[00:00.000 --> 00:05.920]  The following newsflash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing the jelly
[00:05.920 --> 00:13.520]  bulletins for the commodities market, today in history, news updates, and the inside scoop
[00:13.520 --> 00:21.280]  into the tides of the alternative.
[00:21.280 --> 00:27.640]  Markets for Wednesday the 10th of February 2016 open up with gold at $1,191.50 an ounce,
[00:27.640 --> 00:34.360]  or $15.20 an ounce, taxes crude, $27.94 a barrel, and Bitcoin is currently sitting
[00:34.360 --> 00:42.560]  at about 374 U.S. currency.
[00:42.560 --> 00:48.800]  Today in history, Saturday, February 10th, 1798, Luis Alexandre Berthier, the chief of
[00:48.800 --> 00:53.580]  staff or major general under the command of Napoleon Bonaparte, invades the Vatican in
[00:53.580 --> 00:56.360]  Rome, the seat of the Holy Roman Empire.
[00:56.360 --> 01:01.200]  This invasion led to France proclaiming a Roman Republic on the 15th, and the taking
[01:01.200 --> 01:08.560]  of Pope Pius VI prisoner on the 20th.
[01:08.560 --> 01:14.040]  In recent news, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 yesterday in favor of putting on hold federal
[01:14.040 --> 01:19.200]  regulations to curb carbon dioxide emissions, which basically means that regulations will
[01:19.200 --> 01:23.600]  not be put into effect until the courts determine their legality.
[01:23.600 --> 01:27.320]  The White House stated it disagrees with the court's decision, but expects the rule will
[01:27.320 --> 01:32.020]  survive the legal challenges set by 27 states and various companies.
[01:32.020 --> 01:37.520]  The plan was designed to lower carbon emissions from U.S. power plants by 2030 to 32 percent
[01:37.520 --> 01:43.240]  below 2005 levels, an initiative pledged to by the Obama administration at the U.N. climate
[01:43.240 --> 01:46.040]  talks in Paris last December.
[01:46.040 --> 01:51.240]  The U.S. court of appeals for the D.C. circuit will hear oral arguments in the case on June
[01:51.240 --> 01:56.960]  2, and rule on whether the regulations are within the EPA's constitutionally delegated
[01:56.960 --> 01:59.960]  authority.
[01:59.960 --> 02:08.520]  FBI Director James B. Coney stated Tuesday that FBI techs have been unsuccessful in unlocking
[02:08.520 --> 02:13.500]  the encrypted data on a cell phone that belonged to the terrorist couple Saeed Varouk and his
[02:13.500 --> 02:18.640]  wife Tashfeen Malik, who killed 14 people at a holiday party at the Inland Regional
[02:18.640 --> 02:22.440]  Center in San Bernardino, California on December 2 of last year.
[02:22.440 --> 02:26.600]  According to investigators, Varouk, a county health inspector, had become self-radicalized
[02:26.600 --> 02:31.960]  via the internet, and his wife pledged allegiance to the Islamic State on the day of the mass
[02:31.960 --> 02:32.960]  shooting.
[02:32.960 --> 02:36.880]  It seems that law enforcement officials never have enough power to access data on encrypted
[02:36.880 --> 02:41.280]  phones, even after cell phone company carriers are served with a warrant.
[02:41.280 --> 02:45.040]  Privacy proponents say the federal government, all the way down to the local PD, have all
[02:45.040 --> 02:50.520]  the tools necessary as a result of the anti-terror legislation passed after September 11 to detect
[02:50.520 --> 02:54.000]  and defuse terrorist plots coordinated over phone and computer networks.
[02:54.000 --> 03:22.560]  This has been your Lowdown for February 10, 2016.
[03:25.000 --> 03:32.000]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[03:32.000 --> 03:38.000]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[03:38.000 --> 03:43.000]  When you were eight and you had bad traits, you'd go to school and learn the golden rules.
[03:43.000 --> 03:46.000]  So why are you acting like a bloody fool?
[03:46.000 --> 03:49.000]  If you get caught in your master crew!
[03:49.000 --> 03:54.000]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[03:54.000 --> 04:00.000]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[04:00.000 --> 04:05.000]  You took it on that one, you took it on this one, you took it on your mother and you took
[04:05.000 --> 04:06.000]  it on your father.
[04:06.000 --> 04:07.000]  Okay, howdy, howdy.
[04:07.000 --> 04:13.000]  This is Randy Kelton, Wheel of Love Radio, here with Deborah Stevens on this, the 11th
[04:13.000 --> 04:19.000]  day of February 2016.
[04:19.000 --> 04:25.000]  And I'll be starting off the show today talking about how to write legal documents.
[04:25.000 --> 04:30.000]  It seems to be a subject I'm getting a lot of interest in.
[04:30.000 --> 04:35.000]  And we'll have phone lines on, so if you have a question or a comment, give us a call.
[04:35.000 --> 04:37.000]  We'll be taking calls all night.
[04:37.000 --> 04:42.000]  Our call-in number is 512-646-1984.
[04:42.000 --> 04:45.000]  Okay, how to write legal documents.
[04:45.000 --> 04:48.000]  It's not always so straightforward.
[04:48.000 --> 04:56.000]  And actually, how to write legal documents is really how to write documents that are
[04:56.000 --> 05:00.000]  clear, concise, and understandable.
[05:00.000 --> 05:10.000]  And the first thing to understand about writing legal documents, you must understand what
[05:10.000 --> 05:12.000]  the judge is there for.
[05:12.000 --> 05:17.000]  You're always writing a legal document for the judge.
[05:17.000 --> 05:23.000]  And the very first consideration is the judge is a busy guy.
[05:23.000 --> 05:29.000]  He gets stacks of motions and pleadings every day.
[05:29.000 --> 05:31.000]  He does lots and lots of readings.
[05:31.000 --> 05:39.000]  Years ago, when I sued the local sheriff, they always give the youngest lawyers the
[05:39.000 --> 05:40.000]  pro se litigant.
[05:40.000 --> 05:48.000]  Well, this young kid came in, 25, 26, handed me a stack of discovery, or I'm sorry, case
[05:48.000 --> 05:49.000]  law.
[05:49.000 --> 05:53.000]  And he went up and handed the stack to the judge.
[05:53.000 --> 05:58.000]  And I picked mine up, and this was 92, 1992.
[05:58.000 --> 06:10.000]  So, he had taken the law book, laid it on the copier, and copied two pages at once.
[06:10.000 --> 06:14.000]  It was probably a six-point font by the time you got done.
[06:14.000 --> 06:20.000]  So, I picked up the page and looked at it, and I asked, Your Honor, does the court have
[06:20.000 --> 06:23.000]  a magnifying glass?
[06:23.000 --> 06:28.000]  And the judge looked at me kind of confused, and then he looked down at the discovery,
[06:28.000 --> 06:32.000]  and this is about a three-eighths of an inch stack of papers.
[06:32.000 --> 06:37.000]  He picked it up by the corner and just flung it out into the courtroom.
[06:37.000 --> 06:39.000]  Papers went everywhere.
[06:39.000 --> 06:44.000]  And he just wailed on this young attorney who's running around trying to catch all this
[06:44.000 --> 06:48.000]  stuff about, what are you trying to blind me?
[06:48.000 --> 06:50.000]  I read motions all day long.
[06:50.000 --> 06:52.000]  How do you expect me to read this stuff?
[06:52.000 --> 06:54.000]  He is just working this guy over.
[06:54.000 --> 06:59.000]  And it took a little bit for me to realize he wasn't really upset at the lawyer, young
[06:59.000 --> 07:02.000]  lawyer, and he's just teaching him a little lesson.
[07:02.000 --> 07:04.000]  But it made the point.
[07:04.000 --> 07:09.000]  They read a lot of documents, so there are some considerations you need to take.
[07:09.000 --> 07:18.000]  And the first consideration is, you must write your document as if it were for an eighth-grade
[07:18.000 --> 07:20.000]  reader.
[07:20.000 --> 07:23.000]  It's not that the judge is dumb or anything.
[07:23.000 --> 07:35.000]  It's just that he doesn't have time to decipher targeted or confused and unclear writing.
[07:35.000 --> 07:44.000]  If you have someone else read a sentence that you've written, and they have to back up at
[07:44.000 --> 07:54.000]  any place in that sentence and read a string of words, you need to fix that sentence.
[07:54.000 --> 07:58.000]  This goes to flow, mental flow.
[07:58.000 --> 08:05.000]  You don't want anything that the reader will mentally trip over.
[08:05.000 --> 08:14.000]  So if you write for an eighth-grader, you write documents that are much easier to understand.
[08:14.000 --> 08:18.000]  First rule is write for an eighth-grader.
[08:18.000 --> 08:29.000]  Second rule is only provide the judge with the facts in the case and the law as it relates
[08:29.000 --> 08:30.000]  to those facts.
[08:30.000 --> 08:38.000]  The judge has two primary duties in the courtroom, first to determine the facts in accordance
[08:38.000 --> 08:43.000]  with the rules of evidence, then apply the law as it comes to him to the facts in the
[08:43.000 --> 08:44.000]  case.
[08:44.000 --> 08:51.000]  You can give the judge the most convincing arguments and the most compelling reasons
[08:51.000 --> 08:57.000]  as to why he should rule in your favor, and he may agree with you and absolutely sympathize
[08:57.000 --> 09:00.000]  with your situation.
[09:00.000 --> 09:06.000]  But if you haven't given him facts in accordance with the rules of evidence and the laws that
[09:06.000 --> 09:11.000]  apply to those facts, he has no power to rule in your favor.
[09:11.000 --> 09:23.000]  So the first thing to understand that you must get into your pleading are the facts.
[09:23.000 --> 09:29.000]  Before you even start a pleading, you should sit down and write down a timeline.
[09:29.000 --> 09:34.000]  If you listen to the show a lot, you hear me talking about a timeline as opposed to
[09:34.000 --> 09:37.000]  a statement of facts.
[09:37.000 --> 09:47.000]  If I ask a non-professional to write me a statement of facts, what I will get is an
[09:47.000 --> 09:51.000]  argument of the issues.
[09:51.000 --> 09:54.000]  First, I don't need an argument of the issues.
[09:54.000 --> 10:00.000]  What I need is on this day, at this time, this happened.
[10:00.000 --> 10:03.000]  Then on this day, at this time, this happened.
[10:03.000 --> 10:05.000]  Don't tell me why it happened.
[10:05.000 --> 10:11.000]  Don't give me any comment about how dirty, what a dirty rotten scoundrel the other guy
[10:11.000 --> 10:13.000]  is and how innocent you are.
[10:13.000 --> 10:16.000]  Not the place in the statement of facts.
[10:16.000 --> 10:21.000]  So if you do a timeline, it's a lot easier to understand what should be in a statement
[10:21.000 --> 10:22.000]  of facts.
[10:22.000 --> 10:31.000]  When you're writing a statement of facts, when you write in a sentence, mentally add
[10:31.000 --> 10:35.000]  to the end of the sentence, in my opinion.
[10:35.000 --> 10:42.000]  If the sentence makes sense within my opinion, add it to the end of it, take it out.
[10:42.000 --> 10:45.000]  It's not a fact, it's an argument.
[10:45.000 --> 10:47.000]  Or it's a conclusion.
[10:47.000 --> 10:49.000]  Just put in facts.
[10:49.000 --> 10:59.000]  Write a statement of facts and do the statement of facts from the perspective of foundation.
[10:59.000 --> 11:08.000]  In order to bring facts before the court, you have to show how the facts are relevant
[11:08.000 --> 11:10.000]  to the case.
[11:10.000 --> 11:17.000]  And a way to understand foundation is referential index.
[11:17.000 --> 11:20.000]  He hurt that guy.
[11:20.000 --> 11:23.000]  He hurt that guy, has no referential index.
[11:23.000 --> 11:26.000]  We don't know who he refers to.
[11:26.000 --> 11:29.000]  We don't know what hurt refers to.
[11:29.000 --> 11:33.000]  And we don't know what that guy refers to.
[11:33.000 --> 11:42.000]  When you write legal documents, avoid pronouns like the plague.
[11:42.000 --> 11:52.000]  Always use the proper name unless the proper name is already in the sentence or has been
[11:52.000 --> 12:00.000]  used so often that no reasonable person of ordinary prudence could misconstrue to whom
[12:00.000 --> 12:03.000]  the pronoun refers.
[12:03.000 --> 12:12.000]  Keep in mind, it is the job of opposing counsel to misconstrue your reading any way he can.
[12:12.000 --> 12:17.000]  So he will work to find ways to misconstrue what you've written.
[12:17.000 --> 12:21.000]  If you use pronouns, you make his work easier.
[12:21.000 --> 12:28.000]  If you use acronyms, then you trip up the reader.
[12:28.000 --> 12:34.000]  Never use an acronym if you can't avoid it.
[12:34.000 --> 12:42.000]  If you want to use an acronym like RESPA, RESPA is something that anyone doing anything
[12:42.000 --> 12:47.000]  with foreclosure understands, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.
[12:47.000 --> 12:49.000]  But an eighth grader wouldn't understand that.
[12:49.000 --> 12:52.000]  So you can put RESPA in there.
[12:52.000 --> 13:01.000]  So long as in front of RESPA, you have Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and in brackets
[13:01.000 --> 13:06.000]  put RESPA in brackets right behind it.
[13:06.000 --> 13:14.000]  And if you don't use a direct reference to that in the same paragraph, then in the next
[13:14.000 --> 13:20.000]  paragraph if you reference it, put Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act again.
[13:20.000 --> 13:27.000]  If you use that in a paragraph and then subsequently refer to it again, you can use RESPA.
[13:27.000 --> 13:30.000]  So long as it's within the paragraph.
[13:30.000 --> 13:39.000]  But don't let it stray outside the paragraph because the reader is immersed in the reading.
[13:39.000 --> 13:46.000]  And if he's not, we're familiar with what RESPA, the acronym refers to.
[13:46.000 --> 13:54.000]  When he gets to it three paragraphs down, he's likely to have to stop, go back up and
[13:54.000 --> 14:01.000]  make sure what RESPA actually means because he probably doesn't have it memorized yet.
[14:01.000 --> 14:05.000]  I know we assume that the judge already knows all this stuff.
[14:05.000 --> 14:07.000]  Bad idea.
[14:07.000 --> 14:11.000]  Don't assume that he knows anything.
[14:11.000 --> 14:19.000]  I always, when I write motions or pleadings, I assume I'm writing them for a grand jury.
[14:19.000 --> 14:24.000]  The grand jury are my peers, actually not my peers.
[14:24.000 --> 14:30.000]  A grand jury are the peers of the guy across the street who doesn't necessarily know anything
[14:30.000 --> 14:35.000]  about law, who doesn't have a focus on this kind of thing.
[14:35.000 --> 14:44.000]  So someone who knows nothing about the subject matter, I need to make sure anytime I create
[14:44.000 --> 14:51.000]  a question in the mind of my reader, that I immediately answer that question.
[14:51.000 --> 14:57.000]  Or if I know I'm going to create a question in the mind of the reader, I lay a plant in
[14:57.000 --> 15:04.000]  front of it so that when I create the question, the plant has already given the answer.
[15:04.000 --> 15:07.000]  And I won't talk about plants today, we probably won't have time.
[15:07.000 --> 15:13.000]  Actually, I'll probably only have time to do a little bit more of this in this break
[15:13.000 --> 15:16.000]  because we already got a board full of callers.
[15:16.000 --> 15:18.000]  Okay, referential index.
[15:18.000 --> 15:24.000]  I'm going to have time to go into deep structure and surface structure and deletions, distortions,
[15:24.000 --> 15:25.000]  nominalizations.
[15:25.000 --> 15:26.000]  We may do some of that.
[15:26.000 --> 15:28.000]  I may go back into this tomorrow night.
[15:28.000 --> 15:35.000]  I'm trying to put together an e-book and here on writing documents, I'm trying to get together
[15:35.000 --> 15:44.000]  a set of really basic issues so that people can have a basic idea of how to begin to write
[15:44.000 --> 15:45.000]  a legal document.
[15:45.000 --> 15:50.000]  So I'm going to back up and go to always start at the end.
[15:50.000 --> 15:54.000]  When you're writing a legal document, always start at the end.
[15:54.000 --> 16:02.000]  If you're writing an original pleading, like a lawsuit, go find pattern jury charges.
