[00:00.000 --> 00:04.640]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[00:04.640 --> 00:09.900]  The UN says Afghanistan, the world's biggest producer of opium, also leads in the production
[00:09.900 --> 00:10.900]  of hashish.
[00:10.900 --> 00:16.180]  The income for Afghan hashish producers was estimated to be $94 million.
[00:16.180 --> 00:22.100]  The UN said two-thirds came from southern Afghanistan where the US is fighting the Taliban.
[00:22.100 --> 00:28.820]  A bicycle bomb in southern Afghanistan killed 13 civilians and wounded 45 others Wednesday.
[00:28.820 --> 00:32.460]  More than 35 civilians were wounded, many seriously.
[00:32.460 --> 00:36.320]  Three civilians were also killed by an explosion in the western region.
[00:36.320 --> 00:41.400]  Algerian forces have arrested an Israeli spy with a false Spanish passport.
[00:41.400 --> 00:47.160]  Last week, Britain expelled a senior Mossad agent over the use of UK passports in a Mossad
[00:47.160 --> 00:48.160]  hit in Dubai.
[00:48.160 --> 00:52.840]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[00:52.840 --> 00:58.400]  Authorities have deported the legal immigrant parents of more than 88,000 US citizen children
[00:58.400 --> 01:00.000]  in the last decade.
[01:00.000 --> 01:05.680]  A report published Wednesday by the UC Berkeley and Davis law schools found most parents were
[01:05.680 --> 01:12.320]  deported for, quote, minor criminal convictions, now classified as aggravated felonies, including
[01:12.320 --> 01:16.520]  nonviolent drug offenses, simple assaults and drunk driving.
[01:16.520 --> 01:20.440]  The report also found the deported parents had lived in the country for an average of
[01:20.440 --> 01:24.480]  ten years and had at least one child at home.
[01:24.480 --> 01:29.560]  The deportations caused increased depression, sleeplessness, planting grades and a greater
[01:29.560 --> 01:32.120]  urge to drop out of school.
[01:32.120 --> 01:37.520]  Deportations increased after Congress revised immigration laws in 1996, broadening the type
[01:37.520 --> 01:41.080]  of deportable offenses considered aggravated felonies.
[01:41.080 --> 01:42.080]  R.T.
[01:42.080 --> 01:46.840]  Coley, director of immigration policy for Berkeley Law School's Warren Institute said, quote,
[01:46.840 --> 01:52.040]  there should be a fair judicial process that takes into account the impact on children.
[01:52.040 --> 01:57.160]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[01:57.160 --> 02:02.360]  McDonald's Wednesday said it would discontinue plans for worldwide composting after scientists
[02:02.360 --> 02:06.600]  confirmed no item on McDonald's menu will decompose.
[02:06.600 --> 02:11.880]  The plan to keep food waste more than 1.5 billion tons a month out of landfills would
[02:11.880 --> 02:15.040]  have been the largest composting program in the world.
[02:15.040 --> 02:20.840]  But McDonald's halted the plan after scientists at the University of California Berkeley discovered
[02:20.840 --> 02:26.720]  none of the items on the menu would compost in the next 500 years, or would any start
[02:26.720 --> 02:33.400]  breaking down for an estimated 1,000 years, the projected lifespan of a plastic bag.
[02:33.400 --> 02:38.880]  Lead researcher Donald McGregor said, quote, this food is better off in a landfill, adding,
[02:38.880 --> 02:44.000]  quote, it would get in the way of perfectly good compostable materials.
[02:44.000 --> 02:49.040]  McDonald's says it is considering other waste management options such as incineration and
[02:49.040 --> 02:51.200]  outer atmospheric storage.
[02:51.200 --> 02:56.880]  Greenpeace says it plans to launch a campaign to get McDonald's to overhaul its menu.
[02:56.880 --> 03:01.640]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[03:01.640 --> 03:08.640]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at ruleoflawradio.com, live free speech
[03:08.640 --> 03:20.000]  talk radio at its best.
[03:20.000 --> 03:44.900]  And you are listening to the official
[03:44.900 --> 03:46.900]  Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[03:46.900 --> 03:48.900]  Bad boys, bad boys
[03:48.900 --> 03:50.900]  Whatcha gonna do?
[03:50.900 --> 03:52.900]  Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[03:52.900 --> 03:55.900]  When you were eight and you had bad traits
[03:55.900 --> 03:58.900]  You'd go to school and learn the golden rule
[03:58.900 --> 04:00.900]  So why are you acting like a bloody fool?
[04:00.900 --> 04:03.900]  And if you get hot then you're Mr. Cool
[04:03.900 --> 04:05.900]  Bad boys, bad boys
[04:05.900 --> 04:06.900]  Whatcha gonna do?
[04:06.900 --> 04:08.900]  Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[04:08.900 --> 04:10.900]  Bad boys, bad boys
[04:10.900 --> 04:12.900]  Whatcha gonna do?
[04:12.900 --> 04:14.900]  Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[04:14.900 --> 04:16.900]  You're chocked it on that one
[04:16.900 --> 04:17.900]  You're chocked it on this one
[04:17.900 --> 04:18.900]  You're chocked it on your mother
[04:18.900 --> 04:20.900]  And you're chocked it on your father
[04:20.900 --> 04:21.900]  You're chocked it on your brother
[04:21.900 --> 04:23.900]  And you're chocked it on your sister
[04:23.900 --> 04:24.900]  You're chocked it on that one
[04:24.900 --> 04:25.900]  And you're chocked it on me
[04:25.900 --> 04:27.900]  Bad boys, bad boys
[04:27.900 --> 04:28.900]  Whatcha gonna do?
[04:28.900 --> 04:31.900]  Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[04:31.900 --> 04:32.900]  Bad boys, bad boys
[04:32.900 --> 04:33.900]  Whatcha gonna do?
[04:33.900 --> 04:36.900]  Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[04:36.900 --> 04:38.900]  Bad boys, bad boys
[04:38.900 --> 04:39.900]  Whatcha gonna do?
[04:39.900 --> 04:41.900]  Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[05:11.900 --> 05:15.620]  What you gonna do? What you gonna do when they come for you?
[05:15.620 --> 05:43.020]  Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do? What you gonna do when they come for you?
[05:43.020 --> 05:48.520]  Why did you have to ask so many? Don't you know you're a human being?
[05:48.520 --> 05:53.820]  Born of a mother with a love of her father. Reflection through the reflection goes.
[05:53.820 --> 06:04.620]  I know sometimes you wanna let go. I know sometimes you wanna let go.
[06:04.620 --> 06:10.020]  Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do? What you gonna do when they come for you?
[06:10.020 --> 06:17.120]  Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do? What you gonna do when they come for you?
[06:17.120 --> 06:25.320]  Alright, bad boys, bad boys, what are you gonna do when we come for you?
[06:25.320 --> 06:35.620]  Alright, tonight we are going to discuss how to deal with the situation when the rubber meets the road, so to speak,
[06:35.620 --> 06:44.520]  regarding traffic issues because there seems to be a great deal of corruption at the municipal court level
[06:44.520 --> 06:56.320]  and running people out of time. Regarding motion hearings and things of this nature, appeals,
[06:56.320 --> 07:05.020]  you have to file a motion for retrial and the clerks don't wanna do it.
[07:05.020 --> 07:11.420]  So then you gotta set a motion hearing for the motion for retrial and that has to get denied.
[07:11.420 --> 07:15.920]  Your retrial has to get denied before you can file an appeal.
[07:15.920 --> 07:23.520]  And by the way, you have to post a bond double the amount of the traffic ticket,
[07:23.520 --> 07:33.920]  but we haven't even got there yet because we can't even appeal yet because the retrial
[07:33.920 --> 07:40.620]  hasn't even gotten denied yet because they run us out of time so they can issue a warrant
[07:40.620 --> 07:46.220]  for my friend's arrest to pressure him into just paying the ticket.
[07:46.220 --> 07:58.020]  And so the question is, what court do we go to to petition for a writ of mandamus to order the municipal court
[07:58.020 --> 08:06.820]  to set a motion hearing for the motion for retrial and for the temporary restraining order
[08:06.820 --> 08:18.620]  against the municipal court issuing a warrant for his arrest until such point in time
[08:18.620 --> 08:29.420]  that this situation can be taken care of. So Randy and certain individual, not me,
[08:29.420 --> 08:38.620]  goes to the county court today and apparently there are two clerks, one on the civil side,
[08:38.620 --> 08:44.220]  one on the criminal side. I knew this already. This is not according to statute.
[08:44.220 --> 08:50.220]  The criminal clerk will not take any motion or pleading or any document whatsoever,
[08:50.220 --> 09:00.620]  will not let anybody file anything unless there's already a cause number in a case opened by the prosecutor.
[09:00.620 --> 09:07.220]  They will throw your butt out, call the bailiff, call the sheriff, call everything.
[09:07.220 --> 09:16.620]  All right. So if there's not something, if there's not a cause number in the criminal side of the county,
[09:16.620 --> 09:22.020]  if you want to file anything, habeas corpus, petition, petition for habeas corpus.
[09:22.020 --> 09:25.220]  If it is, petition for writ of mandamus, you have to go to the criminal side.
[09:25.220 --> 09:28.620]  I mean, sorry, you have to go to the civil side and then argue with the court,
[09:28.620 --> 09:35.420]  with the clerk of the court that you don't have to pay a filing fee, all these kinds of things
[09:35.420 --> 09:41.420]  just to get a petition for writ of mandamus filed and a petition for a temporary restraining order
[09:41.420 --> 09:51.020]  against the municipal courts from issuing a warrant for arrest
[09:51.020 --> 09:57.820]  and ordering the municipal court to set a motion hearing for a retrial on a traffic ticket.
[09:57.820 --> 09:59.220]  Okay, wait, wait, it's not quite right.
[09:59.220 --> 10:02.220]  So can somebody please, what are we supposed to do here?
[10:02.220 --> 10:04.620]  This is not quite the way it appears.
[10:04.620 --> 10:06.220]  Listen, because you know what?
[10:06.220 --> 10:13.020]  I'm not ready to go to the head state administrative judge in this district
[10:13.020 --> 10:17.420]  and say, and file a petition for writ of mandamus against all these people.
[10:17.420 --> 10:18.420]  Not necessary, not necessary.
[10:18.420 --> 10:21.220]  Okay, I'm sick of this.
[10:21.220 --> 10:23.820]  We don't have two county courts clerks.
[10:23.820 --> 10:24.820]  We have one county clerk.
[10:24.820 --> 10:26.220]  I realize that.
[10:26.220 --> 10:28.820]  But the county clerk has a number of people working for him.
[10:28.820 --> 10:33.420]  And the county clerk said, okay, you guys, you handle the civil, you guys over here,
[10:33.420 --> 10:34.820]  you handle the criminal.
[10:34.820 --> 10:42.220]  So we went to the civil and said, we got a writ of mandamus, where do you want us to file it?
[10:42.220 --> 10:44.620]  And they said, well, geez whiz, we're not sure.
[10:44.620 --> 10:48.020]  And they checked around and said, okay, you're going to have to go across the hall,
[10:48.020 --> 10:51.620]  across the way there, you know, right behind us was a desk for the criminal.
[10:51.620 --> 10:56.420]  Went to them and they said, well, you know, they were saying we'd have to file a cause number.
[10:56.420 --> 10:59.220]  We said, no, no, no, there already is a cause number.
[10:59.220 --> 11:01.820]  So they sent us to the criminal side and the criminal side knew exactly what to do.
[11:01.820 --> 11:06.020]  They said, take it back to the municipal court, file it in the municipal court.
[11:06.020 --> 11:09.420]  And the municipal court has to send it up to the county court.
[11:09.420 --> 11:13.820]  Now, this is my concern about the issue.
[11:13.820 --> 11:19.820]  So far, the municipal court hasn't done anything legal.
[11:19.820 --> 11:27.020]  They had an absolute duty to set a hearing for the motion for a new trial and they refused.
[11:27.020 --> 11:33.820]  Thus, the purpose of the petition for writ of mandamus.
[11:33.820 --> 11:37.420]  Here's my concern, Randy.
[11:37.420 --> 11:40.820]  The whole point of a petition for writ of mandamus is
[11:40.820 --> 11:46.620]  that you're petitioning a higher court to order a lower court to do something.
[11:46.620 --> 11:50.420]  So why would you file a petition for writ of mandamus
[11:50.420 --> 11:53.720]  in the same court that you want to order to do something?
[11:53.720 --> 11:55.920]  Because it's filed in the case.
[11:55.920 --> 12:04.520]  And just like on appeal, I'm sorry, no, this is how it's put together.
[12:04.520 --> 12:10.620]  This is in an area of law that's not specifically stipulated in precisely how it's to be done.
[12:10.620 --> 12:13.120]  The law doesn't cover every nuance.
[12:13.120 --> 12:16.220]  It doesn't stipulate this nuance.
[12:16.220 --> 12:17.420]  That's the problem.
[12:17.420 --> 12:20.220]  Well, if I can interject here, there's something that I have found
[12:20.220 --> 12:26.020]  in government code section 22.002 for writ power.
[12:26.020 --> 12:29.220]  Government code.002?
[12:29.220 --> 12:32.320]  Yeah, 22.002.
[12:32.320 --> 12:34.220]  002.
[12:34.220 --> 12:37.120]  And it's titled writ power.
[12:37.120 --> 12:42.720]  And if you look at subsection B, it stipulates the Supreme Court or invocation,
[12:42.720 --> 12:46.920]  a justice of the Supreme Court may issue a writ of mandamus
[12:46.920 --> 12:52.720]  to compel a statutory county court judge, a statutory probate court judge,
[12:52.720 --> 12:57.120]  or a district judge to proceed to trial and judgment in a case agreeable to the principles
[12:57.120 --> 13:02.020]  and usage of law, returnable to the Supreme Court on or before the first day of the term
[13:02.020 --> 13:06.320]  or during the session of the term or before any justice of the Supreme Court
[13:06.320 --> 13:08.820]  as the nature of the case requires.
[13:08.820 --> 13:11.920]  Then it goes down a little bit more.
[13:11.920 --> 13:17.820]  In subsection C, only the Supreme Court has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus
[13:17.820 --> 13:23.920]  or injunction or any other mandatory or compulsory writ or process against any
[13:23.920 --> 13:29.320]  of the officers of the executive departments of the government of this state to order
[13:29.320 --> 13:35.020]  or compel the performance of a judicial, ministerial, or discretionary act or duty
[13:35.020 --> 13:41.220]  that by state law the officer or officers are authorized to perform.
[13:41.220 --> 13:45.220]  Okay, problem we have is these aren't executive officers.
[13:45.220 --> 13:46.220]  That's true.
[13:46.220 --> 13:52.020]  However, this is confusing because an executive officer can't perform a judicial
[13:52.020 --> 13:53.520]  or ministerial act.
[13:53.520 --> 13:56.320]  Yes, a prosecuting attorney can.
[13:56.320 --> 13:57.420]  Okay, wait a minute, wait a minute.
[13:57.420 --> 14:00.220]  A prosecuting attorney is not a judicial or an executive officer.
[14:00.220 --> 14:01.820]  Hold on, hold on, hold on guys.
[14:01.820 --> 14:03.320]  He's in the state constitution.
[14:03.320 --> 14:04.320]  Oh, that's right.
[14:04.320 --> 14:05.420]  Okay, that's right.
[14:05.420 --> 14:06.820]  They're still mixing that up.
[14:06.820 --> 14:08.220]  Okay, hold on guys.
[14:08.220 --> 14:10.020]  I'm coming from a layman's point of view.
[14:10.020 --> 14:11.820]  That's always been my role.
[14:11.820 --> 14:16.120]  I have a question for both of you, the experts.
[14:16.120 --> 14:26.720]  I want to know what court has authority to issue a grant, whatever you want to call it,
[14:26.720 --> 14:35.420]  a writ of mandamus against towards whatever legally is, what court has the authority
[14:35.420 --> 14:40.320]  to mandamus order the municipal court to do something?
[14:40.320 --> 14:46.420]  Is it an administrative court, is it the county, is it the state district?
[14:46.420 --> 14:48.420]  In a logical sense, I agree with Randy.
[14:48.420 --> 14:54.020]  It's the next higher court up, always has the power to speak downward.
