 --> 01:22:13.520] So I'm sorry, we had to cut to break. [01:22:13.520 --> 01:22:17.520] Dwayne, you are right in the middle of explaining something when we went to break. [01:22:17.520 --> 01:22:18.520] Please continue. [01:22:18.520 --> 01:22:24.520] What I'm saying is that the IRS could believe that he actually owed, [01:22:24.520 --> 01:22:28.520] the deceased actually owed income taxes based on his day trading, [01:22:28.520 --> 01:22:32.520] that a day trader can rack up short-term capital gains [01:22:32.520 --> 01:22:37.520] and not even realize that's what they're doing every time they trade. [01:22:37.520 --> 01:22:40.520] So that could be the reason for why the IRS stepped in. [01:22:40.520 --> 01:22:46.520] So I'll use the word rapidly from what I'm hearing Russell say. [01:22:46.520 --> 01:22:48.520] There's not enough information. [01:22:48.520 --> 01:22:50.520] This is all, you know, speculation, [01:22:50.520 --> 01:22:55.520] but that could be a reason why they filed a lien of that size. [01:22:55.520 --> 01:22:57.520] And it doesn't mean they expect to get it. [01:22:57.520 --> 01:23:02.520] They're just, you know, throw out a wide net, see what they get. [01:23:02.520 --> 01:23:06.520] So that's what I was saying before the break. [01:23:06.520 --> 01:23:07.520] Interesting. [01:23:07.520 --> 01:23:10.520] Russell, what is your take on that? [01:23:10.520 --> 01:23:19.520] I concur, but the problem I'm seeing with this is I think for the last three years he was alive, [01:23:19.520 --> 01:23:20.520] he was a day trader. [01:23:20.520 --> 01:23:26.520] But the lien is going, he had retired on Social Security [01:23:26.520 --> 01:23:32.520] and been retired on Social Security for roughly 10 years before he did a day trading. [01:23:32.520 --> 01:23:37.520] But yet the assessments they made during that 10-year period [01:23:37.520 --> 01:23:41.520] that he was just drawing Social Security and not doing any work at all and stuff [01:23:41.520 --> 01:23:48.520] is where they were claiming he had income of, you know, $300,000 and $50,000 this year [01:23:48.520 --> 01:23:51.520] and $800,000 that year and everything. [01:23:51.520 --> 01:23:59.520] We're going like, how is that possible when he was drawing Social Security for all that time and not working? [01:23:59.520 --> 01:24:02.520] They just say, they can say anything they want. [01:24:02.520 --> 01:24:03.520] Oh, I know that. [01:24:03.520 --> 01:24:06.520] And then you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent. [01:24:06.520 --> 01:24:09.520] Yeah, and they can just say that. [01:24:09.520 --> 01:24:11.520] I've seen it happen too many times. [01:24:11.520 --> 01:24:17.520] Why does nobody charge the agent with fraud? [01:24:17.520 --> 01:24:23.520] Well, because they come in and there's ways to do that, Randy, but you've got, you know, [01:24:23.520 --> 01:24:25.520] it depends how persistent they get. [01:24:25.520 --> 01:24:29.520] Just because they file that it's that way or they claim that it's that way [01:24:29.520 --> 01:24:32.520] doesn't mean that's what they're going to pursue it the minute you start showing up. [01:24:32.520 --> 01:24:38.520] Does it matter if they claim that it's that way and they cannot establish that it's that way? [01:24:38.520 --> 01:24:48.520] That's tampering with a government document and that's filing a fraudulent, what's the term? [01:24:48.520 --> 01:24:53.520] The document is fraudulent if they can't establish what's on the document. [01:24:53.520 --> 01:24:55.520] It doesn't matter what they ask for later. [01:24:55.520 --> 01:24:59.520] Well, and do they send it in signed or unsigned? [01:24:59.520 --> 01:25:00.520] Does it matter? [01:25:00.520 --> 01:25:04.520] I don't know all this, I agree, I agree, but that's, you know, [01:25:04.520 --> 01:25:07.520] they will send out notices just saying you owe us, [01:25:07.520 --> 01:25:12.520] and if you respond in the way they tell you to respond in the document, [01:25:12.520 --> 01:25:16.520] then all of a sudden you've accepted the premise of their argument. [01:25:16.520 --> 01:25:19.520] And now it's just a matter of how much you owe. [01:25:19.520 --> 01:25:23.520] And what you're saying is absolutely correct to challenge it. [01:25:23.520 --> 01:25:28.520] But the idea is, the best idea is not to accept the premise in the first place [01:25:28.520 --> 01:25:33.520] and literally right on there this offer is not accepted and it works. [01:25:33.520 --> 01:25:36.520] And then they have to call up and then they're going to, [01:25:36.520 --> 01:25:39.520] then you have to start getting real with them. [01:25:39.520 --> 01:25:45.520] But if you file back and appeal it in the way they tell you to appeal it on the original documents, [01:25:45.520 --> 01:25:49.520] you have walked into the trap of accepting the premise of the argument. [01:25:49.520 --> 01:25:56.520] Now they've got a case against you and the only thing that remains to be decided is how much you're going to give them. [01:25:56.520 --> 01:26:02.520] So at what point are you unable to challenge the validity of the argument? [01:26:02.520 --> 01:26:05.520] You don't even accept the argument. [01:26:05.520 --> 01:26:07.520] That's not my question. [01:26:07.520 --> 01:26:17.520] After you have already made the mistake because 99 out of 100 or 999 out of 1,000 don't know any better. [01:26:17.520 --> 