[16:02.000 --> 16:05.000]  Read the pattern jury charges.
[16:05.000 --> 16:11.000]  That's the charge the judge will give to the jury before he sends them in to deliberate.
[16:11.000 --> 16:18.000]  And what it will say is, you must find this and this and this and this.
[16:18.000 --> 16:22.000]  And then you take that pattern jury charge and you stick it up in the top right-hand
[16:22.000 --> 16:26.000]  corner of your screen when you're writing your documents.
[16:26.000 --> 16:32.000]  And always keep looking at that and ask yourself, is what I'm putting in here, does what I'm
[16:32.000 --> 16:35.000]  putting in here go to one of those elements?
[16:35.000 --> 16:38.000]  If it doesn't, take it out.
[16:38.000 --> 16:48.000]  The only thing you have to prove are the elements that the jury will have to determine when
[16:48.000 --> 16:50.000]  they go into the jury room.
[16:50.000 --> 16:52.000]  Anything else is fluff and a waste of time.
[16:52.000 --> 16:57.000]  Randy Kelton, Wheel of Law Radio, don't even give a college number.
[16:57.000 --> 16:58.000]  We're filled up.
[16:58.000 --> 17:00.000]  We'll be right back.
[17:00.000 --> 17:03.000]  They took our guns!
[17:03.000 --> 17:07.000]  Then get them back and support the Logos Radio Network at the same time.
[17:07.000 --> 17:11.000]  The following sponsors have stepped up to help keep this network on air with a fundraising
[17:11.000 --> 17:12.000]  contest.
[17:12.000 --> 17:17.000]  Thanks to Central Texas Gunworks with the first prize, the Spike Skull Lower Receiver.
[17:17.000 --> 17:20.000]  Second prize, the Taurus Curve Handgun.
[17:20.000 --> 17:23.000]  Every $25 donation gets a chance to win.
[17:23.000 --> 17:24.000]  Enter as often as you like.
[17:24.000 --> 17:26.000]  Check out centraltexasgunworks.com.
[17:26.000 --> 17:29.000]  Thanks also to mymagicmud.com.
[17:29.000 --> 17:35.000]  The first 40 people to donate $25 get a jar of My Magic Mud valued at $25.
[17:35.000 --> 17:39.000]  Thanks also to All About Vapor at 4631 Airport Boulevard.
[17:39.000 --> 17:43.000]  The 10 third place winners will get a $25 gift card.
[17:43.000 --> 17:46.000]  Stop smelling like a butt at allaboutvapor.com.
[17:46.000 --> 17:51.000]  Also, thanks to Eddie Craig, folks who buy the Rule of Law Traffic Seminar, get 10 entries
[17:51.000 --> 17:52.000]  into the contest.
[17:52.000 --> 17:57.000]  Check out the contest rules and details at logosradionetwork.com.
[17:57.000 --> 18:00.000]  Taurus status or hipsters may not actually be eligible to win.
[18:00.000 --> 18:05.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[18:05.000 --> 18:09.000]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears Proven Method.
[18:09.000 --> 18:14.000]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you
[18:14.000 --> 18:15.000]  can win too.
[18:15.000 --> 18:20.000]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal
[18:20.000 --> 18:25.000]  civil rights statutes, what to do when contacted by phones, mail, or court summons, how to
[18:25.000 --> 18:29.000]  answer letters and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit reports,
[18:29.000 --> 18:34.000]  how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[18:34.000 --> 18:39.000]  The Michael Mears Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:39.000 --> 18:41.000]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[18:41.000 --> 18:47.000]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner,
[18:47.000 --> 18:50.000]  or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[18:50.000 --> 19:00.000]  That's ruleoflawradio.com, or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors
[19:00.000 --> 19:01.000]  now.
[19:01.000 --> 19:11.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, lo-lo-lo-logosradio.com.
[19:11.000 --> 19:35.000]  Look one again, only ask the question, wonder what I did, don't have answer, open my body,
[19:35.000 --> 19:48.000]  we are asking the question, look one again, one day don't have answer, open slip and slide.
[19:48.000 --> 19:49.000]  Okay, we are back.
[19:49.000 --> 19:50.000]  We're Andy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio.
[19:50.000 --> 19:56.000]  I said I was going to callers, but I'm going to do one more segment on this.
[19:56.000 --> 20:03.000]  It is such a problem for people when they try to write legal documents.
[20:03.000 --> 20:06.000]  They have no idea where to start.
[20:06.000 --> 20:10.000]  And the place to start is at the end.
[20:10.000 --> 20:13.000]  You start with the pattern jury charges.
[20:13.000 --> 20:20.000]  If it's a criminal case, read the statute that you're being charged with.
[20:20.000 --> 20:27.000]  The statute will have a list of a set of elements that establish the crime.
[20:27.000 --> 20:34.000]  And then you look at the complaint and see if each one of those elements are addressed.
[20:34.000 --> 20:41.000]  When they get to the jury, the judge is going to give the jury a jury charge.
[20:41.000 --> 20:43.000]  There are jury charges for criminal as well.
[20:43.000 --> 20:48.000]  He's going to tell the jury you have to find this, this, this, this, and this.
[20:48.000 --> 20:53.000]  And then when you write your pleadings, you look at those and see which one of those you
[20:53.000 --> 20:54.000]  can disprove.
[20:54.000 --> 20:57.000]  You only have to disprove one of them.
[20:57.000 --> 20:59.000]  So always start at the end.
[20:59.000 --> 21:04.000]  Start at what the jury is going to be charged with finding.
[21:04.000 --> 21:09.000]  And spend all of your time addressing those issues.
[21:09.000 --> 21:14.000]  If something goes to a separate issue that doesn't go to that, take it out.
[21:14.000 --> 21:23.000]  I was looking over a rather large pleading the other day and I found large sections in
[21:23.000 --> 21:31.000]  there that I had to, I put in a notation and I said, what does this have to do with the
[21:31.000 --> 21:33.000]  purpose of this pleading?
[21:33.000 --> 21:35.000]  It was a challenge subject matter jurisdiction.
[21:35.000 --> 21:39.000]  What does this have to do with subject matter jurisdiction?
[21:39.000 --> 21:43.000]  And he looked at it, took them out.
[21:43.000 --> 21:52.000]  No matter how well worded, no matter how elegant to turn a phrase, if it does not go to an
[21:52.000 --> 21:55.000]  element, take it out.
[21:55.000 --> 21:59.000]  Now you might want to keep it because you might need it some other time, but don't put
[21:59.000 --> 22:01.000]  it in this document.
[22:01.000 --> 22:10.000]  So always go to the end first and always create a statement of facts first.
[22:10.000 --> 22:16.000]  And when you create the statement of facts, I suggest you just do a simple timeline on
[22:16.000 --> 22:24.000]  this day this happened and go down it and once you have the timeline, go back and fill
[22:24.000 --> 22:35.000]  in all of the facts that you believe would be relevant to proving your case, either proving
[22:35.000 --> 22:42.000]  up the elements or disproving the elements if you're the defendant.
[22:42.000 --> 22:47.000]  And once you have the facts, all the facts in there, then go look at your facts and how
[22:47.000 --> 22:51.000]  can you bring these, which facts are not relevant?
[22:51.000 --> 22:58.000]  It's a speeding case and the cop weighed 350 pounds.
[22:58.000 --> 23:01.000]  Take it out, no matter how much he weighed.
[23:01.000 --> 23:09.000]  Look at the facts that don't, that are not relevant to the case, that are not material.
[23:09.000 --> 23:17.000]  And if you can't, if you can take it out and still have the timeline make sense because
[23:17.000 --> 23:21.000]  you have to keep in mind flow.
[23:21.000 --> 23:28.000]  You have to put in enough facts so that each fact appears to follow from the other.
[23:28.000 --> 23:32.000]  So that the person reads one fact and then you reach the next one and you don't want
[23:32.000 --> 23:39.000]  him stopping and scratching his head thinking, how did you get from here to here?
[23:39.000 --> 23:46.000]  The officer turned his lights on, then the officer jerked my door open.
[23:46.000 --> 23:50.000]  How did you get from turning the lights on to jerking your door open?
[23:50.000 --> 23:57.000]  Even if you drove for 50 feet and pulled over on the shoulder or pulled in a parking lot,
[23:57.000 --> 24:01.000]  even if that's not relevant to the issues, you have to give them enough so that they
[24:01.000 --> 24:05.000]  can create a story in their mind.
[24:05.000 --> 24:12.000]  I don't have enough time to go into artful vagueness, but I'll just touch on it slightly.
[24:12.000 --> 24:19.000]  Only give as much detail as must be there.
[24:19.000 --> 24:27.000]  If you give enough detail to string a set of events together, but don't give extra detail,
[24:27.000 --> 24:32.000]  the reader will tend to fill in the blanks places.
[24:32.000 --> 24:41.000]  And if you allow the reader to fill in the blank places, that engages an internal aspect
[24:41.000 --> 24:53.000]  of the mind that on the one hand keeps your reader in flow and then the other hand gives
[24:53.000 --> 24:57.000]  him the experience of rapport.
[24:57.000 --> 25:04.000]  He feels like he understands your story because frankly he's constructing half of it.
[25:04.000 --> 25:09.000]  If you put in too many details, especially details that aren't relevant to the outcome
[25:09.000 --> 25:16.000]  and your details different from the one he had in his mind, he has to stop and change out the details.
[25:16.000 --> 25:24.000]  So don't mess with any details that don't have to be there to maintain flow or that are not relevant to the case.
[25:24.000 --> 25:29.000]  Structuring a statement of facts is an art form.
[25:29.000 --> 25:38.000]  You want to put together your statement of facts so that when the judge or the jury or whoever reads it,
[25:38.000 --> 25:47.000]  when they read it based on the way the facts stack together, they will already either come to the decision
[25:47.000 --> 25:53.000]  that you want them to come to or will at least be leaning in that direction.
[25:53.000 --> 26:00.000]  So that when you go to your next section, which I'd like to call a statement of factual accusation,
[26:00.000 --> 26:04.000]  it's often called points and authorities, argument and support.
[26:04.000 --> 26:11.000]  The reason I'd like to call it a statement of factual accusation is so that we understand.
[26:11.000 --> 26:16.000]  We're taking, in this second place, we take those facts from the first.
[26:16.000 --> 26:19.000]  We move it down here to the second section.
[26:19.000 --> 26:25.000]  Now we add our arguments as to what this fact means.
[26:25.000 --> 26:36.000]  And if you have structured your statement of facts well, what it means the reader will read your statement
[26:36.000 --> 26:43.000]  and they will be able to see how you came to that conclusion from the facts you've given them
[26:43.000 --> 26:47.000]  because it's easy for them to come to that same position.
[26:47.000 --> 26:52.000]  Now they may realize and understand there's probably other facts that may mitigate some of this,
[26:52.000 --> 26:58.000]  but your facts string together well and your conclusions follow the facts.
[26:58.000 --> 27:01.000]  And then you apply the law.
[27:01.000 --> 27:05.000]  You make your conclusions based on the law.
[27:05.000 --> 27:12.000]  So the second section is gives the judge what he must have.
[27:12.000 --> 27:15.000]  He must determine the facts in accordance with the rules of evidence,
[27:15.000 --> 27:19.000]  then apply the laws that comes to him to the facts in the case.
[27:19.000 --> 27:23.000]  So this gives you, gets the facts in evidence.
[27:23.000 --> 27:30.000]  Any time you state a fact in a document, the document must be verified.
[27:30.000 --> 27:36.000]  So make sure that you're pleading or whichever document has a statement of facts of any kind in it that is verified.
[27:36.000 --> 27:40.000]  If you have any question, verify, notary.
[27:40.000 --> 27:46.000]  If a document doesn't need to be verified and it is verified, don't make any difference to her or anything.
[27:46.000 --> 27:50.000]  If it needs to be verified and it's not, now you have a problem with the other side.
[27:50.000 --> 27:53.000]  So always be verified if there's any doubt.
[27:53.000 --> 28:01.000]  And then statement of facts, statement of factual accusation and a conclusion.
[28:01.000 --> 28:04.000]  Always get to a concise conclusion.
[28:04.000 --> 28:07.000]  And let me back up to the beginning. I missed one part.
[28:07.000 --> 28:18.000]  At the very beginning, a very brief statement of what you want to achieve by this document.
[28:18.000 --> 28:23.000]  This gives you reader a frame of reference.
[28:23.000 --> 28:27.000]  It gives him initial referential index.
[28:27.000 --> 28:38.000]  All of these facts that I'm reading here, they are for the purpose of coming to this outcome.
[28:38.000 --> 28:42.000]  So the reader knows how to frame what you're telling him.
[28:42.000 --> 28:49.000]  And then in the conclusion, you state the conclusion you want the reader to come to.
[28:49.000 --> 28:52.000]  And if you've done your job right, he will already have come to that conclusion.
[28:52.000 --> 29:01.000]  So when he reads your conclusion, if it jibes with the conclusions he came to in reading your document,
[29:01.000 --> 29:08.000]  now you've got rapport. Now you've got, this will be very compelling for your reader.
[29:08.000 --> 29:11.000]  Next thing you want is a prayer.
[29:11.000 --> 29:14.000]  And I'm not talking about praying to God. It's not that kind of prayer.
[29:14.000 --> 29:20.000]  Prayer in Older English, Matt, you're just asking somebody for something.
[29:20.000 --> 29:27.000]  So pray, Judge, do this. So ask the Judge for what you want.
[29:27.000 --> 29:33.000]  Had a guy show me a suit by a debt collector and he said, what do you think?
[29:33.000 --> 29:36.000]  I said, he doesn't have a prayer. He said, why doesn't he have a prayer?
[29:36.000 --> 29:39.000]  I don't know. He didn't put one in there.
[29:39.000 --> 29:45.000]  No prayer? If you don't ask the Judge to do something, he can't do anything.
[29:45.000 --> 29:51.000]  You have to ask him. Tell him what you want him to do and then specifically ask him to do it.
[29:51.000 --> 29:54.000]  And I'm running out of the second segment.
[29:54.000 --> 29:58.000]  I will do this again tomorrow night and spend a little more time on it.
[29:58.000 --> 30:00.000]  We'll be right back.
[30:00.000 --> 30:08.000]  You may think our brains deteriorate with age, but new research shows that as brains get older,
[30:08.000 --> 30:10.000]  they actually work more efficiently.
[30:10.000 --> 30:16.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht back with new research on how aging makes the mind sharper after this.
[30:16.000 --> 30:22.000]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[30:22.000 --> 30:27.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:27.000 --> 30:32.000]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[30:32.000 --> 30:35.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[30:35.000 --> 30:42.000]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[30:42.000 --> 30:46.000]  Start over with StartPage.
[30:46.000 --> 30:50.000]  It's a widely held notion that the older people get, the more doddering they become.
[30:50.000 --> 30:55.000]  But new research shows that even as our brains age, they can actually become more efficient.
[30:55.000 --> 31:02.000]  Scientists asked two groups of volunteers, one age 18 to 35 and the other 55 to 75,
[31:02.000 --> 31:05.000]  to associate different words with given topics.
[31:05.000 --> 31:08.000]  At one point, they told everyone they'd made a mistake.
[31:08.000 --> 31:12.000]  When that happened, the younger group's brains lit up and lost focus.
[31:12.000 --> 31:17.000]  But the older group's brains didn't even flinch, and they stayed focused on solving the next task.
[31:17.000 --> 31:21.000]  The moral? There's something to be said for experience.
[31:21.000 --> 31:30.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[31:30.000 --> 31:36.000]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11th.
[31:36.000 --> 31:38.000]  The government says that fire brought it down.
[31:38.000 --> 31:43.000]  However, 1,500 architects and engineers concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[31:43.000 --> 31:46.000]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives.
[31:46.000 --> 31:49.000]  Thousands of my fellow first responders are dying.
[31:49.000 --> 31:50.000]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[31:50.000 --> 31:51.000]  I'm a structural engineer.
[31:51.000 --> 31:52.000]  I'm a New York City correction officer.
[31:52.000 --> 31:53.000]  I'm an Air Force pilot.
[31:53.000 --> 31:55.000]  I'm a father who lost his son.
[31:55.000 --> 31:58.000]  We're Americans, and we deserve the truth.
[31:58.000 --> 32:01.000]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[32:01.000 --> 32:05.000]  You feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics?
[32:05.000 --> 32:06.000]  Sorry!
