ROL_2009-09-25_16k_Hr1-2.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:10.760]  According to a high ranking Pakistani insider, Pakistan has concluded a secret agreement
[00:10.760 --> 00:15.800]  with Saudi Arabia that will provide them with nuclear weapons technology in exchange for
[00:15.800 --> 00:16.800]  cheap oil.
[00:16.800 --> 00:21.600]  The insider said it will be vehemently denied by both countries, but future events will
[00:21.600 --> 00:23.800]  confirm this to be the case.
[00:23.800 --> 00:28.000]  Barack Obama has said he would be happy to look at bills before Congress that would give
[00:28.000 --> 00:33.840]  struggling news organizations tax breaks if they restructure as non-profit businesses.
[00:33.840 --> 00:38.800]  Obama said, �I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere,
[00:38.800 --> 00:44.280]  you will end up getting people shouting at each other, but not a lot of mutual understanding.�
[00:44.280 --> 00:49.760]  UK Major General Andrew McKay, who led the Afghanistan campaign, has resigned over his
[00:49.760 --> 00:53.560]  disillusion in the direction of the government�s strategy.
[00:53.560 --> 00:59.800]  McKay was the architect of the military�s new counterinsurgency doctrine.
[00:59.800 --> 01:05.200]  A federal judge has ruled the government illegally approved a genetically modified herbicide
[01:05.200 --> 01:10.840]  resistant strain of sugar beets without adequately considering the chance they would contaminate
[01:10.840 --> 01:12.240]  other beet crops.
[01:12.240 --> 01:17.600]  The ruling by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White rejected the Department of Agriculture�s
[01:17.600 --> 01:23.160]  decision to allow chemical giant Monsanto to sell sugar beets known as �Roundup Ready�
[01:23.160 --> 01:28.200]  because they�re engineered to coexist with Monsanto�s Roundup herbicide.
[01:28.200 --> 01:33.360]  This year�s planting is the first to include a full crop of the Monsanto product.
[01:33.360 --> 01:38.800]  Judge White said the USDA, in concluding that the new crop would have no significant environmental
[01:38.800 --> 01:45.960]  effects, discounted the likelihood that wind-borne pollen would spread to fields where non-GMO
[01:45.960 --> 01:48.800]  beets are grown.
[01:48.800 --> 01:53.680]  The Campaign Against Acorn, the grassroots community group dedicated to helping poor
[01:53.680 --> 02:00.400]  and working-class people, has gained bipartisan support in the form of the Defund Acorn Act,
[02:00.400 --> 02:02.640]  which has passed the House and Senate.
[02:02.640 --> 02:08.600]  Ryan Grim at Huffington Post points out the legislation could plausibly defund the entire
[02:08.600 --> 02:10.560]  military-industrial complex.
[02:10.560 --> 02:16.680]  Grim writes, �The Congressional legislation intended to defund Acorn is written so broadly
[02:16.680 --> 02:22.540]  it applies to any organization charged with breaking federal or state election laws, lobbying
[02:22.540 --> 02:28.360]  disclosure laws, campaign finance laws, or filing fraudulent paperwork with any federal
[02:28.360 --> 02:30.360]  or state agency.
[02:30.360 --> 02:34.560]  According to the Project on Oversight and Government Reform, this legislation could
[02:34.560 --> 02:38.080]  eliminate a virtual who�s who of war contractors.
[02:38.080 --> 02:43.120]  Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to contract with Blackwater.
[02:43.120 --> 02:48.280]  Blackwater is being investigated by Congress, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,
[02:48.280 --> 02:53.840]  the Justice Department and the IRS for arms smuggling, manslaughter and tax evasion.�
[02:53.840 --> 03:21.000]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at RuleOfLawRadio.com, live free
[03:21.000 --> 03:25.560]  of charge.
[03:25.560 --> 03:30.560]  Bad boys, what you want, what you want, what you gonna do?
[03:30.560 --> 03:33.560]  Tell me something, bro, it's good for you
[03:36.560 --> 03:40.560]  Tell me, what you wanna do, what you gonna do?
[03:44.560 --> 03:47.560]  Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do?
[03:47.560 --> 03:50.560]  What you gonna do when they come for you?
[03:50.560 --> 03:53.560]  Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do?
[03:53.560 --> 03:55.560]  What you gonna do when they come for you?
[03:55.560 --> 03:58.560]  When you were eight and you had bad dreams
[03:58.560 --> 04:01.560]  You'd go to school and learn the golden rule
[04:01.560 --> 04:04.560]  So why are you acting like a bloody fool?
[04:04.560 --> 04:06.560]  Eat sugar and you must get cool
[04:06.560 --> 04:09.560]  Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do?
[04:09.560 --> 04:12.560]  What you gonna do when they come for you?
[04:12.560 --> 04:15.560]  Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do?
[04:15.560 --> 04:17.560]  What you gonna do when they come for you?
[04:17.560 --> 04:20.560]  You chuck it on that one, you chuck it on this one
[04:20.560 --> 04:23.560]  You chuck it on your mother and you chuck it on your mother
[04:23.560 --> 04:26.560]  You chuck it on this one and that one
[04:26.560 --> 04:29.560]  Bad boys, bad boys
[04:29.560 --> 04:31.560]  This is the rule of law
[04:31.560 --> 04:34.560]  Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens
[04:34.560 --> 04:38.560]  We're on our Friday night info marathon
[04:38.560 --> 04:41.560]  And wanted to announce we have
[04:41.560 --> 04:44.560]  Due to very popular demand
[04:44.560 --> 04:47.560]  We have come up with a few new options
[04:47.560 --> 04:50.560]  For the seminar registration
[04:50.560 --> 04:52.560]  Apparently there's a lot of people who have
[04:52.560 --> 04:56.560]  Purchased jurisdictionary within the last two to three months
[04:56.560 --> 04:59.560]  And so there's a lot of people out there who really, really
[04:59.560 --> 05:01.560]  Want to be able to come to the seminar
[05:01.560 --> 05:02.560]  But don't want to have to buy it again
[05:02.560 --> 05:05.560]  And so they asked if there's any way we could give a discount
[05:05.560 --> 05:08.560]  So I discussed with Dr. Graves since he's the one
[05:08.560 --> 05:11.560]  That's one of our big sponsors of the network
[05:11.560 --> 05:13.560]  And also the sponsor of the seminar
[05:13.560 --> 05:15.560]  We'd had a previous arrangement
[05:15.560 --> 05:18.560]  So I was able to discuss the matter with Dr. Graves
[05:18.560 --> 05:24.560]  So we're now offering for folks who already have jurisdictionary
[05:24.560 --> 05:29.560]  Or who want to opt out of it at your own peril, I may add
[05:29.560 --> 05:36.560]  You may register for the seminar in class for $200 for both days
[05:36.560 --> 05:38.560]  And you get everything everyone else gets
[05:38.560 --> 05:42.560]  You'll get an audio and video recording after the fact
[05:42.560 --> 05:44.560]  Plus the seminar materials
[05:44.560 --> 05:46.560]  You just won't get jurisdictionary
[05:46.560 --> 05:48.560]  And the thing is though you'll have to
[05:48.560 --> 05:51.560]  If you don't have jurisdictionary already however
[05:51.560 --> 05:53.560]  You'll just have to realize that you may
[05:53.560 --> 05:55.560]  Some of the class may be over your head
[05:55.560 --> 05:58.560]  And we can only answer so many questions
[05:58.560 --> 06:01.560]  And it will be pretty much very limited to almost none
[06:01.560 --> 06:05.560]  As to how much time we're going to have to answer questions
[06:05.560 --> 06:07.560]  That would be answered in jurisdictionary
[06:07.560 --> 06:08.560]  So just realize that
[06:08.560 --> 06:11.560]  But we are offering that at this time
[06:11.560 --> 06:17.560]  We've got about 25 slots or so left at the seminar
[06:17.560 --> 06:21.560]  And other than that we are also offering the webinar
[06:21.560 --> 06:26.560]  Seminar over the web for $250
[06:26.560 --> 06:30.560]  So you get one set of seminar materials
[06:30.560 --> 06:33.560]  And an audio and video recording after the fact
[06:33.560 --> 06:36.560]  And of course the live web streaming seminar
[06:36.560 --> 06:40.560]  The video live streaming video of the seminar
[06:40.560 --> 06:42.560]  And there will be a chat room set up
[06:42.560 --> 06:44.560]  So that you can ask questions
[06:44.560 --> 06:46.560]  You'll actually be able to participate
[06:46.560 --> 06:52.560]  And ask questions of the speakers during the seminar
[06:52.560 --> 06:54.560]  During the Q&A sessions
[06:54.560 --> 06:57.560]  So hope that makes a lot more people happy
[06:57.560 --> 07:00.560]  We're bidding over backwards to make everyone happy
[07:00.560 --> 07:05.560]  That we can while still trying to keep afloat ourselves
[07:05.560 --> 07:07.560]  So that's the latest
[07:07.560 --> 07:08.560]  You can register online
[07:08.560 --> 07:11.560]  I don't have a PayPal button set up yet for the webinar
[07:11.560 --> 07:12.560]  That's coming
[07:12.560 --> 07:15.560]  But at any rate you can pay by check
[07:15.560 --> 07:21.560]  And there is a PayPal slash credit card button for the $200 registration
[07:21.560 --> 07:22.560]  The registration of the seminar
[07:22.560 --> 07:24.560]  Which does not include jurisdictionary
[07:24.560 --> 07:28.560]  So you can pay by check a credit card for the in-house seminar
[07:28.560 --> 07:32.560]  And right now for the webinar there's just checks only
[07:32.560 --> 07:36.560]  But I will be setting up a PayPal button for that shortly
[07:36.560 --> 07:42.560]  So and please also check out the archive from last night
[07:42.560 --> 07:46.560]  Awesome, awesome interview with Attorney Dennis McMahon
[07:46.560 --> 07:52.560]  Representing NYC CAN and their attempt to put on the ballot
[07:52.560 --> 07:54.560]  For New York City Ballot Initiative
[07:54.560 --> 07:58.560]  For an independent 9-11 investigation
[07:58.560 --> 08:00.560]  Commission with subpoena power
[08:00.560 --> 08:02.560]  This time we're going to call the shots
[08:02.560 --> 08:04.560]  And we're going to get to the bottom of what's really going on
[08:04.560 --> 08:07.560]  And so we discussed the legal aspects of their petition
[08:07.560 --> 08:09.560]  And the back and forth that's been going on
[08:09.560 --> 08:12.560]  Between the city clerk's office and the city attorney
[08:12.560 --> 08:15.560]  And the New York Supreme Court
[08:15.560 --> 08:17.560]  So that was an excellent interview last night
[08:17.560 --> 08:18.560]  Please check it out
[08:18.560 --> 08:21.560]  Of course on Monday night we had Gary Johnson on
[08:21.560 --> 08:26.560]  And we were discussing the horrific SEC hearing
[08:26.560 --> 08:30.560]  That the three of us attended this past Monday
[08:30.560 --> 08:33.560]  So a lot of good archives for y'all this week
[08:33.560 --> 08:37.560]  And tonight we have another special guest
[08:37.560 --> 08:41.560]  Mr. Jeff Sedgwick from Your Remedy is in the Law
[08:41.560 --> 08:43.560]  Jeff thanks for joining us tonight
[08:43.560 --> 08:46.560]  Oh and thank you very much for having me Deborah
[08:46.560 --> 08:49.560]  And good evening Randy and good evening Eddie
[08:49.560 --> 08:51.560]  Good evening Jeff, how are you?
[08:51.560 --> 08:54.560]  I'm great shape, I'm healing up nicely
[08:54.560 --> 08:56.560]  Good
[08:56.560 --> 08:59.560]  Okay so Randy you wanted to talk to Jeff tonight
[08:59.560 --> 09:02.560]  About credit card issues
[09:02.560 --> 09:07.560]  Yes, I was talking to Jeff the other day
[09:07.560 --> 09:10.560]  And I was surprised at his level of knowledge
[09:10.560 --> 09:13.560]  About this credit card issue
[09:13.560 --> 09:17.560]  I had someone who had a problem with a credit card issue
[09:17.560 --> 09:22.560]  And Jeff wrote a few things past me
[09:22.560 --> 09:28.560]  That frankly went right past me about three feet over my head
[09:28.560 --> 09:34.560]  So what I would like Jeff to do is go through the issues
[09:34.560 --> 09:38.560]  Involved in a credit card case
[09:38.560 --> 09:43.560]  We're not going to be too concerned about running away from everybody
[09:43.560 --> 09:45.560]  Jeff has a lot of information
[09:45.560 --> 09:52.560]  We want to get as much information on tape or on record as we can
[09:52.560 --> 09:57.560]  I suspect I'll have to listen to this archive a number of times to come up to speed
[09:57.560 --> 09:58.560]  But Jeff
[09:58.560 --> 09:59.560]  Yes sir
[09:59.560 --> 10:02.560]  Can you start at the beginning
[10:02.560 --> 10:08.560]  Where a person first gets a notice from the credit card company
[10:08.560 --> 10:12.560]  Or actually where is the beginning?
[10:12.560 --> 10:14.560]  Well I would say that the first
[10:14.560 --> 10:20.560]  Where you would start would be the first time you get a notice of
[10:20.560 --> 10:22.560]  You haven't made a payment
[10:22.560 --> 10:24.560]  And start from that point
[10:24.560 --> 10:29.560]  And the first thing in my opinion that you should do
[10:29.560 --> 10:34.560]  Is to write a letter of dispute and demand for validation
[10:34.560 --> 10:39.560]  And when you get a subsequent letter from a third party debt collector
[10:39.560 --> 10:41.560]  You do the same thing again
[10:41.560 --> 10:45.560]  Because you are basically setting and laying the groundwork
[10:45.560 --> 10:47.560]  For what's called an FDCPA action
[10:47.560 --> 10:49.560]  Which is the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
[10:49.560 --> 10:52.560]  And that's a federal action
[10:52.560 --> 10:58.560]  The creditor will almost never respond
[10:58.560 --> 11:04.560]  And the third party debt collector will make a faint attempt
[11:04.560 --> 11:08.560]  But actually his faint attempt is non-responsive
[11:08.560 --> 11:16.560]  And you have laid the groundwork for going into federal court for violations under FDCPA
[11:16.560 --> 11:24.560]  For taking that particular part of it and setting it aside because that's a whole FDCPA and the FCRA actions
[11:24.560 --> 11:27.560]  Wait a minute, can you explain those acronyms?