01:26:19.520] Don't know any, exactly. [01:26:19.520 --> 01:26:25.520] How long after you start to process before you can no longer stop the process? [01:26:25.520 --> 01:26:27.520] Yeah. [01:26:27.520 --> 01:26:33.520] Well, that's when you get in, that's when unfortunately you get deeper and deeper into that tar baby. [01:26:33.520 --> 01:26:38.520] And then it comes a point that that's when they start doing the liens and the foreclosures against you [01:26:38.520 --> 01:26:41.520] and taking your bank accounts and your cars and your house. [01:26:41.520 --> 01:26:46.520] Well, can't you at most any time go back to the original fraud? [01:26:46.520 --> 01:26:48.520] I would think you could. [01:26:48.520 --> 01:26:52.520] Again, I'm not a lawyer nor an attorney, but I've been around this a long time. [01:26:52.520 --> 01:27:00.520] At any point that you realize and learn how to properly challenge the original intent of the document [01:27:00.520 --> 01:27:05.520] and the amount and know how to follow through within the system, then yes you can. [01:27:05.520 --> 01:27:10.520] From what I'm learning from other men that I believe are experts in this arena. [01:27:10.520 --> 01:27:17.520] But I've actually challenged by not accepting the premise up front with sales tax departments across the country, [01:27:17.520 --> 01:27:20.520] or at least in a couple of states, several states. [01:27:20.520 --> 01:27:29.520] And every time I do not accept the premise of the argument and do it my way on how I respond to it, [01:27:29.520 --> 01:27:33.520] then they call up in a whole lot different way and it usually starts at zero. [01:27:33.520 --> 01:27:41.520] And then we just go forward in the manner that is prescribed by their statutes and codes. [01:27:41.520 --> 01:27:52.520] That's interesting that you bring it up that way, because what I've been moving to lately is the use and misuse of language. [01:27:52.520 --> 01:28:04.520] And not just language as speaking to one another, but how we trick ourselves with the way we think about words. [01:28:04.520 --> 01:28:15.520] And this is exactly one of those where when we think about it, we make horrendous mistakes in judgment. [01:28:15.520 --> 01:28:22.520] And we're encouraged by the nature of the documents to make those mistakes. [01:28:22.520 --> 01:28:27.520] So it really goes back to a basic way of thinking. [01:28:27.520 --> 01:28:38.520] I've had a problem with a lot of the legal reform guys who are saying, oh, if you put a dot on an I in this sentence, you give them jurisdiction. [01:28:38.520 --> 01:28:41.520] If you cross this T too low, you give them jurisdiction. [01:28:41.520 --> 01:28:54.520] And I was always uncomfortable with that because this is not some magic incantation for every tiny little thing has to be exactly right. [01:28:54.520 --> 01:28:58.520] It appears to be what a lot of folks are giving people the impression that it is. [01:28:58.520 --> 01:29:03.520] If you make one mistake, it's all over. No, it ain't. [01:29:03.520 --> 01:29:05.520] It's never over until you quit. [01:29:05.520 --> 01:29:11.520] Yeah, you can always go back and if you miss something, you can go back and argue it. [01:29:11.520 --> 01:29:17.520] There are very few things that are there are some things that are absolute like deadlines. [01:29:17.520 --> 01:29:21.520] You say the court doesn't have jurisdiction. They file for summary judgment. [01:29:21.520 --> 01:29:28.520] You say, well, the court doesn't have jurisdiction. And all of a sudden, I think we're on break. [01:29:28.520 --> 01:29:30.520] No, we're not on break. Go ahead. [01:29:30.520 --> 01:29:32.520] My screen went red. [01:29:32.520 --> 01:29:44.520] OK, well, and you know, the language and following their instructions at any point is a pretty sure way that you're going to get screwed. [01:29:44.520 --> 01:29:51.520] That's what I'm looking for is is a set of basics, a basic understanding of how the system works. [01:29:51.520 --> 01:29:56.520] And that's a good basic understanding. If you do what they tell you, they're going to screw you up. [01:29:56.520 --> 01:29:59.520] Yeah, I mean, that's what I've been starting to see. [01:29:59.520 --> 01:30:08.520] And when so but back to the probate, if the judge, if there was no will, if there was no. [01:30:08.520 --> 01:30:19.520] And if there was a will that was like in the safe deposit box at the bank that gets opened after the person's certificate of death is filed, then that's got to go to the court. [01:30:19.520 --> 01:30:24.520] And if the court accepts it as a valid will, the heirs still get to challenge it. [01:30:24.520 --> 01:30:33.520] They may or may not win. But if there's not a specific executor stated in that will, from what I understand, then the judge gets to pick their own executor. [01:30:33.520 --> 01:30:36.520] And that can be his son-in-law. [01:30:36.520 --> 01:30:39.520] It can be anybody the judge chooses. [01:30:39.520 --> 01:30:44.520] And then all of a sudden, that's when the fees can either be a percentage. [01:30:44.520 --> 01:30:50.520] If it's defined in the will, it can be a percentage of the estate or it can be an hourly rate. [01:30:50.520 --> 01:30:55.520] If it's not defined in the will, then the judge gets to choose. [01:30:55.520 --> 01:30:58.520] And that's going to come down to the size of the estate. [01:30:58.520 --> 01:31:11.520] Now, $150,000, the