[32:06.000 --> 32:08.000]  Are you confused by words like the Constitution or the Federal Reserve?
[32:08.000 --> 32:09.000]  What?
[32:09.000 --> 32:14.000]  If so, you may be diagnosed with the deadliest disease known today, stupidity.
[32:14.000 --> 32:17.000]  Hi, my name is Steve Holt, and like millions of other Americans,
[32:17.000 --> 32:20.000]  I was diagnosed with stupidity at an early age.
[32:20.000 --> 32:26.000]  I had no idea that the number one cause of the disease is found in almost every home in America, the television.
[32:26.000 --> 32:31.000]  Unfortunately, that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity, but there is hope.
[32:31.000 --> 32:37.000]  The staff at Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other Foxaholics suffering from sports zombieism recover.
[32:37.000 --> 32:44.000]  And because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading and watching educational documentaries without feeling tired or uninterested.
[32:44.000 --> 32:51.000]  So if you or anybody you know suffers from stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503
[32:51.000 --> 32:55.000]  or visit them at 1904Guadalupe or bravenewbookstore.com.
[32:55.000 --> 32:59.000]  Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include discernment and enlarged vocabulary
[32:59.000 --> 33:01.000]  and an overall increase in mental functioning.
[33:01.000 --> 33:07.000]  Live, free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[33:21.000 --> 33:23.000]  Okay, we are back.
[33:23.000 --> 33:26.000]  Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, rule of our radio.
[33:26.000 --> 33:36.000]  And Deborah had a comment on this subject. When the show started, I told her I wanted her to listen in and possibly comment
[33:36.000 --> 33:46.000]  because I read her documents and she has a quality of style I aspire to.
[33:46.000 --> 33:48.000]  Okay, Deb, you had a comment or two?
[33:48.000 --> 33:50.000]  Oh, well, that's very sweet, Randy.
[33:50.000 --> 33:59.000]  Yeah, I had some comments I wanted to make about writing legal documents and one comment I wanted to make about the facts,
[33:59.000 --> 34:02.000]  you know, like a timeline and things like that.
[34:02.000 --> 34:05.000]  There's two ways of doing it.
[34:05.000 --> 34:15.000]  You can write a story like prose or like a narrative, like you're telling a story, like in paragraph form and that sort of thing.
[34:15.000 --> 34:25.000]  And then there's another style of doing it where you just have statements like kind of short sentences that are numbered,
[34:25.000 --> 34:34.000]  you know, like so-and-so, like if there's a car accident, so-and-so hit me from behind, you know,
[34:34.000 --> 34:39.000]  and you just like list off the different facts, you know, I was stopped at a red light at such-and-such street.
[34:39.000 --> 34:41.000]  All of a sudden, you know, that number one.
[34:41.000 --> 34:43.000]  Number two, car hit me from behind.
[34:43.000 --> 34:52.000]  Number three, you know, you just kind of like list short statements and you number the sentences like they're separate paragraphs.
[34:52.000 --> 35:01.000]  And the reason for these two different styles is say you're writing an affidavit like to support a criminal complaint.
[35:01.000 --> 35:11.000]  You may want to, that may be a better situation where you would want to write your statement of fact in the form of like prose or a narrative.
[35:11.000 --> 35:17.000]  If you're writing a pleading like for a lawsuit or for a motion or something like that,
[35:17.000 --> 35:24.000]  especially like maybe in a civil case or like your initial petition, your original petition for a lawsuit,
[35:24.000 --> 35:31.000]  you want to list the facts like a timeline and have it real simple and just like number one, such-and-such happened.
[35:31.000 --> 35:32.000]  Number two, such-and-such happened.
[35:32.000 --> 35:41.000]  And have it in kind of a timeline with, you know, breaking it down because that makes it easier for the other party and for the judge
[35:41.000 --> 35:48.000]  to kind of understand what's going on in a simple way to just kind of get the gist of what is going on here
[35:48.000 --> 35:55.000]  and what the lawsuit is about without having to read a narrative in prose form.
[35:55.000 --> 36:05.000]  So there's two different styles of doing this for different purposes and I tend to prefer the like the bullet outline points style.
[36:05.000 --> 36:10.000]  I tend to prefer that for like when you're writing a lawsuit or when you're writing a motion or something like that.
[36:10.000 --> 36:20.000]  But if you need to file an affidavit in support of like a criminal complaint or an affidavit in support of a motion for a particular thing,
[36:20.000 --> 36:22.000]  then you may want to write it in prose form.
[36:22.000 --> 36:25.000]  So that was one comment that I wanted to make.
[36:25.000 --> 36:34.000]  And another comment I wanted to make about writing legal documents is, you know, you want to see,
[36:34.000 --> 36:42.000]  you want to look up how the law applies to the facts and just citing statute isn't enough.
[36:42.000 --> 36:44.000]  You have to cite case law.
[36:44.000 --> 36:48.000]  You have to shepardize the case law.
[36:48.000 --> 36:50.000]  Just citing statute is not good enough.
[36:50.000 --> 36:56.000]  You have to show that there is established court precedent controlling case law,
[36:56.000 --> 37:04.000]  which means appellate court rulings or higher, published appellate court rulings or higher.
[37:04.000 --> 37:08.000]  That is considered controlling case law.
[37:08.000 --> 37:18.000]  And so you want to incorporate that as much as you can because you are taking the court's previous rulings and applying it to your situation.
[37:18.000 --> 37:26.000]  And so that makes it a little bit more difficult for the other side to get around it because you're not, you know,
[37:26.000 --> 37:30.000]  coming up with something from scratch or, you know, your own legal argument.
[37:30.000 --> 37:36.000]  You're drawing from court precedent arguments that have already been established in case law.
[37:36.000 --> 37:44.000]  And so the other thing I was going to say about writing legal documents is you want to read the rules of the court.
[37:44.000 --> 37:52.000]  Okay, you want to read the rules of procedure for your court, whether it's the federal or the state or the county.
[37:52.000 --> 38:00.000]  There's general rules like the federal rules of civil procedure and then there's local rules of court.
[38:00.000 --> 38:02.000]  So you need to know both.
[38:02.000 --> 38:08.000]  You need to know how many pages you're allowed to file for a motion, for example.
[38:08.000 --> 38:16.000]  You need to know timelines to submit pleadings, like say in a civil case there's timelines.
[38:16.000 --> 38:18.000]  You can only submit pleadings up to a certain point.
[38:18.000 --> 38:22.000]  You have to know timelines for discovery and things like this.
[38:22.000 --> 38:31.000]  So you need to know what the rules of court are and what is required for something to be considered like a valid motion, for example,
[38:31.000 --> 38:37.000]  or what you need to establish, say, for a temporary restraining order.
[38:37.000 --> 38:39.000]  I'm going to use this as an example.
[38:39.000 --> 38:42.000]  This is considered a relief in equity.
[38:42.000 --> 38:48.000]  So if you're writing a lawsuit, you may want to be asking for relief in equity.
[38:48.000 --> 38:51.000]  You may want to ask for damages, which is monetary.
[38:51.000 --> 38:53.000]  So you may want both.
[38:53.000 --> 38:59.000]  And so, for example, let's just use a temporary restraining order in a civil case, for example.
[38:59.000 --> 39:07.000]  In the federal system, you have to show that certain patterns have been established
[39:07.000 --> 39:13.000]  in order for the court to even have jurisdiction to grant you a temporary restraining order.
[39:13.000 --> 39:19.000]  And actually, that's a whole other section that I'm going to get to in just a moment about jurisdiction.
[39:19.000 --> 39:26.000]  If you're filing a lawsuit, you have to show at the beginning of your petition why the court has jurisdiction.
[39:26.000 --> 39:27.000]  You have to establish that.
[39:27.000 --> 39:31.000]  You have to establish why this is the appropriate venue, for example.
[39:31.000 --> 39:33.000]  So that all goes at the beginning.
[39:33.000 --> 39:41.000]  Okay, so for a temporary restraining order, you would need to show you have the bullet points of the facts.
[39:41.000 --> 39:52.000]  First off, in your section for relief in equity for the TRO, you have to show that by the court granting the TRO,
[39:52.000 --> 39:55.000]  it would maintain the status quo.
[39:55.000 --> 40:00.000]  You have to show that the status quo would be maintained by the granting of the TRO,
[40:00.000 --> 40:02.000]  not that it would change something.
[40:02.000 --> 40:05.000]  Okay, and that's case law on that.
[40:05.000 --> 40:09.000]  That's USV, United Mine Workers of America.
[40:09.000 --> 40:13.000]  Okay, so you have to show it would maintain the status quo.
[40:13.000 --> 40:19.000]  You have to show that there would be irreparable injury if relief is not granted.
[40:19.000 --> 40:27.000]  Okay, you have to show that there is a substantial likelihood of the success of your case on the merits.
[40:27.000 --> 40:31.000]  And so again, you would list like some bullet points and some case law.
[40:31.000 --> 40:37.000]  And then you have to show there's no substantial or genuine issue of material fact.
[40:37.000 --> 40:44.000]  Okay, so you have to show that the facts that are relevant to the case are not in dispute.
[40:44.000 --> 40:48.000]  Okay, if there's facts in dispute, you can't get a TRO.
[40:48.000 --> 40:54.000]  All right, so you have to show that there's agreement with the other side on certain material facts
[40:54.000 --> 40:56.000]  that are relevant to the case and the TRO.
[40:56.000 --> 41:01.000]  You have to show there would be no harm to the public interest if the TRO was granted.
[41:01.000 --> 41:03.000]  All right, there's case law on that.
[41:03.000 --> 41:09.000]  You have to show that there's a balance of potential harm to both parties.
[41:09.000 --> 41:15.000]  All right, is it going to potentially harm either party, you know,
[41:15.000 --> 41:19.000]  namely the one that you're trying to get a TRO against,
[41:19.000 --> 41:26.000]  is it going to harm that party more than you by granting the TRO?
[41:26.000 --> 41:28.000]  So you have to show that there's some kind of balance there.
[41:28.000 --> 41:37.000]  Okay, so you have to show, you know, there's very little adequate remedy in law.
[41:37.000 --> 41:44.000]  Okay, so anyway, the point that I'm trying to make is that these are established points
[41:44.000 --> 41:50.000]  that you have to show are substantiated if you want to get a TRO.
[41:50.000 --> 41:54.000]  You can't just get a TRO because you don't like what's going on
[41:54.000 --> 41:59.000]  and you think you should have it, you should have your way before the case is over.
[41:59.000 --> 42:01.000]  It doesn't really work that way.
[42:01.000 --> 42:03.000]  So that's just an example.
[42:03.000 --> 42:06.000]  And these are like rules of civil procedure.
[42:06.000 --> 42:08.000]  This is like rules of court, things like this.
[42:08.000 --> 42:13.000]  So I would just encourage people that whether it's a criminal case or a civil case,
[42:13.000 --> 42:19.000]  you really need to read the rules of procedure and not just the statute.
[42:19.000 --> 42:26.000]  And you need to investigate the case law concerning that is in relation to these statutes
[42:26.000 --> 42:33.000]  so that you're not just like kind of coming up with your own legal argument from scratch.
[42:33.000 --> 42:41.000]  You don't want everything in your case, actually you want very little in your case to be first blush issues.
[42:41.000 --> 42:49.000]  You want to try to show that what your case is about is along the lines of established jurisprudence
[42:49.000 --> 42:53.000]  so that you can get your way.
[42:53.000 --> 42:56.000]  And again, there's the local rules also.
[42:56.000 --> 42:59.000]  You have to comply with the local rules.
[42:59.000 --> 43:03.000]  You have to comply with the civil rules of procedure because from what I've seen,
[43:03.000 --> 43:11.000]  a lot of pro-says get hosed on the rules of court. They get hosed on the rules of procedure,
[43:11.000 --> 43:13.000]  whether it's civil or criminal.
[43:13.000 --> 43:21.000]  The lawyers, the bar-card carrying lawyers, outmaneuver the pro-says on procedure.
[43:21.000 --> 43:25.000]  That is what I have seen most of the time.
[43:25.000 --> 43:31.000]  They don't win, the other side doesn't win because they have the law or the facts on their side
[43:31.000 --> 43:35.000]  so much as they outmaneuver on procedure.
[43:35.000 --> 43:45.000]  So I can't really stress enough that you've got to focus on procedure just as much as the merits of your case.
[43:45.000 --> 43:50.000]  So with that, I guess we will be back on the other side.
[43:50.000 --> 43:55.000]  This is the rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens, and we'll be taking your calls on the other side.
[43:55.000 --> 44:02.000]  We'll be right back.
[44:25.000 --> 44:49.000]  We'll be right back.
[44:55.000 --> 45:04.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[45:04.000 --> 45:11.000]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand 4-CD course
[45:11.000 --> 45:15.000]  that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[45:15.000 --> 45:19.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[45:19.000 --> 45:23.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[45:23.000 --> 45:28.000]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[45:28.000 --> 45:34.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[45:34.000 --> 45:39.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[45:39.000 --> 45:43.000]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[45:43.000 --> 45:49.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[45:49.000 --> 45:53.000]  pro se tactics, and much more.
[45:53.000 --> 46:14.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[46:14.000 --> 46:16.000]  Okay, folks, we are back.
[46:16.000 --> 46:20.000]  I just had a few more comments I wanted to make before we go to the callers,
[46:20.000 --> 46:21.000]  so callers, just sit tight.
[46:21.000 --> 46:22.000]  We'll be right with you.
[46:22.000 --> 46:29.000]  I wanted to continue on this line of procedure, how crucial it is.
[46:29.000 --> 46:33.000]  I know some people, I'm not going to say their names on the air,
[46:33.000 --> 46:42.000]  but they were involved in a lawsuit concerning their home, fraudulent foreclosure,
[46:42.000 --> 46:48.000]  all this kind of thing, wrongful, unlawful detainer, all this kind of stuff.
[46:48.000 --> 46:56.000]  Well, they won this case, but then a different bank came after them
[46:56.000 --> 47:00.000]  far outside the statute of limitations.
[47:00.000 --> 47:03.000]  They had beat the wrongful foreclosure.
[47:03.000 --> 47:05.000]  It actually wasn't a wrongful foreclosure suit,
[47:05.000 --> 47:08.000]  because you can't file that unless you actually lose possession of the property.
[47:08.000 --> 47:11.000]  But they beat the foreclosure, they got the house,
[47:11.000 --> 47:16.000]  they thought everything was in the clear, and then a different bank,
[47:16.000 --> 47:19.000]  actually the whole thing was a scam by this other lawyer
[47:19.000 --> 47:21.000]  that wasn't even representing this other bank,
[47:21.000 --> 47:26.000]  it was a lawyer that was scamming, went after them far outside,
[47:26.000 --> 47:32.000]  far outside the statute of limitations to try to take possession of the property,
[47:32.000 --> 47:39.000]  foreclose and eviction and everything, and on the facts, on the merits, on everything,
[47:39.000 --> 47:43.000]  they had that case beat in the back.
[47:43.000 --> 47:48.000]  I mean, on statute of limitations alone, much less all kinds of other things,
[47:48.000 --> 47:51.000]  like this lawyer wasn't even representing this bank.
[47:51.000 --> 47:55.000]  Well, they thought things were going along pretty well,
[47:55.000 --> 48:02.000]  and they even had a lawyer helping them, and at the very end of the case,
[48:02.000 --> 48:10.000]  the opposing counsel, the shy-sty lawyer that was scamming, outmaneuvered them on procedure,
[48:10.000 --> 48:12.000]  and they lost the house.
[48:12.000 --> 48:16.000]  I mean, it was absolutely tragic to watch all of this go down,
[48:16.000 --> 48:22.000]  and they're good, they're good procès, and they had a pretty good attorney helping them too.
[48:22.000 --> 48:27.000]  And this other lawyer outmaneuvered all of them on procedure, and they lost their home.
[48:27.000 --> 48:31.000]  So I can't stress enough, you've got to know the procedure.
[48:31.000 --> 48:33.000]  You just have to.
[48:33.000 --> 48:37.000]  It's critical, it's crucial, especially if you're in the courtroom.
[48:37.000 --> 48:39.000]  You've got to know the rules of court.
[48:39.000 --> 48:40.000]  You've got to know procedure.
[48:40.000 --> 48:42.000]  You've got to know how to make objections.