[14:54.020 --> 14:56.420]  Is that in statute or is that case law?
[14:56.420 --> 14:58.220]  Yeah, that's the logical sense.
[14:58.220 --> 15:01.820]  Now we're trying to find it in statute.
[15:01.820 --> 15:06.720]  There's not but 94 hits on the word mandamus in the statutes and I mean it's virtually
[15:06.720 --> 15:09.620]  every statute out there.
[15:09.620 --> 15:12.920]  It's in every statute we've got the word mandamus.
[15:12.920 --> 15:17.020]  And so far that one I just read you out of government code chapter 22 is the only one
[15:17.020 --> 15:20.520]  that speaks directly to writ power.
[15:20.520 --> 15:25.620]  Is there any case law anywhere in this state or any other state where a county-
[15:25.620 --> 15:30.020]  I dropped it.
[15:30.020 --> 15:31.020]  It didn't even break.
[15:31.020 --> 15:32.020]  I'm working on it.
[15:32.020 --> 15:37.220]  Is there, okay, we're going wild here on the rule of law radio.
[15:37.220 --> 15:42.520]  Is there any case law anywhere that you guys have found in this state or any other where
[15:42.520 --> 15:52.020]  a county court or a state court has mandamus ordered a municipal court to do anything?
[15:52.020 --> 16:00.220]  Can you guys find anything, any county or state case law that has, where any judge at
[16:00.220 --> 16:03.020]  those levels have ordered the municipal court to do anything?
[16:03.020 --> 16:07.620]  Since that is usually something that's an addendum to the case and not a cause of action
[16:07.620 --> 16:12.920]  of its own, that would not be something that's published as a discussionary topic unless
[16:12.920 --> 16:16.020]  someone got sued over a writ of mandamus.
[16:16.020 --> 16:21.820]  Yeah, or if someone appealed a denial of a failure to act on a writ of mandamus, this
[16:21.820 --> 16:24.220]  is going to be hard to find.
[16:24.220 --> 16:31.420]  This is one of those issues where you go into the case law and how do you find this particular,
[16:31.420 --> 16:34.260]  what keywords do you use?
[16:34.260 --> 16:39.540]  What will occur in the documentation that will give you keywords to hit it with and
[16:39.540 --> 16:41.300]  separate it from all others?
[16:41.300 --> 16:45.620]  That's one of those problems with getting the first case on point.
[16:45.620 --> 16:51.260]  Okay, well that's why I wanted to know what the statute said about what court actually
[16:51.260 --> 17:00.620]  has authority to order the municipal court to do something.
[17:00.620 --> 17:29.180]  The statute is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM, but finding things on the internet
[17:29.180 --> 17:58.820]  is easy.
[17:59.180 --> 18:27.780]  Okay, so let's try to break it down for the people and for me because I'm just, you know,
[18:27.780 --> 18:37.780]  a lay person here. You get a traffic ticket, they run you out of time, you file these documents,
[18:37.780 --> 18:44.860]  you go to the trial, all these kinds of things. You want to appeal, you can't appeal until you
[18:44.860 --> 18:53.460]  file a petition for a retrial first. They won't set a motion hearing for the retrial. You run it
[18:53.460 --> 18:58.460]  out of time, then they want to issue a warrant for your arrest unless you pay tomorrow. This is where
[18:58.460 --> 19:04.980]  we're at, okay, where the rubber hits the road. So what my concern is, okay, let's deal with the
[19:04.980 --> 19:13.780]  mandamus later. How about we just go for a temporary restraining order against the municipal court from
[19:13.780 --> 19:22.260]  issuing a warrant for so-and-so's arrest until all this can be taken care of. So is there a filing fee
[19:22.260 --> 19:30.220]  for that? Where would you go to file? Because you know that the clerk on the criminal side of the
[19:30.220 --> 19:38.300]  county records, even though there's technically no distinction under state statute, is not going to
[19:38.300 --> 19:43.700]  file anything for you unless there's a cause number at the county level and there's not because it's a
[19:43.700 --> 19:52.860]  municipal case. So you got to go to the civil clerk. So you want a TRO. Are we going to have to
[19:52.860 --> 19:59.780]  petition for a writ of habeas corpus first in order to get the TRO or can we petition for the
[19:59.780 --> 20:08.660]  TRO first to stop the municipal court from issuing this warrant for arrest until such time that we
[20:08.660 --> 20:16.340]  can get the writ of mandamus against the municipal court to set the motion hearing for the retrial,
[20:16.340 --> 20:20.420]  which of course is going to get denied so we can appeal and pay double and it's going to start all
[20:20.420 --> 20:27.060]  over again. So come on guys, what's help? A petition for a restraining order, you will have to pay a
[20:27.060 --> 20:38.260]  filing fee. However, a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which is appropriate here, you don't have
[20:38.260 --> 20:44.100]  to pay a filing fee. So we need to petition for writ of habeas corpus to the civil county clerk in
[20:44.100 --> 20:51.580]  order to get a temporary restraining order against the municipal court from issuing a warrant for
[20:51.580 --> 20:56.820]  some of those arrests and that has to happen like tomorrow, right? Yes, we probably need to do that
[20:56.820 --> 21:05.260]  tomorrow and that'll be fun. They didn't know that there was no filing fee for writ of habeas corpus
[21:05.260 --> 21:11.100]  and it will be nice to bushwhack a county judge. Well, what happened to the mandamus? Why couldn't
[21:11.100 --> 21:16.940]  y'all just file a mandamus? We filed it with the municipal court but the problem is if the municipal
[21:16.940 --> 21:22.780]  court continues to ignore law, the writ of mandamus becomes worthless. Well, I just don't understand
[21:22.780 --> 21:27.020]  why you would file a mandamus in the same court that you're getting mandamus against. Well,
[21:27.020 --> 21:32.540]  that's because nobody else would take it unless we paid them 150 buck filing fee. Okay, so then we
[21:32.540 --> 21:40.380]  have to do habeas corpus then. Okay. Okay, good. It's settled then. Very well. So really habeas
[21:40.380 --> 21:54.860]  corpus is fun. You get to really jerk them around. So you file the petition for writ of habeas corpus
[21:54.860 --> 22:02.860]  with the civil clerk at the county level. No, it doesn't matter which clerk you file it with. I don't
[22:02.860 --> 22:08.460]  care which side they want me to file it on. Yeah, but we know that the clerk of the criminal records
[22:08.460 --> 22:12.700]  is not going to file anything. They will kick you out of the building. They will throw you. No, they
[22:12.700 --> 22:18.460]  won't. Behind in jail unless there's a cause number. No, not when I come in with a writ of habeas corpus.
[22:18.460 --> 22:23.420]  They will do no such thing. Okay, well I saw it already. We've tried to file a writ of habeas
[22:23.420 --> 22:31.820]  petition for habeas corpus with the criminal clerk and he would not take it. That was mandamus. No,
[22:31.820 --> 22:40.060]  that was habeas. We had to go back to the civil clerk and they tried to charge us 250. Yeah,
[22:40.060 --> 22:46.620]  it really doesn't matter because under statute there's no distinction. Just whoever will take it.
[22:46.620 --> 22:54.540]  Okay, so my question is, Randy, Eddie, the temporary restraining order against the municipal
[22:54.540 --> 23:01.980]  court for issuing a warrant for arrest, is that included in the same document as the petition for
[23:01.980 --> 23:07.500]  habeas corpus? Petition for habeas corpus? Is that included in the same document? I mean,
[23:07.500 --> 23:15.260]  because that's the whole point here, right? Well, exactly. Is that included in the habeas or?
[23:15.260 --> 23:26.140]  That's what the habeas will go to, is ordering the lower court to set a hearing for the motion
[23:26.140 --> 23:34.780]  for retrial and stopping them from issuing a warrant. Okay, so that's the relief sought
[23:34.780 --> 23:42.460]  in the petition for writ of habeas corpus? Yes. Okay, very good. Okay, writ of habeas corpus is
[23:42.460 --> 23:49.500]  a lot more fun. I have had a lot of fun with writ of habeas corpus. Williamson County,
[23:50.380 --> 23:55.020]  they deliberately sent me to the head judge because I think they thought he was the meanest
[23:55.020 --> 24:02.060]  and the baddest. And he came out with that writ in his hand and he was livid. Mr. Kelton, I don't
[24:02.060 --> 24:07.660]  have time for this. I have a jury to impattle. Well, with all due respect, your honor, that's
[24:07.660 --> 24:12.460]  really habeas corpus you've got in your hand and everything stands down before the writ.
[24:13.980 --> 24:22.780]  He was fuming, but there was nothing he could do. That was a hoot. So we'll enjoy this. We get to
[24:22.780 --> 24:29.980]  take it into the judge and if the litigant doesn't get it heard, then I'll be there and
[24:29.980 --> 24:38.780]  I'll be asking the bailiff to arrest the judge. And that'll get real interesting. Say the very least.
[24:42.620 --> 24:48.380]  It'll get less interesting if I get beat into unconsciousness, but I'll try to avoid that.
[24:48.380 --> 24:50.380]  Well, it all depends on who the bystanders are.
[24:52.780 --> 24:58.620]  Bailiff is the one that's the problem. So we may just get a bailiff and take him with us
[24:58.620 --> 25:08.620]  so we have our own. Anyway, that was an annoying situation. It's complex.
[25:10.220 --> 25:17.660]  And when they pull stuff that you don't expect, it's hard to keep up. But we did get a good
[25:17.660 --> 25:23.420]  definition of pro se that we didn't have before. What, they just call them troublemakers there?
[25:23.420 --> 25:28.940]  No, the clerk said, you know, when you do this, you have to understand certain Latin terms
[25:28.940 --> 25:36.780]  like pro se. Pro se means, oh my gosh, I've missed something critically important.
[25:40.060 --> 25:41.020]  I like this clerk.
[25:41.020 --> 25:57.500]  Anyway, okay. I want to go to a checklist. Eddie's been pulling out a lot of apparently
[25:57.500 --> 26:06.300]  first blush issues and a lot of complex issues. My concern is, is that the issues are
[26:06.300 --> 26:17.580]  are not in an order that I can hold them in my mind and move from move cleanly from one issue
[26:17.580 --> 26:25.900]  to another. I want them in a way so that one issue will essentially lead to the next.
[26:28.300 --> 26:29.820]  So handle that for me, Eddie.
[26:31.580 --> 26:33.900]  All right. Well, which issues are we talking about here?
[26:33.900 --> 26:36.540]  Give me an issue, we'll go from there.
[26:36.540 --> 26:43.660]  No, that's the whole point. Traffic. What do you do first before everything else?
[26:43.660 --> 26:46.700]  And what do you do second? And then what do you do third?
[26:46.700 --> 26:48.380]  Well, where did we get to on your list?
[26:49.100 --> 26:51.900]  Okay. I needed to back up from the list.
[26:52.620 --> 26:53.340]  Okay.
[26:53.340 --> 26:57.740]  And go to the judge's license to practice law.
[26:58.780 --> 27:02.380]  All right. Not to mention the prosecutors.
[27:02.380 --> 27:07.020]  Right. The judge is first. He's the one who opens his mouth first.
[27:08.300 --> 27:15.420]  So when he opens his mouth, I object that we need a motion for bona fides.
[27:15.420 --> 27:19.980]  And that goes to the bona fides. License to practice law.
[27:19.980 --> 27:22.940]  We'll use license to practice law before he convenes the hearing.
[27:22.940 --> 27:31.020]  So what I intend to do, very first thing, when the judge convenes a hearing objection,
[27:32.620 --> 27:35.660]  and that's going to catch him off guard,
[27:37.260 --> 27:40.620]  to have the court of motion to show bona fides.
[27:41.660 --> 27:47.740]  I want to see your license to practice law, your bar card,
[27:48.380 --> 27:51.100]  and evidence that you've practiced law at least two years.
[27:51.100 --> 27:51.600]  Mm-hmm.
[27:54.220 --> 27:55.820]  And that's going to get him excited.
[27:57.820 --> 27:59.980]  Because he's not going to have a license to practice law.
[28:01.340 --> 28:05.900]  So if I can get a martial in, what I'm really thinking of doing
[28:05.900 --> 28:08.380]  is using the police officer that wrote me the ticket.
[28:08.940 --> 28:10.940]  Okay. Well, then I'll make a suggestion.
[28:11.740 --> 28:15.660]  If you're going to go that route, then you already need to have in your hand
[28:15.660 --> 28:21.740]  a court warrant removal because if he cannot produce a license to practice law,
[28:21.740 --> 28:23.660]  he has no authority to hold the office,
[28:23.660 --> 28:27.660]  which means he's the usurper of the powers and authority of the office.
[28:27.660 --> 28:28.700]  You want him gone.
[28:29.340 --> 28:31.500]  Well, that's why you get a court warrant.
[28:31.500 --> 28:36.220]  That was what I was going on. Court warrant is a secondary action.
[28:37.020 --> 28:39.900]  That's a file, a petition for court warrant.
[28:41.340 --> 28:43.500]  That's why I said I would use the police officer
[28:43.500 --> 28:47.180]  and ask him to drag that judge down off the bench, cuff him, and drag him off to jail.
[28:49.340 --> 28:50.140]  And obviously...
[28:50.140 --> 28:54.220]  So at the very least, have in your hand the criminal charges for impersonating a public official.
[28:54.700 --> 28:59.980]  Yeah. License and criminal complaint.
[29:02.300 --> 29:06.620]  But now, as I said, I still don't know why you wouldn't think that
[29:06.620 --> 29:11.260]  you would want to immediately go to either the administrative judge
[29:11.260 --> 29:14.860]  or the next higher court up with a court warrant removal writ.
[29:14.860 --> 29:19.900]  Court warrant is something that's done by the prosecuting attorney.
[29:20.540 --> 29:24.140]  No, uh-uh. According to what the statute says,
[29:24.140 --> 29:28.540]  a writ of court warrant can be submitted to a district judge by anybody
[29:28.540 --> 29:33.820]  who wishes to challenge the position of any public office, and it's awkward.
[29:35.820 --> 29:41.020]  Okay, I need to see that code, but we can't file it there because we're not going to be able
[29:41.020 --> 29:44.460]  to do that unless we're in the municipal court. We have to walk through the municipal court first.
[29:45.100 --> 29:48.220]  So I want to walk through the details in the municipal court, what I do.
[29:48.780 --> 29:51.260]  I ask the police officer to arrest him.
[29:53.580 --> 29:55.100]  Yeah, I don't see how the prosecutor...
[29:55.100 --> 29:56.940]  While we're on the break, and I'll show it to you.
[29:56.940 --> 30:00.380]  Yeah, I don't see how the prosecutor has decisions decided.
[30:00.380 --> 30:02.860]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[30:03.500 --> 30:06.780]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary.
[30:06.780 --> 30:14.140]  The affordable, easy-to-understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[30:14.780 --> 30:18.460]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[30:18.460 --> 30:21.660]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[30:22.380 --> 30:26.700]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[30:27.260 --> 30:33.180]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[30:33.180 --> 30:37.660]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[30:37.660 --> 30:41.900]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[30:41.900 --> 30:48.140]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[30:48.140 --> 30:50.700]  pro se tactics, and much more.
[30:50.700 --> 31:03.580]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[31:50.940 --> 31:56.540]  Send a request to the leader, the captain of all officers.
[31:56.540 --> 32:01.180]  Tell them to uphold the law, or please don't abuse their power.
[32:01.820 --> 32:06.540]  They beat and they beat and they cheat and they cheat and they lie every hour.
[32:07.340 --> 32:12.060]  So Mr. Officer, please stop abusing your power.
[32:12.860 --> 32:17.500]  You pull me over and tell me to be silent, sir.
[32:17.500 --> 32:22.940]  I need to speak to my lawyer, Mr. Officer.
[32:22.940 --> 32:28.380]  Acting like you're the judge, finding me guilty, sir.
[32:28.380 --> 32:33.980]  So when you're gonna stop abuse your power.
[32:33.980 --> 32:39.260]  When you're gonna stop abuse your power.
[32:39.260 --> 32:45.020]  When you're gonna stop abuse your power.
[32:45.020 --> 32:51.420]  When you're gonna stop abuse your power.
[32:51.420 --> 32:54.460]  So Mr. Officer, abusing his power.
