[00:00.000 --> 00:12.080] In Lahore, Pakistan, Safrez Naimi, a prominent anti-Taliban Muslim cleric who condemned suicide [00:12.080 --> 00:16.000] bombings, was killed Friday in a suicide attack. [00:16.000 --> 00:21.220] In the Iranian elections, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was awarded 63% of the vote, but opposition [00:21.220 --> 00:26.580] candidates complain that at some polling stations results were announced before the ballot boxes [00:26.580 --> 00:32.120] were opened and in others more than 100% of the electorate turned out to vote. [00:32.120 --> 00:37.120] The US Postal Service, having posted a $2 billion second quarter loss, is contemplating [00:37.120 --> 00:50.120] cutting tens of thousands more jobs and closing or consolidating 3100 of its 36,000 outlets. [00:50.120 --> 00:54.600] According to financial disclosure reports released Friday, senators who oversee the [00:54.600 --> 00:59.880] $700 billion Wall Street bailout held stocks in many of the banks bailed out toward the [00:59.880 --> 01:01.000] end of last year. [01:01.000 --> 01:06.040] The reports detailing senators' finances in 2008 show nearly half the Senate Banking [01:06.040 --> 01:11.480] Committee had holdings in financial institutions that have taken funds from TARP, the Troubled [01:11.480 --> 01:13.280] Asset Relief Program. [01:13.280 --> 01:18.360] For example, Senator Tim Johnson, a banking panel member, has assets in several banks [01:18.360 --> 01:20.080] that have taken bailout funds. [01:20.080 --> 01:24.680] Along with Goldman Sachs, the senator has several assets in Bank of America funds worth [01:24.680 --> 01:27.320] at least $115,000. [01:27.320 --> 01:31.200] Bank of America has received $45 billion in government funds. [01:31.200 --> 01:36.240] Another Democrat invested in bailout institutions is Senator Chuck Schumer with assets valued [01:36.240 --> 01:42.880] between $15,000 and $50,000 in Morgan Stanley and $1,000 and $15,000 in Citibank. [01:42.880 --> 01:51.040] Morgan Stanley received $10 billion in TARP money while Citigroup was given $25 billion. [01:51.040 --> 01:56.000] Bloomberg News reports as U.S. stock markets plummeted last September, the Senate's number [01:56.000 --> 02:02.440] two Democrat, Dick Durbin, sold $115,000 worth of stocks and mutual funds and used much of [02:02.440 --> 02:05.880] the money to invest in Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway. [02:05.880 --> 02:11.200] The Illinois senator's 2008 financial disclosure statement shows he sold mutual fund shares [02:11.200 --> 02:17.720] worth $42,600 on September 19, the day after then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and [02:17.720 --> 02:22.960] Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke urged congressional leaders in a closed meeting [02:22.960 --> 02:26.640] to craft legislation to help financially troubled banks. [02:26.640 --> 02:31.960] The same day, he bought $43,000 worth of Berkshire Hathaway's Class B stock. [02:31.960 --> 02:38.360] The Standard & Poor's 500 index plunged 4.7% last September 15, after the bankruptcy of [02:38.360 --> 02:43.680] Lehman Brothers and Bank of America's government-engineered takeover of Merrill Lynch. [02:43.680 --> 02:47.960] Durbin's spokesman, Joe Shoemaker, said Durbin didn't capitalize on anything Paulson and [02:47.960 --> 02:52.600] Bernanke told congressional leaders at the September 18 meeting, since the information [02:52.600 --> 02:56.560] wasn't secret or classified and was disclosed publicly the next day. [02:56.560 --> 03:09.240] You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at ruleoflawradio.com, live free speech [03:09.240 --> 03:22.240] talk radio at its best. [03:22.240 --> 03:52.160] I'm Joe Shoemaker, and I'll see you next time. [04:22.240 --> 04:42.960] All right, bad boys, bad boys, what are you going to do when Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, [04:42.960 --> 04:45.680] and Deborah Stevens come for you? [04:45.680 --> 04:51.680] All right, this evening, I have a couple of rants, okay? [04:51.680 --> 04:59.680] I want to start off, this has to do with photographing government buildings, okay? [04:59.680 --> 05:05.320] There's an article today in the Washington Post, all right, by Raw Fisher, and most of [05:05.320 --> 05:10.920] the time these mainstream media articles are not very good, you know, they're usually pretty [05:10.920 --> 05:13.320] schmoozy towards the system. [05:13.320 --> 05:16.760] But this one actually was pretty good, I like the way the guy entered the article. [05:16.760 --> 05:26.000] This has to do with a government building in, this is on Fairfax Drive in Arlington, okay? [05:26.000 --> 05:29.280] Secret buildings you may not photograph, okay? [05:29.280 --> 05:34.720] If you happen, and this article was written, let me, I'm trying to find the date, it was [05:34.720 --> 05:39.200] this, I believe it was yesterday, okay? [05:39.200 --> 05:43.440] This guy was apparently questioned, all right, let me read the article. [05:43.440 --> 05:47.600] If you happen to be by 3701 North Fairfax Drive in Arlington and you decide you have [05:47.600 --> 05:52.560] a sudden craving for a photograph of a generic suburban office building and you point your [05:52.560 --> 05:57.560] camera at said structure, you will rather quickly be greeted by uniformed security folks [05:57.560 --> 06:02.120] who will demand that you delete the image and require that you give up various personal [06:02.120 --> 06:03.600] information. [06:03.600 --> 06:09.200] When Keith McCammon unwittingly took a picture of that building, he was launched on an odyssey [06:09.200 --> 06:15.480] that has so far involved the Arlington Police Office, the Chief of Police, and the Defense [06:15.480 --> 06:20.560] of the United States of America, Office of Defense, okay? [06:20.560 --> 06:26.160] McCammon, spelled M-C-C-A-M-M-O-N, could not have been expected to know when he wandered [06:26.160 --> 06:33.200] by the building that it houses the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, a low-profile [06:33.200 --> 06:38.480] wing of the Defense Department that conducts all manner of high-tech research that evolves [06:38.480 --> 06:41.680] into weapons systems and high-order strategy. [06:41.680 --> 06:49.760] DARPA's presence, D-A-P-A, D-A-R-P-A, okay, DARPA's presence at 3701 North Fairfax is [06:49.760 --> 06:52.440] hardly a government secret. [06:52.440 --> 06:58.080] Google finds nearly 10,000 pages listing the agency's use of the building, but there's [06:58.080 --> 07:00.080] no big fat sign on the building. [07:00.080 --> 07:03.560] So how was McCammon to know that this was a building? [07:03.560 --> 07:06.200] He dared not photograph. [07:06.200 --> 07:11.320] And why would the government care if anyone took a picture of the exterior of an office [07:11.320 --> 07:12.320] building? [07:12.320 --> 07:17.640] This is as silly and hypersensitive as the now common harassment of people who innocently [07:17.640 --> 07:20.640] take pictures of random federal buildings in the district. [07:20.640 --> 07:22.520] I'm going to pause for a second. [07:22.520 --> 07:26.600] This is the guy writing this, the article writer, Ralph Fisher, okay? [07:26.600 --> 07:31.680] So I'm kind of happy that finally, even in the mainstream like Washington Post, the journalists [07:31.680 --> 07:36.240] are having the guts to stand up and say something about this kind of thing. [07:36.240 --> 07:38.200] All right, back to the article. [07:38.200 --> 07:39.400] McCammon decided to fight back. [07:39.400 --> 07:44.000] He demanded to know why he had been stopped, why the government needed his personal information, [07:44.000 --> 07:48.000] and why any record of the incident should be kept in government records. [07:48.000 --> 07:52.280] He got quick, polite responses from Arlington officials. [07:52.280 --> 07:57.640] I hope that you would agree that the security of any such building is of great importance [07:57.640 --> 08:02.920] and every law enforcement officer is duty bound to investigate all suspicious activity, [08:02.920 --> 08:07.640] end quote, wrote Arlington Acting Police Chief Daniel Murray. [08:07.640 --> 08:13.000] I am certainly not implying that a person taking photographs is inherently, quote, suspicious, [08:13.000 --> 08:20.080] quote, but when the appearance is that the subject of a photograph is a government installation, [08:20.080 --> 08:24.600] officers have a duty to ensure the safety of the occupants of this structure, end quote. [08:24.600 --> 08:30.160] That whole paragraph was a quote from Police Chief Daniel Murray of Arlington, Virginia. [08:30.160 --> 08:33.120] Okay, I'm going to pause again. [08:33.120 --> 08:37.240] I'm almost done with the article, but I'm going to pause here and say, you know, if [08:37.240 --> 08:42.640] the Defense Department, which is federal, okay, is getting so bent out of shape about [08:42.640 --> 08:47.800] this, what in the heck does the cops have to do with this anyway? [08:47.800 --> 08:56.640] Okay, so here again, we see, you know, a merging, okay, of the feds, the military, and our civil [08:56.640 --> 08:57.640] police department. [08:57.640 --> 08:58.640] All right, back to the article. [08:58.640 --> 09:02.600] All right, here's what the guy says in the article. [09:02.600 --> 09:04.600] Any government installation? [09:04.600 --> 09:07.880] This, and he writes any in italics. [09:07.880 --> 09:12.080] This overly broad approach to security is why we end up with ridiculous horror stories [09:12.080 --> 09:16.800] about innocent tourists getting hassled for taking photos of the Lincoln Memorial or the [09:16.800 --> 09:18.600] Department of the Interior. [09:18.600 --> 09:23.920] The good news here is that Arlington police didn't take a report or create a file on McCammon. [09:23.920 --> 09:24.920] Here's my comment. [09:24.920 --> 09:26.760] Not that he knows of. [09:26.760 --> 09:28.280] Okay, back to the article. [09:28.280 --> 09:34.000] The bad news is that they did pass his information along to the quote, internal security agency [09:34.000 --> 09:39.240] for this installation, end quote, which means that somewhere in the vast security apparatus [09:39.240 --> 09:45.080] that we have constructed since 9-11, utterly ignoring the fact that the Soviet Empire collapsed [09:45.080 --> 09:49.840] under the weight of its own paranoid security apparatus, there is now a report on Keith [09:49.840 --> 09:50.840] McCammon, photographer. [09:50.840 --> 09:54.840] All right, I'm going to pause here again. [09:54.840 --> 10:00.040] 9-11, the vast security apparatus that we constructed since 9-11. [10:00.040 --> 10:05.800] That's why I started this whole thing to begin with with Randy and getting into our court [10:05.800 --> 10:10.560] systems and learning the processes and learning about grand juries so that we could do something [10:10.560 --> 10:15.320] about the crimes of 9-11 and the people that actually committed it because it's a total [10:15.320 --> 10:21.160] inside job, a total fraud, a total false flag op, and a psychological op on top of that, [10:21.160 --> 10:31.360] I might add, to justify the quote, vast security apparatus, end quote, that our rogue government [10:31.360 --> 10:32.360] has created. [10:32.360 --> 10:35.720] It's all based on 9-11 and it's a total lie. [10:35.720 --> 10:40.480] And I think that we're not really going to be able to do a very good job of getting rid [10:40.480 --> 10:48.160] of Homeland Security and all this police state business until we totally blow 9-11 truth [10:48.160 --> 10:52.480] into the mainstream open because that's their hinge pin. [10:52.480 --> 10:56.760] That is the cornerstone of their entire structure. [10:56.760 --> 10:59.920] Okay, so anyway, back to the article. [10:59.920 --> 11:04.360] The bottom line is that McCammon was caught in a classic logical trap. [11:04.360 --> 11:08.680] If he had only known the building was off limits to photographers, he would have avoided [11:08.680 --> 11:09.680] it. [11:09.680 --> 11:12.200] But he was not allowed to know that fact. [11:12.200 --> 11:15.960] Quote, reasonable law-abiding people tend to avoid these types of things when it can [11:15.960 --> 11:22.440] be helped, end quote, McCammon wrote, quote, thus my request for a list of locations within [11:22.440 --> 11:27.400] Arlington County that are unmarked but which photography is either prohibited or discouraged [11:27.400 --> 11:30.260] according to some public or private policy. [11:30.260 --> 11:36.120] Of course, such a list does not exist, catch-22, end quote, all right, my comment, of course [11:36.120 --> 11:37.120] a list exists. [11:37.120 --> 11:39.960] They are just not going to give it to you, all right? [11:39.960 --> 11:40.960] Back to the article. [11:40.960 --> 11:44.880] All right, and I want to make another comment before I go back to the article on McCammon's [11:44.880 --> 11:45.880] statement. [11:45.880 --> 11:53.880] Just to show the mindset that the government is trying to instill in us, okay, a reasonable [11:53.880 --> 11:59.520] law-abiding people tends to avoid these things, okay? [11:59.520 --> 12:05.440] And would normally not want to take photographic pictures or whatever of buildings that the [12:05.440 --> 12:10.160] government doesn't want taking pictures of where it's either prohibited or discouraged, [12:10.160 --> 12:11.160] okay? [12:11.160 --> 12:12.160] Hello? [12:12.160 --> 12:15.040] This is totally backwards thinking. [12:15.040 --> 12:18.080] The government is the one that's supposed to be transparent, all right? [12:18.080 --> 12:22.600] They're supposed to answer to us, not the other way around, all right? [12:22.600 --> 12:25.200] We should be allowed to take pictures of all the government buildings. [12:25.200 --> 12:27.320] We should be allowed to have cameras inside and outside. [12:27.320 --> 12:32.280] Now understand if it's Department of Defense and they don't want, you know, secrets getting [12:32.280 --> 12:34.800] out or whatever, things like that. [12:34.800 --> 12:40.680] I mean, occasionally there may be a beef, a legitimate beef in the name of national [12:40.680 --> 12:44.760] security or whatever because you don't want other countries, militaries getting a hold [12:44.760 --> 12:48.760] of whatever we're developing and stuff like that, you know, the nitty-gritty details. [12:48.760 --> 12:54.640] But just the whole general idea of that, oh, oh, it's the government, oh, oh, we shouldn't [12:54.640 --> 12:58.680] take pictures of the buildings, oh, you know, we might get in trouble, we're reasonable [12:58.680 --> 13:05.720] law-abiding people, yeah, it's okay for them to be secret, no, it's not, all right? [13:05.720 --> 13:08.920] Now back to the article last paragraph. [13:08.920 --> 13:14.120] This is what the article, the journalist says, just what I was saying, here we go. [13:14.120 --> 13:20.560] The only antidote to this security mania is sunshine, only when more and more Americans [13:20.560 --> 13:25.760] do as McCammon has done and take the time and effort to chronicle these excesses and [13:25.760 --> 13:33.360] insist on answers from authorities, will we stand a chance of restoring balance and sanity, [13:33.360 --> 13:37.800] I'm sorry, insist on these excesses and insist on answers from authorities, will we stand [13:37.800 --> 13:42.520] a chance of restoring balance and sanity to the blend of liberty and security that we [13:42.520 --> 13:50.320] are madly remixing in these confused times, okay, indeed, it's a mad remixing. [13:50.320 --> 13:57.840] And it's an evil mixture, I might add, okay, you can't mix oil and water, all right? [13:57.840 --> 14:02.400] And even in the Bible, the Lord cautioned against the leaven, all right, to take the [14:02.400 --> 14:07.440] leaven out, all right, and even the Lord says in the Bible, I would rather you be hot or [14:07.440 --> 14:12.200] cold because if you're lukewarm, I will spew you out of my mouth, all right, this is an [14:12.200 --> 14:19.800] evil mixture, there is no mixture of liberty and security, people, there is no mixture, [14:19.800 --> 14:27.160] you either stand up for liberty at all costs, no matter what, give me liberty or give me [14:27.160 --> 14:32.840] death or just roll over and be a slave, it's one or the other, you can't insist on having [14:32.840 --> 14:40.160] security if you really want your liberty, okay, there's a price for