[48:42.000 --> 48:48.000]  When the other side is saying things, making assertions that are untrue
[48:48.000 --> 48:53.000]  or would be hurtful to your case, you've got to stand up and make objections.
[48:53.000 --> 48:57.000]  You have to know how to make and meet objections.
[48:57.000 --> 49:02.000]  There's a little handbook that Jerry and I have here on the desk here.
[49:02.000 --> 49:05.000]  It's called How to Make and Meet Objections.
[49:05.000 --> 49:11.000]  You have to know how to make and meet objections so that you can shoot down the other side's objections
[49:11.000 --> 49:15.000]  and so that you'll know how to object and win on what grounds.
[49:15.000 --> 49:18.000]  You need to know how to do that in documents and especially in the courtroom.
[49:18.000 --> 49:21.000]  If you're going to be in a trial, if you're going to be in a courtroom, you've got to be on your feet.
[49:21.000 --> 49:23.000]  You have to know the rules of procedure.
[49:23.000 --> 49:28.000]  You have to know the rules of court so that you will not get outmaneuvered on procedure.
[49:28.000 --> 49:33.000]  I've seen this happen so many times, even on the political scene.
[49:33.000 --> 49:38.000]  Okay, back in the Ron Paul days when I was involved in this delegate movement,
[49:38.000 --> 49:45.000]  and this is outside the courtroom, this is in a parliamentary venue arena,
[49:45.000 --> 49:51.000]  when we were, you know, all the Ron Paul supporters were getting involved in the Republican Party
[49:51.000 --> 49:59.000]  to become delegates so that we could get him, you know, as the nominee for the Republican Party.
[49:59.000 --> 50:07.000]  Well, we knew what to say as far as, you know, the merits or the facts, so to speak,
[50:07.000 --> 50:11.000]  but we didn't know parliamentary procedure.
[50:11.000 --> 50:15.000]  We didn't know Robert's Rules of Order like the bad guys did.
[50:15.000 --> 50:21.000]  Okay, we didn't have like the Republican Party platform memorized and things like that.
[50:21.000 --> 50:27.000]  Okay, so we got outmaneuvered in some of these conventions, the state conventions
[50:27.000 --> 50:33.000]  and the county conventions, in committees, committee hearings, you know,
[50:33.000 --> 50:39.000]  where we're choosing delegates and putting motions on the table to, you know,
[50:39.000 --> 50:41.000]  modify the platform and these kinds of things.
[50:41.000 --> 50:48.000]  We got outmaneuvered because we didn't know, like the back of our hand,
[50:48.000 --> 50:51.000]  Robert's Rules of Order, parliamentary procedure.
[50:51.000 --> 50:55.000]  We not only didn't really know it, but we didn't know how to apply it.
[50:55.000 --> 51:00.000]  I mean, there's a difference between having it memorized and knowing how to apply it.
[51:00.000 --> 51:04.000]  So, I mean, I'm not saying that facts and law are not important.
[51:04.000 --> 51:06.000]  You've got to have that.
[51:06.000 --> 51:07.000]  You have to have the case law.
[51:07.000 --> 51:11.000]  You've got to have the backup, but I'm just saying you've got to know the procedure.
[51:11.000 --> 51:14.000]  It is absolutely critical.
[51:14.000 --> 51:17.000]  Whatever you're doing, if you're involved in a parliamentary arena
[51:17.000 --> 51:21.000]  or if you're involved in a court arena, you have to know how to maneuver.
[51:21.000 --> 51:25.000]  It's like you can be the best basketball player on the face of the planet,
[51:25.000 --> 51:30.000]  but if you don't know the rules of the game, you're going to get disqualified.
[51:30.000 --> 51:35.000]  I mean, you could shoot a hoop from 100 yards away or whatever.
[51:35.000 --> 51:39.000]  I mean, but it's not going to matter if you don't know the rules of the game.
[51:39.000 --> 51:41.000]  So, it's like a game, okay?
[51:41.000 --> 51:44.000]  And Randy and I have compared this to a chess game.
[51:44.000 --> 51:45.000]  How are you going to win the game?
[51:45.000 --> 51:47.000]  How are you going to win chess if you don't know the rules of the game?
[51:47.000 --> 51:50.000]  Well, I mean, you not only need to know the rules of the game,
[51:50.000 --> 51:54.000]  you not only need to know how the pieces move, you have to have strategy.
[51:54.000 --> 51:55.000]  You have to know how to apply it.
[51:55.000 --> 52:00.000]  And so I would just really encourage folks, you've got to study these rules.
[52:00.000 --> 52:03.000]  You've got to read other people's pleadings.
[52:03.000 --> 52:07.000]  Get like O'Connor's forms and see how other, you know,
[52:07.000 --> 52:14.000]  standard forms for writing documents for any particular venue or jurisdiction.
[52:14.000 --> 52:17.000]  I would highly recommend people to get jurisdictionary
[52:17.000 --> 52:20.000]  because it will teach you the basics.
[52:20.000 --> 52:24.000]  It uses the federal system as an example,
[52:24.000 --> 52:30.000]  but it really teaches you how to get your mind around whatever jurisdiction
[52:30.000 --> 52:32.000]  or whatever venue that you're dealing with.
[52:32.000 --> 52:35.000]  The jurisdictionary is in the civil setting,
[52:35.000 --> 52:40.000]  but all of the principles also apply to the criminal setting as well.
[52:40.000 --> 52:43.000]  So whether you're a defendant or whether you're the plaintiff
[52:43.000 --> 52:47.000]  or whether you're in a criminal case as a defendant, it's very beneficial.
[52:47.000 --> 52:51.000]  So I wanted to plug that because I don't think we've mentioned that very much,
[52:51.000 --> 52:54.000]  but definitely I would encourage people to get that,
[52:54.000 --> 52:58.000]  and you can get that off of the Logos Radio Network website.
[52:58.000 --> 53:04.000]  Anyways, I just wanted to make those points, so I guess that's all I have for now, Randy.
[53:04.000 --> 53:09.000]  And when I'm doing the show, like we have Mark from Wisconsin down.
[53:09.000 --> 53:12.000]  He's the second caller down.
[53:12.000 --> 53:16.000]  He was talking, I believe it was, we had two Marks in Wisconsin.
[53:16.000 --> 53:19.000]  I think he's the one that was talking about a problem his son had,
[53:19.000 --> 53:21.000]  and I said, well, did you do this? He said, I did that.
[53:21.000 --> 53:23.000]  Well, did you do this? I did that.
[53:23.000 --> 53:25.000]  Did you do this over here? I did that.
[53:25.000 --> 53:29.000]  He said, have you been through Jurisdictionary? Oh yeah, I've been through that.
[53:29.000 --> 53:34.000]  Jurisdictionary will give you all of these basics I'm talking about.
[53:34.000 --> 53:39.000]  Jurisdictionary will get you well founded in them.
[53:39.000 --> 53:44.000]  In law school, they don't teach how to practice law.
[53:44.000 --> 53:48.000]  They teach how to argue legal issues.
[53:48.000 --> 53:52.000]  They don't teach you how to file a motion, how to get a motion set for hearing,
[53:52.000 --> 54:00.000]  how to approve your motion, how to, well, they teach you how to object and such.
[54:00.000 --> 54:05.000]  But all of these procedural things, they don't teach you the rules of court.
[54:05.000 --> 54:09.000]  They don't teach you about having to know the local rules,
[54:09.000 --> 54:13.000]  all of the stuff you learn when you get out of law school.
[54:13.000 --> 54:16.000]  Generally lawyers try to get on with another law firm
[54:16.000 --> 54:21.000]  so they can show them how laws practiced in their jurisdiction.
[54:21.000 --> 54:25.000]  That stuff you don't learn in law school.
[54:25.000 --> 54:28.000]  Jurisdictionary will get you well grounded in that
[54:28.000 --> 54:33.000]  and eliminate a lot of this outmaneuvering.
[54:33.000 --> 54:39.000]  Yeah, the outmaneuvering, I'm telling you, the outmaneuvering is,
[54:39.000 --> 54:43.000]  in my opinion from what I've seen, is a much bigger problem
[54:43.000 --> 54:47.000]  than not having law or facts or politics on your side.
[54:47.000 --> 54:49.000]  You've got to be able to maneuver.
[54:49.000 --> 54:53.000]  And before we go to the callers, I just want to plug our fundraiser
[54:53.000 --> 54:57.000]  because we're coming, this is the last week of the fundraiser,
[54:57.000 --> 54:59.000]  and I don't know, I may have to extend it
[54:59.000 --> 55:05.000]  because things haven't been going as well as I would have hoped so far.
[55:05.000 --> 55:08.000]  But folks, we really do need your help to stay on the air.
[55:08.000 --> 55:11.000]  And if we have benefited you at all in any way,
[55:11.000 --> 55:15.000]  please support us so that we can continue to serve you.
[55:15.000 --> 55:19.000]  And if we have actually helped you in a case,
[55:19.000 --> 55:24.000]  just think about how much would you have had to spend on a lawyer
[55:24.000 --> 55:27.000]  if you didn't have information from us?
[55:27.000 --> 55:30.000]  And why don't you consider paying us half of what you think
[55:30.000 --> 55:34.000]  you would have had to pay a lawyer or a quarter or some percentage?
[55:34.000 --> 55:38.000]  Because we are here to help you, but we are also struggling.
[55:38.000 --> 55:42.000]  Most of our sponsors pay on commission,
[55:42.000 --> 55:47.000]  which means the network only gets paid if the listeners buy the product.
[55:47.000 --> 55:49.000]  It has to work that way,
[55:49.000 --> 55:54.000]  otherwise we can't keep sponsors for a long-term basis
[55:54.000 --> 56:01.000]  because just paying flat rate fees for advertising, that's short-term.
[56:01.000 --> 56:04.000]  So folks, listen, we need your support.
[56:04.000 --> 56:06.000]  This is a listener-supported network,
[56:06.000 --> 56:09.000]  and we do everything to support the listeners,
[56:09.000 --> 56:12.000]  so please contribute to the fundraiser because we really need it.
[56:12.000 --> 56:17.000]  And I know Eddie has these new motions that he has right now
[56:17.000 --> 56:20.000]  that folks have been buying from him,
[56:20.000 --> 56:23.000]  and I do encourage folks to do that because they're great,
[56:23.000 --> 56:26.000]  but he's set on the air, and I'll say it again,
[56:26.000 --> 56:28.000]  at least at this point in time,
[56:28.000 --> 56:31.000]  until he raises the price for his motions,
[56:31.000 --> 56:34.000]  they're $100 right now, that all goes to Eddie.
[56:34.000 --> 56:35.000]  The network doesn't get a cut of that.
[56:35.000 --> 56:38.000]  So if you're buying Eddie's motions thinking that you're going to support the network,
[56:38.000 --> 56:40.000]  you're not.
[56:40.000 --> 56:42.000]  So please, please support the network
[56:42.000 --> 56:48.000]  because we cannot deliver Eddie's information to you if we can't stay on the air.
[56:48.000 --> 56:50.000]  So I just want to put that out there.
[56:50.000 --> 56:53.000]  We support everyone, we support the host, but we need your support too.
[56:53.000 --> 56:59.000]  So a little shameless self-plugging there for the network fundraiser.
[56:59.000 --> 57:02.000]  So, okay, we're about to go to break now.
[57:02.000 --> 57:07.000]  We only have like a minute left of the segments, so I don't know.
[57:07.000 --> 57:10.000]  Randy, maybe we should just take callers on the other side instead of starting together.
[57:10.000 --> 57:12.000]  Let me go to Jeff in Mississippi.
[57:12.000 --> 57:14.000]  Okay, yeah, let's go to Jeff.
[57:14.000 --> 57:16.000]  Jeff, what do you have for us?
[57:16.000 --> 57:19.000]  Hey, Randy, thanks for having me on the show.
[57:19.000 --> 57:22.000]  Did you receive my transcripts that I mailed to you?
[57:22.000 --> 57:24.000]  Were you able to read them?
[57:24.000 --> 57:25.000]  I received them.
[57:25.000 --> 57:27.000]  I wasn't able to get through them yet.
[57:27.000 --> 57:29.000]  I just haven't had time.
[57:29.000 --> 57:30.000]  Okay, that's fine.
[57:30.000 --> 57:33.000]  I'll do that in a week.
[57:33.000 --> 57:40.000]  Will you help me save time in reading them and go through them and highlight the salient points?
[57:40.000 --> 57:44.000]  Oh, okay, I mailed them to you.
[57:44.000 --> 57:47.000]  I guess I'll mail you another copy.
[57:47.000 --> 57:53.000]  Okay, email is better if you can do it.
[57:53.000 --> 57:55.000]  Okay, I will.
[57:55.000 --> 58:00.000]  Second question is about amending a complaint.
[58:00.000 --> 58:04.000]  And that is if you amend a complaint, do you need to retype the entire thing over?
[58:04.000 --> 58:10.000]  Yes, amending doesn't mean just adding in stuff that you have changed.
[58:10.000 --> 58:16.000]  An amended complaint means you have to submit an entire new complaint, the whole thing.
[58:16.000 --> 58:17.000]  Okay.
[58:17.000 --> 58:20.000]  What's not in the new complaint is not before the court.
[58:20.000 --> 58:22.000]  Everything in the old complaint is gone.
[58:22.000 --> 58:23.000]  Yeah, it's a replacement.
[58:23.000 --> 58:28.000]  They call it amended, which is not a very good description there
[58:28.000 --> 58:32.000]  because it's actually a replacement of the other one.
[58:32.000 --> 58:33.000]  Okay.
[58:33.000 --> 58:38.000]  Okay, and you have to do that within a certain timeframe, too, depending on the local rules and all of that.
[58:38.000 --> 58:41.000]  Let's talk about that a little bit more on the other side.
[58:41.000 --> 58:42.000]  Just stay right there, Jeff.
[58:42.000 --> 58:44.000]  We've got Andrew and Mark and callers.
[58:44.000 --> 58:47.000]  If you'd like to call in, we'll be going to your calls on the other side.
[58:47.000 --> 58:51.000]  512-646-1984.
[58:51.000 --> 58:54.000]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world,
[58:54.000 --> 58:58.000]  yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it.
[58:58.000 --> 59:02.000]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text,
[59:02.000 --> 59:07.000]  but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the Scripture.
[59:07.000 --> 59:09.000]  Enter the recovery version.
[59:09.000 --> 59:13.000]  First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate,
[59:13.000 --> 59:18.000]  but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes.
[59:18.000 --> 59:22.000]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way,
[59:22.000 --> 59:28.000]  providing an entrance into the riches of the Word beyond which you've ever experienced before.
[59:28.000 --> 59:33.000]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking.
[59:33.000 --> 59:44.000]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102
[59:44.000 --> 59:48.000]  or by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[59:48.000 --> 59:53.000]  That's freestudybible.com.
[59:53.000 --> 01:00:01.000]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:01.000 --> 01:00:05.000]  The following is brought to you by the Low Star Lowdown,
[01:00:05.000 --> 01:00:08.000]  providing your daily bulletins for the commodities market,
[01:00:08.000 --> 01:00:12.000]  Today in History, news updates,
[01:00:12.000 --> 01:00:21.000]  and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternatives.
[01:00:21.000 --> 01:00:27.000]  Markets for Wednesday, the 10th of February, 2016 opened up with gold at $1,191.50 an ounce,
[01:00:27.000 --> 01:00:33.000]  silver at $15.20 an ounce, Texas crude at $27.94 a barrel,
[01:00:33.000 --> 01:00:42.000]  and Bitcoin is currently sitting at about $374 U.S. currency.
[01:00:42.000 --> 01:00:46.000]  Today in History, Saturday, February 10, 1798,
[01:00:46.000 --> 01:00:52.000]  Luis Alexandre Berthier, Chief of Staff or Major General under the command of Napoleon Bonaparte,
[01:00:52.000 --> 01:00:56.000]  invades the Vatican in Rome, the seat of the Holy Roman Empire.
[01:00:56.000 --> 01:01:00.000]  This invasion led to France proclaiming a Roman Republic on the 15th,
[01:01:00.000 --> 01:01:08.000]  and the taking of Pope Pius VI prisoner on the 20th.
[01:01:08.000 --> 01:01:13.000]  In recent news, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 yesterday in favor of putting on hold
[01:01:13.000 --> 01:01:17.000]  federal regulations to curb carbon dioxide emissions,
[01:01:17.000 --> 01:01:20.000]  which basically means that regulations will not be put into effect
[01:01:20.000 --> 01:01:23.000]  until the courts determine their legality.