[32:54.460 --> 32:57.100]  Please, Mr. McGran, help the officer.
[32:57.100 --> 33:02.540]  So they could understand they should uphold the law instead of abusing the power.
[33:02.540 --> 33:05.340]  You know they act like they're judging you, we.
[33:05.340 --> 33:08.300]  But Mr. Officer, you're supposed to protect me.
[33:08.300 --> 33:10.780]  Uphold the law and do it properly.
[33:10.780 --> 33:14.060]  And the citizens of this country will be certain of it.
[33:14.060 --> 33:16.380]  You're looking up at the judge and the king.
[33:16.380 --> 33:19.100]  They beat the man for nothing.
[33:19.100 --> 33:21.500]  So officer, don't you realize.
[33:21.500 --> 33:30.220]  Okay, we're talking about Quo Warento removal of public servants from office.
[33:32.220 --> 33:32.940]  Go ahead, Eddie.
[33:35.180 --> 33:42.140]  Well, I've read over Quo Warento in the old version of the vernums that I've got.
[33:42.140 --> 33:46.220]  Now, right now, Chapter 66 of the Civil Practice and Remedy Code,
[33:46.860 --> 33:52.300]  this is what it currently says, that the grounds for an action in the nature of Quo Warento
[33:52.300 --> 33:59.100]  is available if a person usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds, or executes a franchise
[33:59.100 --> 34:04.940]  or an office, including an office in a corporation created by the authority of this state.
[34:05.660 --> 34:11.260]  A public, or number two, a public officer does an act or allows an act that by law
[34:11.260 --> 34:14.140]  causes a forfeiture of his office.
[34:14.700 --> 34:20.060]  Three, an association of persons acts as a corporation without being legally incorporated.
[34:20.060 --> 34:26.220]  Four, a corporation does or omits an act that requires a surrender or causes a forfeiture
[34:26.220 --> 34:28.540]  of its rights and privileges as a corporation.
[34:29.340 --> 34:32.940]  Five, a corporation exercises power not granted by law.
[34:33.500 --> 34:39.020]  Six, a railroad company charges an extortionate rate for transportation of freight or passengers.
[34:39.020 --> 34:44.140]  Or seven, a railroad company unlawfully refuses to move over its lines the cars of another
[34:44.140 --> 34:45.260]  railroad company.
[34:45.260 --> 34:52.060]  Now, let me interject something here about number three, an association of persons
[34:52.860 --> 34:56.060]  acts as a corporation without being legally incorporated.
[34:57.020 --> 35:02.780]  Randy, the state of Texas is incorporated, but it's not legally incorporated.
[35:02.780 --> 35:08.940]  It's not registered with the secretary of state.
[35:08.940 --> 35:10.140]  That's an interesting point.
[35:11.900 --> 35:17.260]  So the secretary of state is registered, and a number of the offices are registered,
[35:17.260 --> 35:19.260]  but the state itself is not registered as well.
[35:19.260 --> 35:19.900]  That's correct.
[35:22.060 --> 35:24.860]  And yet it does business as a state of Texas.
[35:24.860 --> 35:27.500]  So we could remove the state of Texas core warranty.
[35:28.620 --> 35:30.300]  That's what it sounds like.
[35:30.300 --> 35:35.740]  Now, in this section, initiation of suit, it says what you were talking about, that
[35:35.740 --> 35:40.060]  the attorney general, a county or district attorney of the proper county may petition
[35:40.060 --> 35:44.700]  the district court of the proper county or district judge if the court is in vacation
[35:44.700 --> 35:48.380]  for leave to file an information in the nature of core warranty.
[35:48.940 --> 35:56.300]  Now, these older statutes that I've got actually spoke to the fact that anyone could initiate,
[35:56.300 --> 36:02.300]  including the loser of an election, could initiate a core warranty action
[36:03.420 --> 36:10.140]  against an occupant of office who got there unlawfully or by usurping the authority.
[36:11.980 --> 36:19.500]  So somewhere we're getting something different than what we've got here, and this is actually
[36:19.500 --> 36:30.860]  out of the Vernon civil statutes annotated in, let's see, section 6243 of those codes
[36:30.860 --> 36:33.660]  deals with that type of thing it looks like.
[36:34.460 --> 36:37.260]  But I'll have to go through it again and find it in particular.
[36:40.460 --> 36:46.300]  But in any case, what I read on it before specifically stated that an action for core
[36:46.300 --> 36:55.420]  warranty could be initiated by anybody that had a basis for removal of the individual
[36:55.420 --> 36:56.860]  currently occupying an office.
[37:00.220 --> 37:05.020]  Let's see, and I highlighted a lot of the case law out of that section for that reason.
[37:05.020 --> 37:11.340]  It's section 6253 of the old Vernon civil statutes that deal with core warranty.
[37:12.300 --> 37:13.900]  And this is what it used to say.
[37:13.900 --> 37:20.300]  If any person shall usurp, intrude into, or unlawfully hold or execute, or is now intruded
[37:20.300 --> 37:26.780]  into, or now unlawfully holds or executes, any office or franchise, or any office in
[37:26.780 --> 37:31.820]  any corporation created by the authority of this state, or any public officer shall have
[37:31.820 --> 37:38.060]  done or suffered any act which by law works a forfeiture of his office, or any association
[37:38.060 --> 37:43.100]  of persons shall act within this statute as a corporation without being legally incorporated,
[37:43.100 --> 37:50.220]  or any corporation does or omits any act which omits or amounts to a surrender or a forfeiture
[37:50.220 --> 37:57.260]  of its rights and privileges as such, or exercises power not conferred by law, or if any railroad
[37:57.260 --> 38:03.660]  company doing business, and it goes down through that again, as required by the laws of this
[38:03.660 --> 38:07.500]  state, the attorney general or district or county attorney at a proper county or district,
[38:07.500 --> 38:13.100]  either of his own accord or the instance of any individual relator, or at the instance of any
[38:13.100 --> 38:18.780]  individual relator, may present a petition to the district court of the proper county
[38:18.780 --> 38:23.820]  or any judge thereof in vacation for leave to file an information in the nature of a
[38:23.820 --> 38:26.380]  core warranty in the name of the state of Texas.
[38:26.380 --> 38:30.540]  If such court or judge is satisfied that there is probable ground for the proceeding,
[38:30.540 --> 38:34.620]  he shall grant such leave in order for the information to be filed and processed to issue.
[38:34.620 --> 38:44.380]  Now, they seem to have removed out of the current revision the ability for an individual
[38:45.100 --> 38:47.820]  relator to petition for that removal.
[38:50.780 --> 38:55.740]  Now, that would strike me as kind of odd, because now we're back to the situation that
[38:55.740 --> 39:00.540]  we currently have where the district and county attorneys protect their own.
[39:00.540 --> 39:05.180]  Those in public office are held unaccountable for their actions, because the same people
[39:05.180 --> 39:08.380]  that are supposed to hold them accountable protect them.
[39:10.940 --> 39:18.940]  Okay, have you looked for any legislative updates, any legislative changes that would
[39:21.180 --> 39:24.380]  substantiate the current reading of the code?
[39:25.980 --> 39:28.380]  Let me explain to the listener first what we're talking about.
[39:28.380 --> 39:29.500]  The code is not the law.
[39:30.540 --> 39:37.660]  Anybody who's studied IRS stuff heard people say, well, Title 26 is not the law.
[39:37.660 --> 39:39.900]  It's merely climate-based evidence of the law.
[39:39.900 --> 39:40.540]  That's true.
[39:40.540 --> 39:41.180]  It's code.
[39:42.300 --> 39:50.620]  The public laws are put in when they're passed, and laws are not necessarily passed in order.
[39:51.660 --> 39:55.740]  So the legislature said, well, this makes it incredibly difficult to find the law.
[39:55.740 --> 40:01.020]  So we hire these publishing companies to go through all of the public laws and sort them
[40:01.020 --> 40:10.060]  out into categories and prepare code books that contain all of the public laws in a codified
[40:10.060 --> 40:17.420]  version that's reasonably organized so we can find all the laws on a given subject.
[40:17.420 --> 40:25.980]  However, the code is required to reflect the public law, and that's what we find in the front
[40:25.980 --> 40:30.540]  of all these codes, that they reflect the 19, was it 29?
[40:30.540 --> 40:31.260]  25.
[40:31.260 --> 40:39.260]  25 code that was passed without substantive change, and we had a discussion with Ken the
[40:39.260 --> 40:40.860]  other day on this issue.
[40:40.860 --> 40:47.180]  The legislature certainly has authority to change the law, but it's not the law that
[40:47.180 --> 40:47.820]  changed.
[40:49.020 --> 40:56.620]  So if there is a difference between the code and the public law, then what we want to see
[40:56.620 --> 41:05.340]  is the legislative enactment that authorized that change, or did some legislators or some
[41:05.340 --> 41:10.620]  people with influence go to the publishing company and say, hey, you really need to do
[41:10.620 --> 41:16.300]  it this way, or some well-meaning person say, well, you should word this this way and leave
[41:16.300 --> 41:23.500]  that word and put in this word, and we wind up with a code that is substantively different
[41:24.140 --> 41:28.540]  than the public law that was originally passed by the legislature.
[41:28.540 --> 41:31.580]  And here's why I was bringing up what I was saying about this.
[41:31.580 --> 41:36.380]  This is some of the case law sightings out of these Vernon's annotated on this exact
[41:36.380 --> 41:39.740]  subject, dealing with plaintiffs or petitioners in general.
[41:39.740 --> 41:48.380]  The relator in Quo Warranto under Article 6398 through 6404 is the real plaintiff, and
[41:48.380 --> 41:50.940]  the state is merely a nominal party.
[41:50.940 --> 41:58.940]  That's Cole versus State, Civil Appellate 1914, 163 Southwest, 353.
[41:58.940 --> 42:05.340]  The state is merely a nominal party, the real party being the relator, Peace versus State,
[42:05.340 --> 42:08.540]  228 Southwest, 269.
[42:08.540 --> 42:15.260]  State may bring suits in nature of Quo Warranto through designated officers, either of its
[42:15.260 --> 42:23.340]  own accord or at instance of interested party filing, therefore, at instance of adverse
[42:23.340 --> 42:25.980]  claim at the office being unnecessary.
[42:25.980 --> 42:36.060]  Denison versus State, 61 Southwest, 2nd, 1017, error refused, 122, Texas, 459, that's 61
[42:36.060 --> 42:39.100]  Southwest, 2nd, 1022.
[42:39.100 --> 42:43.820]  Prosecution of Quo Warranto proceeding to annul municipality's wrongful assumption of
[42:43.820 --> 42:49.180]  powers remains under exclusive control of state's attorney and court, notwithstanding
[42:49.180 --> 42:54.700]  a private relator is responsible for setting proceeding in motion and becomes liable for
[42:54.700 --> 42:55.500]  cause of suit.
[42:56.540 --> 42:59.980]  Okay, who is, wait a minute, who is this, what is this case?
[43:01.180 --> 43:02.140]  The one I just read?
[43:02.700 --> 43:03.340]  Yeah.
[43:03.340 --> 43:09.420]  This is Town of DeKalb versus State, 71 Southwest, 2nd, 299.
[43:09.420 --> 43:15.580]  Okay, what that seems to say is something that would be in paramateria with other law
[43:16.300 --> 43:22.700]  is that the prosecutor cannot on his own initiative initiate a Quo Warranto,
[43:24.060 --> 43:28.300]  that it is the sovereign who initiates the Quo Warranto.
[43:28.300 --> 43:35.740]  Well, no, not necessarily, the reason being is the initiator is responsible for the cost
[43:35.740 --> 43:41.580]  of the action, that's written right into the old statute.
[43:42.140 --> 43:42.460]  Okay.
[43:46.460 --> 43:52.220]  And like I say, the statute clearly states that it can be initiated by either of those,
[43:52.220 --> 44:00.140]  but it may also be initiated by an interested or even disinterested.
[44:00.140 --> 44:04.700]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[44:05.260 --> 44:08.940]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Maris proven method.
[44:08.940 --> 44:13.500]  Michael Maris has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you
[44:13.500 --> 44:14.540]  can win too.
[44:14.540 --> 44:18.860]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using
[44:18.860 --> 44:20.700]  federal civil rights statute.
[44:20.700 --> 44:24.380]  What to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons.
[44:24.380 --> 44:26.380]  How to answer letters and phone calls.
[44:26.380 --> 44:29.020]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit report.
[44:29.020 --> 44:33.660]  How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[44:33.660 --> 44:38.540]  The Michael Maris proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[44:38.540 --> 44:40.940]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[44:40.940 --> 44:46.060]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Maris
[44:46.060 --> 44:49.340]  banner or email michaelmaris at yahoo.com.
[44:49.340 --> 44:57.180]  That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com.
[44:57.180 --> 45:20.620]  To learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[45:20.620 --> 45:37.660]  Okay, we're back now and what I was saying before we went off the air is that I was
[45:37.660 --> 45:45.100]  responding to Randy's comment that a relator must be the initiator of the relator being
[45:45.100 --> 45:47.900]  a private citizen or a sovereign citizen.
[45:47.900 --> 45:53.100]  It's not necessarily the case since the statutory language itself specifically states that it
[45:53.100 --> 45:59.980]  can be initiated by either the county or district attorney or the state's attorney general.
[45:59.980 --> 46:06.060]  They can be initiated in that case and in the case of a corporate existence or municipality
[46:06.060 --> 46:12.380]  charter or existence or act, only the state may be the initiator and relator according
[46:12.380 --> 46:14.420]  to a case that we've got here.
[46:14.420 --> 46:20.580]  A proceeding questioning legal existence of a public corporation may be brought only by
[46:20.580 --> 46:30.300]  or on relation of the state and that is Richardson versus state 199 southwest second 239.
[46:30.300 --> 46:36.940]  Now in that case it specifically prohibits initiation by an individual.
[46:36.940 --> 46:41.920]  Here it says it is strictly to be done by the state.
[46:41.920 --> 46:48.940]  And so in that case for the offices then we can have individual sovereign relators but
[46:48.940 --> 46:57.140]  for the corporation side it appears that only the state is responsible and able to perform
[46:57.140 --> 47:02.580]  that action based upon the case law.
[47:02.580 --> 47:12.860]  That's a problem because it seems to especially with a corporation the state is a corporation
[47:12.860 --> 47:15.580]  the state's not going to allow it.
[47:15.580 --> 47:20.260]  State officials are not going to bring a court warrant against the state.
[47:20.260 --> 47:31.780]  That's true but in this particular case okay let's see yeah the legal existence let's see
[47:31.780 --> 47:38.060]  this was in 1947 so the possibility exists that it was set up that way through case law
[47:38.060 --> 47:39.060]  intention.
[47:39.060 --> 47:49.300]  I guess we'll have to go back and study that because that would be a nice angle.
[47:49.300 --> 48:01.260]  If the citizen in the statute has capacity to bring the court warrant to whoever initiates
[48:01.260 --> 48:11.540]  it then I want to what I'm concerned is with is what discretion does the official have
[48:11.540 --> 48:16.180]  to act or not act because the term may was used in there.
[48:16.180 --> 48:22.940]  Yeah well here's another possible thing we can use in regard to that though Randy.
[48:22.940 --> 48:33.180]  Under this option I can I would be willing to actually put money down on the fact that
[48:33.180 --> 48:42.980]  you will not find a single Texas employee that validly according to law officially holds
[48:42.980 --> 48:45.660]  the office they occupy.
[48:45.660 --> 48:51.580]  Since the individual can challenge the office if we eliminate all the state employees who
[48:51.580 --> 48:53.020]  else is there.
[48:53.020 --> 49:01.180]  Right the corporation without humans is just a name and that part I was pleased to see
[49:01.180 --> 49:04.800]  that we can move against officers.
[49:04.800 --> 49:09.780]  What about officers one of the things I was looking at is you know I'm working on this
[49:09.780 --> 49:17.340]  mortgage issue and I was considering a way if we have a mortgage company that's acting
[49:17.340 --> 49:26.580]  in a pattern of abuse in violation of law could we go after the capacity of the corporation
[49:26.580 --> 49:33.280]  to be licensed in the state and remove them court warranted.
[49:33.280 --> 49:37.100]  I would believe so yes according to the case law I'm reading here.