[11:27.560 --> 11:34.560]  Yes, well the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act isn't about the debt
[11:34.560 --> 11:39.560]  It's about the behavior and the conduct of the third party debt collector
[11:39.560 --> 11:44.560]  Now just so that everybody is clear
[11:44.560 --> 11:48.560]  The creditor is the, the original creditor is the original creditor
[11:48.560 --> 11:50.560]  And he's not a third party debt collector
[11:50.560 --> 11:58.560]  But when he hires an attorney, the attorney is a third party debt collector
[11:58.560 --> 12:02.560]  Yes, and let me kind of address the difference there
[12:02.560 --> 12:08.560]  I have one fellow who an attorney is trying to collect the debt
[12:08.560 --> 12:16.560]  And he is the attorney representing the company, the credit card company
[12:16.560 --> 12:18.560]  So he's not a third party debt collector
[12:18.560 --> 12:21.560]  He's actually an attorney for the company
[12:21.560 --> 12:23.560]  No, he is a third party debt collector
[12:23.560 --> 12:30.560]  That is not actually working for the company, he's working for himself
[12:30.560 --> 12:36.560]  Well even so, even if he's working for the company, Randy, he's a third party debt collector
[12:36.560 --> 12:39.560]  Because he's not an in-house attorney
[12:39.560 --> 12:41.560]  Well that's what the first one was
[12:41.560 --> 12:46.560]  He was an attorney directly for the credit card company
[12:46.560 --> 12:53.560]  Well the way I, what I understood you to say it was that they brought this attorney in
[12:53.560 --> 12:57.560]  But that he was not an in-house in an actual employee
[12:57.560 --> 13:02.560]  He represented the credit card company directly
[13:02.560 --> 13:05.560]  He wasn't collecting the debt for himself
[13:05.560 --> 13:10.560]  He was acting, the actual petition was in the name of the credit card company
[13:10.560 --> 13:15.560]  And he was listed as counsel for the credit card company
[13:15.560 --> 13:18.560]  So he wasn't a third party debt collector
[13:18.560 --> 13:23.560]  The other one, the guy come in and said, you got a credit card from Cirrus
[13:23.560 --> 13:26.560]  And I own that debt
[13:26.560 --> 13:29.560]  And I really don't know how it got there
[13:29.560 --> 13:31.560]  So he was a third party debt collector
[13:31.560 --> 13:35.560]  Well that's a third party debt collector, but the attorney
[13:35.560 --> 13:41.560]  If he is not an in-house employee of the creditor or the bank
[13:41.560 --> 13:44.560]  He is a third party debt collector
[13:44.560 --> 13:50.560]  Okay, how do we separate an in-house employee?
[13:50.560 --> 13:57.560]  So you're saying if he is not an attorney hired directly by the credit card company
[13:57.560 --> 14:03.560]  To represent the credit card company or is, can he still be a third party debt collector?
[14:03.560 --> 14:08.560]  He would have to be an actual employee of the creditor
[14:08.560 --> 14:13.560]  Or if he is only a retainer as their counsel
[14:13.560 --> 14:16.560]  Well if he is only a retainer then he would work for another law firm
[14:16.560 --> 14:20.560]  Work for an outside law firm and he is a third party debt collector
[14:20.560 --> 14:23.560]  Wow, that's interesting
[14:23.560 --> 14:24.560]  Isn't it?
[14:24.560 --> 14:28.560]  Then almost essentially every attorney is a third party debt collector
[14:28.560 --> 14:29.560]  Yes
[14:29.560 --> 14:34.560]  So does the attorney claim standing in his own right?
[14:34.560 --> 14:38.560]  No, he always says that he is representing
[14:38.560 --> 14:48.560]  Okay, so essentially most every attorney that we are going to run into is going to fall under third party debt collector
[14:48.560 --> 14:49.560]  You betcha
[14:49.560 --> 14:56.560]  So even if he doesn't we can act as though he does and it would be up to him to show that he doesn't
[14:56.560 --> 15:03.560]  Well it comes down to the old song, Randy, of who says and prove it
[15:03.560 --> 15:14.560]  And those two phrases need to become a pattern of speech always
[15:14.560 --> 15:17.560]  Who says and prove it
[15:17.560 --> 15:20.560]  Even when you object, who says and prove it
[15:20.560 --> 15:24.560]  That's Vinnie
[15:24.560 --> 15:28.560]  That was Vinnie's, was it my cousin Vinnie?
[15:28.560 --> 15:29.560]  Yes
[15:29.560 --> 15:31.560]  Who says and prove it
[15:31.560 --> 15:34.560]  That's right, that's right
[15:34.560 --> 15:40.560]  And a little bit of Vin Diesel from How to Find Me Guilty
[15:40.560 --> 15:42.560]  Oh yes, I remember that one
[15:42.560 --> 15:45.560]  That's another very good movie
[15:45.560 --> 15:58.560]  Okay, so for the most part the attorney who claims to represent the debtor is a third party debt collector
[15:58.560 --> 16:01.560]  He will fall under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act
[16:01.560 --> 16:08.560]  Let's make it kind of simple, virtually every summons that you'll find or complaint that you'll find
[16:08.560 --> 16:17.560]  At the end of the complaint we'll have the name of the attorney and his law firm
[16:17.560 --> 16:22.560]  And we can treat that attorney and his law firm as if he is a third party debt collector
[16:22.560 --> 16:26.560]  He is a third party, not as if he is, he is a third party debt collector
[16:26.560 --> 16:36.560]  So even if he is contracted directly to the credit card company he's still a third party debt collector
[16:36.560 --> 16:38.560]  Yep, yes sir
[16:38.560 --> 16:39.560]  Wonderful
[16:39.560 --> 16:40.560]  Now here's the music
[16:40.560 --> 16:42.560]  Yep, we're going to break, we'll be right back
[16:42.560 --> 16:47.560]  On the other side with Jeff Sedgwick from Your Remedy is in the Law
[16:47.560 --> 16:50.560]  We'll be right back, this is the rule of law
[16:50.560 --> 17:00.560]  Music
[17:00.560 --> 17:06.560]  Hello Austin, my name is Harlan Dieter, owner of Brave New Books, a local independent bookstore here in town
[17:06.560 --> 17:10.560]  Many of you are familiar with the bookstore and have attended some of our events
[17:10.560 --> 17:16.560]  We've been proud to host speakers like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, Jim Mars, Catherine Albert, Webster Carpley, G. Edward Griffin
[17:16.560 --> 17:19.560]  And many other heroic figures in the patriot movement
[17:19.560 --> 17:21.560]  But now Brave New Books needs your help
[17:21.560 --> 17:26.560]  In order to continue to provide a space for these events and be an outlet for hard to find materials
[17:26.560 --> 17:30.560]  We're going to need you Austin to help spread the word about the bookstore
[17:30.560 --> 17:34.560]  Please tell your friends and family about the wide variety of materials we offer
[17:34.560 --> 17:38.560]  We also have DVD duplication capabilities for all you activists
[17:38.560 --> 17:42.560]  Also if you haven't visited us yet, please come down and show your support
[17:42.560 --> 17:47.560]  It is so easy to support the big corporate chain stores that do nothing to further our message
[17:47.560 --> 17:49.560]  Remember, you vote with your dollars
[17:49.560 --> 17:51.560]  We're counting on you Austin
[17:51.560 --> 17:58.560]  If you need any information please call 512-480-2503 or visit us at 1904 Guadalupe Street
[17:58.560 --> 18:21.560]  Thank you everyone
[18:28.560 --> 18:33.560]  Alright, justice
[18:33.560 --> 18:37.560]  That's what we're about here on the rule of law
[18:37.560 --> 18:40.560]  We are after justice
[18:40.560 --> 18:46.560]  We've got Mr. Jeff Sedgwick with us tonight talking about credit card issues, credit card fraud and such
[18:46.560 --> 18:52.560]  So Jeff, you had a few points that you wanted to go through concerning I guess common mistakes that they make
[18:52.560 --> 18:56.560]  Or common, you know, violations that they commit
[18:56.560 --> 19:00.560]  Can you start with some of the more common ones?
[19:00.560 --> 19:04.560]  It's difficult to know where to begin
[19:04.560 --> 19:10.560]  So let's start with one of Randy's favorite quotations from Robert Fox
[19:10.560 --> 19:16.560]  The quotation of being agency cannot be proven out of the mouth of the agency
[19:16.560 --> 19:19.560]  It can only be proven out of the mouth of the principal
[19:19.560 --> 19:28.560]  There's nothing on the record showing that that attorney actually is representing the supposed creditor
[19:28.560 --> 19:34.560]  One of the things that a lot of people don't know and ought to know is that
[19:34.560 --> 19:39.560]  Randy's been talking about the photocopies of $100 bills a lot lately
[19:39.560 --> 19:50.560]  What the creditors do is that they photocopy these accounts and they sell them and they sell them in bulk
[19:50.560 --> 19:56.560]  And they're sold to major warehouses throughout the country who in turn break them up into regions
[19:56.560 --> 20:01.560]  And sell them to smaller debt collecting firms or debt collecting law offices
[20:01.560 --> 20:11.560]  Your main intern will file an action into the court in the name of the creditor and that they're representing the creditor
[20:11.560 --> 20:19.560]  And there's no evidence on the record that the creditor is a party to that action or has any knowledge of the action at all
[20:19.560 --> 20:27.560]  Jeff, if these attorneys are going around claiming to represent certain entities and they're not really
[20:27.560 --> 20:29.560]  Isn't that a crime?
[20:29.560 --> 20:33.560]  Yeah, sure is
[20:33.560 --> 20:39.560]  And how would we show that they're not really representing? Is that a matter of public record somewhere?
[20:39.560 --> 20:44.560]  That would be extremely difficult to show
[20:44.560 --> 20:52.560]  Then we couldn't really file charges against them for misrepresenting if we can't really prove it
[20:52.560 --> 20:59.560]  That's true. On the other hand though, you can show on the record that there's nothing on the record that shows
[20:59.560 --> 21:05.560]  That the attorney has been delegated the authority to represent the creditor
[21:05.560 --> 21:07.560]  Would there normally be?
[21:07.560 --> 21:14.560]  Well, in most civil cases when an attorney appears, they file a notice of appearance
[21:14.560 --> 21:26.560]  And then we go to rule 12. If you raise a rule 12 challenge, then the attorney has to prove that he has agency
[21:26.560 --> 21:34.560]  It's not enough that he says I'm representing the client. Now he has to prove that he represents the client
[21:34.560 --> 21:37.560]  And that goes to Robert Fox's quotation
[21:37.560 --> 21:47.560]  And Jeff just gave me a case that actually, where apparently Robert may have got this, that agency cannot be proven out of the mouth of the agent
[21:47.560 --> 21:50.560]  That it must be proven out of the mouth of the principal
[21:50.560 --> 21:54.560]  Seems like it's time for bar grievances if they're running around doing that sort of thing
[21:54.560 --> 21:57.560]  Oh, at the very least, Deborah, at the very least
[21:57.560 --> 22:02.560]  And the quotation from that particular case is as follows
[22:02.560 --> 22:17.560]  It is a long-established, well-recognized, and salutary rule of law that agency cannot be proven by the declarations of the agent
[22:17.560 --> 22:26.560]  In other words, he took three phrases in a sentence to basically say it is well-settled
[22:26.560 --> 22:32.560]  Yes, so I say, I'm the agent. Well, prove it. Well, I said I was
[22:32.560 --> 22:36.560]  It goes back to Vinnie, doesn't it? Who says improve it?
[22:36.560 --> 22:51.560]  Who says improve it? Exactly. And this, I just wrote, put together a document for a guy where a credit card company filed suit against him
[22:51.560 --> 22:56.560]  The magistrate issued a summons
[22:56.560 --> 23:09.560]  And when I looked at the documentation, the attorney claimed that a company named Sears issued this guy a credit card
[23:09.560 --> 23:24.560]  And that this particular company, LV, something or other, limited liability corporation, owned the debt and was the rightful beneficiary to the debt
[23:24.560 --> 23:33.560]  I never stated how he owned the debt or how he became the beneficiary or who Sears really was
[23:33.560 --> 23:41.560]  I've never heard of a company called Sears. I've heard of one called Sears Roebuck & Company, not Sears
[23:41.560 --> 23:50.560]  And when I looked at the documentation, the original petition was not verified
[23:50.560 --> 23:55.560]  Now, if I file a motion and it has a statement of fact in it, it must be verified
[23:55.560 --> 24:02.560]  But if I file that motion and it's not verified and you don't object to it, you went with the objection
[24:02.560 --> 24:10.560]  However, an original petition is a different animal altogether
[24:10.560 --> 24:24.560]  When the attorney filed the original petition with the court, it was the duty of the magistrate or the judge to examine the documentation
[24:24.560 --> 24:32.560]  and ensure that they were sufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court
[24:32.560 --> 24:40.560]  An unverified petition is insufficient on its face, so we sued the judge personally
[24:40.560 --> 24:41.560]  Very good
[24:41.560 --> 24:42.560]  That was a hoot
[24:42.560 --> 24:45.560]  Now, I want to get to the points that Jeff wanted to present
[24:45.560 --> 24:49.560]  You were saying something about an affidavit on the break
[24:49.560 --> 25:00.560]  Yes, well that's the verification and let's go to that because that is where their whole system breaks down
[25:00.560 --> 25:04.560]  In a good many cases, you won't see an affidavit at all
[25:04.560 --> 25:13.560]  What you'll see is, you'll see summons and complaints and there will usually be anywhere from one to four causes of action
[25:13.560 --> 25:20.560]  and then there will be a bunch of monthly statements, pardon me
[25:20.560 --> 25:27.560]  And when there is an affidavit, it needs to be examined very, very carefully
[25:27.560 --> 25:29.560]  Okay, stop
[25:29.560 --> 25:38.560]  What must be in the affidavit? What must it confirm?
[25:38.560 --> 25:45.560]  For one thing, they have to have personal knowledge
[25:45.560 --> 25:56.560]  And I'd say probably around 75 to 80% of the affidavits that I have seen say that they are personally familiar
[25:56.560 --> 26:04.560]  Well, you know, I'm familiar with Michelle Pfeiffer, but I have no personal knowledge of her
[26:04.560 --> 26:06.560]  Big difference
[26:06.560 --> 26:08.560]  Yes
[26:08.560 --> 26:14.560]  So, you know, that does not stand as any kind of testimony
[26:14.560 --> 26:24.560]  An affidavit is supposed to be taken as sufficient testimony in order to create a prima facie case for a summons to issue
[26:24.560 --> 26:36.560]  So an affidavit cannot be based on hearsay or second hand information, it must be based on first hand information
[26:36.560 --> 26:52.560]  Would an examination of the debit and payment record of the debtor or the credit card company give a person
[26:52.560 --> 26:59.560]  Could that be considered first hand information?