freedom and sometimes [14:40.160 --> 14:47.160] it's danger, all right, and we have to defend ourselves anyway, that's what our Second Amendment [14:47.160 --> 14:52.080] and the Bill of Rights is supposed to protect, all right, so that's the deal with the story, [14:52.080 --> 14:57.960] I'm glad to see some stuff in the mainstream media that are, you know, this guy is apparently [14:57.960 --> 15:02.960] standing up and people are standing up, this guy McCammon tried to stand up, but he's still [15:02.960 --> 15:07.580] got somewhat of a backwards mindset because, you know, I think reasonable people should [15:07.580 --> 15:11.560] want to take pictures of all the government buildings, all right, you're not inside, and [15:11.560 --> 15:16.600] Randy and I experienced some of this when we were in Fort Lauderdale, they did not want [15:16.600 --> 15:22.160] us taking pictures of the outside of the federal building, okay, the federal courthouse building [15:22.160 --> 15:27.640] and also housed other federal offices, they wouldn't even, they didn't even want us on [15:27.640 --> 15:34.600] the sidewalk of that block with a camera at all, and so we were trying to determine if [15:34.600 --> 15:40.560] that sidewalk was considered public property, if it was city municipal property, they can't [15:40.560 --> 15:45.720] run us off and tell us we can't have a camera there, now if that entire block belonged to [15:45.720 --> 15:50.440] the feds, that's a different story, but we had to go across the street with the camera [15:50.440 --> 15:56.440] and they still didn't want us taking pictures, but we did anyway, all right, so at any rate, [15:56.440 --> 16:03.520] that's where that's at, so Randy, my question to you is what is the deal with, you know, [16:03.520 --> 16:10.360] they don't have any markings on the building, there's no signs and it doesn't look to me [16:10.360 --> 16:15.400] like, I don't know if there's any law that prohibits people of taking buildings and what [16:15.400 --> 16:22.080] about reasonable expectation of privacy, how can these government buildings, how can the [16:22.080 --> 16:25.600] people who own these government buildings and run them expect any reasonable, have any [16:25.600 --> 16:30.800] reasonable expectation of privacy, if they're not going to post signs, don't take pictures. [16:30.800 --> 16:35.560] Let me answer that with a quick question, what does a police state look like? [16:35.560 --> 16:42.360] Exactly, and let me ask another question, what in the heck is the municipal police department [16:42.360 --> 16:48.880] doing getting involved in this situation if it's a defense department building, all right, [16:48.880 --> 16:53.280] we're going to talk about these issues and others on the other side, this is the rule [16:53.280 --> 16:58.840] of law, we'll be right back. [16:58.840 --> 17:03.440] You invest, you buy insurance, you wear your seatbelt, you do things to ensure your family's [17:03.440 --> 17:06.840] future and protection, but why, just in case? [17:06.840 --> 17:09.880] With the current state of affairs, ask yourself, am I ready? [17:09.880 --> 17:15.240] Preparation starts at survivalgearsource.com, survivalgearsource.com has a huge selection [17:15.240 --> 17:20.480] of vital products, emergency survival kits, gas masks, MREs, communication devices, products [17:20.480 --> 17:25.280] for pet care, your car, home, office and school, protect against all natural disasters and [17:25.280 --> 17:29.520] terror attacks that can happen at any time, if you are not prepared, the last place you [17:29.520 --> 17:35.160] want to be is standing in FEMA lines, invest in your future now, visit survivalgearsource.com [17:35.160 --> 17:45.960] or call 877-231-1925, that's 877-231-1925, survivalgearsource.com, prepare for tomorrow [17:45.960 --> 17:46.960] now. [17:46.960 --> 17:53.800] When ordering from survivalgearsource.com, remember to use promo code ruleoflawradio.com, [17:53.800 --> 18:05.440] again that special promo code is ruleoflawradio.com. [18:05.440 --> 18:30.280] Okay, that'd be it, folks. [18:30.280 --> 18:36.280] I can't go in and see, Lord, how they want we to make it easy [18:36.280 --> 18:41.280] They might want we to politically and leave them getting mad and angry [18:41.280 --> 18:46.280] But they might stand up and fight and fight for the freedom and be free [18:46.280 --> 18:50.280] When they like them love slavery and get handouts from the government [18:50.280 --> 18:54.280] So I began to be at the Christian [18:54.280 --> 19:00.280] They don't have a answer [19:00.280 --> 19:04.280] But we ask the Christian [19:04.280 --> 19:07.280] Look what we get [19:07.280 --> 19:09.280] And they don't have the answer [19:09.280 --> 19:11.280] So they slip aside [19:11.280 --> 19:15.280] They might tear you, they might tear me, Lord, they might tear me [19:15.280 --> 19:20.280] Alright, tyranny, they might tear you, they might tear me, they might tear up the country [19:20.280 --> 19:24.280] Alright, we're trying to do something about it here on The Rule of Law [19:24.280 --> 19:29.280] We got Eddie Craig as our new co-host on Mondays and Fridays to talk about traffic [19:29.280 --> 19:34.280] And also give more comments, help us with the commercial side of things [19:34.280 --> 19:40.280] And stuff like that since apparently all these statutes are written to apply to commercial situations [19:40.280 --> 19:44.280] So we got the situation in Arlington [19:44.280 --> 19:52.280] So Randy, what is your comment on the photographing of the exterior of government buildings? [19:52.280 --> 19:58.280] Are there any laws prohibiting such a thing? Are they just trying to bully us? [19:58.280 --> 19:59.280] Randy? [19:59.280 --> 20:02.280] There are no laws that I know of [20:02.280 --> 20:06.280] No federal laws or state laws? They're just trying to bully, it's just policy? [20:06.280 --> 20:09.280] It's just policy as far as I know [20:09.280 --> 20:16.280] And if they interfere with us, we can file suit against them and do all that song and dance [20:16.280 --> 20:21.280] But it's very costly, very time consuming, and almost no one will do it [20:21.280 --> 20:28.280] Well, like in this case of McCammon, he wants a list of the government buildings that are unmarked [20:28.280 --> 20:32.280] Where it is discouraged to take and or prohibited [20:32.280 --> 20:35.280] Which apparently they can't prohibit us if there's no law, but whatever [20:35.280 --> 20:43.280] And they won't give it to him, can he or other people get a list of these government buildings through FOIA? [20:43.280 --> 20:48.280] You can get a list of all the government buildings I suspect through FOIA [20:48.280 --> 20:58.280] But I doubt you're going to get anything that says this particular government building you cannot photograph [20:58.280 --> 20:59.280] Right, because [20:59.280 --> 21:02.280] You can just get a list of government buildings [21:02.280 --> 21:06.280] It would seem, you know, if the police detained me [21:06.280 --> 21:11.280] Like they did in, well they didn't actually detain us in Fort Lauderdale [21:11.280 --> 21:13.280] They just made ominous threats [21:13.280 --> 21:21.280] If they detained me to question me, then that's false imprisonment [21:21.280 --> 21:29.280] Photographing a building, an unmarked building, it's hardly can be construed as probable cause [21:29.280 --> 21:32.280] The way we fix it is to make them pay [21:32.280 --> 21:37.280] But it's hard to get people to do that, it's not a big enough deal [21:37.280 --> 21:41.280] And that's how they schmooze us into a police estate [21:41.280 --> 21:45.280] What's a big deal to me because they want the guy's information, okay [21:45.280 --> 21:48.280] They want his ID, they want to know who it is [21:48.280 --> 21:53.280] Well, they can't demand those kinds of things unless there's probable cause that you've committed a crime [21:53.280 --> 21:58.280] Well, how big a deal is it? Is it 20, 30 thousand dollars worth? [21:58.280 --> 22:04.280] Well, you know what, people are going to have to start realizing that it is a big deal [22:04.280 --> 22:08.280] And I don't see that it should cost 20 or 30 thousand dollars, okay [22:08.280 --> 22:13.280] We need to educate ourselves on how to do things pro se in the court system [22:13.280 --> 22:19.280] We need to educate ourselves to learn how to function in the civil realm, the criminal realm, and the commercial realm [22:19.280 --> 22:25.280] And people are going to have to start realizing that a show your paper society is a big deal, okay [22:25.280 --> 22:28.280] It is a huge deal [22:28.280 --> 22:36.280] That's the point I was making is we tend to look at these things in isolation as well [22:36.280 --> 22:41.280] You know, it ain't that big a deal, so I'm not going to scream bloody murder [22:41.280 --> 22:47.280] My 50-page writ of habeas corpus is about things that came about just that way [22:47.280 --> 22:54.280] We have a 99.6% conviction rate because of things that come about just that way [22:54.280 --> 23:00.280] Well, see, okay, it's true that maybe some things in isolation people may construe as not that big of a deal [23:00.280 --> 23:04.280] But there are some things, even in isolation, that are a huge deal [23:04.280 --> 23:09.280] And I think, and you have to realize, all these kinds of techniques, at least at this level [23:09.280 --> 23:17.280] Maybe at the level that you've been talking about before, like the injustice and the corruption in the state criminal system [23:17.280 --> 23:22.280] As far as the prosecutors and all these people, the way they handle everything that's in violation of law [23:22.280 --> 23:26.280] That may have just sort of evolved over time, but what the feds are doing [23:26.280 --> 23:30.280] This isn't just something that's just sort of haphazard, random, evolving [23:30.280 --> 23:37.280] These are very specific, defined techniques that are written out by psychologists [23:37.280 --> 23:43.280] People like Edward Bernays in the book called Propaganda, and that was way back in the 30s [23:43.280 --> 23:46.280] They have far advanced since then, okay [23:46.280 --> 23:55.280] Very specific psychological techniques that are being implemented at high levels and filtering down through to our local and state law enforcement [23:55.280 --> 24:01.280] And people forget what happened, like with Nazi Germany, because maybe they weren't around back then [24:01.280 --> 24:05.280] Or only their grandparents were, or dead, or whatever, okay [24:05.280 --> 24:08.280] But a show-your-paper society is a big deal [24:08.280 --> 24:20.280] Anytime a law enforcement officer demands your ID when you are not under suspicion or probable cause of committing a crime, that is a big deal [24:20.280 --> 24:26.280] That's the biggest deal there is, all right, because that is the road to tyranny right there [24:26.280 --> 24:30.280] So people just have to learn how to recognize these things [24:30.280 --> 24:36.280] I understand, that's the point I was trying to make, is we want to look at this, well, you know, it's not that big a deal [24:36.280 --> 24:38.280] This is a really big deal [24:38.280 --> 24:43.280] It's a huge deal, okay, so we have to, I don't know what we could do about this situation, Randy [24:43.280 --> 24:52.280] What do you think would be reasonable and prudent, without spending $30,000, for someone like McCammon, what to do in a situation like this [24:52.280 --> 24:57.280] What do you think we should do when these things happen? Unmarked federal buildings, getting harassed [24:57.280 --> 25:01.280] File criminal charges against the chief of police and the officers who did this [25:01.280 --> 25:02.280] For what? [25:02.280 --> 25:05.280] File a complaint for a false imprisonment [25:05.280 --> 25:06.280] They didn't arrest him [25:06.280 --> 25:08.280] Did they stop and question him? [25:08.280 --> 25:12.280] They detained him to question him and they were demanding his ID [25:12.280 --> 25:13.280] That's enough [25:13.280 --> 25:15.280] That's enough for false imprisonment? [25:15.280 --> 25:16.280] Yes [25:16.280 --> 25:19.280] Unlawful restraint at a minimum [25:19.280 --> 25:20.280] Okay [25:20.280 --> 25:25.280] Okay, here we go, okay, we're dealing with definitions of terms [25:25.280 --> 25:30.280] False imprisonment, unlawful restraint are synonyms [25:30.280 --> 25:36.280] We shouldn't mistake that and think that unlawful restraint means something else [25:36.280 --> 25:37.280] It doesn't [25:37.280 --> 25:42.280] In law there is no unlawful restraint, there is false imprisonment [25:42.280 --> 25:48.280] It's all the same one, they want to call it by a different name and make it sound less odious [25:48.280 --> 25:50.280] It's still the same [25:50.280 --> 25:53.280] We file a complaint against the officer [25:53.280 --> 25:55.280] We file a complaint against the chief [25:55.280 --> 25:59.280] We send a tort letter to the city [25:59.280 --> 26:02.280] Telling them how we're going to sue the crap out of them [26:02.280 --> 26:04.280] Whether we actually sue them or not [26:04.280 --> 26:13.280] We file a complaint with the agency that licenses the police officers [26:13.280 --> 26:16.280] Like in Texas it's T-Close [26:16.280 --> 26:19.280] And actually stand up and do something about it [26:19.280 --> 26:22.280] That doesn't take a whole lot [26:22.280 --> 26:30.280] What Eddie and I are working on with the traffic is getting all the motions and documents put together [26:30.280 --> 26:35.280] And a standard lawsuit, we get that put together and make it available to everybody [26:35.280 --> 26:37.280] All they got to do is pull it down, sign it, send it [26:37.280 --> 26:47.280] Okay, well see the thing is we need, this article doesn't tell all the information that would be needed to really know who you needed to file against [26:47.280 --> 26:51.280] Because it just says that he was questioned by uniformed security [26:51.280 --> 26:59.280] Okay, now I don't know if that uniformed security was an off-duty police officer employed by DARPA [26:59.280 --> 27:05.280] Okay, or if this was a federal agent and then they later got the municipal police involved [27:05.280 --> 27:11.280] I have a feeling it was probably an off-duty officer employed as security [27:11.280 --> 27:15.280] Because they're not really telling you [27:15.280 --> 27:18.280] But we have to find out, well who questioned him? [27:18.280 --> 27:21.280] If it was a fed, we need to know who it is [27:21.280 --> 27:30.280] And if it was, then they're not really violating like statutes that govern what police can and cannot do [27:30.280 --> 27:32.280] Yes they are [27:32.280 --> 27:33.280] Oh they are? [27:33.280 --> 27:35.280] Oh yeah [27:35.280 --> 27:41.280] If you're on the federal property photographing the federal building [27:41.280 --> 27:46.280] Then maybe they have some special federal jurisdiction [27:46.280 --> 27:51.280] But like when we were across the street or out on the public sidewalk [27:51.280 --> 27:55.280] That doesn't belong to the feds, that belongs to the state [27:55.280 --> 27:58.280] Yeah but they're not police officers though [27:58.280 --> 28:00.280] I don't care what he is [28:00.280 --> 28:05.280] When he steps off that property off the federal reserve and onto the state reserve [28:05.280 --> 28:09.280] And he restricts me at my liberty, I don't care where he comes from [28:09.280 --> 28:13.280] I'm still going to file on him in the state for false imprisonment [28:13.280 --> 28:16.280] Let him explain it, make all the arguments he wants to [28:16.280 --> 28:20.280] Well good luck because you remember you were telling me all the case law says that [28:20.280 --> 28:26.280] That it's really difficult to file criminal charges against a federal agent in the state criminal court [28:26.280 --> 28:30.280] The feds always want to take the jurisdiction because of the Randy Weaver case [28:30.280 --> 28:32.280] Let them, we'll make them [28:32.280 --> 28:35.280] Let them, okay let them, just start the fight [28:35.280 --> 28:38.280] Just start the fight, we have to do something [28:38.280 --> 28:41.280] Start the fight, get it on record [28:41.280 --> 28:46.280] Now you got all these complaints and stuff on record that they start building up [28:46.280 --> 28:49.280] This is where they begin to have a problem [28:49.280 --> 28:54.280] Because this is how people go before the legislature and get new legislation [28:54.280 --> 28:56.280] This is what Ken keeps talking about [28:56.280 --> 28:59.280] Let's file bar agreements, let's file judicial conduct complaints [28:59.280 --> 29:02.280] Then we can go to our legislators and say look at all these [29:02.280 --> 29:04.280] Yeah exactly [29:04.280 --> 29:06.280] Let's document [29:06.280 --> 29:10.280] Okay and here's the other big problem I have with this whole situation [29:10.280 --> 29:16.280] Okay the feds are using the local police to do their dirty work for them [29:16.280 --> 29:21.280] Okay because they probably damn well know that they could get in a lot of trouble [29:21.280 --> 29:24.280] For doing exactly just this [29:24.280 --> 29:26.280] And that's why the cops are involved [29:26.280 --> 29:31.280] And it probably, it was an off duty police officer that was hired as security [29:31.280 --> 29:38.280] Okay and so they're hanging the local police, the municipal police, the civil police out to dry [29:38.280 --> 29:47.280] To enforce their federal military police state Posse Comitatis tyranny [29:47.280 --> 29:49.280] Let's hand them their heads [29:49.280 --> 29:50.280] Exactly [29:50.280 --> 29:55.280] Alright and when we get back I have one other article to read that is right in line with this [29:55.280 --> 29:57.280] We'll be right back [29:58.280 --> 30:03.280] Cold prices are at historic highs and with the recent pull back this is a great time to buy [30:03.280 --> 30:09.280] With the value of the dollar, risks of inflation, geopolitical uncertainties and instability in world financial systems [30:09.280 --> 30:11.280] I see gold going up much higher [30:11.280 --> 30:14.280] Hi I'm Tim Fry at Roberts and Roberts Brokerage [30:14.280 --> 30:18.280] Everybody should have some of their assets in investment grade precious metals [30:18.280 --> 30:27.280] At Roberts and Roberts Brokerage you can buy gold, silver and platinum with confidence from a brokerage that specialized in the precious metals market since 1977 [30:27.280 --> 30:33.280] If you are new to precious metals we will happily provide you with the information you need to make an informed decision [30:33.280 --> 30:35.280] Whether or not you choose to purchase from us [30:35.280 --> 30:43.280] Also Roberts and Roberts Brokerage values your privacy and will always advise you in the event that we would be required to report any transaction [30:43.280 --> 30:48.280] If you have gold, silver or platinum you'd like to sell we can convert it for immediate payment [30:48.280 --> 30:52.280] Call us at 800-874-9760 [30:52.280 --> 30:58.280] We are Roberts and Roberts Brokerage, 800-874-9760 [31:22.280 --> 31:28.280] We are Roberts Brokerage, 800-874-9760 [31:52.280 --> 31:54.280] The US currency [31:54.280 --> 31:56.280] But no, the economy is getting badly [31:56.280 --> 31:59.280] Wall Street losing a lot of money [31:59.280 --> 32:02.280] You said she only want yen around, she becaus [32:02.280 --> 32:05.280] You the man, she will bully [32:05.280 --> 32:08.280] You said she only want US currency [32:08.280 --> 32:10.280] You the man, she will bully [32:10.280 --> 32:13.280] You said she only want helicopter bonanza [32:13.280 --> 32:16.280] Bonanza man, imprint the money [32:16.280 --> 32:19.280] So that the man work for the women, you see [32:19.280 --> 32:21.280] So that the man work, Mr. Fidibank you see [32:21.280 --> 32:23.280] Okay, we are back [32:23.280 --> 32:28.280] The rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens and Eddie Craig [32:28.280 --> 32:33.280] Okay, I'm going to go on now to the next article [32:33.280 --> 32:39.280] Which kind of falls in line basically with the same line of [32:39.280 --> 32:41.280] Of tyranny you may say [32:41.280 --> 32:44.280] Concerning the militarization [32:44.280 --> 32:50.280] You know, the enmeshment of our military and the police and the whole police state and the surveillance thing [32:50.280 --> 32:53.280] And how, you know, they want to know everything about you [32:53.280 --> 32:58.280] But they don't want you to have any oversight over the government [32:58.280 --> 33:03.280] They want total opaqueness for them and total transparency for us [33:03.280 --> 33:05.280] And it's completely backwards [33:05.280 --> 33:08.280] We are the ones that have the right to privacy, not the government [33:08.280 --> 33:13.280] We are the ones that have the right to total transparency on the part [33:13.280 --> 33:19.280] Concerning our public officials and the governmental entities that we have set up [33:19.280 --> 33:21.280] Okay, we set up the government [33:21.280 --> 33:23.280] It belongs to us [33:23.280 --> 33:26.280] Okay, they are our employees, they are our servants [33:26.280 --> 33:28.280] Not the other way around [33:28.280 --> 33:30.280] Okay, I'm going to read this article [33:30.280 --> 33:33.280] This is a [33:33.280 --> 33:35.280] Last update was June 18th [33:35.280 --> 33:37.280] Okay, so that was last Thursday [33:37.280 --> 33:38.280] Just now finding out about it [33:38.280 --> 33:40.280] News Watch 50 [33:40.280 --> 33:42.280] Okay, out of [33:42.280 --> 33:44.280] Okay, I don't see where [33:44.280 --> 33:49.280] This is in the northern part of this country near Lake Ontario [33:49.280 --> 33:56.280] Okay, this has to do with unmanned drones that have been developed by our military to control our borders [33:56.280 --> 34:00.280] And us, for that matter, they admitted in the article [34:00.280 --> 34:03.280] Okay, I'm going to read this to you [34:03.280 --> 34:05.280] This is on News Watch 50 [34:05.280 --> 34:08.280] You can find this [34:08.280 --> 34:15.280] You can find this actually on Alex Jones' site or just doing a search on Ixquick for unmanned drones [34:15.280 --> 34:18.280] Okay, military, Lake Ontario [34:18.280 --> 34:19.280] Alright, check this out [34:19.280 --> 34:21.280] Predator is the name of the aircraft [34:21.280 --> 34:29.280] A monitor inside an operations trailer shows a close-up view of a boat skimming across the water on Lake Ontario [34:29.280 --> 34:33.280] The image was taken from an unmanned aircraft more than three miles away [34:33.280 --> 34:46.280] A Predator B unmanned aircraft system, UAS, they call them, has been temporarily based at Fort Drum since early June in an experiment by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office [34:46.280 --> 34:59.280] Department of Homeland Security is using the extensive restricted airspace over Fort Drum to test whether the drone could be a good fit along this stretch of the northern border [34:59.280 --> 35:04.280] Okay, pause, and then they show a picture of the thing, of the drone, alright [35:04.280 --> 35:09.280] And then they show a picture of the boat, alright, that they took three miles away, it's very clear [35:09.280 --> 35:12.280] Alright, back to the article [35:12.280 --> 35:19.280] U.S. Customs and Border Protection has five of the aircraft, but so far none of them based permanently in the northeast [35:19.280 --> 35:30.280] The Predator will operate out of Fort Drum for about three weeks for testing and training and to evaluate its use to law enforcement [35:30.280 --> 35:46.280] John Stanton, Director of CPB, Office of Air and Marine and State, Provincial and Local Law Enforcement Agencies were quick to take up the offer of added surveillance of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River [35:46.280 --> 36:00.280] Quote, so while we were flying, we were asked by our partner law enforcement agencies if we would be so kind enough as to be on the lookout for suspicious activities, end quote Stanton says [36:00.280 --> 36:07.280] The surveillance also includes the land border between the U.S. and Canada after the border peels away from St. Lawrence River [36:07.280 --> 36:14.280] By flying in restricted airspace at 19,000 feet, the Predator avoids lower level air traffic, cutting the risk of collisions [36:14.280 --> 36:23.280] The aircraft is virtually identical to Predators used by the military with the exception of lower power engine and no weapons, he said [36:23.280 --> 36:33.280] Okay, so here we go again, alright, an enmeshment between the military and civilian agencies and local agencies [36:33.280 --> 36:48.280] The cops want these guys to send them photographs and notify them of suspicious activity, which loses the chain of custody, by the way, as far as witnessing a crime, alright, which is they can't, they're not allowed to do that according to Constitution [36:48.280 --> 37:08.280] And according to all our principles of jurisprudence, alright, and now you've got customs and border patrol using military aircraft, I mean, they're going to have these things flying around our cities by the police departments pretty soon if we don't stop this [37:08.280 --> 37:22.280] Alright, there are all these enmeshments, okay, the fusion centers, the federalization of our police, alright, the dangling of the carrot of all the money that the feds offer us [37:22.280 --> 37:29.280] Oh, oh, oh, do what we want and we'll give you some unmanned aircraft, we'll teach you how to stick needles in people's arms on the side of the road [37:29.280 --> 37:45.280] This has got to stop, okay, now, Randy, is it illegal if these drones, okay, number one, I don't know if it's illegal or not for customs and border patrol to use these drones, I mean, these drones [37:45.280 --> 38:02.280] I don't know if it's illegal for them to coordinate with the military, it seems like they would be because those are civilian agencies, not military, I know for certain that it would be illegal for the military to be feeding information [38:02.280 --> 38:16.280] like photographs or whatever, surveillance information to our local law enforcement, it seems like it would be illegal for them to feed information from this type of surveillance to customs and border patrol too [38:16.280 --> 38:32.280] Actually, as far as I know, that's not illegal, and your comment about chain of custody is correct, but they don't always want to use the information they get in a particular criminal case [38:32.280 --> 38:52.280] And if the drone sees a boat that matches the description of a boat that's known to be smuggling something across the border, and they tell the police, the police have opportunity to go out and intercept, but they don't need to use that photograph as evidence [38:52.280 --> 39:10.280] Yeah, but the point I'm trying to make is that they never would have found out about that to begin with if the military hadn't gotten involved, see now we're getting into a gray area, alright, the military is not supposed to be involved at all with law enforcement or feeding them information [39:10.280 --> 39:28.280] There may not be a specific law prohibiting it yet, or maybe a gray area law, but just the basic principle of the matter, we cannot allow that to creep in, we just can't, okay, and maybe the founders of our government, this type of technology did not exist back then [39:28.280 --> 39:49.280] The military's purpose is to defend the nation from external attack, it is not to surveil us as citizens, as civilians, and then feed the information to our local police department, even if they don't happen to use it in a specific criminal case, they still use it, and I'm not going to put up with it [39:49.280 --> 40:07.280] We have to draw the line, we can't allow this, I don't know how we can draw this line, we can pass laws to tell them that they cannot surveil us, that they can only use their military for purposes of military functions, which shall not infringe on posse comitatis, that's what [40:07.280 --> 40:27.280] Can I interject for a second? That law is already written, there are 18 specific enumerated powers of the federal government within the United States Constitution, this does not fall within any one of them that I can tell, therefore it is illegal [40:27.280 --> 40:37.280] Any activity the federal government engages in outside of those 18 specific enumerated powers is a usurpation of authority, which makes it unlawful to begin with [40:37.280 --> 40:40.280] There you go, there you go, so what do we do about it then? [40:40.280 --> 40:54.280] Okay, here's the problem, if we say that the government can't provide this information, they'll simply provide the equipment to the police so that the police can gather it themselves with the technology [40:54.280 --> 41:15.280] Well that's illegal too, because if my city council has not approved it, okay, and if there's no law that even authorizes my city council to be able to approve taking federal equipment and funding from the feds, then they've committed a crime too [41:15.280 --> 41:31.280] And so far I have not been able to find a law in the state of Texas that authorizes my city council or my local police chief to take a single dime or a single match box for that matter or a pair of pliers from the feds, okay [41:31.280 --> 41:34.280] That's something I would very much like to see adjudicated [41:34.280 --> 41:37.280] They can only do what we authorize them to [41:37.280 --> 41:51.280] There's another point to that also Debra, right back again to the 18 specific enumerated powers, the public treasury is turned over for the purpose of running the government, not buying favors from the state [41:51.280 --> 41:52.280] That's right [41:52.280 --> 42:05.280] It is an illegal expenditure of money for the federal government to take money from the states and then use that same money to bribe the states with kickbacks to get what they want the states to do on behalf of the federal government [42:05.280 --> 42:11.280] So the feds are committing a crime and the state local officials are committing a crime too [42:11.280 --> 42:31.280] There's no law that authorizes the state officials to take money from the feds and there's no law that authorizes the feds to take the money from the states to begin with to be able to bribe them back so that the feds can try to creep in with their tentacles and initiate surveillance and watch every move we make and then secretly feed the information back to the cops so that they can go on and watch us [42:31.280 --> 42:47.280] They may not use it in a specific criminal case but what they can do is they can watch and see who all shows up at these rallies at the capitol or who's protesting 9-11 in front of building 7 so then they can tell the cops to go watch this guy [42:47.280 --> 43:07.280] I mean this is, I called into Radio Free Oklahoma last week, you guys might want to listen to the archive, this had to do with all this technology being implemented in airports now where there's like a central system and all these cameras and this technology has these algorithms that record your speech pattern [43:07.280 --> 43:30.280] to see if your gait is erratic or whatever that you may be suspicious or nervous or drunk and monitors your heart rate remotely and how much perspiration, how much you're perspiring and your body temperature and all these things is monitored remotely by these devices inside [43:30.280 --> 43:53.280] I'm going to skip this break, I've got to talk about this, this is too important, okay and so what they do, what they do is that they take all this information at a central location and then they call the security on the remote, on the walkie talkies and say go grab this guy and question him etc. etc. because his body temperature is this and that or the other thing [43:53.280 --> 44:11.280] and I called in and I said that's illegal, they can't do that because the officer did not witness him in any suspicious behavior, now what the officer may be able to do is to go and watch that person for a while and see with his own eyes if he's acting suspicious, okay [44:11.280 --> 44:28.280] but if he's just sitting there reading a book or he's not exhibiting any overtly suspicious behavior then that officer has no authority to go and question that person because he did not witness anything, I mean people have all kinds of different body temperatures depending on like their medical condition [44:28.280 --> 44:47.280] they may have diabetes, they may be you know whatever, okay they don't have the authority to just go and start harassing you and demanding your ID and questioning you to find out if they think you're a terrorist or not just because some machine somewhere put out a reading to some central office that you were perspiring too much [44:47.280 --> 45:11.280] okay so we have to stop this here, okay. You think they could tell if I was the one that farted? Probably