[49:37.100 --> 49:42.260]  I think that would be an attack on them that they are not accustomed to.
[49:42.260 --> 49:49.420]  Randy could you apply that same strategy to federal agencies?
[49:49.420 --> 49:55.140]  Well absolutely thinking that someone who failed to meet the statutory requirements
[49:55.140 --> 50:02.340]  to hold office were obviously thinking on the same track but this is a federal issue
[50:02.340 --> 50:05.580]  but Covanto is alive and well.
[50:05.580 --> 50:11.500]  I'm talking about your pattern of abuse thing and removing the ability of the corporation
[50:11.500 --> 50:16.700]  to do business in the state altogether of the federal agency as a corporation.
[50:16.700 --> 50:23.460]  I don't think the federal agency actually does business in the state they sort of do
[50:23.460 --> 50:29.620]  business in the federal venue where it overlaps the state.
[50:29.620 --> 50:34.060]  Okay Randy there is additional case law here that I've just come across that deals specifically
[50:34.060 --> 50:42.340]  with the attorney general in this matter and what the case law here is stating is that
[50:42.340 --> 50:49.060]  the limitation exists that only the attorney general may be the one to prosecute the action.
[50:49.060 --> 50:56.340]  I don't see anywhere in this where it is prohibiting that he be moved to do so by an individual.
[50:56.340 --> 50:58.780]  That would be great I wouldn't mind you know.
[50:58.780 --> 51:02.100]  But again you're talking to the attorney general of the state saying you have to destroy the
[51:02.100 --> 51:06.700]  corporation for which you work.
[51:06.700 --> 51:14.460]  Yeah but the attorney general tends to be a lot more political than the district attorney
[51:14.460 --> 51:18.140]  because he deals so much with criminal cases.
[51:18.140 --> 51:23.260]  The attorney general doesn't deal directly for the most part with a lot of prosecutions
[51:23.260 --> 51:27.380]  so when he does it tends to be very political in nature.
[51:27.380 --> 51:34.420]  So I would like the idea of him because he's more exposed.
[51:34.420 --> 51:39.860]  Now the additional case law here dealing with standing plaintiffs or petitioners.
[51:39.860 --> 51:44.340]  Now this is where this is going to be important folks because without standing it won't do
[51:44.340 --> 51:46.340]  you any good.
[51:46.340 --> 51:50.820]  Where an information in quote warrant against a school trustee is presented by one having
[51:50.820 --> 51:55.380]  no interest the court may refuse to permit it to be filed and should refuse to remove
[51:55.380 --> 51:57.260]  the respondent.
[51:57.260 --> 52:02.500]  Now that's 66 Southwest 256 Dever versus State.
[52:02.500 --> 52:05.580]  Now if you look through these other cases.
[52:05.580 --> 52:14.660]  Wait a minute wait a minute we need what would constitute standing to petition against a
[52:14.660 --> 52:17.660]  public official.
[52:17.660 --> 52:24.540]  In this case we have subsection three of 66.001 okay.
[52:24.540 --> 52:30.540]  That would be an associate or that's dealing with the corporation sorry it's 001 sub-bottom
[52:30.540 --> 52:31.540]  two.
[52:31.540 --> 52:41.460]  A public officer does enact or allows an act that by law causes a forfeiture of his office.
[52:41.460 --> 52:45.900]  So the violation of any law relating to his office does exactly that.
[52:45.900 --> 52:50.260]  Yes it is grounds for standing to initiate a court warrant up.
[52:50.260 --> 52:52.060]  Who has the standing?
[52:52.060 --> 52:53.860]  Any citizen?
[52:53.860 --> 53:05.940]  Well in this case let's see quote warrant is not available to private citizen in his
[53:05.940 --> 53:12.540]  private capacity although it may be brought upon facts related and verified by him.
[53:12.540 --> 53:21.500]  That's Butte versus League City 390 Southwest second 811 that's from 1965 and then here
[53:21.500 --> 53:24.860]  under wait a minute wait a minute read that again.
[53:24.860 --> 53:30.100]  One warrant is not available to a private citizen in his private capacity although it
[53:30.100 --> 53:37.420]  may be brought upon facts related and verified by him.
[53:37.420 --> 53:44.940]  I don't really understand what that's saying is he saying that the private individual in
[53:44.940 --> 53:52.780]  his private capacity cannot prosecute court warrant because it obviously says.
[53:52.780 --> 54:03.420]  This is understanding so yeah it clearly said that I would have standing to bring the issue
[54:03.420 --> 54:04.900]  but not prosecute the issue.
[54:04.900 --> 54:09.340]  What I didn't think I would have standing to prosecute the issue anyway I bring it to
[54:09.340 --> 54:12.460]  the prosecuting attorney and he prosecutes the issue.
[54:12.460 --> 54:17.940]  Well right but it doesn't say prosecute quote warrant is not available to private citizen
[54:17.940 --> 54:22.900]  in his private capacity although it may be brought upon facts related and verified by
[54:22.900 --> 54:23.900]  him.
[54:23.900 --> 54:29.580]  Okay well I can never prosecute quote warrant as I understand it but I can bring the issue
[54:29.580 --> 54:30.740]  to the court.
[54:30.740 --> 54:37.120]  So yeah that's saying that I as a person can't do the prosecution but I do have standing
[54:37.120 --> 54:43.940]  to bring the issue to my public official and invoke his duty and that's where I want to
[54:43.940 --> 54:55.860]  get to invoke his duty as opposed to allowing him caprice absolute discretion that rather
[54:55.860 --> 55:01.980]  he wants to do this job or not want to do this job and that's what I'm getting at.
[55:01.980 --> 55:07.300]  Can I invoke the duty of the prosecutor to move quote warrant over can he just do whatever
[55:07.300 --> 55:08.300]  he wants to.
[55:08.300 --> 55:12.740]  No you can do it you can do it.
[55:12.740 --> 55:17.700]  That's what I'm looking for I need in order to get quote warrant over to work I need a
[55:17.700 --> 55:22.300]  lever against the prosecutor he's not going to want to go after one of his fellow public
[55:22.300 --> 55:23.300]  officials.
[55:23.300 --> 55:26.540]  So I need a hammer I can beat him up with.
[55:26.540 --> 55:31.780]  I need standing to invoke his duty like when I give a criminal complaint to a magistrate
[55:31.780 --> 55:36.540]  I invoke his duty that's duty from which he may not shield himself I need a way to go
[55:36.540 --> 55:41.460]  to quote warrant and invoke the duty of the prosecutor in a manner in which he may not
[55:41.460 --> 55:42.460]  shield himself.
[55:42.460 --> 55:48.740]  Okay I have a question here Randy for you because this is how I got into all this from
[55:48.740 --> 55:57.180]  the beginning if there's a monopoly on prosecution by the so-called state attorney prosecutor
[55:57.180 --> 56:01.660]  or district attorney whatever you want to call it how are you going to make him do it.
[56:01.660 --> 56:10.380]  I mean there's not going to be an incentive so the only alternative that I see well there's
[56:10.380 --> 56:21.940]  two we can petition the legislature to authorize private prosecution of crimes where victims
[56:21.940 --> 56:28.260]  of crimes could hire a private attorney to prosecute a crime or grand jury grand the
[56:28.260 --> 56:34.140]  grand jury itself prosecutes the crime and I think that's a much better route and as
[56:34.140 --> 56:42.900]  far as I have seen it that is already statutorily authorized and constitutional authorized and
[56:42.900 --> 56:48.380]  that is our right that is the purpose of the grand jury is to prosecute crime there never
[56:48.380 --> 56:55.020]  used to even be a so-called state prosecutor grand jury was always the one that dealt
[56:55.020 --> 57:01.260]  with prosecution of crimes okay you're exactly on point to where I want to go where do I
[57:01.260 --> 57:07.740]  get the leverage to take the district attorney to the grand jury when he doesn't move ahead
[57:07.740 --> 57:08.740]  on quote warrant.
[57:08.740 --> 57:15.820]  You go to the grand jury this is what no see I need law I need enough if he has absolute
[57:15.820 --> 57:23.140]  caprice then I don't have leverage to go to the grand jury but what about usv what about
[57:23.140 --> 57:29.020]  usv Williams I don't see any caprice there oh yeah but the grand jury can only accuse
[57:29.020 --> 57:36.740]  him of a crime if it's a crime if he has total discretion then I don't have a shot at him
[57:36.740 --> 57:45.140]  I need something that shows where I can invoke his duty and not to where I go to him with
[57:45.140 --> 57:50.580]  my hand in my hand and say will you please do this for me and he can absolutely exercise
[57:50.580 --> 57:55.740]  absolute caprice and decides whether he wants to do it or not okay well Randy we at the
[57:55.740 --> 58:02.140]  state level there's no option for the prosecutor I don't know about the federal level I don't
[58:02.140 --> 58:07.860]  know about the US prosecutor but well I'm looking for that in quote warrant I've got
[58:07.860 --> 58:13.140]  it in criminal but I don't have it in quote warrant well in quote warrant though it looks
[58:13.140 --> 58:17.780]  like he has the option of discretion to do as he pleases I want to take that away from
[58:17.780 --> 58:22.460]  it well wait a minute if there's a crime then the discretion is taken away yeah crime is
[58:22.460 --> 58:28.180]  different the criminal act by public official that goes to 2.03 but the quote warrant seems
[58:28.180 --> 58:34.700]  to leave him more discretion than I really want to leave it okay well then that just
[58:34.700 --> 58:42.500]  goes to generic grand jury functioning because I gotta have a crime I gotta have grounds
[58:42.500 --> 58:50.420]  and that's what I'm looking for it's something that invokes his duty to where he can't dodge
[58:50.420 --> 59:00.260]  it okay we'll be right back Randy Kelton, Deputy Stephen.
[59:00.260 --> 59:04.460]  My name is Randall Kelton and I co-host on Rule of Law Radio.
[59:04.460 --> 59:09.260]  We specialize in showing people how to strike back against corrupt public officials.
[59:09.260 --> 59:13.660]  With the mortgage crisis worsening we set our sights on finding a remedy for people
[59:13.660 --> 59:15.820]  who have been cheated by their lenders.
[59:15.820 --> 59:20.100]  If you have a mortgage or have paid years off you have probably been cheated out of
[59:20.100 --> 59:22.340]  thousands but there is a remedy.
[59:22.340 --> 59:31.620]  Go to remediesinrealestate.com or call me at 512-430-4140 and find out how to use the
[59:31.620 --> 59:37.200]  consumer protection laws to recover what the lenders have stolen through fraud and deception.
[59:37.200 --> 59:42.020]  We will prepare for you a qualified written request that will expose the fraud and put
[59:42.020 --> 59:43.900]  the lenders on the dime.
[59:43.900 --> 59:47.980]  Lender fraud is bankrupting this country and it's time to fight back.
[59:47.980 --> 59:57.620]  Go to remediesinrealestate.com or call 512-430-4140 and get the information you need to stop the
[59:57.620 --> 59:59.820]  money changers in their tracks.
[59:59.820 --> 01:00:04.260]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[01:00:04.260 --> 01:00:09.700]  Pakistani troops repulsed a Taliban attack on a checkpoint near the Afghan border Wednesday
[01:00:09.700 --> 01:00:14.020]  in fighting that killed six soldiers and 25 insurgents.
[01:00:14.020 --> 01:00:17.940]  A British government investigation into the emails leaked from one of the world's leading
[01:00:17.940 --> 01:00:22.100]  climate research centers has vindicated the scientists involved.
[01:00:22.100 --> 01:00:26.380]  The House of Common Science and Technology Committee said they had seen no evidence to
[01:00:26.380 --> 01:00:31.420]  support charges that the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit's director,
[01:00:31.420 --> 01:00:37.380]  Phil Jones, had tampered with data to exaggerate the threat of global warming.
[01:00:37.380 --> 01:00:42.860]  Double suicide bombings struck the Russian Republic of Dagestan Wednesday, killing 12
[01:00:42.860 --> 01:00:43.860]  people.
[01:00:43.860 --> 01:00:48.980]  The attacks followed this week's bombings in Moscow's subway system, which left 39 dead.
[01:00:48.980 --> 01:00:52.820]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[01:00:52.820 --> 01:00:59.340]  Donor countries attending a major UN fundraiser for Haiti Wednesday pledged $5.3 billion for
[01:00:59.340 --> 01:01:03.740]  the next two years to put the quake-ravaged nation back on its feet.
[01:01:03.740 --> 01:01:09.300]  The tally far exceeded the target of $3.8 billion that had been set by conference organizers.
[01:01:09.300 --> 01:01:14.660]  UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the international community pledged a total of
[01:01:14.660 --> 01:01:18.300]  $9.9 billion for the next three years and beyond.
[01:01:18.300 --> 01:01:23.980]  The quake killed at least 220,000 people and left 1.3 million homeless.
[01:01:23.980 --> 01:01:32.820]  The U.S. pledged $1.1 billion and the EU contributed $1.6 billion, and France offered $243 million
[01:01:32.820 --> 01:01:35.860]  for food and restoration of government authority.
[01:01:35.860 --> 01:01:40.740]  138 countries, international bodies such as the World Bank and the International Monetary
[01:01:40.740 --> 01:01:45.820]  Fund, non-governmental organizations, and Haitian expatriates took part.
[01:01:45.820 --> 01:01:50.420]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[01:01:50.420 --> 01:01:55.620]  Shahram Amiri, an Iranian nuclear scientist who disappeared while on pilgrimage to Mecca
[01:01:55.620 --> 01:02:00.540]  last year, has defected to the U.S. and is working for the CIA.
[01:02:00.540 --> 01:02:06.380]  The report on ABC News described the defection as, quote, an intelligence coup and claimed
[01:02:06.380 --> 01:02:12.980]  that information gleaned from debriefing Dr. Amiri had added details to existing CIA intelligence
[01:02:12.980 --> 01:02:15.980]  assessments about the Iranian nuclear program.
[01:02:15.980 --> 01:02:21.940]  Dr. Amiri, a nuclear scientist at Tehran's Malik Ashtar University, went missing in June
[01:02:21.940 --> 01:02:27.500]  last year, three days after arriving in Saudi Arabia for the annual Hajj.
[01:02:27.500 --> 01:02:32.300]  Details of his disappearance emerged months later when Iran accused the U.S. of abducting
[01:02:32.300 --> 01:02:37.860]  him and lodged a formal protest with the U.N. Malik Ashtar University has been identified
[01:02:37.860 --> 01:02:44.060]  by the U.N. as a nuclear research facility overseen by Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps.
[01:02:44.060 --> 01:02:50.500]  ABC reported Dr. Amiri's defection was part of a CIA operation to woo Iranian nuclear
[01:02:50.500 --> 01:02:53.340]  scientists with family contacts in the U.S.