[01:01:23.000 --> 01:01:26.000]  The White House stated it disagrees with the court's decision,
[01:01:26.000 --> 01:01:32.000]  but expects the rule will survive the legal challenges set by 27 states and various companies.
[01:01:32.000 --> 01:01:40.000]  The plan was designed to lower carbon emissions from U.S. power plants by 2030 to 32% below 2005 levels,
[01:01:40.000 --> 01:01:46.000]  an initiative pledged to by the Obama administration at the U.N. Climate Talks in Paris last December.
[01:01:46.000 --> 01:01:52.000]  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear oral arguments in the case on June 2
[01:01:52.000 --> 01:01:58.000]  and rule on whether the regulations are within the EPA's constitutionally delegated authority.
[01:02:03.000 --> 01:02:08.000]  FBI Director James B. Comey stated Tuesday that FBI techs have been unsuccessful
[01:02:08.000 --> 01:02:12.000]  in unlocking the encrypted data on a cell phone that belonged to the terrorist couple
[01:02:12.000 --> 01:02:18.000]  Saeed Varouk and his wife Deshfeen Malik, who killed 14 people at a holiday party
[01:02:18.000 --> 01:02:23.000]  at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California on December 2 of last year.
[01:02:23.000 --> 01:02:28.000]  According to investigators, Varouk, a county health inspector, had become self-radicalized via the internet
[01:02:28.000 --> 01:02:33.000]  and his wife pledged allegiance to the Islamic State on the day of the mass shooting.
[01:02:33.000 --> 01:02:38.000]  It seems that law enforcement officials never have enough power to access data on encrypted phones
[01:02:38.000 --> 01:02:41.000]  even after cell phone company carriers are served with a warrant.
[01:02:41.000 --> 01:02:45.000]  Privacy proponents say the federal government, all the way down to the local PD,
[01:02:45.000 --> 01:02:50.000]  have all the tools necessary as a result of the anti-terror legislation passed after September 11
[01:02:50.000 --> 01:02:55.000]  to detect and diffuse terrorist plots coordinated over phone and computer networks.
[01:02:55.000 --> 01:03:23.000]  This has been your Lowdown for February 10, 2016.
[01:03:25.000 --> 01:03:29.000]  Okay, folks, we are back. This is the Rule of Law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens.
[01:03:29.000 --> 01:03:34.000]  We're talking with Jeff in Mississippi. Folks, if you'd like to call in, 512-646-1984.
[01:03:34.000 --> 01:03:41.000]  And Jeff, yeah, as far as amending your complaint or amending your original petition for lawsuit,
[01:03:41.000 --> 01:03:48.000]  that is a replacement and you can, well, at least in the federal court,
[01:03:48.000 --> 01:04:01.000]  you can amend your complaint without leave from the court if you have not served the other side with the petition yet.
[01:04:01.000 --> 01:04:07.000]  Okay, typically like when you file the complaint, you have like, I think you have like six months.
[01:04:07.000 --> 01:04:14.000]  I can't remember what the timeline is. You have a great deal of time to get the other side served.
[01:04:14.000 --> 01:04:20.000]  And if you haven't served them yet, you can basically amend your complaint as many times as you want.
[01:04:20.000 --> 01:04:29.000]  But if they have been served, then you have to ask leave of the court to amend the complaint.
[01:04:29.000 --> 01:04:34.000]  Okay, so there's different things. And then at a certain point, you're not allowed to do it anymore.
[01:04:34.000 --> 01:04:39.000]  At a certain point, there's a cutoff. There's a deadline for all pleadings to be filed.
[01:04:39.000 --> 01:04:43.000]  An amended complaint is a pleading. The petition is a pleading.
[01:04:43.000 --> 01:04:49.000]  And so at a certain point, timeline in the lawsuit, there's a cutoff date where you can't file any more pleadings at all.
[01:04:49.000 --> 01:04:54.000]  And that's a good thing because when you're in a trial, like in a civil trial,
[01:04:54.000 --> 01:05:01.000]  you don't want the other side to ambush you with a request for relief and equity,
[01:05:01.000 --> 01:05:09.000]  like some kind of restraining order or something during the trial, something that you're not prepared for to answer.
[01:05:09.000 --> 01:05:14.000]  In fact, I was involved in this civil trial going to tricks and traps.
[01:05:14.000 --> 01:05:22.000]  That was a trick that opposing counsel tried to pull on me in the civil trial.
[01:05:22.000 --> 01:05:27.000]  The opposing counsel is actually an Assistant U.S. Attorney.
[01:05:27.000 --> 01:05:30.000]  There was a civil case involving the federal government.
[01:05:30.000 --> 01:05:36.000]  And the Assistant U.S. Attorney tried to pull what he thought was a fast one on me
[01:05:36.000 --> 01:05:48.000]  and ambush me in the middle of the trial asking for relief and equity for some kind of permanent injunction, restraining order against me.
[01:05:48.000 --> 01:05:51.000]  And I objected. I said, I don't think so. I said, no.
[01:05:51.000 --> 01:05:58.000]  I said, this is well past the deadline for the pleadings to be filed.
[01:05:58.000 --> 01:06:04.000]  Plus this is not what he's asking for, has nothing to do with the scope of the original pleadings anyway.
[01:06:04.000 --> 01:06:09.000]  So that I got him. He thought he could sneak that in. He didn't.
[01:06:09.000 --> 01:06:13.000]  So anyway, you just got to pay attention to that, things like deadlines and stuff like that.
[01:06:13.000 --> 01:06:16.000]  So, Randy, did you have anything else on that?
[01:06:16.000 --> 01:06:22.000]  No, that's good. I am going to have to really go to work on rules of court.
[01:06:22.000 --> 01:06:23.000]  Go ahead, Jeff.
[01:06:23.000 --> 01:06:26.000]  Second question, and this is very, very confusing.
[01:06:26.000 --> 01:06:29.000]  It's probably silly to you guys, but it really hangs me up.
[01:06:29.000 --> 01:06:35.000]  And that is, in fact, it got so bad, I made up a fictitious example.
[01:06:35.000 --> 01:06:45.000]  Let's say I live in Boyd, Texas, and the county sheriff arrests me and he takes me to the little Boyd City Jail, but he's the county sheriff.
[01:06:45.000 --> 01:06:52.000]  Now the county administration, Tarrant County, would be in Fort Worth, Texas.
[01:06:52.000 --> 01:06:59.000]  How on earth would I start listing defendants if I were filing a Title 42 civil suit?
[01:06:59.000 --> 01:07:05.000]  What kind of addresses and defendants would I want to list and how would I want to serve them?
[01:07:05.000 --> 01:07:12.000]  Because we got a county sheriff way out in Boyd, but then we're in Fort Worth and it gets really mixed up.
[01:07:12.000 --> 01:07:21.000]  Okay. I'm not sure. Does the question go to how do you name defendants or does it go to venue?
[01:07:21.000 --> 01:07:26.000]  Yeah. How do you name defendants and if you named a defendant,
[01:07:26.000 --> 01:07:29.000]  what address would you even put down for the defendant?
[01:07:29.000 --> 01:07:33.000]  Because we're all over the place. We're in Boyd, but we're in Fort Worth.
[01:07:33.000 --> 01:07:42.000]  You name each defendant individually and you name an address for each one.
[01:07:42.000 --> 01:07:45.000]  But where would that address come from?
[01:07:45.000 --> 01:07:55.000]  Doesn't matter. If it's a public official, the main office, say Tarrant County, you send it to the,
[01:07:55.000 --> 01:08:01.000]  if it's a jailer, go to the Tarrant County Sheriff's Department.
[01:08:01.000 --> 01:08:08.000]  If it's a municipal court jailer, it would go to the mayor or to the city itself.
[01:08:08.000 --> 01:08:15.000]  Anyone in the organization who receives it has a duty to give it to the appropriate party.
[01:08:15.000 --> 01:08:24.000]  So any address for the sheriff, for the city, for the county, just use their main address.
[01:08:24.000 --> 01:08:33.000]  That'll be fine. If they, you might check to see if they have a special address for service. Some do.
[01:08:33.000 --> 01:08:35.000]  Okay.
[01:08:35.000 --> 01:08:41.000]  So you can check with them and if they have one, they'll tell you. If not, just give their main address.
[01:08:41.000 --> 01:08:42.000]  Okay.
[01:08:42.000 --> 01:08:48.000]  And also we have Jeff Sedgwick on the line. He has a comment for Jeff in Mississippi. Jeff, you there?
[01:08:48.000 --> 01:08:53.000]  Yes, I am. I wanted to ask Jeff in Mississippi if his case was in,
[01:08:53.000 --> 01:08:58.000]  the first case he was talking about, if that was in federal court or not.
[01:08:58.000 --> 01:09:02.000]  The case that I am bringing is in federal court, yes.
[01:09:02.000 --> 01:09:03.000]  Okay.
[01:09:03.000 --> 01:09:07.000]  Okay. Hold on, Jeff. Hold on, Jeff. Okay.
[01:09:07.000 --> 01:09:13.000]  Jeff in Mississippi, you're going to file a suit in the federal court,
[01:09:13.000 --> 01:09:20.000]  but the one you're complaining about was in the state court. Is that correct?
[01:09:20.000 --> 01:09:24.000]  Oh, you mean the whole rifle for me going to prison and stuff?
[01:09:24.000 --> 01:09:25.000]  Yeah, right.
[01:09:25.000 --> 01:09:34.000]  Yeah, that was in state. That was in circuit court. Now I'm coming back and I'm getting them on a Title 42.
[01:09:34.000 --> 01:09:35.000]  Okay. Go ahead, Jeff.
[01:09:35.000 --> 01:09:41.000]  Well, I think I was actually referring to the first case that he was talking about.
[01:09:41.000 --> 01:09:49.000]  Well, the first case was where he was prosecuted. Now he's filing suit against them for the improprieties in the prosecution.
[01:09:49.000 --> 01:09:52.000]  And are you going to file that in federal court?
[01:09:52.000 --> 01:09:56.000]  Yes, he's going to file a 42 U.S. Code 1983 in the federal court.
[01:09:56.000 --> 01:09:59.000]  Okay. Jeff, do you have a pencil and paper?
[01:09:59.000 --> 01:10:02.000]  I do, yes.
[01:10:02.000 --> 01:10:13.000]  Federal Rules Civil Procedure 15, Per In A, Per In 1, Per In Capital B.
[01:10:13.000 --> 01:10:14.000]  Okay.
[01:10:14.000 --> 01:10:30.000]  If they file, and they frequently do, file a motion to dismiss on the basis of 12B, 12E or 12F, that actually is a pleading and requires a response.
[01:10:30.000 --> 01:10:37.000]  And when they file that particular type of motion, you can immediately file an amended complaint.
[01:10:37.000 --> 01:10:39.000]  Got it. Okay, okay.
[01:10:39.000 --> 01:10:49.000]  Okay. It makes a big difference, especially when you have situations where people will file.
[01:10:49.000 --> 01:10:54.000]  They have a statute of limitations that's going to expire in four days.
[01:10:54.000 --> 01:11:01.000]  And there's a state case that's going to, going to hearing in two weeks.
[01:11:01.000 --> 01:11:08.000]  And they need to get something filed into the federal court so that they can't raise the issue of raised judicata or Rooker Feldman.
[01:11:08.000 --> 01:11:17.000]  They'll file in a complaint that was not necessarily very well written, but they got their bookmark in place.
[01:11:17.000 --> 01:11:31.000]  And then as soon as the other side answers with a motion to dismiss on the 12B, like 12B1 or 12B6, they are entitled to file without leave an amended, your first amended complaint.
[01:11:31.000 --> 01:11:33.000]  Oh, okay, good.
[01:11:33.000 --> 01:11:38.000]  Without leave. And that rule will explain it to you.
[01:11:38.000 --> 01:11:44.000]  So Pat Sajak would call that a free spin.
[01:11:44.000 --> 01:11:50.000]  I don't know what they would call it.
[01:11:50.000 --> 01:11:53.000]  Pat Sajak is for Wheel of Fortune.
[01:11:53.000 --> 01:12:06.000]  Yeah. And it's not meant to necessarily, it's not intended in any way, shape or form to contradict what Deborah said.
[01:12:06.000 --> 01:12:19.000]  But it is a little known rule that can be very effectively exercised right up front after they've been served and after they've answered it.
[01:12:19.000 --> 01:12:30.000]  If they file a motion that requires a response, you can respond with your first amended complaint.
[01:12:30.000 --> 01:12:33.000]  Got it. Okay. I need all the help I can get.
[01:12:33.000 --> 01:12:34.000]  You will.
[01:12:34.000 --> 01:12:36.000]  Okay, that was rule 13, what?
[01:12:36.000 --> 01:12:39.000]  No, it's 15, 1-5, 15.
[01:12:39.000 --> 01:12:40.000]  15.
[01:12:40.000 --> 01:12:46.000]  Per in, little a, per in 1, per in capital B.
[01:12:46.000 --> 01:12:47.000]  Yep.
[01:12:47.000 --> 01:12:50.000]  Okay, 15A1B.
[01:12:50.000 --> 01:12:54.000]  Yes.
[01:12:54.000 --> 01:12:56.000]  Okay.
[01:12:56.000 --> 01:12:57.000]  Okay, thank you.
[01:12:57.000 --> 01:13:03.000]  With that, I'm going to retire to listening mode again.
[01:13:03.000 --> 01:13:05.000]  Thank you, Mr. Sedgwick.
[01:13:05.000 --> 01:13:07.000]  You're welcome.
[01:13:07.000 --> 01:13:08.000]  Goodbye.
[01:13:08.000 --> 01:13:13.000]  Okay, Mr. Jeff, how are you on questions and answers?
[01:13:13.000 --> 01:13:22.000]  I think I'm good. The letter that I wrote to you, or my transcript, it only had the pages that myself and the judge were talking.
[01:13:22.000 --> 01:13:30.000]  I got, when I got arrested, I went in there and asked him what the charge, why did you arrest me, what are the charges, and he would not answer me.
[01:13:30.000 --> 01:13:42.000]  And so that's why I wanted to know if I could sue him in a 1983 or can I list him in 1986 as neglect, the court neglected to step in and help me.
[01:13:42.000 --> 01:13:51.000]  Interesting. Does the court have a duty to help you?
[01:13:51.000 --> 01:14:09.000]  The court, the court is the one that's, that it's holding you, so they're the ones that have to face you with your accuser and know what's the term, they have to tell you what the claim is against you.
[01:14:09.000 --> 01:14:12.000]  Okay.
[01:14:12.000 --> 01:14:16.000]  There's a term for that, I'll think of it in a minute, as soon as I don't need it anymore.
[01:14:16.000 --> 01:14:24.000]  And I told him that the warrant was, was false and he would not do anything about it. So his name's on there.
[01:14:24.000 --> 01:14:33.000]  Well, that's certainly something you can sue him on, on the insufficiency of the warrant or the, what was false about the warrant?
[01:14:33.000 --> 01:14:48.000]  It was for the wrong day, it was for the day after and they arrested me the day before and I went to court and said my court date failure to appear is tomorrow and you've arrested me today and I want to know why and he refused to answer and he wouldn't let me go.
[01:14:48.000 --> 01:14:57.000]  Oh, wonderful. So you were arrested for failure to appear a day before you were supposed to appear.
[01:14:57.000 --> 01:15:05.000]  Yes, but 1983 says that judges have qualified immunity, so I've been told that I'm not suing.
[01:15:05.000 --> 01:15:08.000]  Not for false imprisonment.
[01:15:08.000 --> 01:15:11.000]  Oh, okay. Well, there we go.
[01:15:11.000 --> 01:15:13.000]  There they waive it.
[01:15:13.000 --> 01:15:16.000]  There, that's the answer I'm looking for.
[01:15:16.000 --> 01:15:28.000]  And that's the transcript that I sent to you. And I took all the pages out that had the, you know, just silly conversation and I just left the ones in that were just me and him going back.
[01:15:28.000 --> 01:15:31.000]  Okay, I'll try to look at it tomorrow then.
[01:15:31.000 --> 01:15:32.000]  Okay.
[01:15:32.000 --> 01:15:33.000]  Before the show.
[01:15:33.000 --> 01:15:36.000]  You guys next week I'll let you move on to your next callers. Thank you.