[26:59.560 --> 27:03.560]  Well, it could be, but you'll never get that into court
[27:03.560 --> 27:10.560]  Okay, and looking at verification and validation of the debt, that's how it would be verified and validated
[27:10.560 --> 27:15.560]  And they'll be unresponsive on that, you'll never see it
[27:15.560 --> 27:21.560]  Well, actually we had one where they sent a computer printout
[27:21.560 --> 27:38.560]  And I looked at case law and one of the case laws said that a documentation of the accounts of the debits and the credits was verification and validation
[27:38.560 --> 27:43.560]  But then another said a computer record was insufficient
[27:43.560 --> 27:48.560]  That's right, business records must be attested to look at your rules of evidence on that
[27:48.560 --> 27:51.560]  They must be in writing, but these were in writing
[27:51.560 --> 27:54.560]  But it still has to be attested to
[27:54.560 --> 28:04.560]  Just today I was reading a document on mortgage fraud and they addressed this issue of accounting and documentation
[28:04.560 --> 28:21.560]  And the documentation was consistently either insufficient or it was of a nature that it could not be deciphered
[28:21.560 --> 28:26.560]  The latter, if you see anything at all, the latter is what you'll see most often
[28:26.560 --> 28:41.560]  So when the attorney files the action against you, first he has to establish agency to give him standing before the court
[28:41.560 --> 28:55.560]  And in order to do that he has to have either personal knowledge or firsthand evidence of the actual debt
[28:55.560 --> 29:02.560]  Well, not he the attorney, there has to be a competent back witness
[29:02.560 --> 29:05.560]  The attorneys can't testify, Randy, you know that
[29:05.560 --> 29:07.560]  Right, right
[29:07.560 --> 29:18.560]  But if the attorney is standing as the debt collector, then he is the litigant and not counsel
[29:18.560 --> 29:22.560]  He is still not a competent back witness
[29:22.560 --> 29:26.560]  Because he has no personal knowledge, so he would have to bring documentation
[29:26.560 --> 29:29.560]  And you say that documentation is never there
[29:29.560 --> 29:35.560]  Right, so he has, you know, one of the things that has, there goes the music again
[29:35.560 --> 29:37.560]  All right, we'll be right back
[29:37.560 --> 29:38.560]  Okay
[29:38.560 --> 29:44.560]  Okay, this is the rule of law and we're speaking with our very special guest, Jeff Sedgwick, from Your Remedies and the Law
[29:44.560 --> 30:01.560]  We'll be right back
[30:01.560 --> 30:04.560]  This is Lisa Marie Copoletta and I'm a Liberty Defender
[30:04.560 --> 30:07.560]  I'm running for City Council Place 5 in San Marcos, Texas
[30:07.560 --> 30:14.560]  The key issues guiding my campaign this year are smart growth, environmental stewardship, and balanced budgets
[30:14.560 --> 30:21.560]  The patterns of growth that we choose to select here in San Marcos will not only affect the integrity of the perception of our city
[30:21.560 --> 30:30.560]  But also tangible results in our neighborhoods, resulting in housing, job opportunities, transportation, and currency circulation
[30:30.560 --> 30:37.560]  Please join us this Saturday, September 26 at 730 at Wake the Dead Coffee House in San Marcos, Texas
[30:37.560 --> 30:41.560]  We'll have our campaign celebration kick off and we'll rock on through midnight
[30:41.560 --> 31:03.560]  For further details on this and other events, please visit the website at www.lmc4sanmarcos.com
[31:03.560 --> 31:28.560]  Okay, we're back
[31:28.560 --> 31:35.560]  Okay, so Jeff, we want to get into some of the points that you feel are pertinent in these credit card cases
[31:35.560 --> 31:39.560]  And one of them is the affidavit that we started talking about
[31:39.560 --> 31:46.560]  So why don't you go through that and where you see red flags and what you find are important issues on this
[31:46.560 --> 31:52.560]  And I'm going to ask the callers to hold off for a little while so that Jeff will have a chance to present his material
[31:52.560 --> 32:00.560]  So I see a caller or two on the board, if you guys could just call back, at least wait until after 9 o'clock at least
[32:00.560 --> 32:05.560]  So that we can let Jeff have the floor here and lay out his material
[32:05.560 --> 32:06.560]  So go ahead, Jeff
[32:06.560 --> 32:08.560]  Okay, great, thank you
[32:08.560 --> 32:19.560]  The affidavit, which is what creates the prima facie evidence for someone to issue is really, really, it's very important and needs to be examined very closely
[32:19.560 --> 32:28.560]  We had an affidavit in our hands here a couple of days ago that obviously had been transmitted by fax
[32:28.560 --> 32:36.560]  The entire affidavit was slightly askewed by maybe four or five degrees
[32:36.560 --> 32:43.560]  But the name of the affiant was not, it was straight and level
[32:43.560 --> 32:59.560]  The name of the affiant had been added to the affidavit after the jurat had been signed by the notary in Missouri and sent to the law office
[32:59.560 --> 33:06.560]  Then the name of the affiant was added and the signature was added to that affidavit
[33:06.560 --> 33:11.560]  Did you get that one, Randy? Did that come out clear?
[33:11.560 --> 33:15.560]  This is where you really got my attention
[33:15.560 --> 33:17.560]  Yeah, will you go through that one more time, Jeff?
[33:17.560 --> 33:30.560]  Right, an affidavit that was notarized with blank lines be filled in for the affiant name and for their signature and date
[33:30.560 --> 33:41.560]  The affidavit was faxed and when it was transmitted, the affidavit was skewed a little bit
[33:41.560 --> 33:52.560]  But the name of the affiant was typed in later, straight and level
[33:52.560 --> 33:56.560]  Yes, and I can personally address that
[33:56.560 --> 34:04.560]  Years ago, I helped a guy get in the bonding business and he needed someone to verify his bonds, to notarize his bonds
[34:04.560 --> 34:08.560]  So they got me a notary, so I became a notary
[34:08.560 --> 34:11.560]  They gave me a whole bunch of bonds to notarize and I said, wait a minute, these aren't signed
[34:11.560 --> 34:13.560]  He said, well, this is the way everybody does it
[34:13.560 --> 34:16.560]  I didn't care, I'll notarize them
[34:16.560 --> 34:24.560]  Well, I had a sheriff's deputy try to kill me and they arrested me through me in jail and my friend came and bonded me out
[34:24.560 --> 34:29.560]  I looked at the bond form, it had my notary on it
[34:29.560 --> 34:35.560]  That's good, that's a good one
[34:35.560 --> 34:37.560]  I'm just glad nobody caught it
[34:37.560 --> 34:41.560]  Right, is that a karma thing you're talking about there, Randy?
[34:41.560 --> 34:42.560]  I think so
[34:42.560 --> 34:43.560]  That's hilarious
[34:43.560 --> 34:46.560]  The point is, it's a relatively common practice
[34:46.560 --> 34:59.560]  Okay, one of the other things that we have noticed and seen from time to time is in the jurat, there will be a line that the notary fills out with the name of the affiant
[34:59.560 --> 35:06.560]  That line was blank on the affidavit that had been placed in the court
[35:06.560 --> 35:12.560]  It did not contain the name of the affiant, but it was still notarized
[35:12.560 --> 35:17.560]  We have found, we have gone through hundreds of records
[35:17.560 --> 35:24.560]  Never once have we seen an original notarized affidavit
[35:24.560 --> 35:26.560]  They're all copies
[35:26.560 --> 35:29.560]  Where's the original?
[35:29.560 --> 35:35.560]  Who's going to access to the copy of an affidavit?
[35:35.560 --> 35:43.560]  Who can access to, is this an actual true test copy of an affidavit that was signed and notarized?
[35:43.560 --> 35:57.560]  Did the notary take an oath from the affiant as required by law?
[35:57.560 --> 36:06.560]  As far as we are concerned, it is de facto evidence that fraud has been perpetrated by the submitting attorney
[36:06.560 --> 36:15.560]  And the way I look at that, it wasn't your place to make that determination, it was the presiding judge's place to make that determination
[36:15.560 --> 36:16.560]  You betcha
[36:16.560 --> 36:19.560]  Before he summoned you to court
[36:19.560 --> 36:25.560]  You got that right
[36:25.560 --> 36:29.560]  But what they do is they have their law clerks go over these things
[36:29.560 --> 36:38.560]  And if page one, page two, and page three is here and it's signed by an attorney, approve it, send out the summons
[36:38.560 --> 36:44.560]  After all, if that's the way they've been doing it for the last three or four decades, why should we change our pattern of behavior now?
[36:44.560 --> 36:47.560]  Why should we start playing by the rules now?
[36:47.560 --> 36:49.560]  We haven't had to in the past
[36:49.560 --> 36:52.560]  Well, I just gave them a good reason
[36:52.560 --> 37:03.560]  I filed a countersuit, I prepared a countersuit against the law firm and a cross complaint against the judge himself
[37:03.560 --> 37:04.560]  Right
[37:04.560 --> 37:16.560]  Accusing him of acting without subject matter jurisdiction, therefore he was impersonating a judicial officer and was without immunity of any kind
[37:16.560 --> 37:20.560]  I think that will get their attention
[37:20.560 --> 37:26.560]  Right, but are you familiar with the best evidence rule, Randy?
[37:26.560 --> 37:28.560]  Yes, but I can't quote it
[37:28.560 --> 37:32.560]  Well, basically, you know, originals are always best
[37:32.560 --> 37:37.560]  Right, so what oftentimes happens is they put in monthly statements
[37:37.560 --> 37:42.560]  We have never yet seen a single monthly statement that's ever been authenticated
[37:42.560 --> 37:52.560]  They'll put in an affidavit and say, here's the monthly statement, but the monthly statements won't be attached to and be a part of the actual affidavit
[37:52.560 --> 38:02.560]  Neither will the monthly statements have any kind of signature on there showing that those are the copies that the affidavit made in support of their claim
[38:02.560 --> 38:05.560]  So there's no authenticated evidence before the court either
[38:05.560 --> 38:15.560]  So it's just a printout that a computer did and they essentially anonymously stuck it in the folder
[38:15.560 --> 38:16.560]  Right
[38:16.560 --> 38:26.560]  So if you come back and look at that printout and say, hey, this thing is an error, then there's nobody's name on it to be held to task for misleading the court
[38:26.560 --> 38:31.560]  Right
[38:31.560 --> 38:42.560]  So if we ask for verification and validation, that's what the court was talking about when a computer record is not sufficient
[38:42.560 --> 38:44.560]  It has to be
[38:44.560 --> 38:47.560]  There has to be a witness who's been attested to it
[38:47.560 --> 38:50.560]  Got to be attested to
[38:50.560 --> 38:54.560]  Okay
[38:54.560 --> 39:04.560]  Now, one other thing, let's handle something real quick with affidavit. The affidavit being submitted on the original filing by the attorney
[39:04.560 --> 39:14.560]  If it worked, a valid affidavit would be sufficient to cause a summons
[39:14.560 --> 39:18.560]  Okay
[39:18.560 --> 39:30.560]  But what you have to keep in mind is that it's affidavit that is an out of court statement attesting to the truth of the matter
[39:30.560 --> 39:41.560]  But once it's in court, it's hearsay unless there is a witness, unless that witness appears in court or some other witness appears in court in support of it
[39:41.560 --> 39:49.560]  Excellent. Great point. That goes to the same issues I bring up in criminal law
[39:49.560 --> 40:00.560]  Hearsay is sufficient for the issuance of a warrant, I'm sorry, for the filing of a criminal complaint
[40:00.560 --> 40:01.560]  Right
[40:01.560 --> 40:11.560]  And that would give the magistrate subject matter jurisdiction for the purpose of holding an examining trial
[40:11.560 --> 40:16.560]  At the trial, that hearsay is not sufficient
[40:16.560 --> 40:17.560]  It can be disputed
[40:17.560 --> 40:25.560]  Now there must be a competent fact witness in order for the judge to hear it because if it's hearsay, he can't hear it in the court
[40:25.560 --> 40:35.560]  Well, there are I think 23 hearsay exceptions, however, business records by and large ain't one of them
[40:35.560 --> 40:44.560]  So the affidavit is sufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court
[40:44.560 --> 40:49.560]  But only to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction is not valid for anything else
[40:49.560 --> 40:58.560]  Okay. Now just to revisit the affidavit for a moment, we came across, and this is commonplace
[40:58.560 --> 41:07.560]  We came across an affidavit submitted to the Sixth Circuit Court of Florida
[41:07.560 --> 41:13.560]  We had the name of the affiant, we had the name of the notary
[41:13.560 --> 41:23.560]  We located and verified through the Secretary of State that the notary was a notary at the time the document had been verified by the notary
[41:23.560 --> 41:31.560]  We also discovered that the affiant was not known to the state of Missouri
[41:31.560 --> 41:38.560]  We did find that the affiant was known to the state of Florida
[41:38.560 --> 41:44.560]  We found that the affiant was known to the city of Miami, Florida
[41:44.560 --> 41:54.560]  We found that the affiant was known as an employee to the law firm that filed the affidavit
[41:54.560 --> 42:11.560]  So let me get this straight, the affidavit purportedly came out of Missouri and was purportedly notarized in Missouri by a Missouri notary
[42:11.560 --> 42:19.560]  And supposedly signed in front of that notary by someone in Missouri, not necessarily living in Missouri, but in Missouri
[42:19.560 --> 42:26.560]  At the time they signed the document because they had to swore on their oath to the truth of it before the notary
[42:26.560 --> 42:41.560]  And I suspect if we check flight records or we won't find an airplane ticket for this person to fly to Missouri to swear in her notes before a magistrate
[42:41.560 --> 42:51.560]  Even if she had, she's an employee of the law firm that filed the affidavit, she can't possibly have first-hand personal knowledge
[42:51.560 --> 42:55.560]  How common is this?
[42:55.560 --> 43:00.560]  So common that it makes me shudder
[43:00.560 --> 43:14.560]  So I had spoke to someone, I think it was you I spoke to about how it's relatively recent that attorneys have begun looking for other sources of income
[43:14.560 --> 43:28.560]  And have gotten into this arena and are simply not knowledgeable about all of the state and federal laws concerning what they're doing and are very incautious in their behavior
[43:28.560 --> 43:36.560]  Well, I think some of them are operating beyond the level of arrogance, they're operating out of hubris
[43:36.560 --> 43:40.560]  Yeah, I was going to say, Randy, I don't think it's just so much that they don't know what they're doing
[43:40.560 --> 43:46.560]  I think that they know what they're doing for the most part and just think they can get away with it
[43:46.560 --> 43:49.560]  They've been doing it for decades, Randy, why should they change?
[43:49.560 --> 43:59.560]  Okay, listen, we're going to break, we're going to break, we'll be right back, this is the rule of law
[44:19.560 --> 44:27.560]  With a wonderful nutty flavor that contains 18% protein, our roasters bring a unique flavor that makes this the best cup of coffee you'll ever have
[44:27.560 --> 44:33.560]  Try our new special roast hemp coffee from hempusa.org and wake up your brain without the jitters
[44:33.560 --> 44:36.560]  Our customers look forward to their next cup of hemp coffee
[44:36.560 --> 44:43.560]  Visit us at hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608
[44:43.560 --> 44:50.560]  That's 908-691-2608 and see if you'll change your mind about drinking coffee again
[44:50.560 --> 44:56.560]  Taste the difference, feel the difference at hempusa.org today
[44:56.560 --> 45:15.560]  Yeah, I got a warrant and I'm going to serve them, to the government them, prosecute them, okay?