[01:02:53.340 --> 01:03:22.820]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[01:03:22.820 --> 01:03:45.000]  And
[01:03:52.820 --> 01:03:59.820]  I want to say, chant for our words, chant for our words
[01:03:59.820 --> 01:04:02.820]  Most of them when me chant, let me see
[01:04:02.820 --> 01:04:06.820]  See all man was created equally
[01:04:06.820 --> 01:04:09.820]  Chant on Babylon and do it daily
[01:04:09.820 --> 01:04:13.820]  And when night come, breath with everybody
[01:04:13.820 --> 01:04:16.820]  So when by one me have to chant them on
[01:04:16.820 --> 01:04:20.820]  Me chant on Babylon because Babylon is wrong
[01:04:20.820 --> 01:04:23.820]  The only right man me say is the rest come on
[01:04:23.820 --> 01:04:27.820]  We take me say Lord man before we on the moon
[01:04:27.820 --> 01:04:31.820]  To chant on Babylon no not later
[01:04:31.820 --> 01:04:33.820]  Okay, we're talking on the break about
[01:04:33.820 --> 01:04:39.820]  Quo Warrantail Removal of a Public Servant from Office
[01:04:39.820 --> 01:04:42.820]  Suing them versus prosecuting them and removing them
[01:04:42.820 --> 01:04:46.820]  and all these kinds of things and I
[01:04:46.820 --> 01:04:48.820]  I was a little reluctant to say this on the air
[01:04:48.820 --> 01:04:51.820]  because this is my opinion but Randy said yes, say it on the air
[01:04:51.820 --> 01:04:53.820]  So I'm going to say it on the air
[01:04:53.820 --> 01:04:57.820]  This is my opinion, this is the way I think things should be
[01:04:57.820 --> 01:05:00.820]  It makes sense to me
[01:05:00.820 --> 01:05:03.820]  If a public official commits a tort
[01:05:03.820 --> 01:05:09.820]  Then we the people should be able to sue him, make him pay
[01:05:09.820 --> 01:05:16.820]  But that doesn't necessarily mean that he has abdicated
[01:05:16.820 --> 01:05:21.820]  Or he forfeits his office just because he commits a tort
[01:05:21.820 --> 01:05:26.820]  But however if this public servant has committed a crime
[01:05:26.820 --> 01:05:28.820]  Well now that's a different story
[01:05:28.820 --> 01:05:33.820]  And Randy and Eddie and I have been trying to determine
[01:05:33.820 --> 01:05:36.820]  Concerning this Quo Warrantail Removal
[01:05:36.820 --> 01:05:41.820]  How do we force the prosecutor to be able to prosecute
[01:05:41.820 --> 01:05:43.820]  This Quo Warrantail Action
[01:05:43.820 --> 01:05:47.820]  Which basically is the same thing as an impeachment proceeding
[01:05:47.820 --> 01:05:51.820]  It doesn't necessarily mean that the public servant is removed
[01:05:51.820 --> 01:05:52.820]  It's just like an impeachment
[01:05:52.820 --> 01:05:55.820]  Just because there's an impeachment hearing against the president
[01:05:55.820 --> 01:05:57.820]  Doesn't mean that the president's removed
[01:05:57.820 --> 01:05:58.820]  It's just a hearing
[01:05:58.820 --> 01:06:00.820]  So it's kind of a similar thing at that level
[01:06:00.820 --> 01:06:06.820]  But at any rate how do you force the prosecutor to prosecute this
[01:06:06.820 --> 01:06:17.820]  And barring massive legislative change to enact private prosecution
[01:06:17.820 --> 01:06:22.820]  In which private individuals can hire their own attorney to prosecute a crime
[01:06:22.820 --> 01:06:28.820]  Barring that there's really no way under statute to force a prosecutor
[01:06:28.820 --> 01:06:33.820]  A district attorney or assistant district attorney at the state level
[01:06:33.820 --> 01:06:39.820]  To prosecute anything unless you submit
[01:06:39.820 --> 01:06:44.820]  Unless you file a criminal charge against somebody
[01:06:44.820 --> 01:06:47.820]  Against a public servant in which case
[01:06:47.820 --> 01:06:50.820]  You know then they have to reduce it to an information
[01:06:50.820 --> 01:06:51.820]  And submit it to the grand jury
[01:06:51.820 --> 01:06:54.820]  And so we basically determine on the break that
[01:06:54.820 --> 01:06:56.820]  Unless there is a crime committed
[01:06:56.820 --> 01:07:03.820]  Unless a citizen or unless an individual alleges a specific crime
[01:07:03.820 --> 01:07:05.820]  Committed on the part of a public servant
[01:07:05.820 --> 01:07:13.820]  You cannot forcefully invoke the duty of the prosecutor
[01:07:13.820 --> 01:07:17.820]  To pursue a court warrant to removal
[01:07:17.820 --> 01:07:20.820]  And I think that that's reasonable because if he's committed a tort
[01:07:20.820 --> 01:07:22.820]  Then sue his behind
[01:07:22.820 --> 01:07:24.820]  If he's committed a crime
[01:07:24.820 --> 01:07:32.820]  Then prosecute him and commence to remove his behind from office
[01:07:32.820 --> 01:07:36.820]  Yeah I was thinking and whenever I was saying that on the break
[01:07:36.820 --> 01:07:39.820]  I was thinking one thing came back to me
[01:07:39.820 --> 01:07:42.820]  Be careful what you ask for
[01:07:42.820 --> 01:07:49.820]  You know it's nice to be able to get rid of a public official that we don't like
[01:07:49.820 --> 01:07:53.820]  But then again if we make it too easy
[01:07:53.820 --> 01:07:59.820]  Then the other side can get rid of the public officials we do like
[01:07:59.820 --> 01:08:03.820]  So we really need to be careful what we ask for
[01:08:03.820 --> 01:08:07.820]  Getting what we want may give the other side more of what they want
[01:08:07.820 --> 01:08:10.820]  Yeah and I don't think that committing a tort
[01:08:10.820 --> 01:08:14.820]  You know inflicting a tort is necessarily reason to remove from office
[01:08:14.820 --> 01:08:16.820]  But certainly a crime is
[01:08:16.820 --> 01:08:18.820]  And Randy I wanted to bring this up to you
[01:08:18.820 --> 01:08:20.820]  Okay and I do want to say this on the air
[01:08:20.820 --> 01:08:22.820]  Because I was talking to a friend of mine about this today
[01:08:22.820 --> 01:08:24.820]  Concerning oaths of office
[01:08:24.820 --> 01:08:27.820]  And I don't want to get too far off on the tangent here
[01:08:27.820 --> 01:08:32.820]  But concerning a conspiracy or you know
[01:08:32.820 --> 01:08:38.820]  Some kind of a history here regarding government agency
[01:08:38.820 --> 01:08:39.820]  Let me tell you what
[01:08:39.820 --> 01:08:44.820]  Every single oath of office
[01:08:44.820 --> 01:08:53.820]  Of every single federal so-called public servant that I have ever foyered
[01:08:53.820 --> 01:08:57.820]  Has come up completely bogus
[01:08:57.820 --> 01:09:00.820]  I.e. half of them don't have dates
[01:09:00.820 --> 01:09:06.820]  And 100% of all the foyers that I have ever done at the federal level
[01:09:06.820 --> 01:09:09.820]  Of oaths of office, none of them
[01:09:09.820 --> 01:09:14.820]  100% of them are not notarized
[01:09:14.820 --> 01:09:17.820]  Okay none of them
[01:09:17.820 --> 01:09:21.820]  Now if that doesn't show something I don't know what does
[01:09:21.820 --> 01:09:25.820]  And this is what I want to say to all the listeners out in listener land
[01:09:25.820 --> 01:09:26.820]  Concerning oath of office
[01:09:26.820 --> 01:09:29.820]  Why this is so important
[01:09:29.820 --> 01:09:31.820]  The oath of office
[01:09:31.820 --> 01:09:35.820]  This is where a human being makes the transition
[01:09:35.820 --> 01:09:42.820]  From a sovereign individual to a public servant
[01:09:42.820 --> 01:09:47.820]  And you know honestly that human being is still a sovereign human being
[01:09:47.820 --> 01:09:49.820]  In his or her own private capacity
[01:09:49.820 --> 01:09:55.820]  But in the official capacity of his or her office
[01:09:55.820 --> 01:09:58.820]  He or she is now a public servant
[01:09:58.820 --> 01:10:01.820]  And must be bound by their oath
[01:10:01.820 --> 01:10:04.820]  Bound by their conscience
[01:10:04.820 --> 01:10:11.820]  Because we the people are granting that human with authority
[01:10:11.820 --> 01:10:16.820]  To deprive we the people of life, liberty and property
[01:10:16.820 --> 01:10:23.820]  And thus we require that they are bound by an oath
[01:10:23.820 --> 01:10:26.820]  That is spoken, that is signed, that is notarized
[01:10:26.820 --> 01:10:28.820]  Because that's where you cross the line
[01:10:28.820 --> 01:10:30.820]  That's where you make the transition
[01:10:30.820 --> 01:10:35.820]  From a sovereign human being to a public servant
[01:10:35.820 --> 01:10:39.820]  So why don't any of them have oaths of office?
[01:10:39.820 --> 01:10:42.820]  Either because they're using aliases
[01:10:42.820 --> 01:10:46.820]  And a notary, which is an officer of the courts
[01:10:46.820 --> 01:10:49.820]  Cannot notarize it or also go to jail
[01:10:49.820 --> 01:10:52.820]  Be prosecuted, everything else
[01:10:52.820 --> 01:10:57.820]  And or the real reason I feel is because
[01:10:57.820 --> 01:11:02.820]  The good Lord will not allow them to do it because an oath is something
[01:11:02.820 --> 01:11:04.820]  It means something
[01:11:04.820 --> 01:11:06.820]  In my whole life, on this planet
[01:11:06.820 --> 01:11:11.820]  I've only seen two cases, two scenarios
[01:11:11.820 --> 01:11:14.820]  Where humans are required to take oaths
[01:11:14.820 --> 01:11:16.820]  Okay, I'll take that three
[01:11:16.820 --> 01:11:20.820]  Marriage or you get up on the witness stand testimony
[01:11:20.820 --> 01:11:22.820]  Or you take an oath of office
[01:11:22.820 --> 01:11:24.820]  Three things
[01:11:24.820 --> 01:11:27.820]  And the Lord says, do not swear, alright?
[01:11:27.820 --> 01:11:29.820]  But on this planet, in this life
[01:11:29.820 --> 01:11:32.820]  Those are the three times you're required to
[01:11:32.820 --> 01:11:35.820]  But they don't do it
[01:11:35.820 --> 01:11:37.820]  But they have to
[01:11:37.820 --> 01:11:41.820]  Because we're granting them with the authority to deprive us of our life, liberty and property
[01:11:41.820 --> 01:11:45.820]  That's why we demand of them to be bound by their conscience
[01:11:45.820 --> 01:11:48.820]  And I'm going to hold them to it
[01:11:48.820 --> 01:11:50.820]  And that's all I have to say
[01:11:50.820 --> 01:11:52.820]  I'm prosecuting them in the state
[01:11:52.820 --> 01:11:54.820]  That's all you have to say?
[01:11:54.820 --> 01:11:55.820]  Alright
[01:11:55.820 --> 01:11:57.820]  Oh, okay
[01:11:57.820 --> 01:12:01.820]  That's always been confusing to me
[01:12:01.820 --> 01:12:06.820]  I mean, it's not like taking the oath is some big deal
[01:12:06.820 --> 01:12:08.820]  It should be relatively easy
[01:12:08.820 --> 01:12:11.820]  It seems an incredible act of arrogance
[01:12:11.820 --> 01:12:15.820]  Well, actually, it is a big deal
[01:12:15.820 --> 01:12:16.820]  And the reason it's a big deal
[01:12:16.820 --> 01:12:18.820]  It's a big deal if they don't
[01:12:18.820 --> 01:12:20.820]  But it's not that hard to get done
[01:12:20.820 --> 01:12:23.820]  Well, no, I don't think it's the getting done
[01:12:23.820 --> 01:12:26.820]  It's the level of accountability associated with it
[01:12:26.820 --> 01:12:27.820]  It doesn't change
[01:12:27.820 --> 01:12:30.820]  When you act in the capacity of the office
[01:12:30.820 --> 01:12:32.820]  You act as if you swore to the oath anyway
[01:12:32.820 --> 01:12:36.820]  And if you didn't, all it does is compound your potential liability
[01:12:36.820 --> 01:12:38.820]  They have more accountability if they don't
[01:12:38.820 --> 01:12:42.820]  You can't be charged with aggravated perjury though, Randy
[01:12:42.820 --> 01:12:46.820]  And that's exactly what could be done to these people the way they're doing it
[01:12:46.820 --> 01:12:50.820]  If they actually took the oath and swore to it and then broke it
[01:12:50.820 --> 01:12:53.820]  They can be prosecuted for aggravated perjury
[01:12:53.820 --> 01:12:56.820]  Yeah, but if they didn't take the oath
[01:12:56.820 --> 01:13:00.820]  Then they'd be charged with impersonating a public citizen
[01:13:00.820 --> 01:13:03.820]  Which is just a misdemeanor
[01:13:03.820 --> 01:13:07.820]  Versus the aggravated perjury is a felony
[01:13:07.820 --> 01:13:09.820]  Which route would you take?
[01:13:09.820 --> 01:13:10.820]  Oh, man
[01:13:10.820 --> 01:13:14.820]  First act is misdemeanor, second one is felony
[01:13:14.820 --> 01:13:16.820]  I don't see the difference
[01:13:16.820 --> 01:13:19.820]  Wait, second act is felony?
[01:13:19.820 --> 01:13:21.820]  Yeah, second time is felony
[01:13:21.820 --> 01:13:23.820]  It steps up one each time
[01:13:23.820 --> 01:13:25.820]  Are you sure? That's under technical code?
[01:13:25.820 --> 01:13:27.820]  Yes, that's for each count
[01:13:27.820 --> 01:13:30.820]  The second time you commit the same offense, it steps up one
[01:13:30.820 --> 01:13:35.820]  Okay, Mr. Stephen Lee, Mr. Dennis Carlton
[01:13:35.820 --> 01:13:37.820]  Take that
[01:13:37.820 --> 01:13:39.820]  I'm coming after you
[01:13:39.820 --> 01:13:46.820]  I'm not afraid to call out names
[01:13:46.820 --> 01:13:47.820]  Yeah
[01:13:47.820 --> 01:13:48.820]  Seriously
[01:13:48.820 --> 01:13:49.820]  It seems not true
[01:13:49.820 --> 01:13:51.820]  We've got their oaths
[01:13:51.820 --> 01:13:54.820]  Their oath-like object is not actually an oath
[01:13:54.820 --> 01:13:56.820]  And not only that, Mr. Dennis Carlton
[01:13:56.820 --> 01:14:03.820]  He is still answering foyers on other people's oaths
[01:14:03.820 --> 01:14:05.820]  When he doesn't even have an oath
[01:14:05.820 --> 01:14:10.820]  I love those cookies
[01:14:10.820 --> 01:14:16.820]  Well, by what authority does the position he allegedly holds answer a FOIA request?
[01:14:16.820 --> 01:14:18.820]  That's another question
[01:14:18.820 --> 01:14:21.820]  He's the director of an office
[01:14:21.820 --> 01:14:26.820]  You either have an appointed public information officer
[01:14:26.820 --> 01:14:30.820]  Or the director of the particular officer department
[01:14:30.820 --> 01:14:35.820]  Is considered the public information officer
[01:14:35.820 --> 01:14:39.820]  But this oath thing has always confused me
[01:14:39.820 --> 01:14:44.820]  Now that is clearly a court warrant issue
[01:14:44.820 --> 01:14:47.820]  He hasn't met the requirements of the office
[01:14:47.820 --> 01:14:53.820]  And it doesn't matter whether he's done anything odious or obnoxious
[01:14:53.820 --> 01:14:59.820]  The fact that he hasn't met the requirements, that goes directly to court warrant removal
[01:14:59.820 --> 01:15:09.820]  And Randy, can we move for quo warrant removal of someone from a federal capacity in the state court?
[01:15:09.820 --> 01:15:11.820]  I intend to do that to Judge Sparks
[01:15:11.820 --> 01:15:15.820]  Oh, in the state court, in a federal capacity in the state?
[01:15:15.820 --> 01:15:16.820]  No
[01:15:16.820 --> 01:15:18.820]  Okay
[01:15:18.820 --> 01:15:19.820]  We have to do that in the Fed
[01:15:19.820 --> 01:15:21.820]  Okay
[01:15:21.820 --> 01:15:27.820]  But I want to move for quo warrant removal of Judge Sparks
[01:15:27.820 --> 01:15:33.820]  Because he issued a substantive ruling
[01:15:33.820 --> 01:15:36.820]  When he ruled that he didn't have subject matter jurisdiction
[01:15:36.820 --> 01:15:39.820]  He can do that
[01:15:39.820 --> 01:15:42.820]  And he can dismiss the case
[01:15:42.820 --> 01:15:45.820]  But not with prejudice
[01:15:45.820 --> 01:15:47.820]  That was substantive
[01:15:47.820 --> 01:15:50.820]  And since he didn't have subject matter jurisdiction
[01:15:50.820 --> 01:15:53.820]  He purported to exercise authority he doesn't expressly have
[01:15:53.820 --> 01:16:02.820]  He purported to deny us in the right to petition the court for redress of grievance, First Amendment
[01:16:02.820 --> 01:16:08.820]  Committed a crime of official oppression, 18 years code 242
[01:16:08.820 --> 01:16:15.820]  Yes, and we said that in our petition for writ of mandamus to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
[01:16:15.820 --> 01:16:19.820]  So what do you think they're going to say about that?