IRS is reporting that this man day traded out the wazoo while he was accepting, alleging that he day traded for years prior to the time he actually did. [01:31:11.520 --> 01:31:17.520] Well, that just has to be proven, that he didn't day trade, and this was the size of his account. [01:31:17.520 --> 01:31:24.520] But that's going to take a lot of somebody sitting down and going through almost every trade-off of his account. [01:31:24.520 --> 01:31:31.520] And the judge or the executor is going to have to get that information and then give it to an acceptable person. [01:31:31.520 --> 01:31:40.520] And not every CPA is going to be qualified to do that, although a CPA may get the contract for the estate [01:31:40.520 --> 01:31:48.520] because they're friends of the executor or the judge more than their ability. [01:31:48.520 --> 01:31:54.520] And estates get screwed over all the time. [01:31:54.520 --> 01:32:03.520] And the only way to not have it happen this way is to literally have it in trusts. [01:32:03.520 --> 01:32:09.520] Because the trusts never hit the probate court and they never become public, [01:32:09.520 --> 01:32:21.520] the trustees must exercise without any challenge from the heirs, the beneficiaries, to do it exactly as the trust documents state. [01:32:21.520 --> 01:32:30.520] Anything less than this is going to open it up to public scrutiny, public challenge from the heirs, and lawsuits. [01:32:30.520 --> 01:32:36.520] You know, if there were any outstanding judgments, liens, anything against the estate, whether they were valid or not, [01:32:36.520 --> 01:32:42.520] they can all come up and end up having the attorneys end up making out more on the estate than the actual heirs do, [01:32:42.520 --> 01:32:45.520] depending on the size and nature of the challenges. [01:32:45.520 --> 01:32:52.520] And this is, unfortunately, most of America, as is with the legal system, as is with the taxing system, [01:32:52.520 --> 01:33:04.520] has zero clue to how to protect themselves both while they're alive as well as how to have their wishes carried on after their death. [01:33:04.520 --> 01:33:11.520] And I know I've lived through too many of these and this is some of the nature of the work that I do [01:33:11.520 --> 01:33:19.520] to try to help people mitigate these things or actually eliminate them. [01:33:19.520 --> 01:33:24.520] What do you do? Never mind. [01:33:24.520 --> 01:33:26.520] Okay. Russell, are you still there? [01:33:26.520 --> 01:33:32.520] Yeah. I was going to say, can you tell that guy to contact me by email address? [01:33:32.520 --> 01:33:34.520] Yes. Do you want to give it? [01:33:34.520 --> 01:33:37.520] Yeah, go ahead. Okay. It's ours. [01:33:37.520 --> 01:33:46.520] Whoa, whoa, whoa, guys. If I email you guys through your emails, we can just do it like that, set it over the air. [01:33:46.520 --> 01:33:47.520] Okay, whatever. [01:33:47.520 --> 01:33:54.520] Yeah, you can just go to my website and email me and I'll forward it to Russell. [01:33:54.520 --> 01:33:56.520] Yeah, that'll be cool. Thank you. [01:33:56.520 --> 01:33:57.520] Thank you. [01:33:57.520 --> 01:34:00.520] Okay, great. Okay. [01:34:00.520 --> 01:34:05.520] I mean, this is a deep subject, but it could go on. [01:34:05.520 --> 01:34:12.520] I mean, it is as deep as what you're doing with the criminal justice system in the traffic courts, Randy and Deborah. [01:34:12.520 --> 01:34:17.520] Yeah, I was aware that probate and family court are both a horrible mess. [01:34:17.520 --> 01:34:19.520] And it gets so emotional. [01:34:19.520 --> 01:34:25.520] I mean, 80 years' worth of granddad yelling at me comes up. [01:34:25.520 --> 01:34:35.520] I'd like to add also something in there. One of the heirs stole a bunch of stuff from the estate, but yet I have filed criminal complaints. [01:34:35.520 --> 01:34:37.520] Nothing has been done about them. [01:34:37.520 --> 01:34:45.520] And when I talked to an attorney about that the other day, they said the court just looks like that as a civil matter, [01:34:45.520 --> 01:34:49.520] and they will never prosecute anybody from stealing from the estate. [01:34:49.520 --> 01:34:55.520] Unless you do what Randy teaches us to do and go through your own grand jury. [01:34:55.520 --> 01:35:03.520] People don't want to – the criminal DAs and city attorneys, they just don't want to get involved in this. [01:35:03.520 --> 01:35:05.520] It's family matters. [01:35:05.520 --> 01:35:08.520] Well, we have state and federal laws against it. [01:35:08.520 --> 01:35:09.520] You're absolutely right. [01:35:09.520 --> 01:35:24.520] And you have to go take care of – we have to take our own personal responsibility to assure that what is meant to be done in honesty, integrity, and ethics is done. [01:35:24.520 --> 01:35:33.520] Because none of this that we're dealing with in our system is geared towards that anymore, or very little of it is. [01:35:33.520 --> 01:35:34.520] Right. [01:35:34.520 --> 01:35:36.520] We have to take our own personal responsibility. [01:35:36.520 --> 01:35:40.520] If we're ever going to have any courts, we're going to have to go take them back. [01:35:40.520 --> 01:35:41.520] Yes, sir. [01:35:41.520 --> 01:35:44.520] They're not going to give them to us. [01:35:44.520 --> 01:35:55.520] No, nobody ever gives up power or money, you know, especially ones that have been taking it in the