[01:15:36.000 --> 01:15:43.000]  Thank you, Jeff. Okay, now we're going to go to Mark in Wisconsin. Hello, Mr. Mark.
[01:15:43.000 --> 01:15:47.000]  Hello, Mr. Kelton.
[01:15:47.000 --> 01:15:52.000]  What kind of trouble have you been starting this week?
[01:15:52.000 --> 01:15:59.000]  Well, I've been listening to people sing the song about me when you see me come and better step aside.
[01:15:59.000 --> 01:16:03.000]  A lot of lawyers didn't, a lot of lawyers died.
[01:16:03.000 --> 01:16:13.000]  In the particular case, we've got a state and about a sixth of the population hangs out in one county and there are 22 commissioners for that county.
[01:16:13.000 --> 01:16:21.000]  So how important is it for a lawyer to be named one of the commissioners?
[01:16:21.000 --> 01:16:26.000]  It would seem pretty advantageous.
[01:16:26.000 --> 01:16:36.000]  All right. So politically then it makes sense for me to go ahead and wait for the break.
[01:16:36.000 --> 01:16:47.000]  That's a good strategy. Hang on, Randy Kelton, Debra Stevens, Rue La Radio. I call it number 512-646-1984.
[01:16:47.000 --> 01:16:57.000]  Well, on the break, it's a good time to go look at our sponsors and help support the network and whatever you do, don't forget Randy's Beer Fund.
[01:16:57.000 --> 01:17:00.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:17:00.000 --> 01:17:05.000]  My name is Jessica Armand. I'm an activist, a GCN listener and mother of three.
[01:17:05.000 --> 01:17:10.000]  Our drinking water and food are filled with fluoride and other contaminants that harm our teeth and gums.
[01:17:10.000 --> 01:17:15.000]  To protect my family, I created My Magic Mud, an all-natural teeth whitening and strengthening remedy.
[01:17:15.000 --> 01:17:22.000]  My Magic Mud is a soft powder that polishes your teeth, reduces sensitivity and removes harmful toxins from deep inside your mouth.
[01:17:22.000 --> 01:17:24.000]  You deserve a bright, healthy smile.
[01:17:24.000 --> 01:17:28.000]  Visit MyMagicMud.com and get yours today. That's MyMagicMud.com.
[01:17:28.000 --> 01:17:36.000]  Hi, this is Kurt Hildebrand. I've been using Magic Mud for a while now and I just can't believe how much healthier my teeth and gums feel. I love the product.
[01:17:36.000 --> 01:17:42.000]  This is Anna Martin, the Libertarian Homeschooler. I homeschool, so I drink coffee. And I drink coffee, so I use Magic Mud.
[01:17:42.000 --> 01:17:45.000]  It gets my teeth really clean. Give it a try.
[01:17:45.000 --> 01:17:52.000]  This is John Bush of the Liberty Beat. My wife and I use My Magic Mud because it brightens our smile and our daughter uses it because it makes brushing fun.
[01:17:52.000 --> 01:17:59.000]  To get your can of My Magic Mud, go to Brave New Books or order it online at MyMagicMud.com.
[01:18:02.000 --> 01:18:04.000]  They took their guns!
[01:18:04.000 --> 01:18:08.000]  Then get them back and support the Logos Radio Network at the same time.
[01:18:08.000 --> 01:18:13.000]  The following sponsors have stepped up to help keep this network on air with a fundraising contest.
[01:18:13.000 --> 01:18:18.000]  Thanks to Central Texas Gunworks with the first prize, the Spike Skull Lower Receiver.
[01:18:18.000 --> 01:18:21.000]  Second prize, the Taurus Curve Handgun.
[01:18:21.000 --> 01:18:25.000]  Every $25 donation gets a chance to win. Enter as often as you like.
[01:18:25.000 --> 01:18:30.000]  Check out CentralTexasGunworks.com. Thanks also to MyMagicMud.com.
[01:18:30.000 --> 01:18:36.000]  The first 40 people to donate $25 get a jar of My Magic Mud valued at $25.
[01:18:36.000 --> 01:18:40.000]  Thanks also to All About Vapor at 4631 Airport Boulevard.
[01:18:40.000 --> 01:18:44.000]  The 10 third place winners will get a $25 gift card.
[01:18:44.000 --> 01:18:47.000]  Stop smelling like a butt at AllAboutVapor.com.
[01:18:47.000 --> 01:18:53.000]  Also, thanks to Eddie Craig, folks who buy the rule of law traffic seminar, get 10 entries into the contest.
[01:18:53.000 --> 01:18:58.000]  Check out the contest rules and details at LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:18:58.000 --> 01:19:01.000]  Carestays or hipsters may not actually close with wins.
[01:19:01.000 --> 01:19:11.000]  This is the Logos Radio Net Video Network.
[01:19:31.000 --> 01:19:48.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Debra Stevens, Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking to Mark in Wisconsin.
[01:19:48.000 --> 01:19:59.000]  Okay, Mark, you were going to help this lawyer with his city council or his county commissioner situation.
[01:19:59.000 --> 01:20:07.000]  Since he's the president of the 100 plus law firm, the CEO of the 100 plus law firm that, you know,
[01:20:07.000 --> 01:20:16.000]  created my first calls to you and there's the entire issue of misconduct,
[01:20:16.000 --> 01:20:28.000]  I figured it would be appropriate since you complained to either the chief judge or the judiciary committee of the county commissioners,
[01:20:28.000 --> 01:20:36.000]  I figured I should complain to both of them about the conduct that he oversaw as responded at Superior.
[01:20:36.000 --> 01:20:41.000]  And I was prompted by that because when I bargrieved the law firm, they wrote back and said,
[01:20:41.000 --> 01:20:45.000]  no, you can't bargrieve a law firm. You can only bargrieve lawyers.
[01:20:45.000 --> 01:20:50.000]  So I figured it was appropriate to bargrieve the CEO.
[01:20:50.000 --> 01:20:53.000]  I was just looking for your input on that.
[01:20:53.000 --> 01:21:01.000]  I think that would be great fun because it goes to one of my adages.
[01:21:01.000 --> 01:21:13.000]  Always try to find a party, a responsible party who is essentially innocent as the driven snow
[01:21:13.000 --> 01:21:23.000]  because he's going to become righteously indignant and if he's above you, you've got a problem,
[01:21:23.000 --> 01:21:30.000]  especially if he's the CEO and the CEO is responded at Superior for everybody under him.
[01:21:30.000 --> 01:21:37.000]  So he is exactly the right one to hammer for the bad behavior of his law firm.
[01:21:37.000 --> 01:21:39.000]  Wonderful.
[01:21:39.000 --> 01:21:47.000]  Secondly, since I'm putting together the way I'm structuring my lawsuit is I'm doing exactly the opposite
[01:21:47.000 --> 01:21:50.000]  of your endeavor suggestion.
[01:21:50.000 --> 01:22:00.000]  I'm going straight up for brand new case law and I'm claiming a violation of the state of Wisconsin Constitution
[01:22:00.000 --> 01:22:08.000]  which says if the legislature, paraphrasing, if the legislature hasn't created a law about it,
[01:22:08.000 --> 01:22:14.000]  any common law that was in effect in the state of Wisconsin when it became a state is still in effect.
[01:22:14.000 --> 01:22:22.000]  And so under that premise, I believe I have a common law right not to be lied to in court.
[01:22:22.000 --> 01:22:28.000]  And so that dance is not to be lied to in court, dance is around the lawyer regulation perjury.
[01:22:28.000 --> 01:22:38.000]  Wait a minute, wait a minute, are you talking about being lied to as opposed to aggravated perjury?
[01:22:38.000 --> 01:22:45.000]  Being, well, aggravated perjury, I don't believe you can nail a attorney for perjury.
[01:22:45.000 --> 01:22:46.000]  They can never perjure...
[01:22:46.000 --> 01:22:49.000]  Of course you can.
[01:22:49.000 --> 01:22:52.000]  Oh, well.
[01:22:52.000 --> 01:23:02.000]  Did he state, okay, attorneys when they speak to the court, they're presumed to be on the road
[01:23:02.000 --> 01:23:04.000]  because they're court officials.
[01:23:04.000 --> 01:23:15.000]  And if he stated a material fact to the court, first off, he has no business testifying.
[01:23:15.000 --> 01:23:24.000]  And second, if the statement that he made was false and he knew that it was false
[01:23:24.000 --> 01:23:30.000]  and he intended that it be taken as true, as far as I know,
[01:23:30.000 --> 01:23:38.000]  there's nothing in the statute that says you must be under oath to commit aggravated perjury.
[01:23:38.000 --> 01:23:42.000]  I will have to look that up.
[01:23:42.000 --> 01:23:53.000]  All the statute, all our statute says if you make a statement of material fact in court, that is untrue.
[01:23:53.000 --> 01:23:58.000]  You know it to be untrue and you intend that it be taken as true, that's aggravated perjury.
[01:23:58.000 --> 01:24:02.000]  It doesn't say anything about being sworn in as a witness or under oath.
[01:24:02.000 --> 01:24:07.000]  It may presume that, but it doesn't say that.
[01:24:07.000 --> 01:24:13.000]  Okay, I will have to dig around in that end.
[01:24:13.000 --> 01:24:20.000]  One of the things that I've had better success with people other than lawyers when I write up my pleadings,
[01:24:20.000 --> 01:24:28.000]  since we do now have things like word processors and image processing and laser printers,
[01:24:28.000 --> 01:24:32.000]  the people who aren't lawyers, when I structured my pleadings
[01:24:32.000 --> 01:24:46.000]  so I took the actual images that were pertinent from my evidence, my submitted evidence and put that in the line,
[01:24:46.000 --> 01:24:51.000]  I got a much better response from everybody who is but a lawyer because of course as you say,
[01:24:51.000 --> 01:24:58.000]  make your paperwork look like it's from a law firm and a lawyer and they never do that.
[01:24:58.000 --> 01:25:03.000]  And that would then seem to fall under the eighth grade reader.
[01:25:03.000 --> 01:25:09.000]  So it's more contemporaneous, it flows nicely.
[01:25:09.000 --> 01:25:20.000]  The reader who's not a lawyer or judge doesn't have to refer to the submitted evidence to see what the reference is.
[01:25:20.000 --> 01:25:26.000]  But if I'm doing this my own way anyway, what do you think of that?
[01:25:26.000 --> 01:25:36.000]  Okay, when I write a document that I put, you know, I don't refer to see attachments so-and-so.
[01:25:36.000 --> 01:25:38.000]  That breaks flow.
[01:25:38.000 --> 01:25:46.000]  I go to attachments so-and-so and I copy out the information I'm talking about and I drop it in the document.
[01:25:46.000 --> 01:25:49.000]  I do style it as a quote.
[01:25:49.000 --> 01:25:57.000]  And when I do quotes, I do the quotes in single space and a font,
[01:25:57.000 --> 01:26:06.000]  one point or two point smaller font than the rest of the text and I shrink both margins generally a half an inch.
[01:26:06.000 --> 01:26:10.000]  So one look you can see where the quote begins, where the quote ends,
[01:26:10.000 --> 01:26:12.000]  but you don't have to go somewhere else to find it.
[01:26:12.000 --> 01:26:16.000]  If you don't want to read the quote, you don't need to, you can jump right over it, but it's clear.
[01:26:16.000 --> 01:26:21.000]  Everything is about flow.
[01:26:21.000 --> 01:26:28.000]  And as to legal writing, I don't think there's any specific rules in that regard.
[01:26:28.000 --> 01:26:40.000]  This thing of legalese, have you ever studied the constitutional papers and the writings of James Madison?
[01:26:40.000 --> 01:26:47.000]  A little bit, but it hasn't been something that has been a focus of my existence.
[01:26:47.000 --> 01:26:52.000]  You go back and look at how James Madison wrote.
[01:26:52.000 --> 01:26:59.000]  And it's clear these guys are trying to emulate James Madison's style,
[01:26:59.000 --> 01:27:07.000]  except his writing was very precise and he used the language extremely well.
[01:27:07.000 --> 01:27:11.000]  He used it in a very specific way.
[01:27:11.000 --> 01:27:18.000]  These guys are trying to emulate James Madison and doing a very poor job of it.
[01:27:18.000 --> 01:27:29.000]  But other than that, there's nothing that I know of that requires you to use this target and obscure language.
[01:27:29.000 --> 01:27:38.000]  And I was reading one book on writing legal documents and it said,
[01:27:38.000 --> 01:27:46.000]  started out with never use legalese.
[01:27:46.000 --> 01:27:51.000]  So it's just what people have done.
[01:27:51.000 --> 01:28:02.000]  There's just no way of requirement. And the more readable your document is, the more likely it is to get you your outcome.
[01:28:02.000 --> 01:28:03.000]  All right.
[01:28:03.000 --> 01:28:09.000]  I have the Wisconsin Perjury and False Swearing Criminal Statutes.
[01:28:09.000 --> 01:28:17.000]  And it says that, makes a false material statement which the person does not believe to be true,
[01:28:17.000 --> 01:28:21.000]  which strikes me as the weasel words that they'd use.
[01:28:21.000 --> 01:28:28.000]  And the false swearing, false statement which he does not believe is true.
[01:28:28.000 --> 01:28:37.000]  And so I can picture these lawyers going, oh, well, we didn't know, but I've got them dead to rights in the...
[01:28:37.000 --> 01:28:38.000]  Wait a minute.
[01:28:38.000 --> 01:28:48.000]  If he stated as if it was true and it wasn't true, then he could not...
[01:28:48.000 --> 01:28:52.000]  It'll be presumed that he knew it wasn't true.
[01:28:52.000 --> 01:28:53.000]  He'll have to...
[01:28:53.000 --> 01:28:58.000]  He has to come up with some evidence to show that he didn't know it was not true.
[01:28:58.000 --> 01:29:08.000]  Like somebody else wrote to him in a verified affidavit and told him this information.
[01:29:08.000 --> 01:29:16.000]  If it's clear that the statement was untrue on his face, then he's not going to get out of it on that.
[01:29:16.000 --> 01:29:27.000]  Well, better than that, I asked explicitly in my discovery because I was smart enough to use copies of somebody else's discovery.
[01:29:27.000 --> 01:29:33.000]  And in there that I invoke, not directly, but I invoke the rule that...
[01:29:33.000 --> 01:29:34.000]  All right.
[01:29:34.000 --> 01:29:37.000]  The rule that we've grown to break.
[01:29:37.000 --> 01:29:39.000]  That's a good rule.
[01:29:39.000 --> 01:29:40.000]  Okay.
[01:29:40.000 --> 01:29:41.000]  Hang on.
[01:29:41.000 --> 01:29:42.000]  Randy Kelton, Rue de la Radio.
[01:29:42.000 --> 01:29:47.000]  I call the number 512-646-1984.
[01:29:47.000 --> 01:30:00.000]  That's Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, and we'll be right back.
[01:30:00.000 --> 01:30:07.000]  Should parents be fingerprinted to drop off their kids at daycare?
[01:30:07.000 --> 01:30:11.000]  Mississippi says yes, but only low-income parents are being targeted.
[01:30:11.000 --> 01:30:16.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, back with more on this privacy rights issue next.
[01:30:16.000 --> 01:30:18.000]  Privacy is under attack.
[01:30:18.000 --> 01:30:22.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:30:22.000 --> 01:30:27.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:30:27.000 --> 01:30:32.000]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[01:30:32.000 --> 01:30:35.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[01:30:35.000 --> 01:30:42.000]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[01:30:42.000 --> 01:30:46.000]  Start over with StartPage.
[01:30:46.000 --> 01:30:50.000]  In Mississippi, low-income parents are getting an ultimatum at daycare centers.
[01:30:50.000 --> 01:30:54.000]  Give up your biometric data or do without daycare.
[01:30:54.000 --> 01:30:58.000]  Under Mississippi's program, parents who receive state subsidies for child care
[01:30:58.000 --> 01:31:02.000]  must have all 10 of their fingerprints scanned, with no exceptions.
[01:31:02.000 --> 01:31:06.000]  Wealthier parents who can afford to pay for daycare don't have to do this.
[01:31:06.000 --> 01:31:12.000]  State officials are trying to justify this policy by saying that poor parents could be committing fraud.
[01:31:12.000 --> 01:31:16.000]  But they're applying the policy to the innocent as well, of course.
[01:31:16.000 --> 01:31:19.000]  So when did the working poor become suspects?