[45:15.560 --> 45:26.560]  The presence of race for Mr. Bush, the presence of race for Dick Teeney
[45:26.560 --> 45:31.560]  Well, I need a prosecutor to come and help me prosecute them wicked leaders, you see
[45:31.560 --> 45:36.560]  They're all liars, they tell me, they're all liars, they tell me stories
[45:36.560 --> 45:41.560]  They don't believe me, see what they tell me, 3% of Americans vote for Bush
[45:41.560 --> 45:46.560]  How dare he get the presidency, that's why we have a warrant for him
[45:46.560 --> 45:50.560]  Everybody listen carefully, listen to the words of the Christians passage
[45:50.560 --> 46:03.560]  Citizens arrest for Mr. Bush, citizens arrest for Dick Teeney
[46:03.560 --> 46:07.560]  Okay, citizens arrest
[46:07.560 --> 46:11.560]  We're going to have a warrant, we're going to do things ourselves this time
[46:11.560 --> 46:17.560]  Okay, so Jeff, you wanted to talk about some causes of action here
[46:17.560 --> 46:27.560]  Well, yes, the complaint will contain either one or up to four different causes of action
[46:27.560 --> 46:35.560]  Things like breach of contract, open account, money lent, unjust enrichment
[46:35.560 --> 46:41.560]  And as Randy has pointed out and Dr. Frederick Gray as a jurisdictionary points out
[46:41.560 --> 46:46.560]  For every cause of action, there are elements
[46:46.560 --> 46:53.560]  Now sometimes one element needs to have more weight put on it, more emphasis put on it than another element
[46:53.560 --> 46:58.560]  And if you have to drop one of the minor elements out, the judges sometimes will overlook that
[46:58.560 --> 47:05.560]  But by and large, if you look at the summons and complain on a credit card issue
[47:05.560 --> 47:15.560]  They contain no elements other than how much, and that would be the only element contained
[47:15.560 --> 47:19.560]  For instance, pardon me, open account
[47:19.560 --> 47:30.560]  In one state, an open account's elements are bill sent, bill received, bill agreed to, bill not paid
[47:30.560 --> 47:39.560]  Well, when was it sent, when did they get it, how did they agree to it, and of course they didn't pay it
[47:39.560 --> 47:47.560]  But there's no evidence of any of that other than they'll make the statement of he owes $7,685
[47:47.560 --> 47:58.560]  So they do not put the elements in, and if they don't have the elements, their cause of action has failed
[47:58.560 --> 48:06.560]  If their cause of action has failed, then there is no cause of action before the court upon which relief can be granted
[48:06.560 --> 48:15.560]  And a court, so there's no controversy, and a court can't hear a case where there's no controversy
[48:15.560 --> 48:19.560]  Does that come out making sense?
[48:19.560 --> 48:24.560]  Yes, it does, and we talk about causes of action quite a bit here
[48:24.560 --> 48:33.560]  Because a lot of people in the legal reform movement think that pretty much all you have to do is state your complaint
[48:33.560 --> 48:42.560]  But that's not enough, you have to state your complaint in terms of an established cause of action
[48:42.560 --> 48:52.560]  It's kind of like a statute in criminal, in civil you have causes of actions instead of statutes
[48:52.560 --> 49:01.560]  And if you don't state each element, then you don't have enough to prove up the cause of action
[49:01.560 --> 49:05.560]  And attorneys are incredibly lazy
[49:05.560 --> 49:12.560]  That's an example of it, the truth of the matter is this is all template that they have
[49:12.560 --> 49:21.560]  So it would have been easy enough for them to look up the case sites to find out what the elements for each one, the causes of action
[49:21.560 --> 49:25.560]  For that matter they could have broken out O'Connor's to look them up
[49:25.560 --> 49:34.560]  And put the elements of each one of the causes of action in there, and they'd have had that sewn up tight, but they don't do it
[49:34.560 --> 49:41.560]  They've only had to do it to have done that once in order to perfect their template
[49:41.560 --> 49:51.560]  Yeah, that was all it would take, I go out of my way to write the cause of action in the precise wording that I find in O'Connor's
[49:51.560 --> 49:54.560]  So when the court reads it, they say, look at O'Connor's
[49:54.560 --> 49:59.560]  That might have had to have changed the date a little bit, but that would be about it
[49:59.560 --> 50:01.560]  Wait, I missed that, I was talking as civilist
[50:01.560 --> 50:04.560]  I'm sorry, I think I may have stepped on you
[50:04.560 --> 50:09.560]  You might have to change the dates of the amount, but that would be about it
[50:09.560 --> 50:14.560]  Yes, a cause of action once it's stated is pretty straightforward
[50:14.560 --> 50:23.560]  And if they did that, it would be simple enough to look at it and say have I met all the requirements
[50:23.560 --> 50:29.560]  Did I send a bill? Can I show that the bill was not contested?
[50:29.560 --> 50:34.560]  Can I show that it wasn't paid?
[50:34.560 --> 50:42.560]  Well, you remember back when I first started on this call, I said send out a letter of dispute and demand verification
[50:42.560 --> 50:52.560]  That letter in and of itself defeats that cause of action if they actually had put all the elements of that cause of action in place
[50:52.560 --> 51:02.560]  Because they could no longer use the open account cause of action because you did dispute it
[51:02.560 --> 51:11.560]  I was listening to the jurisdiction area the other day, I went to the jurisdiction area meeting in Austin here
[51:11.560 --> 51:24.560]  And was listening to Dr. Graves' video and very good points he made about not telling your opponent everything
[51:24.560 --> 51:34.560]  If the opponent fails to establish all of the elements of the cause of action, all you have to do is deny it
[51:34.560 --> 51:39.560]  You don't have to tell him why you denied it, just deny it
[51:39.560 --> 51:45.560]  And especially in your original answers, don't give him anything extra
[51:45.560 --> 51:51.560]  And so all you have to do is look at it and if he didn't do everything just right, then you just simply deny it
[51:51.560 --> 51:57.560]  And now it's up to him to prove it up
[51:57.560 --> 52:12.560]  Well yeah, or if in the case of the credit card situation is that you could at that point in time make the affirmative defense assertion
[52:12.560 --> 52:20.560]  That they have failed to state a claim upon which release could be granted and move the court for dismissal
[52:20.560 --> 52:30.560]  Okay, with these credit card cases, if you get past that part
[52:30.560 --> 52:37.560]  If they get past the stating the proper cause of action and affidavit
[52:37.560 --> 52:42.560]  And a proper affidavit, a competent fact witness
[52:42.560 --> 52:45.560]  Where do we go from there? Where's the next step?
[52:45.560 --> 52:55.560]  Well, you need to require that they bring in a competent fact witness because you can't cross-examine an affidavit
[52:55.560 --> 52:58.560]  And that's why the affidavit is hearsay
[52:58.560 --> 52:59.560]  That's right
[52:59.560 --> 53:03.560]  It's like me bringing in a photocopy of a $100 bill
[53:03.560 --> 53:16.560]  That's more like the ex parte communication between the cop and the magistrate seeking a warrant for your arrest
[53:16.560 --> 53:17.560]  Okay
[53:17.560 --> 53:20.560]  That's an ex parte communication, isn't it?
[53:20.560 --> 53:21.560]  Yes it is
[53:21.560 --> 53:35.560]  Say a policeman is called to a scene of a supposed crime and he comes and talks to me and I tell him that I observed this other person commit this horrible crime
[53:35.560 --> 53:40.560]  If the policeman believes me, that's sufficient evidence for him to file a criminal complaint
[53:40.560 --> 53:41.560]  Right
[53:41.560 --> 53:51.560]  And then the magistrate would, the policeman may seek a warrant and get the magistrate to hold a hearing
[53:51.560 --> 53:58.560]  But his testimony, while it would be sufficient to invoke the subject matter of jurisdiction of the magistrate, he can't testify to what I told him
[53:58.560 --> 54:00.560]  No, they've got to bring you in
[54:00.560 --> 54:02.560]  Oh, he's got to bring me in
[54:02.560 --> 54:07.560]  You have to be subject to the test and fire of cross-examination
[54:07.560 --> 54:15.560]  Well, in getting a warrant, you don't because the other guy hasn't been arrested yet
[54:15.560 --> 54:23.560]  However, that's why there's the requirement that when the person is arrested, he's to be brought back before this magistrate
[54:23.560 --> 54:31.560]  And now the magistrate is to reconvene that examining trial with both people present
[54:31.560 --> 54:34.560]  And this is essentially the same as in the civil
[54:34.560 --> 54:35.560]  Right
[54:35.560 --> 54:43.560]  The affidavit can give the court jurisdiction to begin the litigation process
[54:43.560 --> 54:49.560]  But insufficient to support any kind of determination by the court
[54:49.560 --> 54:55.560]  Professor Court can hear the affidavit in court as it's your say
[54:55.560 --> 54:56.560]  Right
[54:56.560 --> 54:59.560]  I hope this makes sense to everybody
[54:59.560 --> 55:09.560]  I'm going to shift a little bit further down the road on this so that people have an idea of some of the traps that are laid for them
[55:09.560 --> 55:13.560]  They'll receive the summons in the mail, the summons and complaint in the mail
[55:13.560 --> 55:19.560]  And they'll say that they're going to have a pretrial hearing on such and such a date
[55:19.560 --> 55:24.560]  But what they don't tell you is what's actually going to go on
[55:24.560 --> 55:30.560]  And they get you down into a courtroom and inside the bar there might be four or five tables
[55:30.560 --> 55:37.560]  And at each one of those tables there will be an attorney from a different law firm
[55:37.560 --> 55:44.560]  And then they'll call your name and they'll send you up to whoever the attorney is that's representing that law firm at that time
[55:44.560 --> 55:49.560]  And they'll try to negotiate a deal with you right there on the spot
[55:49.560 --> 55:54.560]  If they're unable to negotiate a deal with you on the spot they'll tell you to have a seat at the back of the room
[55:54.560 --> 56:04.560]  And about two hours later they hold the trial
[56:04.560 --> 56:09.560]  But you go down there on the basis you think they're having a pretrial hearing
[56:09.560 --> 56:17.560]  And what they've done is they've pushed you up for arbitration or mediation and tried to negotiate a deal with you
[56:17.560 --> 56:23.560]  And if you're not cooperated they have you sit in the back of the room and the next thing you know you're at trial and you're not prepared
[56:23.560 --> 56:28.560]  Yeah, but that's nondisclosure and failure to notify
[56:28.560 --> 56:36.560]  Well, Eddie, what you have to realize here is that it's a function of custom
[56:36.560 --> 56:42.560]  And they can get away with a lawful lot if that's their customary way of doing things
[56:42.560 --> 56:51.560]  Oh yeah, I mean, I understand the concept, but that just means we have to be more prepared and on our toes to confront it
[56:51.560 --> 56:54.560]  That goes to Hall v. State
[56:54.560 --> 56:59.560]  The reason why I mention this is so that people don't step on that landmine
[56:59.560 --> 57:07.560]  Good. If you get a summons it must tell you what the purpose of the hearing is
[57:07.560 --> 57:11.560]  If it does not it's insufficient
[57:11.560 --> 57:21.560]  And the last time I was summoned to court when I finally got in front of the judge I asked the judge what am I doing here
[57:21.560 --> 57:28.560]  The judge said well we summoned you to this hearing I understand that and I've got the summons here but it doesn't tell me why I'm here
[57:28.560 --> 57:34.560]  So I had no idea how to prepare for this hearing
[57:34.560 --> 57:36.560]  That's the problem
[57:36.560 --> 57:41.560]  If you don't know how to prepare for the hearing then you're subject to surprise
[57:41.560 --> 57:44.560]  And in civil that's forbidden
[57:44.560 --> 57:50.560]  The only time you can have surprise is a criminal defendant can surprise the prosecution
[57:50.560 --> 57:53.560]  The prosecution cannot surprise the defendant
[57:53.560 --> 57:57.560]  In civil nobody can surprise anybody
[57:57.560 --> 58:00.560]  They do their best
[58:00.560 --> 58:02.560]  They try to but they're not
[58:02.560 --> 58:04.560]  It violates the rule
[58:04.560 --> 58:10.560]  Last time I was summoned down to the courthouse for a pre-trial hearing I dropped a removal on them
[58:10.560 --> 58:14.560]  They almost wet their pants when I designed
[58:14.560 --> 58:17.560]  We're at the top of the hour about to go to break here
[58:17.560 --> 58:20.560]  Do you guys want to start taking calls after this?
[58:20.560 --> 58:21.560]  Sure
[58:21.560 --> 58:25.560]  I'm sure you have other material do you want to present first?
[58:25.560 --> 58:27.560]  You want to start taking calls about 9.15?
[58:27.560 --> 58:35.560]  Well actually the only real thing that I want to point out to people and to emphasize to people is
[58:35.560 --> 58:37.560]  Who said and prove it?