manner that it's been being stolen from us. [01:35:55.520 --> 01:35:58.520] We've advocated it more than stolen. [01:35:58.520 --> 01:35:59.520] All right. [01:35:59.520 --> 01:36:02.520] Well, listen, Duane, our caller board is starting to fill up. [01:36:02.520 --> 01:36:03.520] Okay, guys. [01:36:03.520 --> 01:36:05.520] I appreciate your time, and we'll talk soon. [01:36:05.520 --> 01:36:06.520] Okay, thank you, Duane. [01:36:06.520 --> 01:36:07.520] Excellent phone call. [01:36:07.520 --> 01:36:08.520] We really appreciate it. [01:36:08.520 --> 01:36:09.520] Okay, take care. [01:36:09.520 --> 01:36:10.520] Okay, bye-bye. [01:36:10.520 --> 01:36:12.520] Okay, Russell, stay on the line. [01:36:12.520 --> 01:36:14.520] We're going to go now to Lisa in Texas. [01:36:14.520 --> 01:36:15.520] Lisa, thanks for calling in. [01:36:15.520 --> 01:36:17.520] What's on your mind? [01:36:17.520 --> 01:36:19.520] Hey, Deborah and Randy. [01:36:19.520 --> 01:36:21.520] Hey, Lisa. [01:36:21.520 --> 01:36:22.520] How are you guys tonight? [01:36:22.520 --> 01:36:24.520] Great. [01:36:24.520 --> 01:36:26.520] I was just listening in. [01:36:26.520 --> 01:36:34.520] I was going to make a couple of comments because I went through something, you know, with my family, the state, and one of the things you guys talked about. [01:36:34.520 --> 01:36:39.520] I didn't hear a lot of some of it because I was trying to get on the phone. [01:36:39.520 --> 01:36:45.520] But what I heard was you were talking about community property. [01:36:45.520 --> 01:36:46.520] Yes. [01:36:46.520 --> 01:36:58.520] And in Texas, if the wife is the heir of the estate, the husband or spouse has no right to any of the inheritance [01:36:58.520 --> 01:37:06.520] unless that person co-mingles the inherited money into an account. [01:37:06.520 --> 01:37:08.520] Does that make sense? [01:37:08.520 --> 01:37:09.520] Yes. [01:37:09.520 --> 01:37:14.520] So if you put it in a joint account, then he has equal access to the joint account. [01:37:14.520 --> 01:37:20.520] And it becomes community property for him if it's co-mingled. [01:37:20.520 --> 01:37:26.520] If his wife takes the money from the estate and puts it in a separate account, it's 100% hers. [01:37:26.520 --> 01:37:30.520] Now, this is what I went through with what I learned when I was going through. [01:37:30.520 --> 01:37:32.520] Now, things may have changed in four years. [01:37:32.520 --> 01:37:33.520] I don't know. [01:37:33.520 --> 01:37:39.520] But if there was a good sum, the principal amount would be hers alone. [01:37:39.520 --> 01:37:50.520] But anything, if they put it into an investment, he would be entitled to 50% of whatever the money they earned in interest. [01:37:50.520 --> 01:37:51.520] But never the principal. [01:37:51.520 --> 01:37:55.520] But not the principal. [01:37:55.520 --> 01:38:00.520] Now, you're talking about when you talk about a property where it's community property, [01:38:00.520 --> 01:38:08.520] say that it was your mom and dad and your mother died and your dad remarried, [01:38:08.520 --> 01:38:20.520] then the new spouse would have a legal right to stay in the property until her death. [01:38:20.520 --> 01:38:23.520] You could not kick them out of the property. [01:38:23.520 --> 01:38:29.520] There's a lot of weird little laws and rules that go on with it all. [01:38:29.520 --> 01:38:30.520] Yes. [01:38:30.520 --> 01:38:33.520] And I've seen that happen before. [01:38:33.520 --> 01:38:39.520] Which I do, you know, I think in all fairness, you don't want to kick some person out of the home. [01:38:39.520 --> 01:38:44.520] But there's a lot of things that go wrong. [01:38:44.520 --> 01:38:49.520] And there's a lot of greedy people and a lot of, you know, [01:38:49.520 --> 01:38:57.520] I think that was put in line to try to kick some older person out of their home to have nothing. [01:38:57.520 --> 01:39:03.520] A man that lived kitty corner from me in Boyd, his wife died. [01:39:03.520 --> 01:39:08.520] He married another woman and about two years later, he died. [01:39:08.520 --> 01:39:13.520] And we thought the family was being so generous in letting this woman stay there. [01:39:13.520 --> 01:39:17.520] And it turned out that they tried to throw her out in the street. [01:39:17.520 --> 01:39:26.520] It's the law that even if the property is not willed to the widow or the widower by the spouse that is deceased, [01:39:26.520 --> 01:39:33.520] according to state law, you can't kick a widow or a widower out on the street, [01:39:33.520 --> 01:39:36.520] out of the house that they've been living in with the spouse. [01:39:36.520 --> 01:39:40.520] Now, the heirs can move in if they want. [01:39:40.520 --> 01:39:43.520] I don't think that could be stopped. [01:39:43.520 --> 01:39:46.520] But they can't kick her or him out. [01:39:46.520 --> 01:39:49.520] They can't kick the widow or the widower out because that's their home. [01:39:49.520 --> 01:39:56.520] And the state is not going to have a situation where we've got elderly people [01:39:56.520 --> 01:40:01.520] who have just lost their spouses on the freaking street. [01:40:01.520 --> 01:40:02.520] And it makes sense. [01:40:02.520 --> 01:40:03.520] I agree. [01:40:03.520 --> 01:40:07.520] I think that was set up for a good reason. [01:40:07.520 --> 01:40:12.520] And there are a lot of people that don't care and would kick them out. [01:40:12.520 --> 01:40:18.520] And I believe that's, you know, a rule that has been set in place for good. [01:40:18.520 --> 01:40:27.520] But sometimes there are, you know, it's a young wife or somebody that married that person for their money. [01:40:27.520 --> 01:40:31.520] And it isn't really a good spouse, if that makes sense as well. [01:40:31.520 --> 01:40:37.520] So it puts up a lot of problems that start happening. [01:40:37.520 --> 01:40:41.520] Anything you try to do to solve a problem will create another. [01:40:41.520 --> 01:40:42.520] Yeah. [01:40:42.520 --> 01:40:49.520] And the thing is, even if it was a situation like that, the person, the spouse that's deceased, [01:40:49.520 --> 01:40:55.520] they obviously made the decision to marry their spouse and live with them. [01:40:55.520 --> 01:41:00.520] And so it's not really anyone else's place to say, well, it was a bad marriage, [01:41:00.520 --> 01:41:03.520] and so now she doesn't deserve to live there anymore or something. [01:41:03.520 --> 01:41:13.520] If it's not an older person who, like my father, was on dialysis and he was also a diabetic, [01:41:13.520 --> 01:41:22.520] he was on 11 medications, one of which was called Halcyon that's been banned in the UK for 10 years and causes dementia. [01:41:22.520 --> 01:41:28.520] Now, if people take advantage of that person, I don't think that's right. [01:41:28.520 --> 01:41:38.520] But it becomes unbelievably difficult to get anyone to claim that that person is dementia, including their doctors. [01:41:38.520 --> 01:41:41.520] It's really not as easy as people think. [01:41:41.520 --> 01:41:42.520] Yeah. [01:41:42.520 --> 01:41:48.520] And so therefore we have a lot of elderly people right now, and it's the largest group of, you know, [01:41:48.520 --> 01:41:58.520] out there are aging parents that are ripe for the picking with a lot of greedy people out there. [01:41:58.520 --> 01:42:03.520] And a lot of things, this is where a lot of estates are being taken advantage of. [01:42:03.520 --> 01:42:13.520] And then when the person, you know, flips in under the rug, they get the will changed and have the person changed. [01:42:13.520 --> 01:42:19.520] Maybe that person all along in their life had set up the estate to go to their kids, [01:42:19.520 --> 01:42:24.520] and then this person moved in and the person's older, sicker, dementia sets in. [01:42:24.520 --> 01:42:31.520] You know, things are a lot different, and they change the will. [01:42:31.520 --> 01:42:32.520] Yeah. [01:42:32.520 --> 01:42:34.520] And that happens a lot. [01:42:34.520 --> 01:42:42.520] And that's really what probate is about, is to adjudicate those kinds of abuses. [01:42:42.520 --> 01:42:51.520] Yeah, but I don't, like you guys are saying, I don't see in my experience and some other websites [01:42:51.520 --> 01:42:58.520] and people that I have begun to, you know, visit with, it's not happening. [01:42:58.520 --> 01:43:02.520] The checks and balances aren't working. [01:43:02.520 --> 01:43:09.520] There's a website that's really great called howtostealinestate.com. [01:43:09.520 --> 01:43:13.520] And it's really informative. [01:43:13.520 --> 01:43:19.520] It tells you a lot about how people work at getting into estates [01:43:19.520 --> 01:43:22.520] and trying to figure out how to get the money, [01:43:22.520 --> 01:43:26.520] because it's an easy way that people look at, you know, earning a living. [01:43:26.520 --> 01:43:29.520] It's very sad. [01:43:29.520 --> 01:43:37.520] And that's why people should look into setting up their estate in some form of trust beforehand. [01:43:37.520 --> 01:43:42.520] I have heard about that, but I think, I don't know, I do not know enough about it, [01:43:42.520 --> 01:43:44.520] but each state may be different. [01:43:44.520 --> 01:43:50.520] There can be, sometimes they won't set up a trust unless there's several million dollars involved. [01:43:50.520 --> 01:43:57.520] I mean, I was told that when I was looking into this that you had to have X amount of money [01:43:57.520 --> 01:43:59.520] and it cost a lot of money. [01:43:59.520 --> 01:44:01.520] Now, that's hearsay for me. [01:44:01.520 --> 01:44:05.520] I don't know for sure, and I haven't researched it. [01:44:05.520 --> 01:44:09.520] It's not true. It's relatively simple to set up a trust. [01:44:09.520 --> 01:44:16.520] But you need to do some research and talk to people who know how, because there are tricks and traps. [01:44:16.520 --> 01:44:21.520] Yes, and then there's also things that are pure trusts, which are private contract trusts, [01:44:21.520 --> 01:44:24.520] which I've been looking into that I think is the best way to go. [01:44:24.520 --> 01:44:29.520] And then there's statutory trusts, which have other advantages, but then they also have pitfalls. [01:44:29.520 --> 01:44:32.520] And there's something going on with guardianship now. [01:44:32.520 --> 01:44:37.520] There's a lot of that in Florida, which is a really corrupt state with the elderly. [01:44:37.520 --> 01:44:41.520] And I believe there's some of that now going on in Texas. [01:44:41.520 --> 01:44:44.520] And I didn't have to deal with it, and I don't understand it, [01:44:44.520 --> 01:44:52.520] but there's a woman, Lou Ann Anderson, that has a website called astateofdenial.com. [01:44:52.520 --> 01:44:57.520] And she has a lot of wonderful information because it's all