[01:31:19.000 --> 01:31:23.000]  No parent in America should be treated like a criminal just to get child care.
[01:31:23.000 --> 01:31:31.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:31:31.000 --> 01:31:36.000]  I lost my son, my nephew, my uncle, my son on September 11, 2001.
[01:31:36.000 --> 01:31:40.000]  Most people don't know that a third tower fell on September 11.
[01:31:40.000 --> 01:31:44.000]  World Trade Center 7, a 47-story skyscraper, was not hit by a plane.
[01:31:44.000 --> 01:31:48.000]  Although the official explanation is that fire brought down Building 7,
[01:31:48.000 --> 01:31:53.000]  over 1,200 architects and engineers have looked into the evidence and believe there is more to the story.
[01:31:53.000 --> 01:31:56.000]  Bring justice to my son, my uncle, my nephew, my son.
[01:31:56.000 --> 01:32:01.000]  Go to buildingwatch.org, why it fell, why it matters, and what you can do.
[01:32:01.000 --> 01:32:04.000]  Nutritious food is real body armor.
[01:32:04.000 --> 01:32:10.000]  It builds muscle, burns fat, improves digestion, and feeds the entire body the nutrients it needs.
[01:32:10.000 --> 01:32:14.000]  Did you know the U.S. government banned the hemp plant from growing in the United States
[01:32:14.000 --> 01:32:18.000]  and classified it as a Schedule I drug to hide it behind a marijuana plant?
[01:32:18.000 --> 01:32:24.000]  People have been confused about this plant for over 80 years, and many still don't know what hemp is.
[01:32:24.000 --> 01:32:28.000]  So now you know hemp is not marijuana, and marijuana is not hemp.
[01:32:28.000 --> 01:32:31.000]  They are different varieties of the same species.
[01:32:31.000 --> 01:32:35.000]  HempUSA.org wants the world to know these basic facts
[01:32:35.000 --> 01:32:40.000]  and to help people understand that hemp protein powder is the best-kept health secret you need to know about.
[01:32:40.000 --> 01:32:49.000]  Remember, hemp protein powder contains 53% protein, is gluten-free, anti-inflammatory, non-GMO, and is loaded with nutrients.
[01:32:49.000 --> 01:33:02.000]  Call 888-910-4367, 888-910-4367, and see what our powder, seeds, and oil can do for you, only at HempUSA.org.
[01:33:02.000 --> 01:33:13.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:33:13.000 --> 01:33:21.000]  Yeah, and who you want to chip? Who you take me for? Free Tony? Why you want to chip me? I'm not free Tony. You can't chip me.
[01:33:21.000 --> 01:33:27.000]  All of them chip you in the morning, chip you in the evening, put a chip in your body.
[01:33:27.000 --> 01:33:32.000]  And then when you go computer reading, you can't hide me from nobody.
[01:33:32.000 --> 01:33:40.000]  When I say chip in your mom, chip in your daddy, chip in your grandpa and the granny, chip in me, chip in your baby.
[01:33:40.000 --> 01:33:47.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Vue de la Radio, and we're talking to Mark in Wisconsin.
[01:33:47.000 --> 01:33:48.000]  All right.
[01:33:48.000 --> 01:33:49.000]  Okay, Mark.
[01:33:49.000 --> 01:34:03.000]  Yeah, I'm looking at, you know, whether civil action for perjury, and I keep coming across that there's no action lies to recover damages caused by perjury in the majority of states.
[01:34:03.000 --> 01:34:07.000]  So this is why I was looking at the constitutional right violation.
[01:34:07.000 --> 01:34:13.000]  No, no due process. So you look at the effect of the perjury.
[01:34:13.000 --> 01:34:14.000]  Okay.
[01:34:14.000 --> 01:34:21.000]  You can't, you mean perjury on its face may not create a cause of action.
[01:34:21.000 --> 01:34:22.000]  All right.
[01:34:22.000 --> 01:34:35.000]  If I come and lie like a dog about something, and even if it's material, and the jury doesn't believe me, it does you no harm.
[01:34:35.000 --> 01:34:50.000]  But if the jury believes you, and based on that lie, they render a ruling that then harms me, my claim is the harm caused by the perjury, not the perjury itself.
[01:34:50.000 --> 01:34:52.000]  Does that make sense?
[01:34:52.000 --> 01:34:54.000]  Sure, sure.
[01:34:54.000 --> 01:35:13.000]  But I was looking for a rights violation to rack up the dollars, because the harm, otherwise we have no harm, no foul in the sense that if you lie and you lose the case, oh well, and that seems to be the way they're treating these things, is well, it's okay that the guy lied.
[01:35:13.000 --> 01:35:20.000]  You know, you got the money that you originally sued for, so, you know, go pound sand.
[01:35:20.000 --> 01:35:23.000]  Okay, in that case, they're right.
[01:35:23.000 --> 01:35:24.000]  They're right, okay.
[01:35:24.000 --> 01:35:28.000]  Yeah, the perjury did you no harm.
[01:35:28.000 --> 01:35:35.000]  If you sue and you win and the other side lied like a dog, you weren't harmed by it.
[01:35:35.000 --> 01:35:40.000]  Well, then what's their incentive to not lie?
[01:35:40.000 --> 01:35:44.000]  Did you pursue them criminally?
[01:35:44.000 --> 01:36:00.000]  The DA isn't interested. I've tried walking 96801, where you can walk in to any judge and present a criminal complaint, and they're supposed to sign it and witness the signing.
[01:36:00.000 --> 01:36:04.000]  Judges treat that like a walk in with plutonium.
[01:36:04.000 --> 01:36:08.000]  Now you sue the judge.
[01:36:08.000 --> 01:36:09.000]  Okay.
[01:36:08.000 --> 01:36:12.000]  18 U.S. Code 242.
[01:36:12.000 --> 01:36:20.000]  There's also class-I felony in the state of Wisconsin if a judge violates a duty that has nothing to do with it.
[01:36:20.000 --> 01:36:25.000]  Yes, so you file on the judge.
[01:36:25.000 --> 01:36:30.000]  It sounds like you've got a better statute, more specific statute than we do.
[01:36:30.000 --> 01:36:33.000]  It explicitly says judge.
[01:36:33.000 --> 01:36:34.000]  Oh, perfect.
[01:36:34.000 --> 01:36:37.000]  That's a special statute.
[01:36:37.000 --> 01:36:42.000]  Special statute takes precedence over general statutes.
[01:36:42.000 --> 01:36:43.000]  Okay.
[01:36:43.000 --> 01:36:56.000]  If the legislature went out of their way to pass this particular statute, then it takes precedence over the general official oppression or whatever.
[01:36:56.000 --> 01:37:08.000]  But also, it denies you in due process in that it denies you in the equal protection of the laws, and that'll get you into 42 U.S. Code 1983.
[01:37:08.000 --> 01:37:15.000]  And the judge cannot claim immunity when he acts outside of scope.
[01:37:15.000 --> 01:37:16.000]  Okay.
[01:37:16.000 --> 01:37:33.000]  The jailer picks up this 19-year-old girl at one jail, and he's transporting her to another jail and stops in the halfway there for a little non-constitutional fun and games.
[01:37:33.000 --> 01:37:47.000]  Well, when he was sued, he claimed official immunity, and the court said that rape was not within the scope of his authority.
[01:37:47.000 --> 01:37:54.000]  Committing crimes from the bench is not within scope.
[01:37:54.000 --> 01:38:02.000]  So you name him in a 42 U.S. Code 1983 suit, that's really going to sting him.
[01:38:02.000 --> 01:38:06.000]  Have you filed criminal charges against the judge?
[01:38:06.000 --> 01:38:07.000]  I have.
[01:38:07.000 --> 01:38:16.000]  What I've done is I've walked it through criminal complaints with multiple different judges in different jurisdictions.
[01:38:16.000 --> 01:38:22.000]  And the reaction I've gotten has been, oh, you didn't want that.
[01:38:22.000 --> 01:38:27.000]  It was a John Doe hearing that you were calling for, so it was mischaracterized.
[01:38:27.000 --> 01:38:32.000]  Other judges just ignore the things entirely.
[01:38:32.000 --> 01:38:36.000]  And another judge said, well, I'm not going to schedule a hearing.
[01:38:36.000 --> 01:38:44.000]  You know, you requested a day to come in and have this signature witnessed, and I'm not going to schedule that today.
[01:38:44.000 --> 01:38:46.000]  And then they never schedule the hearing.
[01:38:46.000 --> 01:38:47.000]  Okay.
[01:38:47.000 --> 01:38:48.000]  All that works.
[01:38:48.000 --> 01:38:51.000]  Now you've got Rico.
[01:38:51.000 --> 01:38:52.000]  Okay.
[01:38:52.000 --> 01:39:01.000]  You might look at Rico and name all these judges as acting in concert inclusion toward an ongoing criminal conspiracy.
[01:39:01.000 --> 01:39:11.000]  I had a judge in Oklahoma say, when you file a Rico suit, it's like dropping an atomic bomb.
[01:39:11.000 --> 01:39:14.000]  Wonderful.
[01:39:14.000 --> 01:39:20.000]  So it's a little more difficult to write up a Rico suit.
[01:39:20.000 --> 01:39:26.000]  But if you really want to get their attention, this is a good way to do it.
[01:39:26.000 --> 01:39:38.000]  Now one of the things on if you are aware of a felony crime and you do not report it, does that apply then to the bar grievance people?
[01:39:38.000 --> 01:39:51.000]  Since in my bar grievance I could write in the fact that there was actually a document submitted to the court where the plaintiff
[01:39:51.000 --> 01:39:58.000]  and a corporation the plaintiff was working with actively worked together to modify a document that was submitted to the court.
[01:39:58.000 --> 01:40:02.000]  So technically the lawyer was the one doing the manipulating.
[01:40:02.000 --> 01:40:04.000]  These two other parties were.
[01:40:04.000 --> 01:40:16.000]  And the corporation that was doing the manipulating started off in bankruptcy arguing that, oh, we did formulations for the person.
[01:40:16.000 --> 01:40:20.000]  And then when their lawyers started getting a little hot for them, they switched lawyers
[01:40:20.000 --> 01:40:25.000]  and they switched arguments right midstream and said, oh, we only saw raw ingredients.
[01:40:25.000 --> 01:40:28.000]  We never did formulations for this person.
[01:40:28.000 --> 01:40:45.000]  And the bankruptcy court in the interest of getting rid of the case just kind of let it slide where there was an entire shift in what was being argued once the lawyers shifted.
[01:40:45.000 --> 01:40:50.000]  Were there objections on the other side?
[01:40:50.000 --> 01:41:00.000]  The objections that I made, amazingly the recording of that session for bankruptcy court doesn't exist.
[01:41:00.000 --> 01:41:05.000]  And they were never in the summary, the formal written summary.
[01:41:05.000 --> 01:41:10.000]  So whatever.
[01:41:10.000 --> 01:41:14.000]  The trustee also made no objections and rolled with it.
[01:41:14.000 --> 01:41:20.000]  The trustee up until that point was saying, I need these formulations. I need this information.
[01:41:20.000 --> 01:41:24.000]  I want a motion, you know, compelling discovery and compelling it.
[01:41:24.000 --> 01:41:27.000]  And suddenly the lawyer.
[01:41:27.000 --> 01:41:38.000]  OK, on the face of it, this sounds like a conspiracy between the trustee and these lawyers to obstruct justice.
[01:41:38.000 --> 01:41:45.000]  Conspiracies don't have to be proven directly. They can be implied from the facts.
[01:41:45.000 --> 01:41:51.000]  Conspiracy by its very nature is secret and hidden.
[01:41:51.000 --> 01:42:00.000]  And because of that, you can establish conspiracy by implication.
[01:42:00.000 --> 01:42:01.000]  All right.
[01:42:01.000 --> 01:42:03.000]  Name the trustee.
[01:42:03.000 --> 01:42:05.000]  That'll make him unhappy.
[01:42:05.000 --> 01:42:07.000]  Oh, that'll be fun then.
[01:42:07.000 --> 01:42:13.000]  Then the final thing is I have a poorly behaving real estate agent.
[01:42:13.000 --> 01:42:23.000]  This real estate agent listed themselves as knowing short sales and being an expert in real estate and how their fecal matter lacks or differs properties.
[01:42:23.000 --> 01:42:35.000]  And when it comes to the actual doing of the short sale, they've submitted no paperwork to the bank and required the homeowner to do all the bank submissions.
[01:42:35.000 --> 01:42:51.000]  The bank has said statements like, if we could just pay the $900 that this person's complaining about, that they're being shorted in their permission, we just pay that out of my – in fact, I don't want to deal with them anymore.
[01:42:51.000 --> 01:42:54.000]  I will pay it out of my own pocket if I could.
[01:42:54.000 --> 01:42:58.000]  This is how unpleasant this real estate agent is.
[01:42:58.000 --> 01:43:13.000]  There's definitely a disconnect between the advertising on the website and the contracts that were signed, et cetera, and the contracts were worded in such a way to allow them to get away with this.
[01:43:13.000 --> 01:43:24.000]  I've suggested unconscionable contract as a way of getting out of it and, of course, you know, greeting them with the real estate.
[01:43:24.000 --> 01:43:28.000]  Okay, wait a minute, wait a minute. I am totally confused.
[01:43:28.000 --> 01:43:44.000]  I am without referential index. I take it you have switched to a third party that you're talking about and this is not you. This is not the bankruptcy. This is something totally different.
[01:43:44.000 --> 01:43:46.000]  Okay, hang on. We'll pick that up when we come back.
[01:43:46.000 --> 01:44:00.000]  Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, the root of our radio. I call it number – never mind. Last segment and I've got Mark from Texas, so we'll be right back.
[01:44:00.000 --> 01:44:04.000]  You feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics?
[01:44:04.000 --> 01:44:04.000]  Sorry.
[01:44:04.000 --> 01:44:07.000]  Are you confused by words like the Constitution or the Federal Reserve?
[01:44:07.000 --> 01:44:08.000]  What?
[01:44:08.000 --> 01:44:19.000]  If so, you may be diagnosed with the deadliest disease known today, stupidity. Hi, my name is Steve Holt and like millions of other Americans, I was diagnosed with stupidity at an early age.
[01:44:19.000 --> 01:44:25.000]  I had no idea that the number one cause of the disease is found in almost every home in America, the television.
[01:44:25.000 --> 01:44:30.000]  Unfortunately, that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity, but there is hope.
[01:44:30.000 --> 01:44:43.000]  The staff at Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other foxaholics suffering from sports zombieism recover and because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading and watching educational documentaries without feeling tired or uninterested.
[01:44:43.000 --> 01:44:54.000]  So if you or anybody you know suffers from stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503 or visit them at 1904Guadalupe or bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:44:54.000 --> 01:45:00.000]  Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include discernment and enlarged vocabulary and an overall increase in mental functioning.
[01:45:00.000 --> 01:45:04.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:04.000 --> 01:45:15.000]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step.
[01:45:15.000 --> 01:45:19.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:45:19.000 --> 01:45:23.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:23.000 --> 01:45:28.000]  Thousands have won with our step by step course and now you can too.
[01:45:28.000 --> 01:45:34.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience.
[01:45:34.000 --> 01:45:43.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:43.000 --> 01:45:52.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:45:52.000 --> 01:46:01.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:22.000 --> 01:46:37.000]  Okay.
[01:46:37.000 --> 01:46:38.000]  We are back.
[01:46:38.000 --> 01:46:39.000]  Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio.
[01:46:39.000 --> 01:46:41.000]  We're talking to Mark in Wisconsin.
[01:46:41.000 --> 01:46:42.000]  Okay.
[01:46:42.000 --> 01:46:44.000]  You've got a bad behaving real estate agent.
[01:46:44.000 --> 01:46:45.000]  Right.
[01:46:45.000 --> 01:46:49.000]  And what is it that you want to do to the real estate agent?
[01:46:49.000 --> 01:46:59.000]  Well, ideally I'd like the real estate agent's head mounted on a pike as a warning to all others that some stupidity comes at too high a price.
[01:46:59.000 --> 01:47:00.000]  Okay.
[01:47:00.000 --> 01:47:01.000]  Wait, wait.
[01:47:01.000 --> 01:47:04.000]  You understand the real estate agent has a professional license.
[01:47:04.000 --> 01:47:05.000]  Oh, yeah.