[01:16:19.820 --> 01:16:28.820]  They're not going to want to pick on the richest judge, the richest federal judge there is
[01:16:28.820 --> 01:16:29.820]  That's what I suspect
[01:16:29.820 --> 01:16:33.820]  I expect the Court of Appeals to blow us off
[01:16:33.820 --> 01:16:35.820]  We gave them a really good document on that
[01:16:35.820 --> 01:16:37.820]  Well, wait a minute, wait a minute
[01:16:37.820 --> 01:16:42.820]  We're not asking the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to hammer this circuit judge
[01:16:42.820 --> 01:16:45.820]  We're just asking them to remand the case to the state court
[01:16:45.820 --> 01:16:51.820]  So we're giving the 5th Circuit a way to let Judge Sparks off the hook
[01:16:51.820 --> 01:16:54.820]  And we'll go after him ourselves later
[01:16:54.820 --> 01:16:55.820]  Yes
[01:16:55.820 --> 01:17:23.820]  We'll be right back
[01:17:23.820 --> 01:17:26.820]  There's no way a place like that exists
[01:17:26.820 --> 01:17:27.820]  Go check it out for yourself
[01:17:27.820 --> 01:17:31.820]  It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street, just south of UT
[01:17:31.820 --> 01:17:35.820]  By UT, there's never anywhere to park down there
[01:17:35.820 --> 01:17:41.820]  Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking facility
[01:17:41.820 --> 01:17:43.820]  Just behind the bookstore
[01:17:43.820 --> 01:17:46.820]  It does exist, but when are they open?
[01:17:46.820 --> 01:17:51.820]  Monday through Saturday, 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. and 1 to 6 p.m. on Sundays
[01:17:51.820 --> 01:17:55.820]  So give them a call at 512-480-2503
[01:17:55.820 --> 01:18:24.820]  Or check out their events page at BraveNewBookstore.com
[01:18:24.820 --> 01:18:48.820]  Okay, we're going to your call
[01:18:48.820 --> 01:18:52.820]  512-646-1984
[01:18:52.820 --> 01:18:54.820]  We got Guy and Gary
[01:18:54.820 --> 01:18:56.820]  Guy, go ahead
[01:18:56.820 --> 01:18:59.820]  Let me make a little disclaimer before we go to call
[01:18:59.820 --> 01:19:01.820]  We don't give any legal advice
[01:19:01.820 --> 01:19:02.820]  Just a minor disclaimer
[01:19:02.820 --> 01:19:05.820]  And we don't prepare documents for anyone
[01:19:05.820 --> 01:19:10.820]  Now, I've got two nickels in my beer fund
[01:19:10.820 --> 01:19:17.820]  So if my voice sounds kind of slurred, don't think anything of it
[01:19:17.820 --> 01:19:18.820]  There's one of them
[01:19:18.820 --> 01:19:19.820]  Was that the dime?
[01:19:19.820 --> 01:19:22.820]  Okay, yeah, here's the other one
[01:19:22.820 --> 01:19:24.820]  Okay, good
[01:19:24.820 --> 01:19:27.820]  Okay, that was the other one
[01:19:27.820 --> 01:19:29.820]  Go ahead, Guy
[01:19:29.820 --> 01:19:33.820]  Let's go to Guy from Arkansas
[01:19:33.820 --> 01:19:35.820]  Hello
[01:19:35.820 --> 01:19:36.820]  Hello
[01:19:36.820 --> 01:19:37.820]  Go ahead, Guy
[01:19:37.820 --> 01:19:39.820]  Okay, we on?
[01:19:39.820 --> 01:19:40.820]  Can you hear me?
[01:19:40.820 --> 01:19:42.820]  You are on the air
[01:19:42.820 --> 01:19:47.820]  Okay, I didn't hear the traditional beep or loud, you know, let you know when you're on
[01:19:47.820 --> 01:19:54.820]  Hey, listen, folks, I've got a question about since you briefly touched upon an injunction
[01:19:54.820 --> 01:20:00.820]  We got a situation here where somebody is trying to put up a cell tower
[01:20:00.820 --> 01:20:10.820]  And there was some suspicious activity going in between the Planning Commission and the City Council
[01:20:10.820 --> 01:20:16.820]  To change the zoning code from a residence to a commercial
[01:20:16.820 --> 01:20:21.820]  And it's right in the middle of a residential area
[01:20:21.820 --> 01:20:29.820]  So, of course, the people overwhelmingly voiced their opinion and through petition
[01:20:29.820 --> 01:20:33.820]  Not to have this thing put in this specific spot
[01:20:33.820 --> 01:20:42.820]  Even the building inspector admits that he is not qualified to look over the construction
[01:20:42.820 --> 01:20:48.820]  And okay the way it's going to be put up
[01:20:48.820 --> 01:20:53.820]  There's a few other details too that I don't want to make this too lengthy
[01:20:53.820 --> 01:21:02.820]  But now the organization is a citizens against the cell tower
[01:21:02.820 --> 01:21:06.820]  They want to put an injunction in, an immediate emergency injunction
[01:21:06.820 --> 01:21:12.820]  Based on a policy due process through the City Council and things of that nature
[01:21:12.820 --> 01:21:19.820]  And I'm just wondering if we should put this in district court or in federal
[01:21:19.820 --> 01:21:23.820]  Okay, wait a minute, wait a minute, okay, I have some experience with this type of issue
[01:21:23.820 --> 01:21:26.820]  But you're in Arkansas, which is another state
[01:21:26.820 --> 01:21:33.820]  So let me just briefly explain how the process works here, at least in Austin, in Texas
[01:21:33.820 --> 01:21:39.820]  There's something called a slum, which is a future land use map
[01:21:39.820 --> 01:21:41.820]  And what is it called?
[01:21:41.820 --> 01:21:43.820]  Future land use map
[01:21:43.820 --> 01:21:44.820]  Okay
[01:21:44.820 --> 01:21:54.820]  Which neighborhood associations are pretty much required to submit to by City Council here in Austin
[01:21:54.820 --> 01:22:01.820]  And each neighborhood association has its own set of bylaws
[01:22:01.820 --> 01:22:10.820]  And has its own contract with City Council regarding zoning changes and this sort of thing
[01:22:10.820 --> 01:22:13.820]  And so that's why they have this slum, all right
[01:22:13.820 --> 01:22:23.820]  Where the neighborhood association will agree to a certain set of zoning changes in the future
[01:22:23.820 --> 01:22:31.820]  To prevent the neighborhood association from having to engage the City Council every single time
[01:22:31.820 --> 01:22:37.820]  A property owner wants to make changes to the zoning
[01:22:37.820 --> 01:22:49.820]  Now it's my personal opinion that these slums are purported and sold to citizens, homeowners,
[01:22:49.820 --> 01:22:54.820]  And neighborhood associations as some sort of wonderful tool to protect the neighborhoods
[01:22:54.820 --> 01:23:01.820]  When actually it's a bludgeon to completely dismantle and destroy residential neighborhoods
[01:23:01.820 --> 01:23:05.820]  Because when they invoke these slums and accept these slums
[01:23:05.820 --> 01:23:10.820]  When the neighborhood associations accept these slums, these future land use maps
[01:23:10.820 --> 01:23:16.820]  Then what happens is the neighborhood association and the neighborhood planning team
[01:23:16.820 --> 01:23:23.820]  Have no say whatsoever when developers want to come in and do whatever they want
[01:23:23.820 --> 01:23:29.820]  As long as it is in accordance with these slum maps
[01:23:29.820 --> 01:23:39.820]  So at this level I strongly advise these neighborhood planning teams
[01:23:39.820 --> 01:23:51.820]  To keep strong control over all the zoning changes of the neighborhood and the neighborhood association
[01:23:51.820 --> 01:23:58.820]  And I strongly urge every neighborhood association in Austin and everywhere else
[01:23:58.820 --> 01:24:04.820]  To not accept or approve any slum whatsoever
[01:24:04.820 --> 01:24:13.820]  But to maintain strict and stringent control over every single zoning change of every single property owner
[01:24:13.820 --> 01:24:21.820]  Because if you don't, what's going to happen is the developers are just going to eat up your neighborhood
[01:24:21.820 --> 01:24:28.820]  And they're going to take schools, they're going to take large acreage areas of elementary schools
[01:24:28.820 --> 01:24:35.820]  And they're going to offer them up on a chopping block like a steak and sell them off to the highest bidder
[01:24:35.820 --> 01:24:40.820]  Because the government doesn't want to have to pay to fund the school
[01:24:40.820 --> 01:24:47.820]  Rather they want to collect taxes and they want to ship your kids off to schools somewhere else
[01:24:47.820 --> 01:24:54.820]  So anyway, that's my take on the whole slum and ordinance thing
[01:24:54.820 --> 01:24:59.820]  And that's just required by state law here in Texas, I don't know what it is in Arkansas
[01:24:59.820 --> 01:25:09.820]  But you need to research at the city level the ordinances and the state level concerning zoning changes
[01:25:09.820 --> 01:25:18.820]  To see just what exactly the structure is and you have to go through the proper channels of administrative and city council
[01:25:18.820 --> 01:25:27.820]  You can't just jump to the state district court, you have to pursue the remedies at certain levels
[01:25:27.820 --> 01:25:30.820]  So anyway, that's the way it works here in Austin, so go ahead guys
[01:25:30.820 --> 01:25:41.820]  I appreciate that, another thing happened here and I just put in an FOIA for the planning commission's meeting or hearing
[01:25:41.820 --> 01:25:48.820]  It seems like the guy that's trying to put up the cell tower outright threatened the planning commission
[01:25:48.820 --> 01:26:00.820]  The city council and the planning commission were against this until this guy threatened outright threatened the city council
[01:26:00.820 --> 01:26:05.820]  The planning commission members, oh excuse me, because this is historic district
[01:26:05.820 --> 01:26:13.820]  It was a historic district council or committee, he actually threatened them to sue them individually
[01:26:13.820 --> 01:26:20.820]  If they did not go ahead and pass this in his favor, so this was a direct duress
[01:26:20.820 --> 01:26:23.820]  What's the other word I was thinking of?
[01:26:23.820 --> 01:26:37.820]  The planning commission changed their mind and gave it to this guy based on that threat, so that's intimidation
[01:26:37.820 --> 01:26:46.820]  And of course that's one of the points that we will bring up in the emergency injunction to stop this
[01:26:46.820 --> 01:26:55.820]  I guess that's it for now on that subject, for what you guys are talking about tonight about the word quarantine
[01:26:55.820 --> 01:27:05.820]  Don't you think it would be an appropriate move that you put in a motion to correct the error on the judge
[01:27:05.820 --> 01:27:14.820]  When a judge creates a tort or breaks a law or something, put in a motion to reconsider and correct the error
[01:27:14.820 --> 01:27:19.820]  Fighting him that you can't do this because you're breaking a law or blah blah blah
[01:27:19.820 --> 01:27:25.820]  And then when he ignores the motion or still proceeds
[01:27:25.820 --> 01:27:28.820]  Whoa, wait a minute, wait a minute
[01:27:28.820 --> 01:27:31.820]  Hang on here Randy, please, I'm almost done
[01:27:31.820 --> 01:27:45.820]  And then when he doesn't make a motion or doesn't correct the error, now you have a grounds for the guanto
[01:27:45.820 --> 01:27:53.820]  Because he is admittedly knowingly executing that tort or that illegal move
[01:27:53.820 --> 01:27:58.820]  And thanks a lot, I'll take your comments off the air and appreciate your time
[01:27:58.820 --> 01:28:04.820]  Okay, if the judge violates a law relating to his office
[01:28:04.820 --> 01:28:15.820]  I don't have any duty to grant him diddly squat of all people who should know and follow law, the judge should
[01:28:15.820 --> 01:28:23.820]  When he commits an act that would subject him to court warrant or removal, that bell's been rung
[01:28:23.820 --> 01:28:28.820]  It's like when I was in Randall County and asked to see some records
[01:28:28.820 --> 01:28:33.820]  I wanted to see the actual physical records and the clerk wanted me to look at the computer
[01:28:33.820 --> 01:28:41.820]  When she refused to produce the records, the bell was rung, the deed was done, the crime was committed
[01:28:41.820 --> 01:28:45.820]  And you can't go back and unring the bell
[01:28:45.820 --> 01:28:55.820]  And I think if we say, oh judge, you committed this heinous criminal act, you need to promise never to do it again
[01:28:55.820 --> 01:29:02.820]  Heck with that, if he commits a criminal act, I want the bailiff to drag him off the bench and throw him in jail
[01:29:02.820 --> 01:29:05.820]  Well yeah, and I'd like to make a comment here too
[01:29:05.820 --> 01:29:09.820]  Going back to Frederick Graves, you have to move the court
[01:29:09.820 --> 01:29:15.820]  And you have to have some kind of case law, cause of action, something to move the court
[01:29:15.820 --> 01:29:17.820]  This is a chess game
[01:29:17.820 --> 01:29:20.820]  Okay, there are rules to the game
[01:29:20.820 --> 01:29:25.820]  You can't just go to the judge and say, pretty please, can you do this or that
[01:29:25.820 --> 01:29:34.820]  Because, well you know, you kind of broke the law, you kind of broke the rules, I mean
[01:29:34.820 --> 01:29:40.820]  Well I think Guy was going to petition for reconsideration, and that's in the law
[01:29:40.820 --> 01:29:43.820]  But we need to beat him up
[01:29:43.820 --> 01:29:49.820]  Well I don't know, I mean if you've got a good relation with a judge, I mean if you feel the judge made an honest error
[01:29:49.820 --> 01:29:55.820]  Okay look, have respect for the court, I agree with Guy, have respect for the court
[01:29:55.820 --> 01:29:59.820]  You know, but if they obviously made a mistake, then nail him
[01:29:59.820 --> 01:30:05.820]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Juris Dictionary
[01:30:05.820 --> 01:30:13.820]  The affordable, easy to understand, 4 CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step
[01:30:13.820 --> 01:30:17.820]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing
[01:30:17.820 --> 01:30:21.820]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself
[01:30:21.820 --> 01:30:26.820]  Thousands have won with our step by step course, and now you can too
[01:30:26.820 --> 01:30:32.820]  Juris Dictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience
[01:30:32.820 --> 01:30:37.820]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[01:30:37.820 --> 01:30:41.820]  About the principles and practices that control our American courts
[01:30:41.820 --> 01:30:50.820]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more
[01:30:50.820 --> 01:30:59.820]  Please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com and click on the banner or call toll free, 866-LAW-EZ
[01:30:59.820 --> 01:31:03.820]  Yeah, and who you want to chip? Who you take me for? Free Tully
[01:31:03.820 --> 01:31:07.820]  Who you want to chip? Me no free Tully, you can't chip me
[01:31:07.820 --> 01:31:12.820]  I'ma say, don't let them chip you in the morning, chip you in the evening
[01:31:12.820 --> 01:31:21.820]  Okay, we're taking your calls, 512-646-1984. We're going to Gary in Texas
[01:31:21.820 --> 01:31:24.820]  Gary, thanks for calling in. What's on your mind tonight?
[01:31:24.820 --> 01:31:27.820]  Yes, I've been kind of backing up a little bit
[01:31:27.820 --> 01:31:32.820]  You were previously talking about taking an oath of office as far as a civil servant goes
[01:31:32.820 --> 01:31:42.820]  I was a prior federal servant, GS-14, as well as an officer of the Professional Air Traffic Control Organization
[01:31:42.820 --> 01:31:50.820]  And I will assure you that everybody, everybody in the federal government that takes employment and takes a paycheck
[01:31:50.820 --> 01:31:57.820]  Is required to take an oath and sign it prior to getting their first paycheck, period
[01:31:57.820 --> 01:32:06.820]  I mean, that's, that's, I mean, there's, I mean, you know, the government took on Patco many years ago
[01:32:06.820 --> 01:32:10.820]  And that's what they held them against, right there
[01:32:10.820 --> 01:32:15.820]  Yeah, I knew that was the case, that's why I'm always confused
[01:32:15.820 --> 01:32:16.820]  They can't lie
[01:32:16.820 --> 01:32:18.820]  Surprised when they don't have one
[01:32:18.820 --> 01:32:23.820]  I'm not lying, I mean, they can lie, but you can't refute it
[01:32:23.820 --> 01:32:28.820]  Oh, these guys are, I guess you would call them morons
[01:32:28.820 --> 01:32:29.820]  So Gary, when these
[01:32:29.820 --> 01:32:32.820]  The Information Act will get that document you have
[01:32:32.820 --> 01:32:33.820]  Absolutely, we have
[01:32:33.820 --> 01:32:35.820]  Yeah, they can't get it to us if it's bipolar
[01:32:35.820 --> 01:32:37.820]  Yeah, that's right, we've FOIA'd all kinds of them
[01:32:37.820 --> 01:32:43.820]  So Gary, when these oaths are signed and sworn and taken
[01:32:43.820 --> 01:32:50.820]  I mean, there's even a space on the document, every single one of them I've ever seen through FOIA
[01:32:50.820 --> 01:32:59.820]  For the notary to put their name and their commission and when it expires and the stamp and everything
[01:32:59.820 --> 01:33:04.820]  So these oaths have to be notarized, right, in your experience?