so Randy, that's the whole problem. The thing is though is what you're stating is again we're getting into an area where it is way too subjective as to what they can and cannot do when they say overtly suspicious activity [45:11.280 --> 45:25.280] they can make up anything they want to fit that category. That's exactly why the emphasis is on probable cause is based upon the fact that someone has or is committing a crime. [45:25.280 --> 45:49.280] Exactly. Not the fact that they're sweating too much, not that the fact that they're fidgeting standing on one foot and drinking another mix of coffee you know that's ludicrous. I mean I think it's illegal for them to you know to be able to look at data that's output from a machine that says you're perspiring too much or your body temperature is too high or the gate of your walk isn't how it's supposed to be [45:49.280 --> 46:00.280] and then to go and then to use that as probable cause to go question you that's not probable cause. Who says that perspiring is probable cause of committing a crime? [46:00.280 --> 46:11.280] It's not probable cause and there's no law or starry thesis supporting that it's probable cause it's just that police for the most part can do whatever they want to. [46:11.280 --> 46:25.280] This is the feds Randy this has to do with security at airports that I'm referring to right now. Especially at airports they can do whatever they want to because people are in a hurry. They can do whatever they want to because we're letting them get away with it okay. [46:25.280 --> 46:45.280] I mean in this airport situation best case scenario that I can even hardly support with the House of Cards legally is that the actual officer who is looking at the readings and who is seeing you on the monitor screen [46:45.280 --> 46:58.280] best case scenario in this situation that officer would have to leave the office and go find you and question you himself and not tell radio to somebody else. [46:58.280 --> 47:08.280] Best case scenario and still perspiring and readouts from machine are not probable cause. They have to witness you engaging in suspicious behavior. [47:08.280 --> 47:25.280] Now I'm not saying that too much perspiration or being read in the face or acting fidgety is not probable cause. A long time at airports and everything else if you're like drenched in sweat and looking like really really nervous that has been used as probable cause. [47:25.280 --> 47:30.280] But just because a machine says so and you don't really look that way that's not no probable cause. [47:30.280 --> 47:47.280] No that's not probable cause in and of itself. That's probable cause to believe that you were exerting yourself. There have to be other things like someone on the other end of the terminal just got shot and somebody matching your description ran in the direction that they find you. [47:47.280 --> 48:02.280] Okay see. They have to have supporting evidence just being sweaty and having a high heart rate and a red face is not probable cause because I know some folks who do that if they walk up three steps. Right. [48:02.280 --> 48:21.280] Well there are two levels of idiocy we could deal with to get things back on track. The first thing is is if the feds are offering kickbacks to the states of money that actually came from the states to begin with and the state should just stop giving them the dad blame money then we don't have to take bribes to get our money back. [48:21.280 --> 48:43.280] Yeah. And I think the second thing is is get a consensus of the states on what the true meaning and purpose of the interstate commerce clause is then beat the federal government to death with it because that is where all these things they're doing. [48:43.280 --> 49:12.280] They garner the power from through a total and complete misapplication and interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. Right. Okay. I have two things to say that. Okay. First thing in regards to this airport situation I people who get harassed and questioned by airport officials because of some readout of some machine and then they were radioed to and told to go question people need to be filing criminal charges against the officer that's questioning them. [49:12.280 --> 49:29.280] First off. All right. And second off regarding the interstate commerce clause situation unfortunately just a few years ago it was like two or three years ago the interstate commerce clause got stretched beyond belief with the the Rach versus Ashcroft case. [49:29.280 --> 49:45.280] Okay. That was the medical marijuana case at California where where Ashcroft sent his federal SWAT teams in and were dragging elderly people that were dying out of their beds and throwing them on the floor breaking their bones and shoving machine guns in their face. [49:45.280 --> 50:03.280] Okay. Terminally ill patients are that that's the only thing that that is helping them heal and helping them stay out of pain and it's authorized under the state of California and it's even regulated and taxed and everything else. Okay. So basically that case didn't really have anything to do with whether pot should be legal or not. [50:03.280 --> 50:18.280] It had to do with the state's rights and the separation between the state's governments and the federal governments and the Solicitor General for the federal government. His whole case was based on this. They use the interstate commerce clause and here's what they said. [50:18.280 --> 50:47.280] They said that it was and it was preemptive. They didn't even prove that a crime had been committed at the federal level. They said if any of this marijuana that is grown for the purpose of California's state authorized marijuana clinics if any of it got outside of California either through seeds or the product itself and cross state lines then it would dilute the overall you know [50:47.280 --> 51:02.280] as far as the laws of supply and demand and the product, the availability of the product. There would be more product on the market at the interstate level and it would affect the prices of marijuana. [51:02.280 --> 51:17.280] It would affect according to the laws of supply and demand and he had these ridiculous charts that showed that the quarter bag of marijuana would be affected by like a tenth of a cent or something stupid. [51:17.280 --> 51:34.280] The CIA would lose all its profit. There you go. But what I'm telling you is that they used the interstate commerce clause and saying how it would affect commerce at the interstate level if any of this marijuana got outside of the state borders of California. [51:34.280 --> 51:52.280] And so that's therefore that's why the fed had jurisdiction in this case even though all the marijuana was grown inside California for one thing and for another thing it wasn't even commerce because the people that are growing it under state law have to donate it to the medical marijuana clinic. [51:52.280 --> 52:06.280] So number one no commerce, number two no interstate but they still the Supreme Court and it was a five to four ruling and right after that that's when Sandra Day O'Connor said you know what I've had enough I'm out of here. [52:06.280 --> 52:16.280] And that's when Mr. Mosley thanks to Jonathan Mosley again organized orchestrated that propaganda campaign to get John Roberts in on the Supreme Court. [52:16.280 --> 52:26.280] So you know it's a real sore spot with me that Rach versus Ashcroft case and Mosley and Sandra Day O'Connor leaving and John Roberts coming in. It was all because of that. [52:26.280 --> 52:35.280] So Eddie that's the most recent Supreme Court case that I have been able to come up with regarding the interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. [52:35.280 --> 52:47.280] So you see the pictures of Ron Paul sitting at his desk up on Capitol Hill right. He's got that basket with the sign on it says don't steal the government hates competition. [52:47.280 --> 52:53.280] Well the same thing applies to don't grow marijuana the government hates competition. [52:53.280 --> 53:05.280] Randy's right that this came down because they were afraid if it did hit outside of California and they could start pushing it outside the borders it would cut down on the price of what the government sells their imported drugs for. [53:05.280 --> 53:12.280] Well it would also put the pharmaceutical industry out of business because it cures so many diseases including cancer. [53:12.280 --> 53:16.280] I don't know about the cure part but you won't be feeling it as much. [53:16.280 --> 53:27.280] Well no it's been it's been shown in a lot of studies it's just they're not FDA approved studies because they always get shut down by SWAT teams before they get to finish the study to be approved by the FDA. [53:27.280 --> 53:35.280] Well the FDA pamphlet specifically states that no disease can be cured by anything except a manufactured drug. [53:35.280 --> 53:36.280] Yeah right. [53:36.280 --> 53:44.280] They do that to suppress any type of natural cure or anything else and force it out of the market before it ever gets toe hold. [53:44.280 --> 53:46.280] Exactly. [53:46.280 --> 54:04.280] So so Randy what do you think about what I was saying about the airports and people filing criminal charges against these airport security guards that are questioning them when all they did was get a radio at their walkie talkie from somebody who read a read out from a machine in the central office. [54:04.280 --> 54:09.280] The only way we're going to do this is take the individuals to task. [54:09.280 --> 54:15.280] If the individual has to worry about being sued then we'll get some traction. [54:15.280 --> 54:28.280] And what what would we do about you know these military drones and people at the feds using that information surveillance information to feed information to the local law enforcement. [54:28.280 --> 54:31.280] I mean we've got to file criminal charges on that too. [54:31.280 --> 54:32.280] I don't think we can. [54:32.280 --> 54:33.280] I don't think that's criminal. [54:33.280 --> 54:36.280] Eddie just said it was. [54:36.280 --> 54:39.280] There's nothing that authorizes them to do that. [54:39.280 --> 54:44.280] Well yeah but there's also nothing making it criminal. [54:44.280 --> 54:47.280] There's nothing that author authorizes them to take money. [54:47.280 --> 54:48.280] It's called bribery. [54:48.280 --> 54:54.280] I would say if I went to the police chiefs and offered him money to implement a program I would get taken down for bribery. [54:54.280 --> 54:56.280] But if the feds do it it's OK. [54:56.280 --> 55:06.280] There's nothing that authorizes him to take that funding unless city council approves the money and there's nothing that authorizes city council to take money from the feds either. [55:06.280 --> 55:08.280] They can't do things they're not authorized to. [55:08.280 --> 55:12.280] Even then it wouldn't matter if city council approved it or not. [55:12.280 --> 55:16.280] The public treasury is not for the public dole. [55:16.280 --> 55:21.280] It would be reached into by any individual state for its own selfish purpose. [55:21.280 --> 55:26.280] Approval by the city would be an ultra-virus act. [55:26.280 --> 55:28.280] Act outside the limits of their authority. [55:28.280 --> 55:29.280] That's what I'm saying. [55:29.280 --> 55:35.280] I think we could go to fraud or misuse of funds. [55:35.280 --> 55:38.280] What about official oppression? [55:38.280 --> 55:41.280] Well you're not necessarily them doing that. [55:41.280 --> 55:46.280] That's not something that affects an individual personally. [55:46.280 --> 55:50.280] It would be if they're questioning me at the off at the airport. [55:50.280 --> 55:53.280] Oh OK. Questioning the airport. I thought you were talking about funds. [55:53.280 --> 55:54.280] Well the funds too. [55:54.280 --> 56:06.280] It would be if they used if that surveillance from the feds was used to go out and take away someone's rights specifically like this guy in the boat or whatever. [56:06.280 --> 56:12.280] Yeah see there he could file against the officers whoever detained him. [56:12.280 --> 56:22.280] But not the guy who was running the drone who took the photos and gave them to the other folks because all he did was take photos and give them to somebody else. [56:22.280 --> 56:36.280] Now if he's using federal funds to do that and then giving the result of the use of the federal funds to the state you might be able to go after him for misuse of funds. [56:36.280 --> 56:40.280] That's what I was trying to get to. [56:40.280 --> 56:49.280] See and what about going after the police chief who takes the information from the feds or you know see the thing is there's a chain of custody here. [56:49.280 --> 57:03.280] OK. Somebody takes the picture and then the feds give it to the central office at the police and then the police tell the cop to go out and arrest somebody and see you've got all these breaks in the chain of custody of concerning probable cause [57:03.280 --> 57:12.280] and the fact that the officer who actually arrests you never witnessed you engaging in any any activity that could be construed as criminal. [57:12.280 --> 57:15.280] And that's already forbidden. [57:15.280 --> 57:27.280] The problem with going after these when we're using creative methods is we it's easier for the court to render a really bogus decision. [57:27.280 --> 57:47.280] I was just reading really bogus decisions today and I did say I was doing research on the issue of the magistrates the authority of magistrates and I got a hit on a case where the courts ruled that [57:47.280 --> 57:53.280] the indictment trumps everything. [57:53.280 --> 57:59.280] And it was a true it was a 2008 case. So it was a real recent case. [57:59.280 --> 58:06.280] It was Mortland versus State of Texas Russell Mortland filing. [58:06.280 --> 58:09.280] I got a hit on him on Lexus. [58:09.280 --> 58:14.280] It's really a bogus decision now it stands we have to fight it. [58:14.280 --> 58:24.280] So when we stand out and do something unusual we can wind up getting really bad decisions that increases our hump we have to get over. [58:24.280 --> 58:26.280] Yeah, going to that little more detail on the other side. [58:26.280 --> 58:29.280] Yeah, we're about to go to break Randy from everything. [58:29.280 --> 58:39.280] And it looks like we've got one of our affiliates on the line to Mark from Michigan Mark we're going to take your call when we get back on the other side. [58:39.280 --> 58:45.280] So actually I'm sorry Mark from Wisconsin that's our that's our affiliate this is Mark from Michigan he's one of our listeners. [58:45.280 --> 58:59.280] We'll be right back on the other side this is and callers we like to call it in common or if you have any other topics you want to discuss feel free to bring up new subjects 512-646-1984 we'll be right back. [58:59.280 --> 59:13.280] Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary the affordable easy to understand 4 CD course that will show you how in 24 hours step by step. [59:13.280 --> 59:17.280] If you have a lawyer know what your lawyer should be doing. [59:17.280 --> 59:21.280] If you don't have a lawyer know what you should do for yourself. [59:21.280 --> 59:26.280] Thousands have won with our step by step course and now you can too. [59:26.280 --> 59:32.280] Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience. [59:32.280 --> 59:41.280] Even if you're not in a lawsuit you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts. [59:41.280 --> 59:50.280] You'll receive our audio classroom video seminar tutorials forms for civil cases pro se tactics and much more. [59:50.280 --> 01:00:00.280] Please visit WTPRN.