[01:47:05.000 --> 01:47:13.000]  And unlike lawyers and judges, those regulatory agencies really have bite to them.
[01:47:13.000 --> 01:47:14.000]  Good.
[01:47:14.000 --> 01:47:16.000]  That was part of the plan.
[01:47:16.000 --> 01:47:24.000]  But we're looking at trying to see what can be done to get out from underneath the contract or create torts such that...
[01:47:24.000 --> 01:47:26.000]  How old is the contract?
[01:47:26.000 --> 01:47:29.000]  Less than six months.
[01:47:29.000 --> 01:47:30.000]  Resend it.
[01:47:30.000 --> 01:47:33.000]  It could be just rescinded straight out.
[01:47:33.000 --> 01:47:39.000]  Within three years, how many people were on the contract?
[01:47:39.000 --> 01:47:42.000]  Just one person.
[01:47:42.000 --> 01:47:43.000]  Yeah.
[01:47:43.000 --> 01:47:44.000]  Just one person.
[01:47:44.000 --> 01:47:45.000]  Okay.
[01:47:45.000 --> 01:47:49.000]  Did they get a notice that they had a right to rescind?
[01:47:49.000 --> 01:47:50.000]  I don't know.
[01:47:50.000 --> 01:47:54.000]  I will ask them later tonight.
[01:47:54.000 --> 01:47:59.000]  If they did, make sure they threw it in the trash.
[01:47:59.000 --> 01:48:02.000]  They don't recall receiving one.
[01:48:02.000 --> 01:48:03.000]  Okay.
[01:48:03.000 --> 01:48:04.000]  Okay.
[01:48:04.000 --> 01:48:07.000]  I have a qualified written request.
[01:48:07.000 --> 01:48:19.000]  You've probably seen these qualified requests that are online that have 20 pages of discovery that you don't have a right to in writing a qualified written request.
[01:48:19.000 --> 01:48:22.000]  I have all that in mind.
[01:48:22.000 --> 01:48:40.000]  And the reason I have all that in mind because the very last paragraph says, if you fail, my qualified written request has a debt validation and a UCC 3-501 demand to see the original note.
[01:48:40.000 --> 01:48:42.000]  It has all that in it.
[01:48:42.000 --> 01:49:05.000]  Right at the end, if you fail to properly validate the debt so that the particular borrower can calculate the accurate amount owed on the debt from inception of the debt, consider this as a notice of rescission.
[01:49:05.000 --> 01:49:09.000]  They never read it.
[01:49:09.000 --> 01:49:13.000]  I got 20 pages of crap.
[01:49:13.000 --> 01:49:14.000]  This is crap.
[01:49:14.000 --> 01:49:15.000]  This is crap.
[01:49:15.000 --> 01:49:16.000]  This is crap.
[01:49:16.000 --> 01:49:17.000]  And they quit reading.
[01:49:17.000 --> 01:49:18.000]  All right.
[01:49:18.000 --> 01:49:27.000]  I thought you meant it was the debt valid or the rescission was the contract with the real estate agent for doing the short sale.
[01:49:27.000 --> 01:49:32.000]  I thought that's what we were talking about was rescission, not the rescission of the mortgage.
[01:49:32.000 --> 01:49:33.000]  Oh, okay.
[01:49:33.000 --> 01:49:41.000]  And that you can rescind under common law or under UCC.
[01:49:41.000 --> 01:49:42.000]  All right.
[01:49:42.000 --> 01:49:46.000]  Look at your Wisconsin version of Uniform Commercial Code.
[01:49:46.000 --> 01:49:49.000]  Look up common law rescission.
[01:49:49.000 --> 01:49:50.000]  Okay.
[01:49:50.000 --> 01:49:53.000]  You have a right to rescind an unconscionable contract.
[01:49:53.000 --> 01:49:54.000]  Right.
[01:49:54.000 --> 01:50:00.000]  That's what I've told this person and we've forwarded the unconscionable contract section.
[01:50:00.000 --> 01:50:05.000]  Again, they've been just an utter peach with the bank.
[01:50:05.000 --> 01:50:08.000]  They refuse to use the bank system.
[01:50:08.000 --> 01:50:15.000]  They are trying to get a commission higher than Freddie May or Penny May is allowing.
[01:50:15.000 --> 01:50:24.000]  And, of course, they represented themselves as knowing short sales and being an expert at short sales, which is why...
[01:50:24.000 --> 01:50:26.000]  They probably know how to cheat.
[01:50:26.000 --> 01:50:30.000]  Okay.
[01:50:30.000 --> 01:50:38.000]  Actually, the homeowner can sue them for the contract that he's going to lose because he has to rescind it because they screwed it up.
[01:50:38.000 --> 01:50:39.000]  Okay.
[01:50:39.000 --> 01:50:42.000]  Let me move ahead because Deborah wants to comment.
[01:50:42.000 --> 01:50:43.000]  That's it.
[01:50:43.000 --> 01:50:45.000]  Oh, okay.
[01:50:45.000 --> 01:50:53.000]  So, since you're a Yankee, it's okay to just don't drop you like a hot rock.
[01:50:53.000 --> 01:50:54.000]  All right.
[01:50:54.000 --> 01:50:56.000]  Will it hurt your feelings?
[01:50:56.000 --> 01:50:57.000]  No.
[01:50:57.000 --> 01:50:58.000]  No.
[01:50:58.000 --> 01:50:59.000]  Oh, darn.
[01:50:59.000 --> 01:51:00.000]  Yes, Yankees.
[01:51:00.000 --> 01:51:02.000]  You can't hurt Yankees' feelings.
[01:51:02.000 --> 01:51:05.000]  I grew up in Chicago and all about that.
[01:51:05.000 --> 01:51:06.000]  Okay.
[01:51:06.000 --> 01:51:07.000]  I'm sorry.
[01:51:07.000 --> 01:51:15.000]  I want to get Deborah on to comment some more about the rules and tricks and traps.
[01:51:15.000 --> 01:51:16.000]  All right.
[01:51:16.000 --> 01:51:19.000]  I'll continue listening on the stream then.
[01:51:19.000 --> 01:51:20.000]  Bye-bye.
[01:51:20.000 --> 01:51:22.000]  Thank you, Mark.
[01:51:22.000 --> 01:51:24.000]  Okay.
[01:51:24.000 --> 01:51:26.000]  Deborah, you had some more comments you wanted to make.
[01:51:26.000 --> 01:51:27.000]  Yes.
[01:51:27.000 --> 01:51:45.000]  Listening to all this real estate stuff, I wanted to basically continue on the story that I was telling earlier about these people that I know that ended up losing their house to this Scheister lawyer due to being outmaneuvered by procedure.
[01:51:45.000 --> 01:51:59.000]  After they had already beat the first foreclosure and got their house outright, what happened, you know, this is something that people really need to understand about this procedure.
[01:51:59.000 --> 01:52:16.000]  What happened was there were two lawsuits going. There was a forcible detainer against them and then they were also suing for quiet title and some other things. There's like two or three lawsuits going on.
[01:52:16.000 --> 01:52:34.000]  And I can't remember which one it was. Actually, I think it was the lawsuit that they had filed that was crucial that their appeal would go through in order to beat this totally bogus forcible detainer, which is an eviction suit.
[01:52:34.000 --> 01:52:52.000]  Well, what happened was they were in this lawsuit against this Scheister lawyer and they filed their appeal in form of paupers, which means they were petitioning the court to not have to pay the appeal fee to file the appeal.
[01:52:52.000 --> 01:53:00.000]  And this Scheister lawyer was completely giving them a hard time, them and their lawyer that they were working with.
[01:53:00.000 --> 01:53:10.000]  So there's three people here. There's a couple and they had their own lawyer. And so, see, in civil cases, you have to work with the other side, okay?
[01:53:10.000 --> 01:53:16.000]  You've got to communicate with the opposing counsel outside of documents that you file.
[01:53:16.000 --> 01:53:21.000]  In fact, you even have to have something called a certificate of conference.
[01:53:21.000 --> 01:53:35.000]  When you file certain kinds of motions or pleadings or documents, you have to have a conference, whether it's email or phone or whatever, with the opposing counsel and ask them, would you be opposed to this motion?
[01:53:35.000 --> 01:53:42.000]  The court wants you to work things out, okay, outside of the court as much as possible. So you have to talk to the opposing counsel.
[01:53:42.000 --> 01:53:48.000]  It's not like in a criminal case where you can just outright refuse to talk to the prosecutor, which you should, okay?
[01:53:48.000 --> 01:53:53.000]  But at any rate, so in the civil case, you have to, in civil cases, you have to deal with the other side outside of court.
[01:53:53.000 --> 01:53:56.000]  So you've got to, there's negotiations going on all the time.
[01:53:56.000 --> 01:54:08.000]  And so this Scheister lawyer was giving them a really hard time about this informal papyrus thing and kept giving them grief about it and making all these kinds of threats and this, that and the other thing.
[01:54:08.000 --> 01:54:22.000]  And so after they had filed the appeal with the petition for the informal papyrus and the appeal deadline had passed, this kept going on, all this harassment from the other side regarding this informal papyrus.
[01:54:22.000 --> 01:54:37.000]  And so they made an agreement with the Scheister lawyer to just go ahead and pay the appeal fee and withdraw the request for informal papyrus so they could just get on with it, okay, to just get on with the case
[01:54:37.000 --> 01:54:40.000]  because it was taking up too much time and too much headache.
[01:54:40.000 --> 01:54:43.000]  Well, it was a trick.
[01:54:43.000 --> 01:55:04.000]  It was a trap because what ended up happening was as soon as they paid that appeal fee after the appeal deadline, the Scheister lawyer made a move, filed a motion for their appeal to be denied and rejected for a lack of timeliness for filing it late.
[01:55:04.000 --> 01:55:08.000]  And the court said, yep, that's right, you filed it late.
[01:55:08.000 --> 01:55:19.000]  The court considered the appeal filed late because they paid the appeal fee late even though they actually filed the documents, the notice of appeal on time.
[01:55:19.000 --> 01:55:33.000]  And what they should have done is they should have stuck to their guns on the informal papyrus and just wait for the judge to issue an order either saying yes, you get it or no, you don't qualify for informal papyrus.
[01:55:33.000 --> 01:55:35.000]  You have 30 days to pay the appeal fee.
[01:55:35.000 --> 01:55:37.000]  They should have just stuck to their guns on that.
[01:55:37.000 --> 01:55:56.000]  But because of the way that civil cases work, that you have to negotiate with the other side and work things out and have these conferences, you know, and you have to attest to whether the motions that you're filing are going to be opposed or not by the other side and blah, blah, blah, the Scheister lawyer outmaneuvered them.
[01:55:56.000 --> 01:56:04.000]  It was a trick. It was a trap from the beginning to pressure them into paying the appeal fee late so that they wouldn't have an appeal.
[01:56:04.000 --> 01:56:07.000]  And as a result, they lost everything.
[01:56:07.000 --> 01:56:20.000]  They lost the house to a Scheister lawyer that didn't even represent a bank that was filing this completely bogus eviction suit and foreclosure suit.
[01:56:20.000 --> 01:56:27.000]  Years, I'm talking five or six years outside of the statute of limitations.
[01:56:27.000 --> 01:56:34.000]  They got outmaneuvered on procedure at the last, at the 11th hour at the end of the game and lost their house.
[01:56:34.000 --> 01:56:35.000]  It was so tragic.
[01:56:35.000 --> 01:56:39.000]  And the Scheister lawyer even outmaneuvered their own lawyer.
[01:56:39.000 --> 01:56:40.000]  Okay.
[01:56:40.000 --> 01:56:41.000]  So it's not just what the pros say.
[01:56:41.000 --> 01:56:43.000]  The lawyers will outmaneuver each other too.
[01:56:43.000 --> 01:56:46.000]  So you've got to really watch stuff like this.
[01:56:46.000 --> 01:56:54.000]  And, you know, big red flags are if the opposing counsel is really trying to pressure you into something like a prosecutor.
[01:56:54.000 --> 01:56:59.000]  You know, it's like you just have to stick to your guns and just say, well, no, I don't agree.
[01:56:59.000 --> 01:57:06.000]  And if you want to file that motion, then you just put on the certificate of conference that you're filing this as an opposed motion.
[01:57:06.000 --> 01:57:09.000]  You don't have to capitulate all the time.
[01:57:09.000 --> 01:57:11.000]  So anyways, that's the tragic story.
[01:57:11.000 --> 01:57:19.000]  I just had to go there because, you know, again, Randy, they had the law and the facts on their side big time.
[01:57:19.000 --> 01:57:22.000]  I mean, far outside the statute of limitations.
[01:57:22.000 --> 01:57:24.000]  The case should have been over before it was started.
[01:57:24.000 --> 01:57:26.000]  And they lost it on procedure.
[01:57:26.000 --> 01:57:27.000]  Unbelievable.
[01:57:27.000 --> 01:57:28.000]  Tragic.
[01:57:28.000 --> 01:57:34.000]  One of the things we need to get together is a list of tricks and traps.
[01:57:34.000 --> 01:57:40.000]  The Scheister lawyer practices in procedures manual.
[01:57:40.000 --> 01:57:45.000]  Maybe I should bring, I own Scheisterproof.us.
[01:57:45.000 --> 01:57:46.000]  Scheisterproof.
[01:57:46.000 --> 01:57:47.000]  Yeah.
[01:57:47.000 --> 01:57:50.000]  So, folks, don't file your appeal fee late.
[01:57:50.000 --> 01:57:51.000]  Okay.
[01:57:51.000 --> 01:57:52.000]  There's a lesson for you.
[01:57:52.000 --> 01:57:57.000]  If you're going for a form of paupress on an appeal, go for it.
[01:57:57.000 --> 01:58:02.000]  Don't get backed into a corner to pay the appeal fee late because your appeal will be counted late.
[01:58:02.000 --> 01:58:06.000]  Just let the court rule against you and they'll give you time to pay it.
[01:58:06.000 --> 01:58:09.000]  The problem is there's so many of those traps we can fall into.
[01:58:09.000 --> 01:58:10.000]  I know.
[01:58:10.000 --> 01:58:11.000]  I know.
[01:58:11.000 --> 01:58:14.000]  I need to get to work on a set of tricks and traps.
[01:58:14.000 --> 01:58:15.000]  Yep.
[01:58:15.000 --> 01:58:18.000]  And I'll add that to my list of things I have to do.
[01:58:18.000 --> 01:58:19.000]  Yep.
[01:58:19.000 --> 01:58:20.000]  All right.
[01:58:20.000 --> 01:58:22.000]  Well, Mark from Texas, please call in tomorrow night.
[01:58:22.000 --> 01:58:23.000]  I'm sorry we didn't have time for you.
[01:58:23.000 --> 01:58:26.000]  We have a four-hour info marathon tomorrow night.
[01:58:26.000 --> 01:58:29.000]  Randy, it was great to be on the show with you tonight.
[01:58:29.000 --> 01:58:30.000]  Nice to have you.
[01:58:30.000 --> 01:58:31.000]  We don't hear your voice.
[01:58:31.000 --> 01:58:32.000]  You're off and off.
[01:58:32.000 --> 01:58:33.000]  All right.
[01:58:33.000 --> 01:58:34.000]  Well, folks, please tune in.
[01:58:34.000 --> 01:58:36.000]  Please support our fundraiser.
[01:58:36.000 --> 01:58:42.000]  Please support our new shows, and we're so happy and blessed to have you as listeners.
[01:58:42.000 --> 01:58:46.000]  So everyone, God bless and good night.
[01:58:46.000 --> 01:58:57.000]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study Bible called the New Testament
[01:58:57.000 --> 01:58:58.000]  Recovery Version.
[01:58:58.000 --> 01:59:03.000]  The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain what the Bible
[01:59:03.000 --> 01:59:08.000]  says verse by verse, helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[01:59:08.000 --> 01:59:11.000]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America.
[01:59:11.000 --> 01:59:20.000]  Call us toll free at 888-551-0102, or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:20.000 --> 01:59:26.000]  This translation is highly accurate, and it comes with over 13,000 cross references,
[01:59:26.000 --> 01:59:30.000]  plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:59:30.000 --> 01:59:33.000]  This is truly a Bible you can understand.
[01:59:33.000 --> 01:59:41.000]  To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:59:41.000 --> 01:59:52.000]  That's 888-551-0102, or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:52.000 --> 02:00:00.000]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com.