[58:37.560 --> 58:39.560]  And I object, I object, I object
[58:39.560 --> 58:41.560]  I don't care what it is
[58:41.560 --> 58:43.560]  We're going to break
[58:43.560 --> 58:47.560]  Callers you're welcome to call on 512-646-1984
[58:47.560 --> 58:49.560]  This is the rule of law
[58:49.560 --> 58:51.560]  We have a very special guest Jeff Sedgwick
[58:51.560 --> 58:57.560]  We'll be right back
[59:21.560 --> 59:31.560]  Music
[59:31.560 --> 59:41.560]  Music
[59:41.560 --> 59:51.560]  Music
[59:51.560 --> 01:00:01.560]  Music
[01:00:01.560 --> 01:00:04.560]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net
[01:00:04.560 --> 01:00:09.560]  The British government plans to rush through measures allowing people with suspected mental health problems
[01:00:09.560 --> 01:00:13.560]  To be quickly detained in the event of a swine flu outbreak
[01:00:13.560 --> 01:00:19.560]  The changes mean it would take only one doctor to have a person put on medication without their consent
[01:00:19.560 --> 01:00:26.560]  In Pittsburgh National Guard and police attacked demonstrators with tear gas and deployed sound cannons Thursday
[01:00:26.560 --> 01:00:31.560]  Saying they had no permit to protest outside the G20 summit
[01:00:31.560 --> 01:00:35.560]  Earlier police used ear splitting sound weapons and pepper spray
[01:00:35.560 --> 01:00:40.560]  Yemeni government troops were locked in heavy fighting Thursday with Shiite rebels
[01:00:40.560 --> 01:00:46.560]  And at least 50 people have been killed in the past two days
[01:00:46.560 --> 01:00:52.560]  A new cluster bomb designed to spray 40 projectiles of molten copper
[01:00:52.560 --> 01:00:57.560]  Is being used in a campaign to derail the anti-cluster bomb treaty
[01:00:57.560 --> 01:01:04.560]  But the sensor fused weapon manufactured by Textron violates terms of an international treaty
[01:01:04.560 --> 01:01:07.560]  Limiting cluster bombs to 10 bomblets
[01:01:07.560 --> 01:01:15.560]  The pending treaty signed by 98 nations last year in Oslo has been sought for decades by human rights groups
[01:01:15.560 --> 01:01:22.560]  Which say cluster bombs kill indiscriminately and leave behind duds that kill or maim unsuspecting civilians
[01:01:22.560 --> 01:01:26.560]  Now Textron, supported by the Pentagon and the State Department
[01:01:26.560 --> 01:01:31.560]  Is campaigning to derail the cluster bomb treaty and write a new set of rules
[01:01:31.560 --> 01:01:37.560]  Textron says 99% of the bomblets released by the sensor fused weapon explode in combat
[01:01:37.560 --> 01:01:43.560]  Leaving only a tiny amount of unexploded ordnance, calling it a clean battlefield operation
[01:01:43.560 --> 01:01:48.560]  The US, Russia, China and Israel have refused to sign the Oslo treaty
[01:01:48.560 --> 01:01:54.560]  Barack Obama and leaders of Britain and France accused Iran Friday
[01:01:54.560 --> 01:01:59.560]  Of building a secret underground plant to manufacture nuclear fuel
[01:01:59.560 --> 01:02:03.560]  Saying it has hidden the covert operation from weapons inspectors for years
[01:02:03.560 --> 01:02:09.560]  Western officials claim the site is built inside a mountain near the holy city of Qom
[01:02:09.560 --> 01:02:17.560]  Obama said the Iranian nuclear program represents a direct challenge to the basic foundation of the non-proliferation regime
[01:02:17.560 --> 01:02:25.560]  French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Iran had two months to comply with international demands or face increased sanctions
[01:02:25.560 --> 01:02:30.560]  British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the level of deception by the Iranian government
[01:02:30.560 --> 01:02:37.560]  And the scale of what we believe is the breach of international commitments will shock and anger the entire international community
[01:02:37.560 --> 01:02:44.560]  The three leaders demanded Iran allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to conduct an immediate inspection
[01:02:44.560 --> 01:02:50.560]  Officials said the enrichment plant is not yet operating but could be by next year
[01:02:50.560 --> 01:02:55.560]  Top of the hour news brought to you by INN World Report
[01:03:21.560 --> 01:03:29.560]  This all according to the will of the Almighty
[01:03:29.560 --> 01:03:36.560]  I read his book and it says it cares not for the unsightly
[01:03:36.560 --> 01:03:45.560]  These warmongers come by that term rightly
[01:03:45.560 --> 01:03:52.560]  I won't pay for the war with my body Ain't gonna pay for the car with my money
[01:03:52.560 --> 01:03:59.560]  I won't pay for the fun with my body Their plans wicked and their logic shoddy
[01:03:59.560 --> 01:04:06.560]  Ain't gonna pay for the oil with my body I won't pay for the boys with my money
[01:04:06.560 --> 01:04:13.560]  Ain't gonna pay for the kids with my body The whole agenda smells funny
[01:04:13.560 --> 01:04:26.560]  I wanna fight in a war of my own That one would be less accident prone
[01:04:26.560 --> 01:04:32.560]  I wanna pay for war of my own
[01:04:32.560 --> 01:04:36.560]  Okay we are back
[01:04:36.560 --> 01:04:39.560]  We're fighting a war of our own
[01:04:39.560 --> 01:04:46.560]  Okay we've got a couple of callers on the line Rick and James but before we go to the calls Jeff you had a couple points you wanted to make
[01:04:46.560 --> 01:04:55.560]  Yeah I just wanted to sort of wrap things up with what we started off with was who said and prove it
[01:04:55.560 --> 01:05:01.560]  That's a very important context from which you should come
[01:05:01.560 --> 01:05:07.560]  And the other is to object to everything because anytime the attorney states a fact
[01:05:07.560 --> 01:05:12.560]  If you do not object to that then it will stand as a fact
[01:05:12.560 --> 01:05:17.560]  And he's not a competent fact witness he can't state facts
[01:05:17.560 --> 01:05:26.560]  So object and I even tell people to when the judge says that he's going to dismiss the case in their favor object to that too
[01:05:26.560 --> 01:05:31.560]  And the judge of course is going to cock his head to one side want to know why he's objecting to that
[01:05:31.560 --> 01:05:40.560]  And it's basically because you want it dismissed with prejudice so they can never come back
[01:05:40.560 --> 01:05:44.560]  And that's pretty much it
[01:05:44.560 --> 01:05:59.560]  Are there any other standard maneuvers that debt collectors try to pull or you mentioned Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
[01:05:59.560 --> 01:06:07.560]  Are there any relatively standard violations that these collectors tend to make
[01:06:07.560 --> 01:06:13.560]  Yes there are two of them that almost invariably will make
[01:06:13.560 --> 01:06:17.560]  They will make an incomplete Miranda statement
[01:06:17.560 --> 01:06:32.560]  It will say that they are a debt collector and any information that's given to them or provided to them could be used in the pursuit of their case for debt collection
[01:06:32.560 --> 01:06:38.560]  But they oftentimes will leave out that you have 30 days in which to dispute
[01:06:38.560 --> 01:06:41.560]  That's a violation
[01:06:41.560 --> 01:06:48.560]  Another violation that they'll do is that they'll put either half the Miranda in there or they'll put the whole Miranda in there
[01:06:48.560 --> 01:06:55.560]  And then they'll tell you now you've got 15 days in which to settle this debt or we're going to sue
[01:06:55.560 --> 01:06:57.560]  Well there's two violations right there
[01:06:57.560 --> 01:07:04.560]  They overshadow the 30 days you had in which to dispute and they threatened you
[01:07:04.560 --> 01:07:14.560]  And I've heard tales of people being threatened of being put in jail, we're going to come and get your kids, all kinds of things
[01:07:14.560 --> 01:07:17.560]  So that violates Fair Debt Collection Practices
[01:07:17.560 --> 01:07:21.560]  Oh yes and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the debt
[01:07:21.560 --> 01:07:26.560]  I mean you can have a judgment against you for $30,000 on a credit card
[01:07:26.560 --> 01:07:35.560]  It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, that has to do with the conduct of the attorney trying to collect the debt
[01:07:35.560 --> 01:07:43.560]  And how does the conduct of the attorney trying to collect the debt affect his standing to pursue?
[01:07:43.560 --> 01:08:00.560]  Well if you dispute it within the 30 days of the first letter and you demand verification and validation, they cannot pursue the debt until it is verified and validated
[01:08:00.560 --> 01:08:03.560]  They have to stop
[01:08:03.560 --> 01:08:14.560]  And verified and validated is not simply a computer printout of the account records
[01:08:14.560 --> 01:08:20.560]  And Jeff what if it's not disputed within that first 30 days, what if somebody doesn't see the letter or something?
[01:08:20.560 --> 01:08:28.560]  Well if you have evidence that you sent it and you sent it within the 30 days whether they saw it or not is immaterial
[01:08:28.560 --> 01:08:38.560]  No no no what I'm saying is what if the person who is trying to fight this did not respond within the 30 days, what if they didn't see the letter?
[01:08:38.560 --> 01:08:45.560]  They can continue to collect but they still have to respond to the dispute and the validation
[01:08:45.560 --> 01:08:49.560]  So are you saying that it doesn't matter whether you respond within 30 days or not?
[01:08:49.560 --> 01:09:00.560]  No I'm not saying that at all, it makes a great deal of difference because if they don't follow through with the validation and verification, that's a violation
[01:09:00.560 --> 01:09:11.560]  But if you didn't do the demand for verification and validation within the first 30 days, they can still continue to attempt to collect
[01:09:11.560 --> 01:09:20.560]  As opposed to if you did it within the first 30 days of being notified of their attempt to collect, they have to cease attempting to collect
[01:09:20.560 --> 01:09:24.560]  Okay but you can still dispute it after that 30 days
[01:09:24.560 --> 01:09:26.560]  Yes and you should
[01:09:26.560 --> 01:09:33.560]  You should because remember what we talked about later on in the conversation when they used the open account allegation
[01:09:33.560 --> 01:09:40.560]  One of the elements was you agreed to the bill, no you didn't, you disputed it
[01:09:40.560 --> 01:09:48.560]  Okay so basically you're not waiving your right to dispute or to ask for verification or validation just because you're not responding within the 30 days
[01:09:48.560 --> 01:09:56.560]  No, you're not waiving that, you're just waiving the legal requirement for them to cease collection attempts until it's been verified
[01:09:56.560 --> 01:09:58.560]  Okay, all right, very good
[01:09:58.560 --> 01:10:10.560]  And if you want to start opening up for questions, yes let's take some calls
[01:10:10.560 --> 01:10:15.560]  Okay we've got Rick from California, Rick thanks for calling in, what's your question for our guest tonight?
[01:10:15.560 --> 01:10:23.560]  How's it going, it's good to see you guys are doing a great show and I'm going to right now send you Randy
[01:10:23.560 --> 01:10:30.560]  What I usually use when I get a letter from debt collection agency, I just sent it right now
[01:10:30.560 --> 01:10:42.560]  But my question to your guest speaker was is there an outline on more or less what you do whenever you go to court from beginning to end
[01:10:42.560 --> 01:10:47.560]  Or do you charge for that just because I mean I have my own things but you know you can never know too much
[01:10:47.560 --> 01:10:55.560]  I have not sat down and written out an outline for it but I can tell you it parallels jurisdiction very closely
[01:10:55.560 --> 01:10:56.560]  Okay
[01:10:56.560 --> 01:10:57.560]  Okay
[01:10:57.560 --> 01:11:05.560]  And if you've got a credit card issue let me tell you a little something about California that's just absolutely positively wonderful
[01:11:05.560 --> 01:11:10.560]  There are some very very serious requirements for notice and service
[01:11:10.560 --> 01:11:13.560]  Okay
[01:11:13.560 --> 01:11:16.560]  Do you understand what notice and service is, do you not Rick?
[01:11:16.560 --> 01:11:20.560]  Yes, yes when they say they have to notify you
[01:11:20.560 --> 01:11:32.560]  My suggestion to you is go look up those requirements, I've not come across a single California attorney yet that follows them
[01:11:32.560 --> 01:11:37.560]  You don't understand what a monster we've created in Rick
[01:11:37.560 --> 01:11:45.560]  Yes I do, I do, I know Rick's story quite well, I've been following Rick for what a year now
[01:11:45.560 --> 01:11:46.560]  Really?
[01:11:46.560 --> 01:11:48.560]  Yes
[01:11:48.560 --> 01:11:55.560]  Yeah you hadn't called in in so long I figured you were in jail or something
[01:11:55.560 --> 01:12:04.560]  I can tell you this Rick, we have one fellow that we work with out in California
[01:12:04.560 --> 01:12:18.560]  He had the same debt collector sue him four times on the same debt and had the case dismissed each and every time
[01:12:18.560 --> 01:12:23.560]  Because he failed to follow the rules for proper service and notice
[01:12:23.560 --> 01:12:29.560]  You'd have thought the first time he screwed up he had gotten it right four times
[01:12:29.560 --> 01:12:36.560]  The case had been thrown out of court because he failed to follow the requirements for service and notice
[01:12:36.560 --> 01:12:41.560]  It would seem like at that point he could go after him for sanctions
[01:12:41.560 --> 01:12:52.560]  He wasn't real interested, this was not a pursuit for him, this was getting out, this was basically getting the guy off his back and getting out from under
[01:12:52.560 --> 01:12:54.560]  You couldn't even get him for barry tree as well?
[01:12:54.560 --> 01:13:01.560]  There's a whole bunch of things he could have gotten him for, including mispractice and malpractice
[01:13:01.560 --> 01:13:07.560]  Okay Rick do you have any other questions?
[01:13:07.560 --> 01:13:14.560]  Okay Chanel I guess that's it, I'm just going to say one last thing, you guys are awesome and thank you once again
[01:13:14.560 --> 01:13:16.560]  Thank you Rick, appreciate that
[01:13:16.560 --> 01:13:22.560]  And just to emphasize Rick, I run very close to what Jurisdictionary does
[01:13:22.560 --> 01:13:26.560]  Okay thank you
[01:13:26.560 --> 01:13:27.560]  You're welcome
[01:13:27.560 --> 01:13:28.560]  Thank you Rick
[01:13:28.560 --> 01:13:34.560]  Okay we're going to move on now to James in Texas
[01:13:34.560 --> 01:13:38.560]  Okay James thanks for calling in, what's on your mind tonight, what is your question for our guest?
[01:13:38.560 --> 01:13:43.560]  Okay I'm a novice, I don't have Jurisdictionary so I'm going to ask some simple questions
[01:13:43.560 --> 01:13:51.560]  I had a credit card debt maybe like five years ago, I've moved many times to avoid the mail coming to me
[01:13:51.560 --> 01:14:01.560]  So I don't have any records of any of this stuff except for maybe the first couple of letters that were sent to me for deficiency or whatever
[01:14:01.560 --> 01:14:05.560]  So what is my first step in combating this debt?
[01:14:05.560 --> 01:14:07.560]  Is it still active?
[01:14:07.560 --> 01:14:12.560]  Like I said it's been about five years since I've even dealt with it
[01:14:12.560 --> 01:14:18.560]  Well my suggestion to you is to go back and check the statute of limitations for the state you're in
[01:14:18.560 --> 01:14:20.560]  I think it's seven years
[01:14:20.560 --> 01:14:25.560]  In this state it's three for an open account which is a credit card account
[01:14:25.560 --> 01:14:33.560]  I think Rhode Island is ten and I think Texas is either three or six
[01:14:33.560 --> 01:14:37.560]  So that would go off your credit at that point?
[01:14:37.560 --> 01:14:40.560]  No, it just means they can't sue you anymore
[01:14:40.560 --> 01:14:52.560]  Well wait a minute Jeff, I thought that all unsecured debt had to be charged off after 180 days, that that was federal law
[01:14:52.560 --> 01:15:01.560]  That's an incomplete statement, what I refer to as typical American shorthand
[01:15:01.560 --> 01:15:08.560]  It has to be written off in 180 days in order for the creditor to write it off on his taxes
[01:15:08.560 --> 01:15:10.560]  I thought they were required to do that
[01:15:10.560 --> 01:15:13.560]  In order to write it off on their taxes
[01:15:13.560 --> 01:15:17.560]  But if they don't want to write it off on their taxes then they can just carry it over
[01:15:17.560 --> 01:15:18.560]  Yes
[01:15:18.560 --> 01:15:23.560]  But they want to write it off on their taxes because basically they get the money back, they zero out the books
[01:15:23.560 --> 01:15:30.560]  Now if they write it off on their taxes and charge off the account then that means the debt no longer exists anymore
[01:15:30.560 --> 01:15:33.560]  They can't sell it after that anymore, is that correct?
[01:15:33.560 --> 01:15:38.560]  Back at the beginning of the conversation we talked about the photocopy of a $100 bill
[01:15:38.560 --> 01:15:43.560]  They're not selling the debt, they're selling the evidence of debt
[01:15:43.560 --> 01:15:45.560]  Okay
[01:15:45.560 --> 01:15:47.560]  Okay
[01:15:47.560 --> 01:15:59.560]  And there's another thing that I have not mentioned is that there is an actual GAO report to Congress that talks about the 180 day issue that you just mentioned
[01:15:59.560 --> 01:16:09.560]  But it also talks about another issue and that is bad debt insurance that the bank collects
[01:16:09.560 --> 01:16:16.560]  That gives rise to who is the real holder in due course, did they collect on the insurance?
[01:16:16.560 --> 01:16:23.560]  If they did, is not the insurance company the actual holder in due course?