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ. [01:00:00.280 --> 01:00:16.280] You are listening to the rule of law radio network at ruleoflawradio.com live free speech talk radio at its best. [01:00:16.280 --> 01:00:20.280] Get your mouth out of your, out me all. Get out me all that man. [01:00:20.280 --> 01:00:22.280] Who you gonna do in here? [01:00:22.280 --> 01:00:24.280] Tell you that I'm home. [01:00:24.280 --> 01:00:25.280] Just stop in me man. [01:00:25.280 --> 01:00:27.280] We're gonna sing this. [01:00:27.280 --> 01:00:29.280] You get in me man. [01:00:29.280 --> 01:00:31.280] Six of us sing half a dozen. [01:00:31.280 --> 01:00:33.280] Are you ready? [01:00:33.280 --> 01:00:35.280] Come on man. [01:00:35.280 --> 01:00:37.280] Come on. [01:00:37.280 --> 01:00:39.280] People. [01:00:39.280 --> 01:00:47.280] Never, never get your dog out of me yard. [01:00:47.280 --> 01:00:55.280] Never, never get your dog out of me yard. [01:00:55.280 --> 01:00:57.280] I try to do the sleeping. [01:00:57.280 --> 01:00:59.280] The dog out of my pocket. [01:00:59.280 --> 01:01:01.280] You stop in me when I'm relaxing. [01:01:01.280 --> 01:01:03.280] Never, never get your dog out of me yard. [01:01:03.280 --> 01:01:09.280] I give him some of my ketchup, chocolate and cheese. [01:01:09.280 --> 01:01:11.280] How could I control him? [01:01:11.280 --> 01:01:13.280] No one can do backing. [01:01:13.280 --> 01:01:15.280] Never come a arguing. [01:01:15.280 --> 01:01:17.280] Tell me how did I listen? [01:01:17.280 --> 01:01:19.280] Tell me never was acting. [01:01:19.280 --> 01:01:21.280] Six of us sing half a dozen. [01:01:21.280 --> 01:01:23.280] Same thing same thing. [01:01:23.280 --> 01:01:25.280] Never get your dog out of me yard. [01:01:25.280 --> 01:01:27.280] Hold me back yard. [01:01:27.280 --> 01:01:29.280] You're disturbing me. [01:01:29.280 --> 01:01:35.280] Never get your dog out of me yard. [01:01:35.280 --> 01:01:43.280] Never, never get your dog out of me yard. [01:01:43.280 --> 01:01:45.280] Okay, we are back. [01:01:45.280 --> 01:01:47.280] This is the rule of law. [01:01:47.280 --> 01:01:50.280] Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens and Eddie Craig. [01:01:50.280 --> 01:01:56.280] We're taking your calls now for the rest of the show to discuss any of the topics that we've previously discussed [01:01:56.280 --> 01:01:59.280] or if you want to bring up new subjects. [01:01:59.280 --> 01:02:07.280] Right now we are going to go to Mark from Michigan. [01:02:07.280 --> 01:02:08.280] Mark, thanks for calling in. [01:02:08.280 --> 01:02:10.280] What's on your mind tonight? [01:02:10.280 --> 01:02:12.280] Hey, guys. [01:02:12.280 --> 01:02:17.280] I've actually wandered into something interesting. [01:02:17.280 --> 01:02:19.280] I spent a day in federal court. [01:02:19.280 --> 01:02:25.280] I have a cousin who spent some time in state prison on drug charges. [01:02:25.280 --> 01:02:29.280] Now the feds picked up the case. [01:02:29.280 --> 01:02:35.280] He got let out last year, had done about two years on this, [01:02:35.280 --> 01:02:42.280] and the feds picked him up on the same case with different charges. [01:02:42.280 --> 01:02:44.280] Now they've gone to conspiracy. [01:02:44.280 --> 01:02:49.280] Well, I gave Tony a call and Tony was incredible. [01:02:49.280 --> 01:02:51.280] He gave me some great documents. [01:02:51.280 --> 01:02:57.280] But the newest twist is while we're sitting in federal court, [01:02:57.280 --> 01:03:04.280] there's an agent calling around harassing people, harassing his relatives, [01:03:04.280 --> 01:03:09.280] saying it doesn't matter what the judge says, doesn't matter what the attorney says. [01:03:09.280 --> 01:03:11.280] I got him now. [01:03:11.280 --> 01:03:17.280] So I'm thinking that on Wednesday I need to show up with some criminal charges, [01:03:17.280 --> 01:03:24.280] just kind of wanted to bounce it off, you guys, wondering what you think, [01:03:24.280 --> 01:03:28.280] you know, what you might bring in for criminal charges [01:03:28.280 --> 01:03:32.280] and what your experience might be in federal court with, you know, [01:03:32.280 --> 01:03:37.280] resistances or techniques in the federal realm. [01:03:37.280 --> 01:03:44.280] Well, we need something a little more specific to be able to respond effectively. [01:03:44.280 --> 01:03:54.280] What did the officer do that the judge might find either reprehensible [01:03:54.280 --> 01:03:59.280] or as disrespectful to the court? [01:03:59.280 --> 01:04:03.280] The federal judge is not going to like that because he thinks he's somewhere [01:04:03.280 --> 01:04:10.280] between heaven and earth, but real close to heaven. [01:04:10.280 --> 01:04:15.280] Well, I'm sure we can slide in that kind of statement. [01:04:15.280 --> 01:04:23.280] I told the person that got the call to fill out, you know, just write it all down. [01:04:23.280 --> 01:04:28.280] And I was planning on, you know, drawing up an affidavit, having her sign it, [01:04:28.280 --> 01:04:32.280] and we'll attach it to the criminal charge. [01:04:32.280 --> 01:04:36.280] You know, it was just the typical bullying stuff. [01:04:36.280 --> 01:04:41.280] He didn't turn himself in, which was a lie because we were sitting [01:04:41.280 --> 01:04:44.280] in the federal court building at the time. [01:04:44.280 --> 01:04:48.280] You know, I make the rules kind of thing. [01:04:48.280 --> 01:04:56.280] Again, I didn't get the full picture, but I am going in on Wednesday with him again. [01:04:56.280 --> 01:05:00.280] Well, let me suggest one thing to think about. [01:05:00.280 --> 01:05:09.280] Petition for an emergency restraining order against this officer and ask the judge [01:05:09.280 --> 01:05:16.280] to order the officer to stop telling everyone that he doesn't care what the judge says. [01:05:16.280 --> 01:05:19.280] He's going to do whatever he wants to. [01:05:19.280 --> 01:05:21.280] That's a good one. [01:05:21.280 --> 01:05:30.280] I suggest that the judge may call him in there and give him a legal black eye. [01:05:30.280 --> 01:05:36.280] Because I found out that in court sometimes, and yet it doesn't go anywhere, [01:05:36.280 --> 01:05:41.280] but sometimes just making the allegation is enough to throw them off, [01:05:41.280 --> 01:05:43.280] is enough to make them back off. [01:05:43.280 --> 01:05:45.280] I tell you, it goes somewhere. [01:05:45.280 --> 01:05:49.280] Eddie and I have both been in the military, and we know how this works. [01:05:49.280 --> 01:05:56.280] If you're a chump on the bottom, and being a chump on the bottom, [01:05:56.280 --> 01:06:02.280] you cause primary difficulty for the Godhead on the top, [01:06:02.280 --> 01:06:08.280] and he has to pay attention to it, you got a problem. [01:06:08.280 --> 01:06:10.280] He's going to work you over. [01:06:10.280 --> 01:06:13.280] And everybody, it goes on your record. [01:06:13.280 --> 01:06:16.280] And when it comes time for promotions, [01:06:16.280 --> 01:06:20.280] they're going to look at the guy that never caused them any problem. [01:06:20.280 --> 01:06:24.280] They're not necessarily interested in Serpico, [01:06:24.280 --> 01:06:30.280] the guy who comes in there and does the great job of busting all the dirty cops. [01:06:30.280 --> 01:06:34.280] Serpico did not make chief of police from doing that. [01:06:34.280 --> 01:06:37.280] He wound up not a policeman. [01:06:37.280 --> 01:06:41.280] They're going to look at the guys who never caused any problem, [01:06:41.280 --> 01:06:45.280] you never had to pay any attention to them, you never had to answer for them. [01:06:45.280 --> 01:06:51.280] So you make the higher-ups start having to answer for the lower-downs, [01:06:51.280 --> 01:06:55.280] and that gets the mark on the heavy side. [01:06:55.280 --> 01:06:56.280] Well, that's a good one. [01:06:56.280 --> 01:07:01.280] Now, in terms of, and I remember somebody else had dealt with this, [01:07:01.280 --> 01:07:05.280] and I won't go into details, but I know you guys know it, [01:07:05.280 --> 01:07:11.280] where the feds danced around and talked to people they knew, [01:07:11.280 --> 01:07:12.280] but they never charged them. [01:07:12.280 --> 01:07:17.280] Now, difference is, you know, obviously he has a charge. [01:07:17.280 --> 01:07:24.280] And because he wasn't charged, he never had standing to go after these guys. [01:07:24.280 --> 01:07:29.280] Now, realistically, we're not going to get into tort actions or any of that stuff. [01:07:29.280 --> 01:07:34.280] I mean, I'm barely able to lead him along with what's going on. [01:07:34.280 --> 01:07:44.280] But is there a way to be on the restraining order to kind of shove him into place? [01:07:44.280 --> 01:07:52.280] I suggest if you ask the judge for a restraining order against this policeman, this fed, [01:07:52.280 --> 01:07:55.280] the judge is going to say, what the heck is going on here, [01:07:55.280 --> 01:08:02.280] especially if you accuse him of treating the court with disrespect. [01:08:02.280 --> 01:08:07.280] If he tells somebody he don't care what the judge says, [01:08:07.280 --> 01:08:14.280] I think the judge will straighten him out on that score really, really fast. [01:08:14.280 --> 01:08:16.280] And that seems to be the biter. [01:08:16.280 --> 01:08:20.280] I don't think you'd pay attention to it if you didn't put that statement in there. [01:08:20.280 --> 01:08:22.280] It probably wouldn't. [01:08:22.280 --> 01:08:24.280] But that would get it. [01:08:24.280 --> 01:08:31.280] And you'd be surprised how little it takes if you do it artfully. [01:08:31.280 --> 01:08:33.280] No, that's a real good point. [01:08:33.280 --> 01:08:35.280] Now, one other quick question. [01:08:35.280 --> 01:08:39.280] They charged him, I haven't run this by Tony yet, [01:08:39.280 --> 01:08:43.280] but they charged him under two different counts. [01:08:43.280 --> 01:08:50.280] One of the statutes was listed as 21 U.S.C. 846. [01:08:50.280 --> 01:08:52.280] Now, when I looked that up, [01:08:52.280 --> 01:08:58.280] it wasn't the same statute that was listed on this indictment. [01:08:58.280 --> 01:09:05.280] The indictment's about two years old, a little over two years, about two and a half. [01:09:05.280 --> 01:09:10.280] So I'm wondering if maybe the code changed, [01:09:10.280 --> 01:09:16.280] or do you think that's enough, that's a fatal flaw for them if, in fact, [01:09:16.280 --> 01:09:18.280] it isn't the right statute? [01:09:18.280 --> 01:09:19.280] Are they pursuing? [01:09:19.280 --> 01:09:22.280] Okay, you're saying that the federal indictment is two years old? [01:09:22.280 --> 01:09:24.280] Yeah, yeah. [01:09:24.280 --> 01:09:26.280] It may be too old to prosecute. [01:09:26.280 --> 01:09:31.280] Yeah, statute of limitations may have run out on it. [01:09:31.280 --> 01:09:35.280] Do you know in the federal if that would be the case? [01:09:35.280 --> 01:09:43.280] Yeah, the federal still has a speedy trial, but be careful how you do this. [01:09:43.280 --> 01:09:48.280] If you raise the, you need to raise the issue, but as late as you can, [01:09:48.280 --> 01:09:54.280] you want the statute of limitations on the crime itself to run out. [01:09:54.280 --> 01:09:57.280] If you claim that the indictment's too old, [01:09:57.280 --> 01:10:00.280] they'll just dismiss and go in and get another indictment. [01:10:00.280 --> 01:10:01.280] Okay. [01:10:01.280 --> 01:10:04.280] But if you time it so that the statute of limitation [01:10:04.280 --> 01:10:09.280] to make the allegation in the first place has run, [01:10:09.280 --> 01:10:15.280] then you go in and move for speedy trial, dismiss for speedy trial, [01:10:15.280 --> 01:10:17.280] then they can't refile. [01:10:17.280 --> 01:10:22.280] I noticed what they did was, on the indictment I got in my hand, [01:10:22.280 --> 01:10:29.280] it was about 12 defendants listed, 12 or 17 or someone like that. [01:10:29.280 --> 01:10:31.280] But when I called up this morning, [01:10:31.280 --> 01:10:34.280] they said that they had gotten it somewhere in the neighborhood of 75. [01:10:34.280 --> 01:10:38.280] So my thought was that they've been kind of dragging this out [01:10:38.280 --> 01:10:40.280] and getting people to turn on each other. [01:10:40.280 --> 01:10:41.280] Yeah, that's what they do. [01:10:41.280 --> 01:10:46.280] They charge as much as they can, and then they go in there and use them for leverage. [01:10:46.280 --> 01:10:48.280] If they don't have a good case, [01:10:48.280 --> 01:10:53.280] you'd be smart to tell them to go screw themselves and give them nothing, [01:10:53.280 --> 01:10:56.280] because most of the time it's going to be bluster. [01:10:56.280 --> 01:10:58.280] We're getting the callers really stacking up. [01:10:58.280 --> 01:10:59.280] I really have to move along. [01:10:59.280 --> 01:11:00.280] Okay. [01:11:00.280 --> 01:11:05.280] Hit this guy to get you a good synopsis, kind of a brief summary, [01:11:05.280 --> 01:11:08.280] and then call us back maybe Friday or something when we've got time, [01:11:08.280 --> 01:11:11.280] and we'll go through the synopsis quickly, [01:11:11.280 --> 01:11:13.280] and then we'll give you a better idea how to handle it. [01:11:13.280 --> 01:11:14.280] Okay. [01:11:14.280 --> 01:11:15.280] Okay. [01:11:15.280 --> 01:11:16.280] Thanks so much, guys. [01:11:16.280 --> 01:11:17.280] All right. [01:11:17.280 --> 01:11:18.280] Thank you. [01:11:18.280 --> 01:11:19.280] Thanks, Mark. [01:11:19.280 --> 01:11:20.280] Okay. [01:11:20.280 --> 01:11:21.280] Yes, we've got a bunch of callers on the line. [01:11:21.280 --> 01:11:23.280] We're going to take all your calls. [01:11:23.280 --> 01:11:26.280] Our guest, Steve Skidmore, has called in. [01:11:26.280 --> 01:11:29.280] And, Steve, if you would just sit tight for a second, [01:11:29.280 --> 01:11:33.280] I want to go to Michael in Texas next because he's a first-time caller, [01:11:33.280 --> 01:11:38.280] and then we'll take Tim after we talk to Steve. [01:11:38.280 --> 01:11:41.280] All right, Michael, thank you for calling in first-time caller. [01:11:41.280 --> 01:11:42.280] What's on your mind? [01:11:42.280 --> 01:11:43.280] Hi, Randy. [01:11:43.280 --> 01:11:44.280] Hi, Deborah. [01:11:44.280 --> 01:11:45.280] Hi, Eddie. [01:11:45.280 --> 01:11:51.280] Yeah, just a real quick comment and then a quick question. [01:11:51.280 --> 01:12:02.280] Texans for Accountable Government are meeting week from today at Bagpipes [01:12:02.280 --> 01:12:08.280] up on Burnet and 183 in the north, [01:12:08.280 --> 01:12:13.280] I'm sorry, the southwest corner of a shopping center across the street from the Exxon. [01:12:13.280 --> 01:12:18.280] And they're going to be discussing the, [01:12:18.280 --> 01:12:23.280] it's going to be the first time that Canadian and Mexican troops are coming into the Austin area [01:12:23.280 --> 01:12:27.280] working with APD, and they're starting to introduce that. [01:12:27.280 --> 01:12:35.280] So I know just as a concerned citizen that I'm, you know, [01:12:35.280 --> 01:12:38.280] like I'm on the same page with everything you said and passed out, [01:12:38.280 --> 01:12:40.280] that I'm not okay with it. [01:12:40.280 --> 01:12:45.280] And so that's what I'm going to do about it is get off my butt and start getting, [01:12:45.280 --> 01:12:48.280] you know, start getting locally active. [01:12:48.280 --> 01:12:54.280] That's the only thing I know how, you know, know what to do right now. [01:12:54.280 --> 01:13:03.280] So anyway, and my question is I'm looking to activate my UCC CPA, my contract trust account, [01:13:03.280 --> 01:13:08.280] and I'm wondering if there's anybody here locally or anybody listening who might be able to help me [01:13:08.280 --> 01:13:15.280] get that UCC-1 file? [01:13:15.280 --> 01:13:18.280] You can look on the Web site. [01:13:18.280 --> 01:13:26.280] It's called nationalrepublicregistry.com. [01:13:26.280 --> 01:13:27.280] Okay. [01:13:27.280 --> 01:13:32.280] I was hoping to find somebody local, somebody who could help me physically walk through the process. [01:13:32.280 --> 01:13:35.280] Of just filing the UCC-1 form itself? [01:13:35.280 --> 01:13:36.280] Yes. [01:13:36.280 --> 01:13:39.280] The UCC-1 form, I can help you with that. [01:13:39.280 --> 01:13:42.280] I just filed mine. [01:13:42.280 --> 01:13:45.280] I know how to fill it out properly. [01:13:45.280 --> 01:13:49.280] And I can tell you some of the things that you need to do right now on the air. [01:13:49.280 --> 01:13:55.280] The very first thing you need to do is you need to find yourself a private PO box, [01:13:55.280 --> 01:13:58.280] not necessarily a PO box at the post office. [01:13:58.280 --> 01:14:01.280] In my case, I went ahead and did both, okay, [01:14:01.280 --> 01:14:07.280] and you have to have a separate mailing address for your straw man as you do for your natural man, [01:14:07.280 --> 01:14:10.280] yourself as a living soul, okay? [01:14:10.280 --> 01:14:14.280] And so it's advisable to get a private PO box. [01:14:14.280 --> 01:14:22.280] And what that is, some businesses offer private PO boxes, and they're actually a PO box, [01:14:22.280 --> 01:14:29.280] but instead of the address being PO box, blah, blah, it's a street