Texas stuff, [01:44:57.520 --> 01:45:02.520] with a few – you know, she does articles such as Anna Nicole Smith. [01:45:02.520 --> 01:45:07.520] That was a really – it's too long for me to go into, and I can't explain it all. [01:45:07.520 --> 01:45:09.520] But she has the story up on her site. [01:45:09.520 --> 01:45:13.520] She's No Million Dollar Baby, I think is the link, [01:45:13.520 --> 01:45:19.520] regarding how that whole situation with Marshall v. Marshall, who she claimed, you know, [01:45:19.520 --> 01:45:27.520] he told her he was going to give her money from the estate, even though he had wills. [01:45:27.520 --> 01:45:34.520] And she went to California and got a judge to start this whole thing going on, [01:45:34.520 --> 01:45:36.520] where she was trying to get the money. [01:45:36.520 --> 01:45:46.520] That story is up on Lou Ann's site as well, or on HoraceCooper.com is on his site as well. [01:45:46.520 --> 01:45:50.520] But anyway, that's always going to offer – those are some really great websites, [01:45:50.520 --> 01:45:53.520] especially for Randy, if you're looking into stuff. [01:45:53.520 --> 01:45:58.520] Theastateofdenial.com is a lot about Texas issues. [01:45:58.520 --> 01:45:59.520] Good. [01:45:59.520 --> 01:46:00.520] All right, well, thank you, Lisa. [01:46:00.520 --> 01:46:02.520] Thank you so much for calling in. [01:46:02.520 --> 01:46:07.520] And thanks for talking about this because people really need to start learning, [01:46:07.520 --> 01:46:12.520] and it's a hard subject to breach because you – you know, you're emotional. [01:46:12.520 --> 01:46:15.520] People don't want to deal with death. [01:46:15.520 --> 01:46:22.520] But let me tell you, I went through five years of hell, and I never saw my dad again. [01:46:22.520 --> 01:46:26.520] And the lawyers – it's a meal ticket for lawyers. [01:46:26.520 --> 01:46:29.520] I cannot say it any other nice way. [01:46:29.520 --> 01:46:30.520] It's a meal ticket. [01:46:30.520 --> 01:46:38.520] And they use every advantage they have to drag these things out and just feed off of it. [01:46:38.520 --> 01:46:41.520] I'm sure, just like any other case. [01:46:41.520 --> 01:46:45.520] Yep. But anyway, thank you for bringing this subject out and talking about it [01:46:45.520 --> 01:46:47.520] because sooner or later it affects all of us. [01:46:47.520 --> 01:46:50.520] And it's something that's not really getting, you know, a lot of good attention, [01:46:50.520 --> 01:46:53.520] and there's a lot of loopholes and a lot of scandals. [01:46:53.520 --> 01:47:00.520] Well, yeah, and it's especially, you know, an easy target for lawyers to drag out and milk the situation [01:47:00.520 --> 01:47:06.520] because within a state, he knows that there is money there and that he's going to get paid. [01:47:06.520 --> 01:47:14.520] You know, it's a lot easier to prey on a situation like that than say something like a divorce, for example, [01:47:14.520 --> 01:47:19.520] where, you know, the person has to pay a retainer and then they make monthly payments after that. [01:47:19.520 --> 01:47:24.520] I mean, with the probate, you know, he's most likely going to get everything right away [01:47:24.520 --> 01:47:27.520] because there's an estate and an inheritance here. [01:47:27.520 --> 01:47:29.520] But thank you so much for calling in, Lisa. [01:47:29.520 --> 01:47:30.520] We really appreciate it. [01:47:30.520 --> 01:47:31.520] Okay. [01:47:31.520 --> 01:47:32.520] Okay. Bye. [01:47:32.520 --> 01:47:33.520] Bye. Have a good night. [01:47:33.520 --> 01:47:37.520] Okay. We're going to move on now to Sally in Texas. [01:47:37.520 --> 01:47:38.520] Sally, thanks for calling in. [01:47:38.520 --> 01:47:44.520] Do you have a question or comment about probate for Russell or Randy or myself? [01:47:44.520 --> 01:47:46.520] Well, I've been listening to your show, [01:47:46.520 --> 01:47:54.520] and I'm curious about where this property is located knowing the expansion that is going on in Hayes County, [01:47:54.520 --> 01:48:01.520] the new post office, the new schools, the new buildings, the new housing, the new convention center. [01:48:01.520 --> 01:48:09.520] Is this property something that the government might want for eminent domain or for themselves? [01:48:09.520 --> 01:48:11.520] No, ma'am. [01:48:11.520 --> 01:48:12.520] Okay. [01:48:12.520 --> 01:48:15.520] It's up here by Driftwood. [01:48:15.520 --> 01:48:19.520] Okay. Okay. Thank you. [01:48:19.520 --> 01:48:22.520] So you're kind of out in the boondocks? [01:48:22.520 --> 01:48:25.520] Booty. [01:48:25.520 --> 01:48:26.520] Yeah. [01:48:26.520 --> 01:48:31.520] The only advantage this property has got is it's totally unrestricted. [01:48:31.520 --> 01:48:36.520] Well, that's a huge advantage. [01:48:36.520 --> 01:48:42.520] You don't have a lot of unrestricted property anymore because of all the homeowners associations and stuff like that. [01:48:42.520 --> 01:48:43.520] Well, yeah. [01:48:43.520 --> 01:48:54.520] I mean, it's very advantageous to be able to own a piece of property in an area that is not within the boundaries of an annexed municipality [01:48:54.520 --> 01:48:58.520] because then you don't have to deal with a local municipal government. [01:48:58.520 --> 01:49:05.520] Basically, all you have to deal with is the sheriff and the county commissioners as far as the local government [01:49:05.520 --> 