[01:16:23.560 --> 01:16:26.560]  I think I can address that, no
[01:16:26.560 --> 01:16:33.560]  Because the insurance company merely insures against the loss
[01:16:33.560 --> 01:16:43.560]  When the insurance company has to pay off the insurance company accrues no liability, you accrue no liability toward the insurance company
[01:16:43.560 --> 01:16:50.560]  They have nothing to do with you, they don't get a lien against you because they had to pay off, that was their contract with the other individual
[01:16:50.560 --> 01:16:54.560]  I had a friend that had a large stereo system stole from his house
[01:16:54.560 --> 01:17:01.560]  The insurance company paid him off, the police found the stereo system and gave it back to him, he called the insurance company
[01:17:01.560 --> 01:17:05.560]  And wanted to know what to do with his stereo system, they said that's yours
[01:17:05.560 --> 01:17:07.560]  Okay
[01:17:07.560 --> 01:17:15.560]  They insured that it wouldn't be against being stolen, it was stolen, the fact that you got it back doesn't make any difference to us
[01:17:15.560 --> 01:17:21.560]  So I don't think that would invoke the insurance company with any right at all
[01:17:21.560 --> 01:17:30.560]  Well it was a question that came up for me and nobody really had an answer for me until now, thank you
[01:17:30.560 --> 01:17:41.560]  So James, James from Texas is talking about this statute of limitations for how long they can go back after you for the debt
[01:17:41.560 --> 01:17:43.560]  Right
[01:17:43.560 --> 01:17:53.560]  Another thing, a couple more things to add on top of that, check out what the statute of limitations are for the state in which the creditor is
[01:17:53.560 --> 01:18:02.560]  And check to see if your state goes by their statute of limitations or yours
[01:18:02.560 --> 01:18:12.560]  Case in point on that was a Florida case, in Florida they have a statute that they use the statute of limitation where the creditor is domesticated
[01:18:12.560 --> 01:18:25.560]  And because what was really convenient for the particular debtor at that point in time was the statute of limitations for that state had run before it would have run in Florida
[01:18:25.560 --> 01:18:35.560]  And because of that they were able to defeat the case on Virginia's statute of limitations instead of Florida's
[01:18:35.560 --> 01:18:45.560]  Now Jeff let me ask you this just to go along with what James is asking, if you can show, I mean usually they'll tell you in a letter
[01:18:45.560 --> 01:18:51.560]  If they've charged off your account then they can't still come back after you for the debt right, they charged it off
[01:18:51.560 --> 01:19:04.560]  Well actually yes they can, they've taken it off the books insofar as being an asset and liability but the debt's still there, so yes they can
[01:19:04.560 --> 01:19:12.560]  But if they've collected the insurance on it, it does begin to beg the question of what is it that they're selling
[01:19:12.560 --> 01:19:21.560]  When they're selling evidence of debt to these wholesale houses, to the mercantile exchange in Chicago
[01:19:21.560 --> 01:19:23.560]  And what good does that do them
[01:19:23.560 --> 01:19:30.560]  Well they get a little bit of money for evidence of debt
[01:19:30.560 --> 01:19:32.560]  But the debt collector then
[01:19:32.560 --> 01:19:34.560]  Goes and collects on the face value
[01:19:34.560 --> 01:19:38.560]  Yeah he has no valid claim because he only has
[01:19:38.560 --> 01:19:46.560]  But you see the difficulty there is you can't prove that that's what happened, you don't have the evidence of that
[01:19:46.560 --> 01:19:48.560]  That makes it very difficult
[01:19:48.560 --> 01:19:58.560]  All I have to do is challenge the standing of the petitioner and he has to prove upstanding
[01:19:58.560 --> 01:20:01.560]  Well it also goes to agency as well
[01:20:01.560 --> 01:20:06.560]  Yeah agency, that's how he establishes standing
[01:20:06.560 --> 01:20:11.560]  The agent would have to come in and testify
[01:20:11.560 --> 01:20:19.560]  I'm sorry, the principal would have to testify either by direct affidavit or direct testimony
[01:20:19.560 --> 01:20:20.560]  Right
[01:20:20.560 --> 01:20:30.560]  That in fact this person does represent me for the collection of this debt or he would have to have a contract of sale of the debt from the one person to the other
[01:20:30.560 --> 01:20:35.560]  Something to establish that he has standing to come before the court
[01:20:35.560 --> 01:20:40.560]  That's based on a challenge and people knowing to make the challenge
[01:20:40.560 --> 01:20:50.560]  What they often times do though is they'll submit an affidavit that supposedly came from somebody who is a custodian of records for the particular creditor
[01:20:50.560 --> 01:20:58.560]  And they will assert that either they're personally familiar with or that they actually have first hand knowledge
[01:20:58.560 --> 01:21:08.560]  And as I mentioned earlier, one of the things that we've discovered is that asking most often is somebody in the law firm's office
[01:21:08.560 --> 01:21:12.560]  And if you can establish that, you've established fraud
[01:21:12.560 --> 01:21:15.560]  Oh you've established all kinds of crimes
[01:21:15.560 --> 01:21:18.560]  And the fraud mitigates everything
[01:21:18.560 --> 01:21:35.560]  You can demand from the one who commits the fraud triple the amount they would have received had their fraudulent act succeeded
[01:21:35.560 --> 01:21:36.560]  Right
[01:21:36.560 --> 01:21:43.560]  This is something I just came across in mortgage where if they defraud you on your mortgage
[01:21:43.560 --> 01:21:54.560]  Then the amount of profit they would have received from the mortgage if it went to term is what you can sue for in a triplicate
[01:21:54.560 --> 01:22:00.560]  Not just the amount that you actually paid that you were actually defrauded of
[01:22:00.560 --> 01:22:01.560]  Right
[01:22:01.560 --> 01:22:05.560]  So that makes a really, really big difference
[01:22:05.560 --> 01:22:10.560]  And that Kansas Supreme Court decision is real heavy on that
[01:22:10.560 --> 01:22:13.560]  That was a sledgehammer
[01:22:13.560 --> 01:22:20.560]  Then again when I looked at it, the case was right, it went to really primary law
[01:22:20.560 --> 01:22:21.560]  Right
[01:22:21.560 --> 01:22:26.560]  This is a little bit off topic, it goes to mortgage
[01:22:26.560 --> 01:22:34.560]  But just about every mortgage company sells the note because they borrow the money
[01:22:34.560 --> 01:22:41.560]  Like we had Paul on and he worked for a company and they would borrow 50 million dollars from Wells Fargo
[01:22:41.560 --> 01:22:47.560]  And convert it into 20 and 30 year notes, but they had to pay that 50 million back in six months
[01:22:47.560 --> 01:22:50.560]  So they never intended to keep the note to start with
[01:22:50.560 --> 01:22:52.560]  Well let me ask you a question
[01:22:52.560 --> 01:22:54.560]  Let me ask you a question if I can Randy
[01:22:54.560 --> 01:23:05.560]  You have the original wet ink signature note in your hand and I've defaulted on it, can you foreclose?
[01:23:05.560 --> 01:23:10.560]  If I also have the deed of trust in my hand
[01:23:10.560 --> 01:23:11.560]  Very good
[01:23:11.560 --> 01:23:14.560]  I have to have the mortgage
[01:23:14.560 --> 01:23:17.560]  The mortgage company has the deed of trust
[01:23:17.560 --> 01:23:25.560]  But before they issue the mortgage, before they create the loan, they go to someone else and say
[01:23:25.560 --> 01:23:27.560]  Hey I've got this prospect here
[01:23:27.560 --> 01:23:31.560]  And they sign this deed of trust based on this deed of trust
[01:23:31.560 --> 01:23:34.560]  You give me this money and they say well sure
[01:23:34.560 --> 01:23:37.560]  So they give you the money, you sign the
[01:23:37.560 --> 01:23:42.560]  You create the money before they ever get the loan
[01:23:42.560 --> 01:23:49.560]  Then they get the loan and say it's $100,000 and the example is at 8%
[01:23:49.560 --> 01:23:55.560]  That will gain them $120,000 over the value of the note
[01:23:55.560 --> 01:23:58.560]  So it'll produce $120,000 in profit
[01:23:58.560 --> 01:24:02.560]  So they go to this other guy and say hey look, I've got this note
[01:24:02.560 --> 01:24:06.560]  It'll produce $220,000 at the end
[01:24:06.560 --> 01:24:09.560]  I'll sell it to you for $170,000
[01:24:09.560 --> 01:24:16.560]  So they got it for $100,000 what it cost to give the owner of the house what they wanted to sell it
[01:24:16.560 --> 01:24:19.560]  So they give $100,000 to the owner of the house
[01:24:19.560 --> 01:24:24.560]  Or they get the money from Wells Fargo and give that to the owner of the house
[01:24:24.560 --> 01:24:30.560]  And then they give the $100,000 back to Wells Fargo plus some interest and they keep the difference
[01:24:30.560 --> 01:24:32.560]  Problem
[01:24:32.560 --> 01:24:38.560]  They have the deed of trust but they don't have the note
[01:24:38.560 --> 01:24:41.560]  They don't have the security
[01:24:41.560 --> 01:24:45.560]  Someone has the security but he doesn't have the deed of trust
[01:24:45.560 --> 01:24:49.560]  The guy with the deed of trust has the authority to go after the property
[01:24:49.560 --> 01:24:52.560]  But he can't be harmed because he got all his money
[01:24:52.560 --> 01:24:54.560]  That's what this case said
[01:24:54.560 --> 01:24:59.560]  And the guy who can be harmed doesn't have the deed of trust
[01:24:59.560 --> 01:25:02.560]  So he has no way to go after the property
[01:25:02.560 --> 01:25:11.560]  When the mortgage and the deed of trust are separated, it creates a fatal flaw
[01:25:11.560 --> 01:25:12.560]  Yeah
[01:25:12.560 --> 01:25:17.560]  I was hoping we could find something like that in credit card stuff
[01:25:17.560 --> 01:25:21.560]  Hold on, James, our caller is still on the line
[01:25:21.560 --> 01:25:25.560]  James, are we answering your question or do you have any more questions?
[01:25:25.560 --> 01:25:28.560]  Just one more question and I'll take the answer off the air
[01:25:28.560 --> 01:25:35.560]  Since there's a statute of limitations on the credit card debt, is there a statute of limitations on the student loans?
[01:25:35.560 --> 01:25:37.560]  And thanks a lot
[01:25:37.560 --> 01:25:41.560]  Student loans is not something that I deal with
[01:25:41.560 --> 01:25:42.560]  I can answer
[01:25:42.560 --> 01:25:47.560]  There are other people who deal with student loans so I can't really say
[01:25:47.560 --> 01:25:49.560]  Okay, I can answer
[01:25:49.560 --> 01:25:51.560]  I will not venture a guess
[01:25:51.560 --> 01:25:54.560]  Okay, I can answer that
[01:25:54.560 --> 01:26:04.560]  No, when you retire, if there still exists such a thing as social security, they'll take it out of your social security
[01:26:04.560 --> 01:26:07.560]  Yeah, student loans are pretty hardcore
[01:26:07.560 --> 01:26:11.560]  Yeah, they'll take it out of you one way or the other
[01:26:11.560 --> 01:26:13.560]  Yeah, that one's harder to get
[01:26:13.560 --> 01:26:17.560]  They'll garnish your wages forever, they'll lever your bank accounts, they'll lien your assets
[01:26:17.560 --> 01:26:20.560]  Like Randy says, they'll take it out of your social security
[01:26:20.560 --> 01:26:25.560]  I mean, you don't want to mess with not paying back student loans, really
[01:26:25.560 --> 01:26:27.560]  Well, here's the deal though
[01:26:27.560 --> 01:26:30.560]  I used to actually work for Unipack as a lead programmer
[01:26:30.560 --> 01:26:39.560]  They are the company in the United States that warehouses all of the documentation for all the student loans made in America
[01:26:39.560 --> 01:26:41.560]  There are no original documents
[01:26:41.560 --> 01:26:45.560]  They're all scanned into an archival system
[01:26:45.560 --> 01:26:50.560]  They are put on worm drive libraries and that is the end of the original
[01:26:50.560 --> 01:26:56.560]  Then if you know how to fight it, then there's your out right there
[01:26:56.560 --> 01:26:58.560]  Rule 12
[01:26:58.560 --> 01:27:02.560]  Yeah, let's also address another thing that was his name, Charles
[01:27:02.560 --> 01:27:04.560]  It was James
[01:27:04.560 --> 01:27:10.560]  James, he had been moving around to avoid being served
[01:27:10.560 --> 01:27:18.560]  You have to be careful of that because if the process server detects that you're attempting to avoid service
[01:27:18.560 --> 01:27:27.560]  The creditor can go back to the judge and say, hey, we've made these attempts, he keeps moving, he's avoiding service
[01:27:27.560 --> 01:27:32.560]  And we want to be able to post an ad in the newspaper
[01:27:32.560 --> 01:27:35.560]  Petition for alternative service
[01:27:35.560 --> 01:27:43.560]  Right, or we want to be able to stick the summons on the front door of the last known address
[01:27:43.560 --> 01:27:47.560]  And once they do that, he's served
[01:27:47.560 --> 01:27:54.560]  And that was the point, I'm glad you brought that up because I did want to mention that if they have already done that
[01:27:54.560 --> 01:28:01.560]  And the prosecution has commenced, the clock stops
[01:28:01.560 --> 01:28:10.560]  It's not that they have three, four, five years to collect the debt, they have three, four, five years to file the action
[01:28:10.560 --> 01:28:11.560]  Right
[01:28:11.560 --> 01:28:15.560]  Once that's filed, then the clock stops running
[01:28:15.560 --> 01:28:25.560]  So if they actually have filed a case against him, and the clock is not running anymore, so don't do any good to try to hide from it
[01:28:25.560 --> 01:28:26.560]  Right
[01:28:26.560 --> 01:28:35.560]  But he can claim that he had no direct knowledge, now he can go back and should be able to start again, start at the beginning
[01:28:35.560 --> 01:28:42.560]  Well, maybe, but if they went in and got alternative service because he was dodging, uh-uh
[01:28:42.560 --> 01:28:51.560]  Yeah, they'd have to prove he was dodging, and the guy moves around a lot, then he can show reasonable causes to why they couldn't serve him
[01:28:51.560 --> 01:28:52.560]  Right
[01:28:52.560 --> 01:28:59.560]  And, you know, it's unlikely, you know, even though he said that, it's probably unlikely that he moved just for that reason
[01:28:59.560 --> 01:29:07.560]  So if he had other reasons for moving around and they couldn't find him, he could probably get back into a position to where he could challenge
[01:29:07.560 --> 01:29:11.560]  He could always challenge such a matter of jurisdiction in any case
[01:29:11.560 --> 01:29:13.560]  Well, that's true too, that's true
[01:29:13.560 --> 01:29:22.560]  First thing to go after is standing. Who are you? What authority do you have to be messing with me?
[01:29:22.560 --> 01:29:24.560]  Uh-huh
[01:29:24.560 --> 01:29:26.560]  Um
[01:29:26.560 --> 01:29:28.560]  Okay, listen, we're about to go to
[01:29:28.560 --> 01:29:29.560]  Verification, jurisdiction
[01:29:29.560 --> 01:29:33.560]  Hold on, hold on, Jeff, we're about to go to break, and we've got a full board of callers here
[01:29:33.560 --> 01:29:38.560]  So I'd like to try to go to some other of our callers when we get back on the other side
[01:29:38.560 --> 01:29:39.560]  Okay
[01:29:39.560 --> 01:29:47.560]  All right, you're listening to The Rule of Law, Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Eddie Craig, we're with our very special guest Jeff Sedgwick from Your Remedy is in the Law
[01:29:47.560 --> 01:29:48.560]  We'll be right back
[01:29:48.560 --> 01:30:12.560]  Music
[01:30:12.560 --> 01:30:30.560]  The patterns of growth that we choose to select here in San Marcos will not only affect the integrity of the perception of our city, but also tangible results in our neighborhoods, resulting in housing, job opportunities, transportation, and currency circulation
[01:30:30.560 --> 01:30:36.560]  Please join us to Saturday, September 26 at 730 at Wake the Dead Coffee House in San Marcos, Texas
[01:30:36.560 --> 01:30:56.560]  We'll have our campaign celebration kick off, and we'll rock on through midnight. For further details on this and other events, please visit the website at www.lmc4sanmarcos.com
[01:30:56.560 --> 01:31:11.560]  Music
[01:31:11.560 --> 01:31:29.560]  Music
[01:31:29.560 --> 01:31:31.560]  Okay, we are back
[01:31:31.560 --> 01:31:35.560]  We're taking your calls 512-646-1984
[01:31:35.560 --> 01:31:40.560]  We're going to go now to Kenny in California. Kenny, thanks for calling in. What's your question for our guest?