address, okay? [01:14:29.280 --> 01:14:33.280] You don't receive packages there because like FedEx and UPS and things like that [01:14:33.280 --> 01:14:37.280] will not deliver packages to a PO box, okay? [01:14:37.280 --> 01:14:42.280] And so what I would recommend is going, you're in Austin, right? [01:14:42.280 --> 01:14:43.280] Yes. [01:14:43.280 --> 01:14:46.280] Planet K on South Amar has private PO boxes. [01:14:46.280 --> 01:14:47.280] Okay. [01:14:47.280 --> 01:14:48.280] All right? [01:14:48.280 --> 01:14:51.280] And you get a, and they're having a discount right now until the end of the summer. [01:14:51.280 --> 01:14:53.280] It's a very reasonable price. [01:14:53.280 --> 01:14:57.280] And so you do that, and you still have to fill out forms. [01:14:57.280 --> 01:14:59.280] You have to bring two forms of ID, all right? [01:14:59.280 --> 01:15:07.280] I use my passport and my driver's license, and then you get a PO box with a street address, [01:15:07.280 --> 01:15:12.280] and you use that as your address for yourself as a living soul. [01:15:12.280 --> 01:15:18.280] And then you can either use your home address for the address of your straw man, [01:15:18.280 --> 01:15:24.280] or you can get another mailing address, either a private, another private PO box or a PO box. [01:15:24.280 --> 01:15:31.280] So what Jerry and I did was we each got separate PO boxes at the post office [01:15:31.280 --> 01:15:35.280] to be the address for our straw man on our UCC-1 forms, [01:15:35.280 --> 01:15:40.280] and then we're sharing the private box address. [01:15:40.280 --> 01:15:44.280] I actually have three of them in different locations. [01:15:44.280 --> 01:15:47.280] I've got like five PO boxes now, okay? [01:15:47.280 --> 01:15:51.280] So you use that as your natural man address, okay? [01:15:51.280 --> 01:15:52.280] Okay. [01:15:52.280 --> 01:15:57.280] And then do that first, and then we can discuss it more. [01:15:57.280 --> 01:15:58.280] Okay. [01:15:58.280 --> 01:16:01.280] Should I call back or drop the email or? [01:16:01.280 --> 01:16:03.280] Call back after you do that. [01:16:03.280 --> 01:16:08.280] And the reason that we did the PO box at the post office thing as well is so that, [01:16:08.280 --> 01:16:12.280] just for privacy's sake, so you don't have to use your home address on everything. [01:16:12.280 --> 01:16:13.280] Okay. [01:16:13.280 --> 01:16:14.280] I'm just looking to a new place. [01:16:14.280 --> 01:16:17.280] So am I going to have to have my current address, [01:16:17.280 --> 01:16:22.280] my new address on my driver's license or is that not a big deal? [01:16:22.280 --> 01:16:26.280] I think you have to change the address on your driver's license [01:16:26.280 --> 01:16:28.280] within like six weeks of moving. [01:16:28.280 --> 01:16:29.280] Okay. [01:16:29.280 --> 01:16:30.280] Okay? [01:16:30.280 --> 01:16:31.280] Got it. [01:16:31.280 --> 01:16:34.280] All right, so you may want to do that first and get all that squared away, [01:16:34.280 --> 01:16:39.280] and then, you know, like I said, there's several different places in town. [01:16:39.280 --> 01:16:43.280] I have like three different private PO boxes in different locations, [01:16:43.280 --> 01:16:49.280] one for the network, one for myself as a natural man, and other reasons too. [01:16:49.280 --> 01:16:52.280] So get yourself some PO boxes at separate locations, [01:16:52.280 --> 01:16:55.280] and then give me a call back and I'll help you walk through the rest of the process. [01:16:55.280 --> 01:16:57.280] All right, we'll be right back. [01:16:57.280 --> 01:16:58.280] All right, thanks. [01:16:58.280 --> 01:16:59.280] You invest. [01:16:59.280 --> 01:17:00.280] You buy insurance. [01:17:00.280 --> 01:17:01.280] You wear your seatbelt. [01:17:01.280 --> 01:17:04.280] You do things to ensure your family's future and protection. [01:17:04.280 --> 01:17:05.280] But why? [01:17:05.280 --> 01:17:06.280] Just in case? [01:17:06.280 --> 01:17:09.280] With the current state of affairs, ask yourself, am I ready? [01:17:09.280 --> 01:17:12.280] Preparation starts at survivalgearsource.com. [01:17:12.280 --> 01:17:16.280] Survivalgearsource.com has a huge selection of vital products, [01:17:16.280 --> 01:17:20.280] emergency survival kits, gas masks, MREs, communication devices, [01:17:20.280 --> 01:17:23.280] products for pet care, your car, home, office, and school. [01:17:23.280 --> 01:17:27.280] Protect against all natural disasters and terror attacks that can happen at any time. [01:17:27.280 --> 01:17:31.280] If you are not prepared, the last place you want to be is standing in FEMA lines. [01:17:31.280 --> 01:17:33.280] Invest in your future now. [01:17:33.280 --> 01:17:38.280] Visit survivalgearsource.com or call 877-231-1925. [01:17:38.280 --> 01:17:42.280] That's 877-231-1925. [01:17:42.280 --> 01:17:44.280] Survivalgearsource.com. [01:17:44.280 --> 01:17:46.280] Prepare for tomorrow now. [01:17:46.280 --> 01:17:49.280] When ordering from survivalgearsource.com, [01:17:49.280 --> 01:17:53.280] remember to use promo code ruleoflawradio.com. [01:17:53.280 --> 01:18:09.280] Again, that special promo code is ruleoflawradio.com. [01:18:23.280 --> 01:18:28.280] I was blindsided but now I can see your back. [01:18:28.280 --> 01:18:33.280] You put the fear in my pocket, took the money from my hand. [01:18:33.280 --> 01:18:42.280] Ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick again. [01:18:42.280 --> 01:18:51.280] Ain't gonna fool me. [01:18:51.280 --> 01:18:56.280] Okay, not gonna fool us with the same old tricks again. [01:18:56.280 --> 01:19:00.280] This is Deborah Stevens, the rule of law. [01:19:00.280 --> 01:19:07.280] We're here with Eddie Craig and, of course, Randy Kelton, the rule of law. [01:19:07.280 --> 01:19:12.280] We're taking your calls, 512-646-1984. [01:19:12.280 --> 01:19:16.280] All right, we are going to go now to a good friend of mine, Steve Skidmore. [01:19:16.280 --> 01:19:21.280] He was a host on WTPRN, the show Endless Fraud Detection. [01:19:21.280 --> 01:19:23.280] Him and his partner Neil. [01:19:23.280 --> 01:19:26.280] And we're going to be trying to get him up on the air here on Rule of Law Radio. [01:19:26.280 --> 01:19:32.280] And he wants to discuss some mortgage issues and foreclosures and eviction hearings. [01:19:32.280 --> 01:19:33.280] Steve, thanks for calling in. [01:19:33.280 --> 01:19:34.280] Thanks for holding. [01:19:34.280 --> 01:19:36.280] Oh, that's fine, Deborah. [01:19:36.280 --> 01:19:37.280] I enjoyed your rant, first of all. [01:19:37.280 --> 01:19:38.280] Thanks. [01:19:38.280 --> 01:19:39.280] You made some good points. [01:19:39.280 --> 01:19:46.280] I mean, you know, we've got far, far too much government and or military, take your pick, [01:19:46.280 --> 01:19:48.280] if it's not the same thing, intrusion in our lives. [01:19:48.280 --> 01:19:50.280] And you're right, it's got to stop. [01:19:50.280 --> 01:19:51.280] It's got to stop. [01:19:51.280 --> 01:19:52.280] And what they're doing is illegal. [01:19:52.280 --> 01:19:53.280] That's the point. [01:19:53.280 --> 01:19:54.280] For sure it is. [01:19:54.280 --> 01:19:55.280] And that's a good reason to stop it. [01:19:55.280 --> 01:20:02.280] Okay, Steve, why don't you give us a little bit of a background here concerning the situation with the foreclosure [01:20:02.280 --> 01:20:05.280] and now the eviction hearing and all this stuff. [01:20:05.280 --> 01:20:11.280] Just give us a little background on your situation so that Randy and Eddie, we can help you with what filings you need to do next. [01:20:11.280 --> 01:20:18.280] Okay, without trying to give up too much information and possibly prejudicing a case, [01:20:18.280 --> 01:20:23.280] I've been fighting with my mortgage company for better than a year now. [01:20:23.280 --> 01:20:28.280] Texas, unfortunately, is a nonjudicial foreclosure state. [01:20:28.280 --> 01:20:38.280] Therefore, about the only time that a homeowner can actually be heard is right there at the very end of it, [01:20:38.280 --> 01:20:41.280] and that would be the eviction hearing. [01:20:41.280 --> 01:20:48.280] I am set for a hearing of that nature in the JP court tomorrow morning. [01:20:48.280 --> 01:20:54.280] I'm supposed to appear to answer to this cause of action that's being brought against me. [01:20:54.280 --> 01:21:06.280] Now, last Friday we filed a suit in the district court in Travis County. [01:21:06.280 --> 01:21:10.280] There were some errors in the paperwork. [01:21:10.280 --> 01:21:20.280] So today my soft little wife ran her back down there to the courthouse and filed an amendment to our original complaint. [01:21:20.280 --> 01:21:25.280] That would be, I guess, the setup for my particular situation. [01:21:25.280 --> 01:21:31.280] The question I've got for you guys is probably, Randy, let me put this one to you. [01:21:31.280 --> 01:21:41.280] Is there any restriction on the time of filing that could kind of turn the thumb screws on me here in the JP court, [01:21:41.280 --> 01:21:49.280] being that I filed Friday and we had already previously had a hearing set. [01:21:49.280 --> 01:21:54.280] Now, the hearing was originally set for the 16th, [01:21:54.280 --> 01:22:00.280] and I filed for a motion of extension of time and got it moved to the 23rd, which is tomorrow morning. [01:22:00.280 --> 01:22:09.280] But we didn't file our case in the higher court until Friday, and then today we filed an amendment. [01:22:09.280 --> 01:22:23.280] Is there going to be, can I expect the judge to say, well, I can't hear your, we've got to hear this because you didn't file your case in the higher court in a timely manner? [01:22:23.280 --> 01:22:32.280] Oh, wait. How does the higher court affect the JP court? [01:22:32.280 --> 01:22:40.280] I'm not sure. In my mind, I'm thinking that the higher court would take jurisdiction. [01:22:40.280 --> 01:22:45.280] No, no, that's not what I'm saying. What's the nature of the filing in the higher court? [01:22:45.280 --> 01:22:52.280] How would the ruling in a higher court affect the lower court? [01:22:52.280 --> 01:23:03.280] Well, okay, I think to answer the question that you're asking is that if the lower court were to hear anything in the eviction hearing, [01:23:03.280 --> 01:23:08.280] it would prejudice the case that's filed in the higher court. [01:23:08.280 --> 01:23:16.280] Then you should be able to move for an emergency restraining order against the lower court, [01:23:16.280 --> 01:23:28.280] asking the court to go to the district court and ask them to enter an order staying all proceedings in the JP court [01:23:28.280 --> 01:23:40.280] until the matters in the district court are adjudicated, if the action in the lower court would make the action in the district court moot. [01:23:40.280 --> 01:23:48.280] The court has power to do that to keep the lower court from interfering with the jurisdiction of the higher court. [01:23:48.280 --> 01:24:05.280] Okay, well, being that we're supposed to appear at 9 o'clock in the morning for the eviction, [01:24:05.280 --> 01:24:11.280] we're not going to have time to go to the district and file a motion for a restraining order on the lower court. [01:24:11.280 --> 01:24:17.280] Well, yeah, you can do that first thing in the morning, and this is how a restraining order works. [01:24:17.280 --> 01:24:19.280] It doesn't have to be real complex. [01:24:19.280 --> 01:24:25.280] You just tell the higher court that because of the filing in your court, [01:24:25.280 --> 01:24:35.280] any action in the lower court would interfere with your action and potentially make your jurisdiction moot. [01:24:35.280 --> 01:24:43.280] You ask for an emergency restraining order to stay all proceedings and maintain that it will cause no harm other than minor inconvenience. [01:24:43.280 --> 01:24:57.280] The minor inconvenience caused to the litigants would be far less than the corruption of justice that would be caused by this court moving ahead. [01:24:57.280 --> 01:25:04.280] And when you file emergency restraining order, you take it and give it to the clerk, and she'll put a case number on it. [01:25:04.280 --> 01:25:11.280] And then she'll either give it back to you or take it to the judge herself, and you go right to the judge. [01:25:11.280 --> 01:25:16.280] She looks at it right then and either signs it or doesn't. [01:25:16.280 --> 01:25:23.280] Okay, but Randy, I think what he's saying is that his hearing is at 9 a.m., and the court doesn't even open until 9. [01:25:23.280 --> 01:25:33.280] So how is he supposed to go and file an emergency restraining order when he's got to be in the court hearing right at 9 a.m., is the question. [01:25:33.280 --> 01:25:44.280] You put someone else in the court to tell the justice, the JP, and if this is Travis County, it's going to be Herb Evans. [01:25:44.280 --> 01:25:45.280] Steve. [01:25:45.280 --> 01:25:46.280] Okay. [01:25:46.280 --> 01:26:00.280] You put someone in the JP court to inform the judge that you are at the district court petitioning for restraining order and ask the JP court for a temporary recess. [01:26:00.280 --> 01:26:06.280] Well, see, what he could do is maybe he could go file it while his wife is there or something like that. [01:26:06.280 --> 01:26:07.280] What do you say, Steve? [01:26:07.280 --> 01:26:10.280] And Steve, there's a lot of background noise on your end right now. [01:26:10.280 --> 01:26:12.280] Yeah, let me turn a couple of fans off. [01:26:12.280 --> 01:26:14.280] Okay. Yeah, that would be very helpful. [01:26:14.280 --> 01:26:17.280] Here's something else I just found, Randy, that may be of interest. [01:26:17.280 --> 01:26:23.280] Subchapter B, jurisdiction and power, Section 27.031, jurisdiction. [01:26:23.280 --> 01:26:27.280] How much is still owed on the mortgage? [01:26:27.280 --> 01:26:29.280] Is it in excess of $10,000? [01:26:29.280 --> 01:26:30.280] Yes. [01:26:30.280 --> 01:26:35.280] If it is, then the JP court has no jurisdiction according to this section. [01:26:35.280 --> 01:26:36.280] Oh, wow. [01:26:36.280 --> 01:26:37.280] What was this? [01:26:37.280 --> 01:26:44.280] 27.031, government code, and I'll read it to you here. [01:26:44.280 --> 01:26:45.280] Jurisdiction. [01:26:45.280 --> 01:26:52.280] In addition to the jurisdiction and powers provided by the Constitution and other law, the justice court has original jurisdiction of, [01:26:52.280 --> 01:27:04.280] and sub-bottom three, foreclosures of mortgages and enforcement of liens on personal property in cases in which the amount in controversy is otherwise within the justice court's jurisdiction. [01:27:04.280 --> 01:27:18.280] In this case, it specifically says in sub-bottom one, civil matters in which exclusive jurisdiction is not in the district or county court and in which the amount in controversy is not more than $10,000, exclusive of interest. [01:27:18.280 --> 01:27:22.280] But does that apply to the eviction hearing also? [01:27:22.280 --> 01:27:23.280] Yes, civil matter. [01:27:23.280 --> 01:27:24.280] It does civil matter. [01:27:24.280 --> 01:27:26.280] Well, it certainly does. [01:27:26.280 --> 01:27:32.280] And sub-bottom four, cases arising under Chapter 707, transportation code. [01:27:32.280 --> 01:27:33.280] All right. [01:27:33.280 --> 01:27:34.280] And that's all there is. [01:27:34.280 --> 01:27:37.280] You're probably going to tell me that that matter is not before the court. [01:27:37.280 --> 01:27:40.280] The matter before the court is the eviction. [01:27:40.280 --> 01:27:53.280] The eviction is not before the, if the matter of the eviction involves an amount of money greater than $10,000, you can make the claim that the court has no subject matter jurisdiction. [01:27:53.280 --> 01:28:01.280] Once a challenge to the jurisdiction is made, the court has to prove that it has jurisdiction. [01:28:01.280 --> 01:28:07.280] So, and a challenge to jurisdiction can be made at any time. [01:28:07.280 --> 01:28:23.280] So he can challenge the jurisdiction to the JP directly, and he can also be filing in the district court at the same time or previously, five minutes earlier, a restraining order against the hearing also. [01:28:23.280 --> 01:28:24.280] Right. [01:28:24.280 --> 01:28:37.280] But now, be aware the JP is not going to want to admit he doesn't have jurisdiction, so be prepared to have somebody stand in for that because they're going to resist that fact heartily. [01:28:37.280 --> 01:28:41.280] Should he have