[01:33:04.820 --> 01:33:14.820]  What happens is the employer has someone in the office that is able to take those
[01:33:14.820 --> 01:33:17.820]  Normally it's the secretary or whomever
[01:33:17.820 --> 01:33:22.820]  And somebody actually stands up in front of you and says, just like you did in the military
[01:33:22.820 --> 01:33:25.820]  Or I did, and said, you know, this is what I'm going to do
[01:33:25.820 --> 01:33:30.820]  They don't make you hold your hand up, but they say, they read it off to you
[01:33:30.820 --> 01:33:33.820]  And when it's finished, do you understand? Sign here
[01:33:33.820 --> 01:33:37.820]  And then she acknowledges, she might have been a notary, I have no idea
[01:33:37.820 --> 01:33:41.820]  But she acknowledges that you signed it, now you can get a paycheck
[01:33:41.820 --> 01:33:44.820]  You don't sign that paper, you don't get one
[01:33:44.820 --> 01:33:51.820]  That was, I wanted to go after the official for laundering
[01:33:51.820 --> 01:33:55.820]  Well, after the official for accepting these paychecks under false pretenses
[01:33:55.820 --> 01:33:58.820]  And after the official's wife for laundering the money
[01:33:58.820 --> 01:34:05.820]  I'm going to go after the apostiles of all these so-called notaries that never put their stamps on these documents
[01:34:05.820 --> 01:34:11.820]  They just usually sign by the official that administered the oath
[01:34:11.820 --> 01:34:13.820]  Yes, but they have to, it has to be a notary
[01:34:13.820 --> 01:34:16.820]  It's usually someone in the office
[01:34:16.820 --> 01:34:20.820]  Because in the federal government, I don't know that you have to have a notary
[01:34:20.820 --> 01:34:24.820]  You just have to be at a position that you own
[01:34:24.820 --> 01:34:26.820]  It has to be notarized
[01:34:26.820 --> 01:34:33.820]  This is an oath, an oath is not a oath unless it's administered before someone authorized to take the oath
[01:34:33.820 --> 01:34:43.820]  And Gary, that's not to say that the person who is delivering or pledging the oath isn't doing so in good faith
[01:34:43.820 --> 01:34:50.820]  Like in your example, I don't even have a document, I don't even know that's your name
[01:34:50.820 --> 01:34:53.820]  But I'm just saying, let's just assume for the moment
[01:34:53.820 --> 01:34:58.820]  You pledge in good faith to uphold and defend the Constitution
[01:34:58.820 --> 01:35:04.820]  That's wonderful and perfect and I applaud you and respect you for that
[01:35:04.820 --> 01:35:12.820]  However, if it wasn't, if that document that you signed when you saw that is not notarized
[01:35:12.820 --> 01:35:14.820]  It's not an official legal document
[01:35:14.820 --> 01:35:25.820]  And the reason for that is because we the people have to know that you are who you say you are
[01:35:25.820 --> 01:35:28.820]  That's what a notary really is for
[01:35:28.820 --> 01:35:35.820]  A notary does not notarize a document unless they are mailing something
[01:35:35.820 --> 01:35:41.820]  Unless you mail, unless an individual human being mails a document through a notary
[01:35:41.820 --> 01:35:44.820]  That's the only time a notary technically notarizes a document
[01:35:44.820 --> 01:35:48.820]  Every other time a notary just notarizes a signature
[01:35:48.820 --> 01:35:54.820]  Which means they just verify that you are who you say you are and you show your ID
[01:35:54.820 --> 01:36:00.820]  And so without that verification, it's not a legal document
[01:36:00.820 --> 01:36:04.820]  And every single oath I've ever seen is not legitimate
[01:36:04.820 --> 01:36:09.820]  Because there's no notary and I don't know why but I'm figuring it out
[01:36:09.820 --> 01:36:19.820]  But I don't want to take away from all the men and women who uphold their oaths that they have taken in their hearts
[01:36:19.820 --> 01:36:26.820]  But when we've got people like Stephen Lee and Dennis Carlton that try to unlawfully deprive us of our life, liberty and property
[01:36:26.820 --> 01:36:29.820]  Well then here we go
[01:36:29.820 --> 01:36:32.820]  And I really like your point about the apostille
[01:36:32.820 --> 01:36:34.820]  Apostille
[01:36:34.820 --> 01:36:52.820]  That would separate the directors of an office or some office manager from someone who is designated by the government as someone authorized to take oaths
[01:36:52.820 --> 01:36:55.820]  A notary is an officer of the courts
[01:36:55.820 --> 01:37:04.820]  I understand that. It's just like in the military. You've got ten guys standing up there and this guy holds up his hand and says you do this and you do this and you agree to this
[01:37:04.820 --> 01:37:06.820]  And once you do that, you walk out
[01:37:06.820 --> 01:37:12.820]  Now if you go out into the battlefield and you decide you're going to give up and you're going to go the other way, they're going to shoot you
[01:37:12.820 --> 01:37:15.820]  And I don't know about the notary aspect of it because I really don't
[01:37:15.820 --> 01:37:19.820]  Except for in effect, it is notarized
[01:37:19.820 --> 01:37:22.820]  Because you took those in your hearts
[01:37:22.820 --> 01:37:28.820]  Yes, but you know, you understand my point
[01:37:28.820 --> 01:37:30.820]  Absolutely
[01:37:30.820 --> 01:37:43.820]  I mean, hey, you know, I don't work for the federal government anymore because they didn't like that I didn't uphold the oath that they felt like I should have done
[01:37:43.820 --> 01:37:47.820]  You mean do whatever they say and rather swing them off
[01:37:47.820 --> 01:37:55.820]  I'm the president of PACCO and I resigned so as not to go to jail
[01:37:55.820 --> 01:38:01.820]  The man that took my place went to jail
[01:38:01.820 --> 01:38:08.820]  He spent his six months over here playing golf over in Bastrop
[01:38:08.820 --> 01:38:12.820]  That's the true story
[01:38:12.820 --> 01:38:18.820]  We have utmost respect for you, Gary, and we respect you and we thank you for your service
[01:38:18.820 --> 01:38:21.820]  I've been fighting ever since
[01:38:21.820 --> 01:38:23.820]  So anyway, that's all I had to say
[01:38:23.820 --> 01:38:30.820]  I just wanted to throw that in there except one other issue as far as the zoning restrictions go and deed restrictions go
[01:38:30.820 --> 01:38:35.820]  Zoning restrictions do not supersede deed restrictions as long as the deed restrictions are refiled
[01:38:35.820 --> 01:38:39.820]  Deed restrictions are generally good for 30 years
[01:38:39.820 --> 01:38:42.820]  And where do you file the deed restrictions, Gary?
[01:38:42.820 --> 01:38:45.820]  The same place you originally filed them with
[01:38:45.820 --> 01:38:47.820]  I love it
[01:38:47.820 --> 01:38:55.820]  Anytime a developer comes in or any property owner can deed restrict his property
[01:38:55.820 --> 01:39:06.820]  So Gary, could someone deed restrict their property preemptively to prevent future zoning restrictions?
[01:39:06.820 --> 01:39:10.820]  King Ranch, look at the King Ranch, they don't want you to sell liquor in the King Ranch
[01:39:10.820 --> 01:39:12.820]  You don't sell liquor in the King Ranch
[01:39:12.820 --> 01:39:14.820]  I mean, try an example right there
[01:39:14.820 --> 01:39:17.820]  You do not sell hard liquor in the King Ranch then
[01:39:17.820 --> 01:39:26.820]  And when he died, those deed restrictions were in effect and they are refiled every 30 years
[01:39:26.820 --> 01:39:30.820]  You do not sell hard liquor in the King Ranch
[01:39:30.820 --> 01:39:32.820]  Interesting
[01:39:32.820 --> 01:39:37.820]  That's another good approach to stop this kind of where the...
[01:39:37.820 --> 01:39:39.820]  Selectively enforce deed restrictions
[01:39:39.820 --> 01:39:47.820]  If you selectively, because I'm a member of the HOA here on the committee
[01:39:47.820 --> 01:39:52.820]  And you do not deed restrict or selectively enforce the deed restrictions
[01:39:52.820 --> 01:39:57.820]  If you selectively enforce the deed restrictions, then you can void the whole thing
[01:39:57.820 --> 01:40:00.820]  Who enforces deed restrictions? Is it the sheriff?
[01:40:00.820 --> 01:40:04.820]  The HOA
[01:40:04.820 --> 01:40:06.820]  They are the ones that enforce it
[01:40:06.820 --> 01:40:07.820]  Only the ones that...
[01:40:07.820 --> 01:40:09.820]  Is that county officials?
[01:40:09.820 --> 01:40:11.820]  No, no, no, they're within the subdivision
[01:40:11.820 --> 01:40:19.820]  It's usually members of the board that are elected by that particular subdivision
[01:40:19.820 --> 01:40:24.820]  And they enforce the deed restrictions and they cannot selectively enforce those
[01:40:24.820 --> 01:40:30.820]  You can't let John have a boat in the yard and Bill not
[01:40:30.820 --> 01:40:33.820]  Because as soon as Bill finds out who puts his boat in the yard
[01:40:33.820 --> 01:40:38.820]  And you don't enforce it against John, all he has to do is take it in
[01:40:38.820 --> 01:40:44.820]  But if there's no homeowners association, say you're out in the boonies in a rural area
[01:40:44.820 --> 01:40:47.820]  And there's deed restrictions, who's going to enforce it?
[01:40:47.820 --> 01:40:50.820]  Would that be the sheriff? Sheriff deputy?
[01:40:50.820 --> 01:40:52.820]  No, the homeowners
[01:40:52.820 --> 01:40:54.820]  What if there's no homeowners association?
[01:40:54.820 --> 01:40:59.820]  Or the property owners association, as in the case with mostly ranch land
[01:40:59.820 --> 01:41:04.820]  What if there's no property owners association? It's just rural area and just deed restrictions?
[01:41:04.820 --> 01:41:08.820]  When you did restrict it, you can't just leave it open to the world
[01:41:08.820 --> 01:41:11.820]  You have to say, these are the officers that are going to enforce it
[01:41:11.820 --> 01:41:15.820]  And this is how to be elected or however you want to do it
[01:41:15.820 --> 01:41:21.820]  Or as you as a property owner, I'm going to be the aficionado in this instance
[01:41:21.820 --> 01:41:23.820]  And I am going to enforce it as long as I live
[01:41:23.820 --> 01:41:25.820]  And then I'm going to pass it on to my family
[01:41:25.820 --> 01:41:32.820]  I mean, I can take a piece of property in Texas and let's say I don't like red roses
[01:41:32.820 --> 01:41:39.820]  I can indeed restrict my property against future red roses as long as it's filed every 30 years
[01:41:39.820 --> 01:41:44.820]  And that I in fact can
[01:41:44.820 --> 01:41:52.820]  When I'm gone, someone has to file that and do the appropriate song and dance so to speak
[01:41:52.820 --> 01:41:55.820]  And there has to be some bylaws set up in some organization
[01:41:55.820 --> 01:41:57.820]  All of that's all set up
[01:41:57.820 --> 01:42:00.820]  All bylaws are, I don't know, probably 100 pages long
[01:42:00.820 --> 01:42:03.820]  Wonderful, I love it
[01:42:03.820 --> 01:42:04.820]  You've got plenty of copies of them
[01:42:04.820 --> 01:42:06.820]  I love it
[01:42:06.820 --> 01:42:09.820]  All right, I'll let you all get back and you've got a wonderful program
[01:42:09.820 --> 01:42:11.820]  Thank you, Gary, we really appreciate it
[01:42:11.820 --> 01:42:16.820]  This is something that I've been studying up on for a while
[01:42:16.820 --> 01:42:19.820]  Trying to figure out who enforces deed restrictions
[01:42:19.820 --> 01:42:22.820]  It is the Homeowners Association
[01:42:22.820 --> 01:42:28.820]  And if they don't enforce it, then they in essence don't exist
[01:42:28.820 --> 01:42:33.820]  Because you can't come back and selectively enforce the deed restriction
[01:42:33.820 --> 01:42:38.820]  If it says five things and they're only enforcing four of them
[01:42:38.820 --> 01:42:41.820]  All you've got to do is take them to court and say you're not enforcing that
[01:42:41.820 --> 01:42:46.820]  And you haven't been for the last 15 years, so therefore number four is not counted
[01:42:46.820 --> 01:42:49.820]  Or however you want to file it
[01:42:49.820 --> 01:42:51.820]  Okay
[01:42:51.820 --> 01:42:55.820]  You've got to go back and get it all corrected and then come talk to me
[01:42:55.820 --> 01:43:00.820]  So if the Homeowners Association wants to enforce the deed restriction
[01:43:00.820 --> 01:43:05.820]  Bylaws against one person and not another person, how do you deal with that?
[01:43:05.820 --> 01:43:06.820]  I didn't hear what you said, Randy
[01:43:06.820 --> 01:43:08.820]  I was saying if they want to selectively enforce
[01:43:08.820 --> 01:43:12.820]  And ultimately what I want to know is that if they're not
[01:43:12.820 --> 01:43:23.820]  If officers of the Homeowners Association are not officers or public servants of the state or the municipality
[01:43:23.820 --> 01:43:29.820]  I mean then now you're getting into kind of like a kangaroo court situation
[01:43:29.820 --> 01:43:36.820]  I mean how can you just say well we can enforce it at what authority at some point
[01:43:36.820 --> 01:43:41.820]  I think that you would need to invoke the sheriff's deputy
[01:43:41.820 --> 01:43:48.820]  If it's filed with the county it would seem like ultimately you would have to invoke the sheriff's deputy
[01:43:48.820 --> 01:43:54.820]  Or the sheriff's department to enforce it if they would not comply with the Homeowners Association
[01:43:54.820 --> 01:43:59.820]  I can't just say well we're going to make you do it because we're the Homeowners
[01:43:59.820 --> 01:44:04.820]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters or even lawsuits?
[01:44:04.820 --> 01:44:08.820]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method
[01:44:08.820 --> 01:44:14.820]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win two
[01:44:14.820 --> 01:44:20.820]  You'll get step by step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes
[01:44:20.820 --> 01:44:23.820]  What to do when contacted by phone, mail or court summons?
[01:44:23.820 --> 01:44:25.820]  How to answer letters and phone calls?
[01:44:25.820 --> 01:44:28.820]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit report?
[01:44:28.820 --> 01:44:32.820]  How to turn to financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away?
[01:44:32.820 --> 01:44:37.820]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors
[01:44:37.820 --> 01:44:40.820]  Personal consultation is available as well
[01:44:40.820 --> 01:44:45.820]  For more information please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner
[01:44:45.820 --> 01:44:48.820]  Or email michaelmears at yahoo.com
[01:44:48.820 --> 01:44:56.820]  That's ruleoflawradio.com or email michaelmears at yahoo.com
[01:44:56.820 --> 01:45:20.820]  To learn how to stop debt collectors now
[01:45:20.820 --> 01:45:28.820]  Some things in this world I will never understand Some things I realize fully
[01:45:28.820 --> 01:45:37.820]  Somebody's gonna police that policeman Somebody's gonna police the bully
[01:45:37.820 --> 01:45:46.820]  There's always a room at the top of the hill Here through the grapevine and it's lonely there too
[01:45:46.820 --> 01:45:54.820]  They're wishing it was more than I position the bill They know that if they don't do it somebody will
[01:45:54.820 --> 01:46:03.820]  Some things in this world I will never understand Some things I realize fully
[01:46:03.820 --> 01:46:11.820]  Somebody's gonna police that policeman Somebody's gonna police the bully
[01:46:11.820 --> 01:46:16.820]  I know they will Yeah, they're gonna put the bill
[01:46:16.820 --> 01:46:23.820]  Okay, we are going to your calls. Ken in Texas. Ken, thanks for calling. What's on your mind tonight?