[01:31:40.560 --> 01:31:42.560]  Hello there, how y'all doing?
[01:31:42.560 --> 01:31:43.560]  Good
[01:31:43.560 --> 01:31:55.560]  Couple things, couple things. First I was going to see what you, what you all, all of your thoughts are on, on judgments that are signed by the deputy clerk and not the, not the judge
[01:31:55.560 --> 01:31:59.560]  Shoot them
[01:31:59.560 --> 01:32:04.560]  I wish I could
[01:32:04.560 --> 01:32:08.560]  Trust me, if that were legal, it would have already happened
[01:32:08.560 --> 01:32:18.560]  I know of no jurisdiction where the judge has authority to delegate judicial powers to a clerk
[01:32:18.560 --> 01:32:20.560]  I kind of figured that
[01:32:20.560 --> 01:32:22.560]  Yes, so how do we deal with that?
[01:32:22.560 --> 01:32:25.560]  You file impersonating a judicial officer against the clerk
[01:32:25.560 --> 01:32:27.560]  And what else can we do?
[01:32:27.560 --> 01:32:37.560]  That's what I did in Cherokee County and sued the, just sent the clerk notice of tort that I intend to sue the clerk personally
[01:32:37.560 --> 01:32:51.560]  Can we also somehow appeal the decision or bring it to the attention of a higher court that this judgment has no authority or enforcement power or cannot be forced because no judge signed it?
[01:32:51.560 --> 01:32:57.560]  I mean, are there other remedies other than just like dealing with the clerk, him or herself?
[01:32:57.560 --> 01:33:00.560]  He challenged the judgment as void on his face
[01:33:00.560 --> 01:33:05.560]  And that would be at a higher court, the next higher court up, like an appeal?
[01:33:05.560 --> 01:33:09.560]  Well, you would file in that court because the trial judge doesn't have his name on it
[01:33:09.560 --> 01:33:10.560]  Okay
[01:33:10.560 --> 01:33:18.560]  So you file a motion in the trial court to declare the judgment void
[01:33:18.560 --> 01:33:25.560]  It's not voidable, it is void, it has no force in effect because the judge did not sign it
[01:33:25.560 --> 01:33:34.560]  Now, if you can establish that the judge authorized the clerk to sign it, then you move to disqualify the judge
[01:33:34.560 --> 01:33:39.560]  Could you like bring this to the attention of the head administrative judge in the district?
[01:33:39.560 --> 01:33:46.560]  That's where a motion to disqualify would be commanded by law to go, at least in Texas
[01:33:46.560 --> 01:34:00.560]  But if it wasn't necessarily a motion to disqualify, but I mean just to raise the issue to the head administrative judge that, hey, look, there's some weird fishy things going on in this court over here that you are, you know, supposed to be looking after
[01:34:00.560 --> 01:34:05.560]  That way you would raise with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct or with your congressman
[01:34:05.560 --> 01:34:06.560]  Okay
[01:34:06.560 --> 01:34:08.560]  Or with a grand jury
[01:34:08.560 --> 01:34:16.560]  Okay, yeah, I just want to, you know, have a list here of possible remedies, you know, possible avenues to pursue
[01:34:16.560 --> 01:34:33.560]  Yeah, in Texas you can look at Chapter 52 rules of a pellet procedure, I believe, oh, I'm sorry, Chapter 52 code of criminal procedure is petition for court of inquiry
[01:34:33.560 --> 01:34:37.560]  That's a great way to bring it to the attention of the court
[01:34:37.560 --> 01:34:44.560]  You ask the court to inquire into improper practices by a public official
[01:34:44.560 --> 01:34:49.560]  And that's Chapter 52 code of criminal procedure
[01:34:49.560 --> 01:34:50.560]  Go ahead
[01:34:50.560 --> 01:34:52.560]  What did you call it? What did you call it, Randy?
[01:34:52.560 --> 01:34:55.560]  The court of inquiry
[01:34:55.560 --> 01:34:58.560]  Petition for court of inquiry
[01:34:58.560 --> 01:35:14.560]  Yes, now that's what it's called in Texas, but I almost certainly every state will have some form of that where you have reason to believe that public officials are
[01:35:14.560 --> 01:35:23.560]  Generally this is used to address where public officials are misusing funds, but that's just the most common place it's used
[01:35:23.560 --> 01:35:28.560]  It's also available to investigate public officials for other things
[01:35:28.560 --> 01:35:41.560]  Even if, say, Wisconsin doesn't have it, if they have no comparable statute, then you can go to Texas or somewhere else and pull the statute
[01:35:41.560 --> 01:35:53.560]  Full face and credit, but the courts consider that legislators are intelligent and effective and they write good law
[01:35:53.560 --> 01:36:08.560]  If my legislature has not addressed an issue, but another legislature has addressed that issue, then I can go to that other legislature and draw the law and use it in this particular instance
[01:36:08.560 --> 01:36:18.560]  However, if my legislature has addressed the issue, then I can't pull any other statute, but only where it's not addressed
[01:36:18.560 --> 01:36:27.560]  So if you don't have provision for investigating public officials, you can pull it from Texas or somewhere else
[01:36:27.560 --> 01:36:33.560]  Or probably I'm sure the Fed has it and ask the court to inquire into the actions
[01:36:33.560 --> 01:36:38.560]  Even if you don't have it, you can still do it just in a motion
[01:36:38.560 --> 01:36:47.560]  You can make an allegation to court and you invoke the judge's duty as a magistrate
[01:36:47.560 --> 01:36:57.560]  Notify him that you have reason to believe that improprieties have been committed and ask him to examine into your allegations or you can go to a grand jury
[01:36:57.560 --> 01:37:04.560]  In California, it's great because California's grand jury is set up to do just exactly that
[01:37:04.560 --> 01:37:15.560]  See, they don't only investigate into crime, they investigate into government whether or not the contracts are valid or being administered the way they're supposed to
[01:37:15.560 --> 01:37:20.560]  Whether governments are operating the way they're required to operate
[01:37:20.560 --> 01:37:26.560]  California grand juries have a lot of leeway
[01:37:26.560 --> 01:37:35.560]  I'm looking at a lot of different options as far as how to have quite a bit of fun with this at some point
[01:37:35.560 --> 01:37:37.560]  Just a little background for our guest speaker
[01:37:37.560 --> 01:37:46.560]  What we're talking about is a California case, third-party debt collection case that I've got my feet wet on and got ruled against
[01:37:46.560 --> 01:37:49.560]  And so then they've gone forward with a judgment
[01:37:49.560 --> 01:37:56.560]  And recently I got a document in the mail that's called an abstract of judgment
[01:37:56.560 --> 01:38:02.560]  And I'm also considering doing some things at the federal level
[01:38:02.560 --> 01:38:11.560]  One or several things, civil action in federal court against the plaintiff and possibly criminal complaints against several players
[01:38:11.560 --> 01:38:14.560]  Which might also include RICO action
[01:38:14.560 --> 01:38:19.560]  I'm still kind of digging into the RICO action thing to see if that's an avenue I want to take
[01:38:19.560 --> 01:38:23.560]  Do you have any comments on those?
[01:38:23.560 --> 01:38:26.560]  Do you have access to PACER?
[01:38:26.560 --> 01:38:28.560]  No, I don't
[01:38:28.560 --> 01:38:42.560]  You might want to acquire access to PACER and go to Colorado and look up RICO actions by RADER
[01:38:42.560 --> 01:38:44.560]  R-A-D-E-N
[01:38:44.560 --> 01:38:45.560]  Vivian RADER?
[01:38:45.560 --> 01:38:47.560]  Uh-huh
[01:38:47.560 --> 01:38:50.560]  Oh, I know them personally, interesting
[01:38:50.560 --> 01:38:51.560]  Little housewife
[01:38:51.560 --> 01:38:54.560]  PACER, Colorado, RICO, RADER is the case name
[01:38:54.560 --> 01:39:00.560]  It's RICO case and the plaintiff was RADER
[01:39:00.560 --> 01:39:01.560]  Right
[01:39:01.560 --> 01:39:02.560]  Vivian RADER
[01:39:02.560 --> 01:39:04.560]  PACER isn't free now
[01:39:04.560 --> 01:39:05.560]  Yeah
[01:39:05.560 --> 01:39:07.560]  They just charge you per document
[01:39:07.560 --> 01:39:19.560]  Yeah, they charge you per page of every document, not just per document, so be careful because you can easily run up several hundreds or even thousands of dollars on PACER just pulling a couple of cases
[01:39:19.560 --> 01:39:25.560]  Do a start page search for free PACER
[01:39:25.560 --> 01:39:34.560]  There's a group out there that everybody who downloads something from PACER is sending it to this group and they post it
[01:39:34.560 --> 01:39:39.560]  So if somebody else has donated it to this site, you can get it for free
[01:39:39.560 --> 01:39:44.560]  Oh, cool, well if that's a well-known case, it may very well have already been donated
[01:39:44.560 --> 01:39:48.560]  So just do a free PACER, you should get a hit on it
[01:39:48.560 --> 01:39:53.560]  Isn't it just eight cents a page here, Debra, or have they changed the pricing?
[01:39:53.560 --> 01:40:00.560]  I'm not sure, the last time I checked it was something around that, but the thing is if it's a very long case, it adds up fast
[01:40:00.560 --> 01:40:11.560]  That's true, but on the other hand, they don't bill you until you've gotten at least $10, and if you pass through their billing cycle without hitting $10, then they'll reset
[01:40:11.560 --> 01:40:28.560]  Right, right, just wanted to put that out there for the people to be careful, you know, because of the very long cases with lots of pleadings and lots of motions and memorandums of law and all this and that, I mean, you want to pull the whole case, I'm just warning you
[01:40:28.560 --> 01:40:33.560]  Right, well, in this particular case, it might be a good idea for him just to pull the final docket
[01:40:33.560 --> 01:40:34.560]  Right
[01:40:34.560 --> 01:40:43.560]  Because he's talking about RICO, and RICO is not easy, it's very convoluted, so pull the final docket
[01:40:43.560 --> 01:40:44.560]  That's why I said something
[01:40:44.560 --> 01:40:48.560]  You might get an idea of just what it is you're going to be up against
[01:40:48.560 --> 01:40:51.560]  Let me give you a little experience I had in California
[01:40:51.560 --> 01:41:05.560]  Someone I was trying to help there, they were looking at a RICO, and they talked to their attorney, and their attorney knew a guy who was a court litigator, and the attorney called this guy
[01:41:05.560 --> 01:41:25.560]  And the guy said, is your client there? And he said, yes, he is, well, put him on speakerphone, put him on speakerphone, and he said, here's the deal, RICO is very powerful, but your client needs to have deep pockets, because when you file a RICO suit, the attorneys get all the money
[01:41:25.560 --> 01:41:41.560]  And this would be the guy who would represent it, and he's being very straightforward that RICOs are very complex, and they take a lot of work, and if you have counsel, it'll cost you a lot of money, if you don't, it'll cost you a lot of work
[01:41:41.560 --> 01:41:48.560]  I tend to rattle RICO chains more than actually filing RICO
[01:41:48.560 --> 01:41:49.560]  Right
[01:41:49.560 --> 01:42:00.560]  I put in statements like they participated in predicate acts and furtherance of an ongoing criminal conspiracy
[01:42:00.560 --> 01:42:03.560]  That's what defines RICO
[01:42:03.560 --> 01:42:15.560]  So I use predicate acts and ongoing criminal conspiracy terms, and by that I simply threaten RICO without actually doing it
[01:42:15.560 --> 01:42:41.560]  The other thing is that, so that Nicole will know, Vivian Rader is the housewife, and I believe at one point in time she had four RICO actions going, and she was in and out of court, being thrown out, refiling, thrown out, refiling until she finally began to win
[01:42:41.560 --> 01:42:50.560]  It's not an easy road to hoe, and it's a lot easier to say RICO than to follow suit with it
[01:42:50.560 --> 01:42:51.560]  Right
[01:42:51.560 --> 01:43:12.560]  The intent here, in my particular case, is to create enough of a pucker, so to speak, that they go, you know, we just don't want to mess with this guy anymore, let's just drop, let's just go ahead and release the judgment and drop that thing
[01:43:12.560 --> 01:43:23.560]  The one way to do that is to ask the judge for his financial statement. This will increase the pucker factor
[01:43:23.560 --> 01:43:36.560]  Well, I'll tell you something else that will increase the pucker factor, and it will do so very dramatically and very quickly, and that's to shift it over to an FCCPA action or an FCRA action
[01:43:36.560 --> 01:43:40.560]  Okay, listen, we're going to break. Kenny, do you have any more questions for us?
[01:43:40.560 --> 01:43:44.560]  No, but I just wanted to judge based on what they just spoke about
[01:43:44.560 --> 01:43:48.560]  Okay, sure. You can hang on to the other side, and then we'll continue on to our other callers
[01:43:48.560 --> 01:43:59.560]  I want to get to Mark in Wisconsin. He's one of our affiliates. He's broadcasting us on the FM's up there in Madison. Big shout out to Madison, Coeur d'Alene, Ohio, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. We'll be right back
[01:43:59.560 --> 01:44:17.560]  Aerial spraying, chemtrails, the modified atmosphere, heavy metals and pesticides, carcinogens and chemical fibers all falling from the sky
[01:44:17.560 --> 01:44:30.560]  You have a choice to keep your body clean. Detoxify with micro plant powder from hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608
[01:44:30.560 --> 01:44:39.560]  It's odorless and tasteless and used in any liquid or food. Protect your family now with micro plant powder
[01:44:39.560 --> 01:44:48.560]  Cleaning out heavy metals, parasites and toxins. Order it now for daily intake and stock it now for long-term storage
[01:44:48.560 --> 01:45:10.560]  Visit hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608 today
[01:45:18.560 --> 01:45:46.560]  So as we sow, so shall we reap
[01:45:46.560 --> 01:45:52.560]  Okay, we're talking with Kenny in California. Kenny, go ahead. You had a couple more comments?
[01:45:52.560 --> 01:45:59.560]  Yeah, I just wanted to have Randy touch a little bit deeper on the comment he made about asking for a financial statement from the judge
[01:45:59.560 --> 01:46:16.560]  Oh yes, if the judge acts without subject matter jurisdiction or you can make a valid sounding claim that he acted without subject matter jurisdiction
[01:46:16.560 --> 01:46:24.560]  Then he's subject to civil litigation personally and you can ask for a personal financial statement
[01:46:24.560 --> 01:46:34.560]  I had someone send me an email from California about how judges in California are using properties to get loans against them
[01:46:34.560 --> 01:46:41.560]  And then paying the loans back. $200,000 loan, they pay it back in two years
[01:46:41.560 --> 01:46:48.560]  And they were wondering where does the money come from and suggested that people go look at the properties the judge owns
[01:46:48.560 --> 01:46:57.560]  And look at any liens against that property and reconveyances, reconveyances where they pay it back
[01:46:57.560 --> 01:47:05.560]  And you might find some surprising and interesting information that will give you a way to really clobber the judge
[01:47:05.560 --> 01:47:16.560]  What makes me believe that if I inquire with a judge as to getting a copy of this financial statement, what makes me think he's going to actually produce that?