01:49:12.520] and to try to get in an area that does not have a homeowners association or deed restrictions, [01:49:12.520 --> 01:49:17.520] and you can actually use deed restrictions to your advantage, okay? [01:49:17.520 --> 01:49:25.520] I know some people who have put a...they have a really nice place up in East Texas that's very beautiful, [01:49:25.520 --> 01:49:29.520] rolling hills and such, a lot of four-wheeling trails and everything, [01:49:29.520 --> 01:49:37.520] but the property taxes in that area are so exorbitant they're higher than Austin, okay, [01:49:37.520 --> 01:49:42.520] out in an area that is basically sort of out in the middle of nowhere, [01:49:42.520 --> 01:49:54.520] and they use deed restrictions to reduce their property taxes by declaring their property some sort of wildlife preserve [01:49:54.520 --> 01:50:00.520] where they can't, you know, to cut down, they can't do any logging and stuff like that or agricultural growth, [01:50:00.520 --> 01:50:04.520] and it cut their property taxes by about 60 percent. [01:50:04.520 --> 01:50:11.520] So you can use deed restrictions to your advantage, but it's nice to be in an area where it's not forced on you. [01:50:11.520 --> 01:50:15.520] But there are also ways to get your property off the tax rolls, period. [01:50:15.520 --> 01:50:17.520] This is very true. [01:50:17.520 --> 01:50:20.520] Concentrate on it. [01:50:20.520 --> 01:50:28.520] Have you been able to chase down accurately these ways, Russell? [01:50:28.520 --> 01:50:36.520] I know a couple ways, and I'm getting ready to work on my property on another way, but that's about the three shows. [01:50:36.520 --> 01:50:42.520] Yeah, yeah, I was going to say I want to bring you on again and have you discuss that. [01:50:42.520 --> 01:50:52.520] Yes, and I wanted to talk to you about how to claim the bonds on a criminal case. [01:50:52.520 --> 01:50:57.520] I'm going to go to court here pretty soon, and I want to claim the bond. [01:50:57.520 --> 01:51:02.520] That's the hardest one. That's about the hardest one there is. [01:51:02.520 --> 01:51:06.520] How do you find the bond to begin with? [01:51:06.520 --> 01:51:11.520] Well, that whole process is just about the hardest that we've run into. [01:51:11.520 --> 01:51:19.520] Some people claim that you can go to Fidelity.com and type in bond court case numbers, bond numbers and stuff, [01:51:19.520 --> 01:51:25.520] and it will give you the actual number of the – [01:51:25.520 --> 01:51:33.520] the abusive number or where the bond's located from talking to a friend that's high up in the industry. [01:51:33.520 --> 01:51:39.520] They said that Fidelity.com is not used for that purpose and cannot be used for that purpose. [01:51:39.520 --> 01:51:41.520] But I look at it this way. [01:51:41.520 --> 01:51:48.520] It's a known fact that when the government sells these bonds, they're selling most of it overseas. [01:51:48.520 --> 01:51:53.520] So why would the government allow you to be able to look up your bond in the United States [01:51:53.520 --> 01:51:58.520] if all the court bonds and stuff are being sold to the overseas industry? [01:51:58.520 --> 01:52:02.520] Yeah, I wouldn't say that it would be – I don't think it would be as simple as that. [01:52:02.520 --> 01:52:06.520] That would get into SEC reporting requirements. [01:52:06.520 --> 01:52:08.520] To a certain degree, yes. [01:52:08.520 --> 01:52:10.520] Since it's overseas – [01:52:10.520 --> 01:52:14.520] But there's all kinds of stuff that – I mean, your mortgage, when you did a mortgage [01:52:14.520 --> 01:52:20.520] and they turned around and sold it, that all shows up on SEC too. [01:52:20.520 --> 01:52:24.520] Why hasn't all that been declared fraud from years ago? [01:52:24.520 --> 01:52:27.520] I mean, my mortgage was in 2001. [01:52:27.520 --> 01:52:32.520] I know exactly where my mortgage note is because I looked it up through the SEC documents. [01:52:32.520 --> 01:52:36.520] I know my mortgage has been sold and traded. [01:52:36.520 --> 01:52:39.520] But why am I still having to pay a mortgage payment then? [01:52:39.520 --> 01:52:44.520] Because I haven't been able to get anybody to adjudicate it. [01:52:44.520 --> 01:52:51.520] Russell, you should call into agenda 21 talk tomorrow night and ask this question [01:52:51.520 --> 01:52:57.520] because one of the house – they call him Saddam, Michael Saddam, [01:52:57.520 --> 01:53:02.520] because he did the picture on his driver's license with the Arab – [01:53:02.520 --> 01:53:03.520] Turbine. [01:53:03.520 --> 01:53:04.520] It's not a turban. [01:53:04.520 --> 01:53:06.520] It's the long thing that hangs down. [01:53:06.520 --> 01:53:08.520] I don't know what they call it. [01:53:08.520 --> 01:53:12.520] The Arab hat, you know, to protect their necks from the sun and such. [01:53:12.520 --> 01:53:17.520] Because there's some law in Alabama that says you can't wear a hat [01:53:17.520 --> 01:53:22.520] for your driver's license picture unless it's for – unless it's religious, okay? [01:53:22.520 --> 01:53:26.520] And so he went in there and told them, well, baseball's my religion, [01:53:26.520 --> 01:53:28.520] so I can't wear my baseball cap. [01:53:28.520 --> 01:53:29.520] And they wouldn't let him. [01:53:29.520 --> 01:53:31.520] So he went in there with the Arab headdress on. [01:53:31.520 --> 01:53:32.520] So now his driver's license