[01:46:23.820 --> 01:46:29.820]  Well, hi there. I was responding to your discussion about the Quo Voronto
[01:46:29.820 --> 01:46:36.820]  And I just wanted to make an observation. All three of you probably know this already, but
[01:46:36.820 --> 01:46:43.820]  When I looked this up in my Black's 6th Dictionary, there is no Quo Voronto
[01:46:43.820 --> 01:46:47.820]  So I kind of scratched my head and I went over to my Black's 5th
[01:46:47.820 --> 01:46:53.820]  And there's no Quo Voronto in there. This is a legal dictionary, you know
[01:46:53.820 --> 01:47:02.820]  But I go back to my Black's 4th and there it is
[01:47:02.820 --> 01:47:08.820]  Now the Black's 5th was published in 1979 and the term Quo Voronto is not in there
[01:47:08.820 --> 01:47:13.820]  Isn't that interesting? That is interesting. Why they would leave it out
[01:47:13.820 --> 01:47:21.820]  Yeah, everything else is in there, but they just forgot that one
[01:47:21.820 --> 01:47:27.820]  Maybe they just don't figure it's important enough Since the prosecutor can do it if he wants to
[01:47:27.820 --> 01:47:33.820]  I suspect there's very little Quo Voronto actions unless the prosecutor's ticked off at somebody
[01:47:33.820 --> 01:47:41.820]  Well, yeah, and I think the explanation of a Quo Voronto, which I read about in Black's 4th
[01:47:41.820 --> 01:47:50.820]  Seems to talk about that there's other, the essence of this remedy is available in other remedies
[01:47:50.820 --> 01:47:58.820]  That I would like to see. Where else can you remove a public official from office?
[01:47:58.820 --> 01:48:00.820]  I beg your pardon?
[01:48:00.820 --> 01:48:09.820]  I can't think of any other way to remove a public official from office
[01:48:09.820 --> 01:48:12.820]  How about you put his butt in jail?
[01:48:12.820 --> 01:48:18.820]  Yeah, but he can still hold the office unless you move Quo Voronto and remove him
[01:48:18.820 --> 01:48:22.820]  If you have anything else to say about it, I'll just listen. Thank you
[01:48:22.820 --> 01:48:25.820]  Okay, thanks Ken
[01:48:25.820 --> 01:48:30.820]  So it's odd that they would leave it out
[01:48:30.820 --> 01:48:40.820]  I think we need to be invoking Quo Voronto because we need our public officials to worry about it
[01:48:40.820 --> 01:48:44.820]  That's one of the checks and balances and that may be the reason they're taking it out
[01:48:44.820 --> 01:48:48.820]  Because the public officials don't want the checks and balances to be there
[01:48:48.820 --> 01:48:52.820]  Well, Randy, what does the statute say?
[01:48:52.820 --> 01:48:58.820]  Statute says if a public official violates a law relating to his office, he's to be removed
[01:48:58.820 --> 01:49:02.820]  On conviction, he's to be removed immediately
[01:49:02.820 --> 01:49:04.820]  Conviction of a crime?
[01:49:04.820 --> 01:49:09.820]  Crime related to his office and the method of removal is Quo Voronto
[01:49:09.820 --> 01:49:16.820]  And how physically is this method of removal supposed to be carried out?
[01:49:16.820 --> 01:49:23.820]  Actually, the statute requires the district court, the district judge to remove them
[01:49:23.820 --> 01:49:28.820]  Oh, okay, so the district judge is going to go physically grab them? I mean, I'm thinking
[01:49:28.820 --> 01:49:30.820]  No, that's what he's got bailiffs for
[01:49:30.820 --> 01:49:32.820]  Bailiffs, the officers of the courts
[01:49:32.820 --> 01:49:35.820]  Yeah, they will go pick him up and throw him out if need be
[01:49:35.820 --> 01:49:39.820]  I.e. the sheriffs and the sheriff's deputies
[01:49:39.820 --> 01:49:41.820]  Yeah
[01:49:41.820 --> 01:49:44.820]  All goes back to the sheriffs
[01:49:44.820 --> 01:49:57.820]  Yeah, and this is Quo Voronto is more of a criminal nature as opposed to like the housing issue
[01:49:57.820 --> 01:50:03.820]  Where if a homeowners association fails to properly enforce, then you'd go to the civil court
[01:50:03.820 --> 01:50:07.820]  And sue and get an injunction
[01:50:07.820 --> 01:50:10.820]  And then you could bring in the guys with the hairy knuckles
[01:50:10.820 --> 01:50:11.820]  Well, see, that's what I was going to ask
[01:50:11.820 --> 01:50:16.820]  That doesn't sound like a real enforcement to me
[01:50:16.820 --> 01:50:23.820]  I mean, how are you going? I mean, if it's a civil thing, then it's not an enforcement
[01:50:23.820 --> 01:50:29.820]  I mean, if you broke a law, then you can invoke the sheriffs or the state marshals
[01:50:29.820 --> 01:50:31.820]  You see what I'm saying?
[01:50:31.820 --> 01:50:38.820]  But, you know, if there's deed restrictions that are violated and it's just a civil matter
[01:50:38.820 --> 01:50:43.820]  Well, then you sue the guy and then you either get a judgment or you don't
[01:50:43.820 --> 01:50:47.820]  And maybe you do get a judgment and you get a lien against his property
[01:50:47.820 --> 01:50:51.820]  But if he never sells it, then it really doesn't mean anything
[01:50:51.820 --> 01:50:57.820]  And meanwhile, he's digging an outhouse and, you know, you're dying a dysentery
[01:50:57.820 --> 01:51:00.820]  And there's nothing that's really enforced
[01:51:00.820 --> 01:51:05.820]  So, okay, so are deed restrictions not really enforced?
[01:51:05.820 --> 01:51:08.820]  It's not a crime to violate a deed restriction
[01:51:08.820 --> 01:51:10.820]  You're sure?
[01:51:10.820 --> 01:51:12.820]  I'm sure
[01:51:12.820 --> 01:51:22.820]  Only the legislature designates crimes and deed restrictions are not passed by the legislature
[01:51:22.820 --> 01:51:28.820]  But do deed restrictions fall under some kind of county ordinance or anything?
[01:51:28.820 --> 01:51:30.820]  No, they don't
[01:51:30.820 --> 01:51:32.820]  It's all civil
[01:51:32.820 --> 01:51:37.820]  Are city ordinances civil, like city council?
[01:51:37.820 --> 01:51:39.820]  It depends on the nature of the ordinance
[01:51:39.820 --> 01:51:42.820]  But deed restrictions, you're saying, are civil
[01:51:42.820 --> 01:51:46.820]  Yeah, they're strictly civil, that's between people
[01:51:46.820 --> 01:51:48.820]  It's just like a gentleman's agreement
[01:51:48.820 --> 01:51:55.820]  Right, the homeowners association is not a government agency, it's a private organization
[01:51:55.820 --> 01:51:59.820]  So everything they do is civil, they don't have any criminal authority whatsoever
[01:51:59.820 --> 01:52:02.820]  So there really is no enforcement of deed restrictions?
[01:52:02.820 --> 01:52:11.820]  Well, no direct criminal enforcement, but you can shoot the crap out of them and generally it's all about money anyway
[01:52:11.820 --> 01:52:13.820]  Interesting
[01:52:13.820 --> 01:52:15.820]  Okay, we got one more call
[01:52:15.820 --> 01:52:18.820]  Sorry, I'm having to scream out on calls here
[01:52:18.820 --> 01:52:24.820]  Caller, what's your name and what state are you calling from?
[01:52:24.820 --> 01:52:27.820]  Caller?
[01:52:27.820 --> 01:52:30.820]  Calling from Texas, Maynard
[01:52:30.820 --> 01:52:31.820]  And what is your name ma'am?
[01:52:31.820 --> 01:52:32.820]  Megan
[01:52:32.820 --> 01:52:33.820]  Megan, what is your question?
[01:52:33.820 --> 01:52:35.820]  Thank you for calling us tonight
[01:52:35.820 --> 01:52:36.820]  Well, thank you very much
[01:52:36.820 --> 01:52:42.820]  I am just so glad to see so much information coming out
[01:52:42.820 --> 01:52:49.820]  And this is in reference to homeowners association having approaches to home last year
[01:52:49.820 --> 01:52:56.820]  I was reminded by my association of some infractions
[01:52:56.820 --> 01:53:04.820]  And so I went back through my deed restrictions and they have the authority to foreclose on my house
[01:53:04.820 --> 01:53:13.820]  Not for the restriction I had, but for not paying my yearly dues
[01:53:13.820 --> 01:53:16.820]  How could that possibly be?
[01:53:16.820 --> 01:53:22.820]  Well, if you agreed to it at the beginning, well then you made a contract
[01:53:22.820 --> 01:53:31.820]  Yeah, and if you buy a home that has a homeowners association, it's essentially like a deed restriction
[01:53:31.820 --> 01:53:32.820]  Right
[01:53:32.820 --> 01:53:38.820]  And if you agree to purchase, then you agree to enter in
[01:53:38.820 --> 01:53:41.820]  So you fall under, this is all contractual
[01:53:41.820 --> 01:53:49.820]  Did you agree to a contract where the homeowners association would file a lien against your property that would be enforced?
[01:53:49.820 --> 01:53:58.820]  When I went to closing, I was giving a stack of paper about three inches tall and they said here
[01:53:58.820 --> 01:54:05.820]  And I don't know how many people have ever sat and read every single word
[01:54:05.820 --> 01:54:07.820]  A panel of two
[01:54:07.820 --> 01:54:12.820]  That's exactly what I did not do was read the whole deed restrictions
[01:54:12.820 --> 01:54:15.820]  So I did not know that at the time, no
[01:54:15.820 --> 01:54:16.820]  Well, I have a suggestion
[01:54:16.820 --> 01:54:19.820]  Until after the fact
[01:54:19.820 --> 01:54:25.820]  If they want to give you a hard time, you can go back after them for all the fraud that's in the note
[01:54:25.820 --> 01:54:28.820]  And make them wish they had never seen you
[01:54:28.820 --> 01:54:37.820]  Well, what about taking the dues and accepting them for value, would that be appropriate?
[01:54:37.820 --> 01:54:45.820]  I'm not the commercial guy, Agenda 21 would know more about that
[01:54:45.820 --> 01:54:54.820]  But I have found that acceptance for value not to be very effective and get you in more trouble than anything else
[01:54:54.820 --> 01:55:07.820]  We're the statutory people and everybody that I have ever known that has even tried to approach that has ended up in jail in a lot of trouble
[01:55:07.820 --> 01:55:15.820]  And even if it's totally legitimate and totally above board, they're just not going to let you do it
[01:55:15.820 --> 01:55:18.820]  The banksters are just not going to let you do it
[01:55:18.820 --> 01:55:29.820]  And that's why Randy and Eddie and I and the other hosts on the show, we just stick to the statute
[01:55:29.820 --> 01:55:35.820]  We just strictly statute because it's the law
[01:55:35.820 --> 01:55:37.820]  There's nothing that can do
[01:55:37.820 --> 01:55:38.820]  Well, that's true
[01:55:38.820 --> 01:55:42.820]  We stick to the Constitution and everything else and make the statute stick to that
[01:55:42.820 --> 01:55:44.820]  Well, that's what I meant
[01:55:44.820 --> 01:55:51.820]  And we're not saying that that's not correct, it's just everybody we know is losing that fight
[01:55:51.820 --> 01:55:58.820]  Right, well, I've come to realize that not everything in life is fair and everybody plays fair
[01:55:58.820 --> 01:56:07.820]  Well, listen, listen, Megan, Megan, from what we've seen in our research, you don't even need to go there
[01:56:07.820 --> 01:56:16.820]  Because they make so many mistakes, like Eddie says, the Constitution, they violate the Constitution
[01:56:16.820 --> 01:56:24.820]  They violate state law, they violate penal code, they violate the contracts
[01:56:24.820 --> 01:56:36.820]  There are so many violations, fraud, everything, I mean, it's hundreds of charges, you don't even need to go there
[01:56:36.820 --> 01:56:38.820]  Right, Randy?
[01:56:38.820 --> 01:56:48.820]  Yeah, I'm doing forensic analysis and when I started, I was trying to do a detailed analysis to figure out everything that had been done wrong
[01:56:48.820 --> 01:56:55.820]  Heck, I don't even need to do the forensic analysis, all I got to do is demand they prove it up
[01:56:55.820 --> 01:57:04.820]  I find more fraud than I can keep up with, I just did someone's note yesterday, a $464,000 note
[01:57:04.820 --> 01:57:10.820]  I found $3 million in fraud that she could claim against the lender
[01:57:10.820 --> 01:57:12.820]  Oh my
[01:57:12.820 --> 01:57:16.820]  They do everything wrong
[01:57:16.820 --> 01:57:22.820]  They charged her, she signed a note and agreed to pay $464,000 at 7%
[01:57:22.820 --> 01:57:36.820]  The truth in lending statement, which contains her payments, was $440,000, like $14,000 less, and 10.235%
[01:57:36.820 --> 01:57:43.820]  When I ran those two together, the difference in the payment was almost $1,000
[01:57:43.820 --> 01:57:45.820]  Oh my goodness
[01:57:45.820 --> 01:57:56.820]  So if I ran it and took $1,000 off as an overpayment every month, she would have overpaid $900,000
[01:57:56.820 --> 01:58:02.820]  They're all messed up, they've been doing it so long, getting away with it so long, nobody's been raising any issues
[01:58:02.820 --> 01:58:12.820]  That they are screwing things up so bad that if you do a good analysis on them and go after them, they don't have a chance
[01:58:12.820 --> 01:58:21.820]  Well, you guys are really getting helpful and I certainly appreciate all the efforts that you're putting toward the community and education
[01:58:21.820 --> 01:58:22.820]  Thank you
[01:58:22.820 --> 01:58:24.820]  Thank you, Megan, we really appreciate it
[01:58:24.820 --> 01:58:26.820]  And y'all live long and prosper
[01:58:26.820 --> 01:58:29.820]  You as well, and give Randy a call
[01:58:29.820 --> 01:58:31.820]  Thank you very much
[01:58:31.820 --> 01:58:32.820]  Bye bye
[01:58:32.820 --> 01:58:34.820]  Wrong show, Randy
[01:58:34.820 --> 01:58:35.820]  Oh, oops
[01:58:35.820 --> 01:58:40.820]  You're doing more because she's doing Star Trek
[01:58:40.820 --> 01:58:42.820]  Alright, we'll be back tomorrow night
[01:58:42.820 --> 01:58:50.820]  And don't forget, Kay Beach, starting her brand new show tomorrow, 6 to 8 p.m. Axiom for Liberty
[01:58:50.820 --> 01:58:52.820]  Just how free do you want to be?
[01:58:52.820 --> 01:58:56.820]  We'll see, Kay is going to show you how
[01:58:56.820 --> 01:59:11.820]  Tomorrow night
[01:59:27.820 --> 01:59:30.820]  I'm like a stepping razor
[01:59:30.820 --> 01:59:33.820]  Watch my sides, I'm dangerous
[01:59:33.820 --> 01:59:35.820]  I'm dangerous
[01:59:35.820 --> 01:59:37.820]  I'm like a chopping razor
[01:59:37.820 --> 01:59:41.820]  Watch my sides, I'm dangerous
[01:59:41.820 --> 01:59:42.820]  Dangerous
[01:59:42.820 --> 01:59:45.820]  You eat down the wall
[01:59:45.820 --> 01:59:49.820]  It's a dream, let's move
[01:59:49.820 --> 01:59:53.820]  It's a dream, let's move
[01:59:53.820 --> 01:59:56.820]  It's a dream, let's move