a motion to disqualify the JP in hand? [01:28:41.280 --> 01:28:45.280] He should have a challenge to jurisdiction in hand. [01:28:45.280 --> 01:28:47.280] Challenge to jurisdiction. [01:28:47.280 --> 01:28:51.280] And what if the JP refuses to withdraw? [01:28:51.280 --> 01:28:56.280] What if he has the eviction hearing anyway and authorizes the sheriff to evict him, then what? [01:28:56.280 --> 01:28:57.280] He's asking outside of his authority. [01:28:57.280 --> 01:28:58.280] Yeah. Okay. [01:28:58.280 --> 01:29:07.280] If it's me in the courtroom, when the court rules summarily that it has subject matter jurisdiction, I ask the bailiff to arrest the judge. [01:29:07.280 --> 01:29:16.280] But if you're not ready to go that far, then you move for a continuance to give you time to file an interlocutory appeal. [01:29:16.280 --> 01:29:32.280] And you coverage your basis so that anything they do, then you include in your emergency restraining order is a request that all action by the JP be stayed until the restraining order is over. [01:29:32.280 --> 01:29:34.280] Okay. Listen, we're going to break. [01:29:34.280 --> 01:29:35.280] Steve, stay on the line. [01:29:35.280 --> 01:29:37.280] We're going to talk some more about this when we get back on the other side. [01:29:37.280 --> 01:29:38.280] Okay. [01:29:38.280 --> 01:29:42.280] We have other callers, too, but we're not going to rush the situation because the eviction hearing is tomorrow. [01:29:42.280 --> 01:29:47.280] We've got Tim and another caller to screen the call in the break and we will be right back. [01:29:47.280 --> 01:29:48.280] This is the rule of law. [01:29:48.280 --> 01:29:52.280] Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens. [01:29:52.280 --> 01:29:53.280] Go to ruleoflawradio.com. [01:29:53.280 --> 01:29:55.280] I just updated the website. [01:29:55.280 --> 01:29:56.280] Go check it out. [01:29:56.280 --> 01:29:58.280] We'll be right back. [01:29:58.280 --> 01:30:00.280] Gold prices are at historic highs. [01:30:00.280 --> 01:30:03.280] And with the recent pullback, this is a great time to buy. [01:30:03.280 --> 01:30:11.280] With the value of the dollar, risks of inflation, geopolitical uncertainties and instability in world financial systems, I see gold going up much higher. [01:30:11.280 --> 01:30:14.280] Hi, I'm Tim Fry at Roberts and Roberts Brokerage. [01:30:14.280 --> 01:30:18.280] Everybody should have some of their assets in investment grade precious metals. [01:30:18.280 --> 01:30:27.280] At Roberts and Roberts Brokerage, you can buy gold, silver and platinum with confidence from a brokerage that specialized in the precious metals market since 1977. [01:30:27.280 --> 01:30:35.280] If you are new to precious metals, we will happily provide you with the information you need to make an informed decision whether or not you choose to purchase from us. [01:30:35.280 --> 01:30:43.280] Also, Roberts and Roberts Brokerage values your privacy and will always advise you in the event that we would be required to report any transaction. [01:30:43.280 --> 01:30:48.280] If you have gold, silver and platinum you'd like to sell, we can convert it for immediate payment. [01:30:48.280 --> 01:30:52.280] Call us at 800-874-9760. [01:30:52.280 --> 01:30:54.280] We're Roberts and Roberts Brokerage. [01:30:54.280 --> 01:30:58.280] 800-874-9760. [01:30:58.280 --> 01:31:06.280] Yeah, who you want to chip? Who you take me for? Free Tony. Who you want to chip? I'm not free Tony. You can't chip me. [01:31:06.280 --> 01:31:12.280] I'm sorry. Don't let them chip you in the morning. Chip you in the evening. Put a chip in your body. [01:31:12.280 --> 01:31:17.280] And then when you go computer reading, you can't hide me except I'm nobody. [01:31:17.280 --> 01:31:22.280] When I say chip in your mom, chip in your daddy. Chip in your grandpa and your grandma. [01:31:22.280 --> 01:31:30.280] Chip in me. Chip in me. Chip in your B.A.B. Chip in your family, whole family. Chip in your dad and the kids around me. [01:31:30.280 --> 01:31:37.280] Chip in the beef and you still go eat it. Chip in the fish, they're all in the sea. Chip in the stock and the wheel around me. [01:31:37.280 --> 01:31:42.280] You must be mankind gone too crazy. They're taking the thing and they want to read it. [01:31:42.280 --> 01:31:47.280] So, security, they better read. Number when they give me, they rip it off the seat. [01:31:47.280 --> 01:31:53.280] When the morning, chip you in the evening. Chip you all the time. Experiment on mankind. [01:31:53.280 --> 01:32:01.280] But man, you know, say them lies. Well, we don't want no chip. Man, you have your body. Freedom or something. Man, you fight for me. [01:32:01.280 --> 01:32:08.280] You should tell them the 3-D. Constitution set us free. Don't let them put no chip in your body. [01:32:08.280 --> 01:32:15.280] Put no chip in your dog or chat you see. Put no chip in your cow and go eat it. Put no chip in the fish and go eat it. [01:32:15.280 --> 01:32:18.280] All in the wheel and the shark in the sea. [01:32:18.280 --> 01:32:24.280] Alright, we are back. The rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens here with Eddie Craig. [01:32:24.280 --> 01:32:33.280] Okay, Steve, Randy wanted to get a few more details from you before we proceed a little bit further. [01:32:33.280 --> 01:32:38.280] Yeah, I need to better understand, you know, we're right at the last minute. [01:32:38.280 --> 01:32:46.280] So I'm looking at a way to hammer the justice of the peace into submission. [01:32:46.280 --> 01:32:54.280] And they're easier than you think when you give them good law and are ready to sting them when they ignore it. [01:32:54.280 --> 01:33:04.280] Since we have the $10,000 limit, if the amount in controversy over the eviction, [01:33:04.280 --> 01:33:10.280] the only reason the eviction is occurring is because of a dollar amount in controversy. [01:33:10.280 --> 01:33:16.280] So whether they can win it or not is not important in the end. [01:33:16.280 --> 01:33:19.280] They're not going to expect it tomorrow. [01:33:19.280 --> 01:33:28.280] And a challenge to the jurisdiction since it can be made at any time it gets around the seven-day notice limit. [01:33:28.280 --> 01:33:33.280] So you file a challenge to the jurisdiction. The judge turns it down. [01:33:33.280 --> 01:33:41.280] The first thing you do is admonish the judge that the judge only has authority to apply the law to the facts. [01:33:41.280 --> 01:33:48.280] A failure to do so places the judge himself at personal risk of civil litigation. [01:33:48.280 --> 01:33:56.280] Therefore, you move the court for a continuance to grant you time to file an interlocutory appeal. [01:33:56.280 --> 01:34:08.280] That moving ahead on the eviction when there's a question of jurisdiction will cause a harm that cannot be undone, [01:34:08.280 --> 01:34:17.280] while staying the eviction will cause no great harm to any party. [01:34:17.280 --> 01:34:27.280] Most likely that'll stop the judge, but that's why if I had more clear details on how this got to the last minute, [01:34:27.280 --> 01:34:38.280] and are there any issues wherein the trial judge failed to follow law? [01:34:38.280 --> 01:34:43.280] Let me give you, for instance, I had a case in Waco where a woman was evicted. [01:34:43.280 --> 01:34:52.280] I went and looked in the court record. There was a filing with the court, but the original filing had no certificate of service. [01:34:52.280 --> 01:34:57.280] That blows everything right out of the ballpark. [01:34:57.280 --> 01:35:01.280] Even if they served her, there's no certificate of service in the court record. [01:35:01.280 --> 01:35:09.280] Therefore, the original pleadings are insufficient to invoke subject matter jurisdiction in the court. [01:35:09.280 --> 01:35:13.280] We want to keep looking for things that go to subject matter jurisdiction. [01:35:13.280 --> 01:35:25.280] Is there anything in the pleadings or in the procedures that might go to subject matter jurisdiction? [01:35:25.280 --> 01:35:32.280] Steve, you there? You might have lost Steve. [01:35:32.280 --> 01:35:33.280] Hello? [01:35:33.280 --> 01:35:36.280] Oh, gotcha. Someone muted you. [01:35:36.280 --> 01:35:37.280] Ah, okay. [01:35:37.280 --> 01:35:40.280] Wasn't me. I always get blamed for this. [01:35:40.280 --> 01:35:45.280] That's fine. Leave the buttons alone, Debra. [01:35:45.280 --> 01:35:52.280] No, I'm not sure. I don't know. [01:35:52.280 --> 01:36:04.280] Without giving away anything that's real personal or critical, have you filed any motions that you felt like the judge adjudicated improperly? [01:36:04.280 --> 01:36:08.280] No. [01:36:08.280 --> 01:36:09.280] No. [01:36:09.280 --> 01:36:12.280] Are you talking about previous to this? [01:36:12.280 --> 01:36:13.280] Yes. [01:36:13.280 --> 01:36:28.280] No. We did before the day before the purported sale of the property that I'm in right now, we went to a temporary restraining order hearing, [01:36:28.280 --> 01:36:37.280] where I had my backside handed to me for, well, I couldn't present my case properly. So, you know, bad pro se, bad pro se. [01:36:37.280 --> 01:36:43.280] Bad pro se. Well, we get that sometimes. And that's why we need to work hard on our documentation. [01:36:43.280 --> 01:36:44.280] Right. [01:36:44.280 --> 01:37:06.280] We stand on the documentation. Okay. In the original pleadings, who is the petitioner? Is it the company that gave the loan? [01:37:06.280 --> 01:37:08.280] Yes, it's the servicer. [01:37:08.280 --> 01:37:24.280] Okay. Let me give, okay, on the top where it states who the plaintiff is, is that the same name that's signed at the bottom? [01:37:24.280 --> 01:37:27.280] You mean, okay, in the petition? [01:37:27.280 --> 01:37:32.280] Is there an attorney or a law firm who signed the documents? [01:37:32.280 --> 01:37:36.280] You mean for the eviction? [01:37:36.280 --> 01:37:42.280] I'm looking for who is actually representing the eviction. [01:37:42.280 --> 01:37:44.280] Barrett Daffin. [01:37:44.280 --> 01:37:48.280] Is that a mortgage company or a law firm? [01:37:48.280 --> 01:37:59.280] It's both. They are a law firm claiming to represent the, in the eviction, would be the plaintiff. [01:37:59.280 --> 01:38:05.280] And they also purport in all of their paperwork that they are a debt collector attempting to collect the debt. [01:38:05.280 --> 01:38:11.280] And have they established by contract that they are the servicer of the debt? [01:38:11.280 --> 01:38:14.280] The law firm? No. [01:38:14.280 --> 01:38:32.280] Then that goes to, have they established in some way in the paperwork that they have standing to represent the debtor, the creditor? [01:38:32.280 --> 01:38:36.280] Do you mean like a ratification or commencement? [01:38:36.280 --> 01:38:47.280] No. Well, contract, something showing, okay, agency cannot be proven from the mouth of the agent. [01:38:47.280 --> 01:38:50.280] It must be proven from the mouth of the principal. [01:38:50.280 --> 01:38:56.280] Do they have something with a signature of the principal on it showing that they are agent? [01:38:56.280 --> 01:38:58.280] Have you done a Rule 12 challenge? [01:38:58.280 --> 01:39:01.280] A Rule 12 challenge I'm unfamiliar with. [01:39:01.280 --> 01:39:07.280] A Rule 12 challenge challenges the person standing before the court. [01:39:07.280 --> 01:39:19.280] Who are you and how do you have agency to represent the principal if you're not the principal himself? [01:39:19.280 --> 01:39:25.280] Has he proven that he has agency or has he simply claimed agency? [01:39:25.280 --> 01:39:28.280] Like the power of attorney? [01:39:28.280 --> 01:39:32.280] Yep, or a contract. [01:39:32.280 --> 01:39:36.280] Something signed by the creditor. [01:39:36.280 --> 01:39:38.280] I haven't seen anything like that. [01:39:38.280 --> 01:39:48.280] If he doesn't have anything signed by the creditor, he has no standing to bring an issue before the court, goes to subject matter jurisdiction. [01:39:48.280 --> 01:39:50.280] Okay. [01:39:50.280 --> 01:39:54.280] That's one challenge you can make. [01:39:54.280 --> 01:40:04.280] So then in the proceeding tomorrow, I should ask then that the plaintiff's representation provide to the court [01:40:04.280 --> 01:40:10.280] and to me a copy of their power of attorney from the plaintiff. [01:40:10.280 --> 01:40:14.280] No, don't ask for a power of attorney. Don't ask for anything in particular. [01:40:14.280 --> 01:40:15.280] Okay. [01:40:15.280 --> 01:40:17.280] Ask for his authority to represent it. [01:40:17.280 --> 01:40:21.280] Yes. This is called being artfully vague. [01:40:21.280 --> 01:40:27.280] This goes to standing. You challenge subject matter jurisdiction of the court, [01:40:27.280 --> 01:40:36.280] claiming that petitioner lacks standing to represent the principal. [01:40:36.280 --> 01:40:44.280] Since the principal's not here in the court, who stands in for the principal and by what authority? [01:40:44.280 --> 01:40:50.280] So you prepare a challenge to the jurisdiction. That's a Rule 12 challenge. [01:40:50.280 --> 01:40:56.280] Yeah. Generally, I have the understanding that generally the bank representatives [01:40:56.280 --> 01:41:00.280] or in this case mortgage company representatives never show up in court. [01:41:00.280 --> 01:41:02.280] It's always just the lawyers. [01:41:02.280 --> 01:41:16.280] Yeah. So now you want to see from those lawyers where they got authority to stand before the court as an agent for the principal. [01:41:16.280 --> 01:41:19.280] And if they don't have it, I should move to dismiss. [01:41:19.280 --> 01:41:26.280] You move to disqualify the court. You move the court to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. [01:41:26.280 --> 01:41:27.280] Right. [01:41:27.280 --> 01:41:36.280] And make it clear to the court that you would be glad to re-adjudicate this with someone who actually has standing to come before the court. [01:41:36.280 --> 01:41:39.280] That will give us something to hang our hat on. [01:41:39.280 --> 01:41:45.280] Yeah. This question doesn't have anything to do with the nature of any debt that may be owed. [01:41:45.280 --> 01:41:46.280] Right. [01:41:46.280 --> 01:41:55.280] This only has to do with the person standing before the court being able to show that they have standing to be here. [01:41:55.280 --> 01:42:00.280] That goes to subject matter jurisdiction. It can be brought at any time. [01:42:00.280 --> 01:42:07.280] Now we go to the magistrate, to the JP. [01:42:07.280 --> 01:42:12.280] If since it's in Travis County, the JP is going to be learned counsel. [01:42:12.280 --> 01:42:19.280] So, learned counsel is going to understand subject matter jurisdiction. [01:42:19.280 --> 01:42:20.280] Okay. [01:42:20.280 --> 01:42:28.280] And most likely, if it's a justice of the peace, that they're also a practicing attorney. [01:42:28.280 --> 01:42:30.280] They still carry a bar card. [01:42:30.280 --> 01:42:31.280] Uh-huh. [01:42:31.280 --> 01:42:49.280] So, keep this always foremost in mind. A trial judge has a ministerial duty to apply the law as it comes to him to the facts he develops in the case. [01:42:49.280 --> 01:42:57.280] If he fails to properly apply the law to the facts, you can't sue him for that. [01:42:57.280 --> 01:43:02.280] For the decision he makes that doesn't properly apply the law to the facts. [01:43:02.280 --> 01:43:10.280] However, he violates a ministerial duty to properly apply the law to the facts, and that you can sue him for. [01:43:10.280 --> 01:43:11.280] Uh-huh. [01:43:11.280 --> 01:43:17.280] And you can also disqualify him for that, for failing to properly apply the law to the facts. [01:43:17.280 --> 01:43:33.280] So, if he rules against you, then you move for the court to disqualify itself for cause, because the court has just created a tort of which you have authority to adjudicate against the court. [01:43:33.280 --> 01:43:39.280] Therefore, the court has a monetary interest in the outcome of the case to move to disqualify him. [01:43:39.280 --> 01:43:40.280] Uh-huh. [01:43:40.280 --> 01:43:50.280] I don't talk about these shorts. [01:43:50.280 --> 01:44:04.280] Okay, all right, we're going to break. We'll be right back. [01:44:04.280 --> 01:44:16.280] Aerial spray, chemtrails, the modified atmosphere, heavy metals and pesticides, carcinogens and chemical fibers all falling from the sky. [01:44:16.280 --> 01:44:29.280] You have a choice to keep your body clean. Detoxify with micro plant