has that. [01:53:32.520 --> 01:53:36.520] But at any rate, he's fighting his mortgage company [01:53:36.520 --> 01:53:39.520] and he's managed to sue them for fraud. [01:53:39.520 --> 01:53:44.520] And he's – the bank has 43 lawyers on the case and he's going pro se. [01:53:44.520 --> 01:53:51.520] And it looks like he stopped them dead in their tracks by suing them. [01:53:51.520 --> 01:53:57.520] He filed a case against them and through discovery demanding to see the original note. [01:53:57.520 --> 01:53:59.520] And they're not coming up with it. [01:53:59.520 --> 01:54:01.520] And they're not telling where it is either. [01:54:01.520 --> 01:54:04.520] And so the case is pretty much halted right now. [01:54:04.520 --> 01:54:09.520] And it looks like he's not only able to stop this fraudulent foreclosure, [01:54:09.520 --> 01:54:14.520] but also looks like he's going to get his mortgage discharged over it too. [01:54:14.520 --> 01:54:16.520] I'm sure he will. [01:54:16.520 --> 01:54:19.520] There's more and more cases like that happen. [01:54:19.520 --> 01:54:22.520] Yeah, so you might want to check that out because they're having a lot of good luck [01:54:22.520 --> 01:54:27.520] with the mortgage situation. [01:54:27.520 --> 01:54:30.520] Luck kind of sucks because my mortgage is paid off. [01:54:30.520 --> 01:54:32.520] Now I don't get to do that. [01:54:32.520 --> 01:54:34.520] Go get what you want and go get them. [01:54:34.520 --> 01:54:35.520] Well, wait a minute, Randy. [01:54:35.520 --> 01:54:36.520] That's not necessarily true. [01:54:36.520 --> 01:54:44.520] If the bank committed fraud, just sue them after the fact for all the payments you made. [01:54:44.520 --> 01:54:47.520] I bought it on contract. [01:54:47.520 --> 01:54:52.520] Oh, you bought it directly from – you didn't go through a bank for a mortgage? [01:54:52.520 --> 01:54:53.520] Didn't go through a bank. [01:54:53.520 --> 01:54:54.520] Oh, okay. [01:54:54.520 --> 01:54:56.520] Well, too bad. [01:54:56.520 --> 01:54:58.520] Sorry. [01:54:58.520 --> 01:54:59.520] I'm out of luck. [01:54:59.520 --> 01:55:01.520] You're out of luck. [01:55:01.520 --> 01:55:11.520] But there's actually general service administration forms out there that can take care of a lot of people's debts. [01:55:11.520 --> 01:55:13.520] Mortgages, court cases. [01:55:13.520 --> 01:55:15.520] We've talked about that once before. [01:55:15.520 --> 01:55:18.520] Can you kind of elaborate on that? [01:55:18.520 --> 01:55:25.520] Well, you know, the government has to give you a remedy for all the problems they cause. [01:55:25.520 --> 01:55:28.520] But they are hiding these remedies so well. [01:55:28.520 --> 01:55:32.520] It's taken researchers all over the country to come up with these. [01:55:32.520 --> 01:55:43.520] And some other remedies have been actually found in the general service administration forms from the feds. [01:55:43.520 --> 01:55:53.520] And until we get more specific about one loss ratio and things like that, even these forms, [01:55:53.520 --> 01:55:59.520] you know for a fact, Randy, that you can go down into one county and do miracles and stuff. [01:55:59.520 --> 01:56:08.520] But when you go to the next county, you can't cause those miracles to happen until you really get down in their crap. [01:56:08.520 --> 01:56:13.520] But like one thing that works in one court will not work in another court. [01:56:13.520 --> 01:56:19.520] And it just mind boggles me if they all have the same basic same rules and all this other stuff, [01:56:19.520 --> 01:56:22.520] how they can get by with that kind of stuff. [01:56:22.520 --> 01:56:26.520] That's exactly what I want to go to. [01:56:26.520 --> 01:56:34.520] And that's why I'm looking more toward how the court is required to apply, [01:56:34.520 --> 01:56:42.520] has a ministerial duty to apply the law to the facts so that when they do apply them differently, [01:56:42.520 --> 01:56:47.520] and when one judge applies the law, the other one doesn't, [01:56:47.520 --> 01:56:53.520] the one that doesn't, I have a way to go directly at the judge, [01:56:53.520 --> 01:57:01.520] charge him with violating a ministerial duty for which he has no immunity from the suit. [01:57:01.520 --> 01:57:03.520] All right, well listen, we're at the end of the show. [01:57:03.520 --> 01:57:09.520] Russell, thank you for coming on and being our guest tonight to discuss probate and other issues. [01:57:09.520 --> 01:57:10.520] Okay, talk to you later. [01:57:10.520 --> 01:57:12.520] Okay, talk to you later. [01:57:12.520 --> 01:57:17.520] All right, and don't forget, Wednesday, Senate Bill 298, [01:57:17.520 --> 01:57:21.520] send John Bush, Texans for Accountable Government, your testimony [01:57:21.520 --> 01:57:25.520] and make sure you put at the beginning that you authorize him to submit it for you. [01:57:25.520 --> 01:57:28.520] We'll be back on Thursday night, tomorrow night, Tom Kiley, [01:57:28.520 --> 01:57:43.520] and we'll report Radio at 6 and Agenda 21 Talk at 8. [01:57:43.520 --> 01:57:58.520] Thank you. [01:57:58.520 --> 01:58:13.520] Thank you. [01:58:13.520 --> 01:58:28.520] Thank you. [01:58:28.520 --> 01:58:43.520] Thank you. [01:58:43.520 --> 01:58:58.520] Thank you. [01:58:58.520 --> 01:59:13.520] Thank you. [01:59:13.520 --> 01:59:28.520] Thank you. [01:59:28.520 --> 01:59:43.520] Thank you. [01:59:43.520 --> 01:59:58.520] Thank you.