powder from hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608. [01:44:29.280 --> 01:44:34.280] It's odorless and tasteless and used in any liquid or food. [01:44:34.280 --> 01:44:38.280] Protect your family now with micro plant powder. [01:44:38.280 --> 01:44:42.280] Cleaning out heavy metals, parasites and toxins. [01:44:42.280 --> 01:44:47.280] Order it now for daily intake and stock it now for long-term storage. [01:44:47.280 --> 01:45:05.280] Hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608 today. [01:45:05.280 --> 01:45:19.280] Hello? Oh, man, in jail? You're broken? Oh, man, I'm broken. [01:45:19.280 --> 01:45:28.280] Some things in this world I will never understand. Some things I realize foolish. [01:45:28.280 --> 01:45:36.280] Somebody's gonna police that policeman. Somebody's gonna police the bully. [01:45:36.280 --> 01:45:45.280] There's always a room at the top of the hill. I hear things are great minds and it's lonely left too. [01:45:45.280 --> 01:45:53.280] They're wishing it was more than opposition to fail. They know that if they don't do it, somebody will. [01:45:53.280 --> 01:46:02.280] Some things in this world I will never understand. Some things I realize foolish. [01:46:02.280 --> 01:46:10.280] Somebody's gonna police that policeman. Somebody's gonna police the bully. [01:46:10.280 --> 01:46:20.280] I know they will. Yeah, they're gonna put the bill. I know they will. [01:46:20.280 --> 01:46:26.280] Okay, we are back. The rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens. [01:46:26.280 --> 01:46:35.280] And we are here talking with Steve. Steve, there's a bunch of noise on your end. [01:46:35.280 --> 01:46:46.280] I'm being a steward. Okay, all right, good. Okay, Randy, you have the situation framed up, so can you continue and let them know what's next? [01:46:46.280 --> 01:46:55.280] Right, we were talking about subject matter jurisdiction. The petitioner has to have standing. [01:46:55.280 --> 01:47:01.280] If he doesn't have standing, then he cannot invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. [01:47:01.280 --> 01:47:09.280] Right, but he has no cause. So you bring the issue, and as a rule, because you're pro se, [01:47:09.280 --> 01:47:16.280] the magistrate's gonna think, you know, he's probably gonna be learned in counsel, and he's gonna figure he can just blow you off. [01:47:16.280 --> 01:47:22.280] And I suggest that if he does, the first thing you do is ask the bailiff to arrest the judge. [01:47:22.280 --> 01:47:32.280] Now, he's an attorney, and he will never have had that happen to him, and he knows that under no circumstances would an attorney ask for a thing like that. [01:47:32.280 --> 01:47:43.280] But maintain that the judge has just violated a law relating to his office, in that he has attempted to exert an authority he does not specifically have. [01:47:43.280 --> 01:47:53.280] And therefore, and in the process, denied you in a right, and that violates 39.03 penal code. It's a class A misdemeanor in Texas. [01:47:53.280 --> 01:48:01.280] I want you to arrest him. And obviously, the bailiff is gonna refuse to arrest the judge. [01:48:01.280 --> 01:48:02.280] Sure, naturally. [01:48:02.280 --> 01:48:06.280] And you get in this little, you don't get real aggressive with the bailiff. [01:48:06.280 --> 01:48:13.280] You say, well, you know, life is filled with little decisions. We all get to make some. It's your turn. [01:48:13.280 --> 01:48:17.280] Now, you know I can't sue this judge for what he does on the bench. [01:48:17.280 --> 01:48:26.280] They have ruled that you can't sue a judge for what he does on the bench at his leisure and possession of all the facts. [01:48:26.280 --> 01:48:36.280] But you, on the other hand, acting in the heat of the moment at the point of a gun, these judges didn't give that same protection to you. [01:48:36.280 --> 01:48:43.280] So I can sue you for what this judge has just done. So decide, Bubba. [01:48:43.280 --> 01:48:49.280] And he's gonna say, well, I'm not gonna arrest the judge. But then you ask the judge to stand down from the bench. [01:48:49.280 --> 01:48:51.280] You're accused. [01:48:51.280 --> 01:49:01.280] Well, when it goes to subject matter jurisdiction, you remind him that absent subject matter jurisdiction, [01:49:01.280 --> 01:49:13.280] you are without any immunity of any kind. And therefore, you have created a tort action that rings in tort and rings in contort. [01:49:13.280 --> 01:49:23.280] Contort because he, the judge, has entered into a contract with the state to uphold the laws, to uphold the laws and protect the Constitution. [01:49:23.280 --> 01:49:24.280] Right. [01:49:24.280 --> 01:49:31.280] And you are the intended third party beneficiary of that contract. Therefore, you have standing to adjudicate it. [01:49:31.280 --> 01:49:35.280] And you can sue him personally. [01:49:35.280 --> 01:49:46.280] So now that I can sue you personally, you have a monetary interest in the case. And that disqualifies you as a matter of law. [01:49:46.280 --> 01:49:47.280] Beautiful. [01:49:47.280 --> 01:49:52.280] He hears that, he's gonna say, this guy's setting me up. [01:49:52.280 --> 01:49:54.280] Right. [01:49:54.280 --> 01:50:03.280] That's probably the best I can give you. If you have some more, it's gonna be too late in the morning. I wish I had more time. [01:50:03.280 --> 01:50:10.280] Well, Steve, listen, why don't you, I'm gonna put you up to the guest bridge and maybe we could talk to you a little bit after the show, [01:50:10.280 --> 01:50:14.280] because I wanted to get to some of our other callers before the end. Is that okay? [01:50:14.280 --> 01:50:15.280] Yes, please do. [01:50:15.280 --> 01:50:18.280] Okay, great. Okay, just hang on the line. We'll talk to you some more after the show. [01:50:18.280 --> 01:50:19.280] Okay. [01:50:19.280 --> 01:50:20.280] I got something for Russell. [01:50:20.280 --> 01:50:28.280] Okay, okay. We're gonna go now to Tim in Texas. He's been patiently holding for a long time. Tim, thanks for holding. What's on your mind tonight? [01:50:28.280 --> 01:50:33.280] Good evening, folks. I'm kind of gotten a little bit of a jam here. [01:50:33.280 --> 01:50:39.280] I'm working on a case that I've talked to you guys about before that has to do with a probate case with a cousin of a family. [01:50:39.280 --> 01:50:47.280] And I'm looking for either any of you guys that might be able to help me or somebody else that I can talk to who has experience in probate cases. [01:50:47.280 --> 01:51:02.280] Oh, I don't have it. I'm a due process guy. Oh, next caller. We need to go to the next caller. Russell Mortland has experience in probate. [01:51:02.280 --> 01:51:10.280] Okay, if this is Russell Mortland, it just says Russ in Texas. I don't know if that's Russell Mortland. Russ, thanks for calling in. What's on your mind tonight? [01:51:10.280 --> 01:51:12.280] Ain't that the only Russell in Texas? [01:51:12.280 --> 01:51:18.280] That's the only. Babyface Mortland, it couldn't be anybody else. [01:51:18.280 --> 01:51:30.280] Okay, first of all, on that foreclosure from Steve, was the foreclosure, was the house owned by one party or two parties? In other words, husband and wife? [01:51:30.280 --> 01:51:34.280] Good question. [01:51:34.280 --> 01:51:45.280] Because people in the state of Texas and attorneys in the state of Texas have a bad deal about sending notice to the husband and then put all other occupants. [01:51:45.280 --> 01:51:50.280] And according to the 2008 Texas Jurisprudence, that is not service. [01:51:50.280 --> 01:52:09.280] And if they came into the JP court stating, you know, Joe Smith and all other occupants of such-and-such property located at such-and-such street for a forcible detainer eviction, then they are, without naming the other party and serving the other party, then they got an illegal action. [01:52:09.280 --> 01:52:16.280] Yes, and insufficient service goes to subject matter jurisdiction. Steve, you there? [01:52:16.280 --> 01:52:18.280] Yes. [01:52:18.280 --> 01:52:24.280] There is more than one person's name on the mortgage. [01:52:24.280 --> 01:52:25.280] On the mortgage? [01:52:25.280 --> 01:52:30.280] Yes, on the mortgage it specifically names me and my wife. [01:52:30.280 --> 01:52:33.280] Are both you and your wife living together in the house? [01:52:33.280 --> 01:52:35.280] Absolutely. [01:52:35.280 --> 01:52:42.280] Russell, if they're both living in the house, is that any other occupant's sufficient notice? [01:52:42.280 --> 01:52:45.280] No. [01:52:45.280 --> 01:52:52.280] So what you have to do is look at your paperwork and see how they – like they filed it. [01:52:52.280 --> 01:52:59.280] In other words, your name in the JP court, you know, versus whatever mortgage company and stuff. [01:52:59.280 --> 01:53:06.280] If that doesn't specifically have your wife's name on it, then they didn't serve your wife, and you've got a motion to dismiss right there. [01:53:06.280 --> 01:53:13.280] I'll read it to you right now, the state of Texas 2, Steve Skidmore and all other occupants. [01:53:13.280 --> 01:53:20.280] Insufficient. Now you make a challenge – that's another element in your challenge to the jurisdiction. [01:53:20.280 --> 01:53:26.280] There's a court case from like 1950s that says both parties have to be served. [01:53:26.280 --> 01:53:33.280] In Texas, jurisprudence under forcible detainer, which that's what you're going through, forcible detainer eviction. [01:53:33.280 --> 01:53:36.280] Can you get that to him, Russell? [01:53:36.280 --> 01:53:42.280] You know, he can email me, you know, and I can talk with him later too about it. [01:53:42.280 --> 01:53:43.280] Okay, go ahead. [01:53:43.280 --> 01:53:49.280] It's ours and Russell, Tia's and Tom, Emma's and Mary at texas.net. Spell out Texas. [01:53:49.280 --> 01:53:52.280] Okay. [01:53:52.280 --> 01:53:58.280] Well, I'll tell you what, I've got about four friends that went through the same thing, and they did the same thing each time. [01:53:58.280 --> 01:53:59.280] I'll be darned. [01:53:59.280 --> 01:54:03.280] And one friend's wife, they've been separated since 1990. [01:54:03.280 --> 01:54:08.280] She's never, ever even lived in the home, but they – but when they – he bought the thing because they were married. [01:54:08.280 --> 01:54:12.280] He had the mortgage company, one of his wife's name on the mortgage. [01:54:12.280 --> 01:54:17.280] And so they just turned around and they said so-and-so versus all other occupants. [01:54:17.280 --> 01:54:24.280] Well, that all other occupants don't cut it when you've got two different names on the deed of trust and the mortgage and stuff. [01:54:24.280 --> 01:54:26.280] Fantastic. [01:54:26.280 --> 01:54:27.280] Good. [01:54:27.280 --> 01:54:31.280] So if you want to hang on after the break, Russell, we can kick this around. [01:54:31.280 --> 01:54:36.280] Yeah, Russell, hang on a lie and we'll talk to you and Steve both about this some more at the end of the show. [01:54:36.280 --> 01:54:41.280] Here's something I wanted to tell you, Russell. [01:54:41.280 --> 01:54:48.280] I'm here working on doing a brief for a justice of the peace to show what authority he has. [01:54:48.280 --> 01:54:57.280] And I pulled up a specific case addressing the authority of the justice of the peace, so I shepardized the case. [01:54:57.280 --> 01:55:10.280] And in looking through the cases that were cited, one of them was a case where the court of appeals stated that after indictment, [01:55:10.280 --> 01:55:16.280] essentially everything that went before it simply doesn't matter anymore. [01:55:16.280 --> 01:55:19.280] And I'm reading it and I said, that's – they're full of crap. [01:55:19.280 --> 01:55:20.280] Hold on. [01:55:20.280 --> 01:55:25.280] Whoever filed that appeal didn't ask the right question. [01:55:25.280 --> 01:55:34.280] And I went up and looked at the name on it, Mortland v. State of Texas. [01:55:34.280 --> 01:55:42.280] And then I said, hey, the guy who filed that appeal didn't ask the right questions because it was my document. [01:55:42.280 --> 01:55:43.280] That was your case, Russell. [01:55:43.280 --> 01:55:47.280] I got a hit on it on Lexus. [01:55:47.280 --> 01:55:48.280] Did you? [01:55:48.280 --> 01:55:50.280] It's published. [01:55:50.280 --> 01:55:55.280] Now we certainly need to go after the court of appeals. [01:55:55.280 --> 01:56:02.280] That case is absolutely bogus and based on a false reading of the pleadings. [01:56:02.280 --> 01:56:10.280] I'm waiting for any day for the discretionary review from the appeal of the court of criminal appeals to be handed down. [01:56:10.280 --> 01:56:18.280] That way I can either take it to the federal court on the habeas or just go ahead and certiorari to the Supreme Court. [01:56:18.280 --> 01:56:34.280] I think certiorari to the Supreme Court may be the most plausible because of the Rothgen v. County of Gillespie case where the Supreme Court eviscerated Texas on their practices. [01:56:34.280 --> 01:56:35.280] Okay. [01:56:35.280 --> 01:56:36.280] Well, listen, listen. [01:56:36.280 --> 01:56:39.280] We've got two minutes left and I want to go to our final caller, David in Texas. [01:56:39.280 --> 01:56:40.280] Okay. [01:56:40.280 --> 01:56:43.280] Hang on until after the show, Russell. [01:56:43.280 --> 01:56:48.280] Okay. We're going to go now to David in Texas. [01:56:48.280 --> 01:56:49.280] Okay, David, thanks for calling in. [01:56:49.280 --> 01:56:50.280] Thanks for holding what's on your mind. [01:56:50.280 --> 01:56:52.280] You've got about a minute and a half. [01:56:52.280 --> 01:56:53.280] Hello. [01:56:53.280 --> 01:56:54.280] Can you hear me? [01:56:54.280 --> 01:56:55.280] Yes. [01:56:55.280 --> 01:56:56.280] Please go ahead. [01:56:56.280 --> 01:56:57.280] Okay. [01:56:57.280 --> 01:57:04.280] I apologize because I only have the most rudimentary of questions and your time would have probably been better spent with Russell and Steve. [01:57:04.280 --> 01:57:05.280] No, no, no. [01:57:05.280 --> 01:57:06.280] We like rudimentary. [01:57:06.280 --> 01:57:07.280] Yeah. [01:57:07.280 --> 01:57:08.280] Go ahead. [01:57:08.280 --> 01:57:09.280] Those are the best ones. [01:57:09.280 --> 01:57:10.280] Okay. [01:57:10.280 --> 01:57:25.280] In any case, my problem pertains to myself and a neighbor of mine, both who rent from a specific property management company who I personally have grievances with going back for the last three years. [01:57:25.280 --> 01:57:32.280] And recently the same company just took over the ownership of the property that my neighbor rents. [01:57:32.280 --> 01:57:40.280] And they immediately turned around and said, oh, by the way, you owe us X amount of dollars for this and that. [01:57:40.280 --> 01:57:50.280] And just by the terms of the lease agreement, this doesn't really fit with what my neighbor is looking at. [01:57:50.280 --> 01:57:53.280] And so they've given court summons to appear at the end of the month. [01:57:53.280 --> 01:58:13.280] And so since I listened to your program and he did not, I was calling basically on behalf of both of us to find out if you all know anything about, you know, rental agreements and the such and what would be a better way to contact you to exchange information because, like I said, I don't have all of it. [01:58:13.280 --> 01:58:14.280] Email us. [01:58:14.280 --> 01:58:19.280] We're out of time, but send us an email and then call back in Thursday. [01:58:19.280 --> 01:58:20.280] Okay. [01:58:20.280 --> 01:58:21.280] What's your email? [01:58:21.280 --> 01:58:22.280] It's on the website. [01:58:22.280 --> 01:58:29.280] You can go to the website under contact is Randy at ruleoflawradio.com and Deborah at ruleoflawradio.com. [01:58:29.280 --> 01:58:30.280] Okay. [01:58:30.280 --> 01:58:31.280] All right. [01:58:31.280 --> 01:58:32.280] Thank you very much. [01:58:32.280 --> 01:58:33.280] All right. [01:58:33.280 --> 01:58:34.280] Thank you. [01:58:34.280 --> 01:58:35.280] Okay. [01:58:35.280 --> 01:58:36.280] Thank you. [01:58:36.280 --> 01:58:37.280] All right. [01:58:37.280 --> 01:58:38.280] That's it. [01:58:38.280 --> 01:58:39.280] We're at the end of the show. [01:58:39.280 --> 01:58:40.280] This one blazed by. [01:58:40.280 --> 01:58:42.280] So we'll be back Thursday night. [01:58:42.280 --> 01:58:56.280] This is the rule of law. [01:58:56.280 --> 01:59:15.280] All right. [01:59:15.280 --> 01:59:40.280] Thank you. [01:59:40.280 --> 01:59:53.280] Thank you.