[01:47:16.560 --> 01:47:24.560]  He's not, but that tells him you're coming after him personally
[01:47:24.560 --> 01:47:33.560]  You file against the judge personally, he's going to have to hire an attorney. Win, lose or draw, he's going to lose
[01:47:33.560 --> 01:47:42.560]  These are things that attorneys never do to judges. Only pro-says do this to judges and they hate that
[01:47:42.560 --> 01:47:47.560]  Because in that circumstance they have no leverage over you like to do an attorney
[01:47:47.560 --> 01:47:52.560]  So these are the ways you scare them. Now I wouldn't, unless you had a real good suit, I wouldn't sue him personally
[01:47:52.560 --> 01:48:00.560]  But you request his personal financial statement, you want to find out where all his investments are
[01:48:00.560 --> 01:48:09.560]  You want to see if he is somehow compromised in your case. Is he invested in a credit card company?
[01:48:09.560 --> 01:48:19.560]  You would do that by contacting him and writing directly, maybe registered mail, sending it to the court in his name, asking for a financial statement?
[01:48:19.560 --> 01:48:21.560]  No, do it in discovery
[01:48:21.560 --> 01:48:30.560]  Oh dude, we're already, Randy, remember this case is already in, the judgment against me, okay? This is long past discovery
[01:48:30.560 --> 01:48:35.560]  Yeah, I was going to say, what are you suing the judge to be able to even go through the discovery process here?
[01:48:35.560 --> 01:48:44.560]  Okay, back up to the beginning. Did the debt collector show standing?
[01:48:44.560 --> 01:48:50.560]  All of these things we talked about in the beginning of the show, did the debt collector do any of those things?
[01:48:50.560 --> 01:48:57.560]  Right, and the answer, of course, in my opinion now is no they didn't and there was never standing
[01:48:57.560 --> 01:49:07.560]  Okay, standing goes to subject matter jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged when?
[01:49:07.560 --> 01:49:09.560]  At any time
[01:49:09.560 --> 01:49:12.560]  No matter how remote in history
[01:49:12.560 --> 01:49:26.560]  See, I didn't know enough early along, this was my first experience tackling something like this, probably a little more to bite off than I could chew at the time
[01:49:26.560 --> 01:49:31.560]  But, you know, an incredible learning experience and it still is
[01:49:31.560 --> 01:49:39.560]  So, but basically what I'm trying to do now is get back on it and render the thing mute, really
[01:49:39.560 --> 01:49:49.560]  Go back and look at the original pleading. Does the original pleading, is it verified? Does it have a proper certificate of service? Were you served properly?
[01:49:49.560 --> 01:49:57.560]  Well, I researched the service and I believe that to be correct because I did find the statutes on that
[01:49:57.560 --> 01:50:05.560]  Verification is an interesting thing though. I noticed that with attorneys, attorneys never sign anything and there will be a perjury
[01:50:05.560 --> 01:50:08.560]  Well, there's a lot of things they don't have to
[01:50:08.560 --> 01:50:10.560]  Right
[01:50:10.560 --> 01:50:20.560]  However, the original petition, whoever the petitioner is hasn't signed that and it has to be verified
[01:50:20.560 --> 01:50:27.560]  If it's not verified, it does not, it's insufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court
[01:50:27.560 --> 01:50:30.560]  Just goes to the rules
[01:50:30.560 --> 01:50:33.560]  And that gives you a shot right at the judge
[01:50:33.560 --> 01:50:42.560]  We just took one here in Austin against the justice of the peace that accepted a petition that wasn't verified
[01:50:42.560 --> 01:50:46.560]  No verification, no subject matter jurisdiction
[01:50:46.560 --> 01:50:48.560]  So we sued the judge personally
[01:50:48.560 --> 01:50:55.560]  Now, would we be talking about the first judge involved or the judge that actually adjudicated the case in its finality?
[01:50:55.560 --> 01:51:07.560]  Every judge involved. The first thing the judge has to do is make absolutely certain he has subject matter jurisdiction
[01:51:07.560 --> 01:51:14.560]  If he doesn't, he's impersonating a judicial officer, has no authority and no immunity
[01:51:14.560 --> 01:51:23.560]  It is imperative that that judge makes sure that he has the authority to express the authority he asserts
[01:51:23.560 --> 01:51:27.560]  If he doesn't, he's personally liable, so that's why it's important for him
[01:51:27.560 --> 01:51:34.560]  You go back and look at the original pleadings, see if you can find something wrong with them
[01:51:34.560 --> 01:51:39.560]  Something that will go to standing of the petitioner
[01:51:39.560 --> 01:51:44.560]  Defined, defined, defined, verified
[01:51:44.560 --> 01:51:46.560]  Notary
[01:51:46.560 --> 01:51:49.560]  In law, verification is notarization
[01:51:49.560 --> 01:51:52.560]  Isn't it also under penalty of perjury as well?
[01:51:52.560 --> 01:52:04.560]  That's what a notary is, you swear under oath that all these statements you made are true and accurate to the best of your knowledge
[01:52:04.560 --> 01:52:07.560]  That must be done on an original petition
[01:52:07.560 --> 01:52:15.560]  If you file a subsequent document and it contains a statement of fact that's required to be verified just as a rule of thumb
[01:52:15.560 --> 01:52:22.560]  However, if you don't verify it and the opposing counsel or opposing side doesn't raise an objection, they waive it
[01:52:22.560 --> 01:52:29.560]  An original petition is filed with the court, not with the opposing party
[01:52:29.560 --> 01:52:38.560]  So it is the court who must ensure that that original petition is verified in order to give the court subject matter jurisdiction
[01:52:38.560 --> 01:52:44.560]  What if it's already gone, it's been adjudicated, gone to judgment and the case is already, you know, basically the case is
[01:52:44.560 --> 01:52:51.560]  Subject matter jurisdiction may be challenged no matter how remote in history
[01:52:51.560 --> 01:52:59.560]  If I go into the courtroom and I say, okay, Kenny, I want to be the judge
[01:52:59.560 --> 01:53:02.560]  And you say, sure, you can be the judge
[01:53:02.560 --> 01:53:05.560]  Do I become the judge?
[01:53:05.560 --> 01:53:06.560]  No
[01:53:06.560 --> 01:53:11.560]  There's nothing you can do to give me subject matter jurisdiction
[01:53:11.560 --> 01:53:15.560]  Would that have to have been brought up in an appeal or a different manner?
[01:53:15.560 --> 01:53:22.560]  No, subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged no matter how remote in history
[01:53:22.560 --> 01:53:29.560]  It can be challenged at any time, it cannot be waived, period
[01:53:29.560 --> 01:53:33.560]  That's the one thing you've got to go back on
[01:53:33.560 --> 01:53:38.560]  Now, we'd like us back to this financial statement thing that you were talking about earlier
[01:53:38.560 --> 01:53:43.560]  In my particular case, is that something that's relevant for me?
[01:53:43.560 --> 01:53:47.560]  You betcha, no subject matter jurisdiction?
[01:53:47.560 --> 01:53:57.560]  So how is he going to get this judge's financial statements at this point in time by challenging subject matter jurisdiction?
[01:53:57.560 --> 01:54:01.560]  What would be the process here, Randy?
[01:54:01.560 --> 01:54:08.560]  File a counter-complaint, a counter-complaint against the complainant and a cross-complaint against the judge
[01:54:08.560 --> 01:54:10.560]  That's what we just did here in Austin
[01:54:10.560 --> 01:54:12.560]  To challenge jurisdiction?
[01:54:12.560 --> 01:54:17.560]  We claim the court is without jurisdiction
[01:54:17.560 --> 01:54:19.560]  We're getting a little too confused here
[01:54:19.560 --> 01:54:28.560]  We're talking about saying the deputy clerk was a pertinent judicial officer
[01:54:28.560 --> 01:54:33.560]  And then claiming that the whole thing is void on its face, filing a motion to declare it void, motion disqualify, whatever it is
[01:54:33.560 --> 01:54:35.560]  Petition for court of inquiry
[01:54:35.560 --> 01:54:38.560]  And now we're talking about counter-claims
[01:54:38.560 --> 01:54:39.560]  It ain't going to happen right now
[01:54:39.560 --> 01:54:42.560]  It's going to have to get a lot simpler than this
[01:54:42.560 --> 01:54:44.560]  Okay, think of it this way
[01:54:44.560 --> 01:54:54.560]  I come in and I rent a building and I get me a robe and I climb up there on the bench and I send you a summons
[01:54:54.560 --> 01:54:57.560]  And you don't know any better, you think that's real summons
[01:54:57.560 --> 01:54:58.560]  Right?
[01:54:58.560 --> 01:55:02.560]  And you come into court and I act like a judge and you treat me like a judge
[01:55:02.560 --> 01:55:11.560]  And we go through this song and dance and I write a judgment against you or even have my clerk write the judgment against you
[01:55:11.560 --> 01:55:20.560]  At any point in time, do I accrue any authority to enter a ruling against you?
[01:55:20.560 --> 01:55:24.560]  Well no, I think we get that part but the thing is where do we go from here though?
[01:55:24.560 --> 01:55:30.560]  I mean he's saying like these are a lot of processes and steps that we're throwing out there
[01:55:30.560 --> 01:55:33.560]  Court of inquiry and counter-claims and all these things
[01:55:33.560 --> 01:55:38.560]  And so we need like just another, a more simple process to deal with this here
[01:55:38.560 --> 01:55:42.560]  Okay, court of inquiry is not appropriate for this particular issue
[01:55:42.560 --> 01:55:47.560]  Unless you want a separate court to examine into the behavior of this court
[01:55:47.560 --> 01:55:54.560]  For your purposes, you file a challenge to the subject matter jurisdiction of the court first
[01:55:54.560 --> 01:55:57.560]  And that would be in the same case?
[01:55:57.560 --> 01:56:09.560]  In the same case and a counter-claim against opposing, against the opposition and a cross-complaint against the judge
[01:56:09.560 --> 01:56:15.560]  You're claiming that the judge never had jurisdiction, never had any authority to mess with you to start with
[01:56:15.560 --> 01:56:20.560]  So he's a criminal perpetrator and he committed torts against you
[01:56:20.560 --> 01:56:24.560]  So basically three things that have to be filed, you're saying?
[01:56:24.560 --> 01:56:28.560]  They don't have to be, challenge to the jurisdiction can be filed all by itself
[01:56:28.560 --> 01:56:31.560]  Randy, can I get you to pause for just a moment?
[01:56:31.560 --> 01:56:33.560]  Sure
[01:56:33.560 --> 01:56:35.560]  Carl, what is your first name?
[01:56:35.560 --> 01:56:36.560]  Kenny
[01:56:36.560 --> 01:56:39.560]  Kenny, is this a credit card case?
[01:56:39.560 --> 01:56:40.560]  Absolutely, yeah
[01:56:40.560 --> 01:56:44.560]  Okay, let me make a suggestion to you
[01:56:44.560 --> 01:56:47.560]  When was the judgment handed down?
[01:56:47.560 --> 01:56:49.560]  It was like March this year
[01:56:49.560 --> 01:56:50.560]  March?
[01:56:50.560 --> 01:56:51.560]  Mm-hmm
[01:56:51.560 --> 01:56:54.560]  Okay, you don't have much time left
[01:56:54.560 --> 01:57:00.560]  So I would suggest that you take a look at an FDCPA action
[01:57:00.560 --> 01:57:04.560]  The FDCPA action will have nothing whatsoever to do with the debt
[01:57:04.560 --> 01:57:10.560]  Although 99% of the attorneys don't seem to know and realize that
[01:57:10.560 --> 01:57:14.560]  It's up in federal court and it's a paperwork war
[01:57:14.560 --> 01:57:21.560]  And it's all about the violations that the attorney perpetrated against you in the attempt to collect the debt
[01:57:21.560 --> 01:57:24.560]  You demand a jury trial
[01:57:24.560 --> 01:57:32.560]  Now, one of the things about this that's really nice is how many people who would sit on the jury have had exposure to a debt collector?
[01:57:32.560 --> 01:57:34.560]  A lot of them
[01:57:34.560 --> 01:57:38.560]  And they're going to have a bad taste in the amount
[01:57:38.560 --> 01:57:43.560]  And that debt collector is not going to want to go in there and face the jury
[01:57:43.560 --> 01:57:52.560]  Because the jury could give them virtually unlimited damages
[01:57:52.560 --> 01:57:58.560]  And I don't take unlimited damages against whatever their judgment is
[01:57:58.560 --> 01:58:01.560]  Interesting, even beyond the trivial damages?
[01:58:01.560 --> 01:58:03.560]  Yeah
[01:58:03.560 --> 01:58:08.560]  Here's the thing that's really sweet about this, Randy
[01:58:08.560 --> 01:58:12.560]  An FDCPA action is a civil rights action
[01:58:12.560 --> 01:58:14.560]  Oh, wonderful
[01:58:14.560 --> 01:58:16.560]  And it's a federal court action, yeah?
[01:58:16.560 --> 01:58:17.560]  Yeah
[01:58:17.560 --> 01:58:22.560]  Well, I'll jump off for the next call and when you all come back I'll listen for any other comments you have
[01:58:22.560 --> 01:58:24.560]  All right, thanks, Kenny
[01:58:24.560 --> 01:58:25.560]  Thanks, Deborah
[01:58:25.560 --> 01:58:27.560]  Okay, we're coming to the
[01:58:27.560 --> 01:58:29.560]  Sorry, didn't mean to be rude, Randy
[01:58:29.560 --> 01:58:32.560]  Okay, we're coming to the mid-show break
[01:58:32.560 --> 01:58:34.560]  We've got top of the hour news here
[01:58:34.560 --> 01:58:37.560]  And then we're going to go to Mark from Wisconsin, one of our affiliates
[01:58:37.560 --> 01:58:40.560]  Putting this out in the airwaves up there in Madison
[01:58:40.560 --> 01:58:43.560]  And then Dominic is right after that
[01:58:43.560 --> 01:58:45.560]  He's one of our longtime supporters here in Austin
[01:58:45.560 --> 01:58:47.560]  And we've got more on the line
[01:58:47.560 --> 01:58:49.560]  Matt, Gail, coming right up
[01:58:49.560 --> 01:58:52.560]  512-646-1984
[01:58:52.560 --> 01:58:55.560]  We're here with Jeff Sedgwick from Your Remedy is in the Law
[01:58:55.560 --> 01:59:02.560]  We'll be right back
[01:59:25.560 --> 01:59:30.560]  Hey, from the kitchen
[01:59:30.560 --> 01:59:41.560]  Hey, from the kitchen
[01:59:41.560 --> 01:59:43.560]  Mr. Hoffman, I'm a revisionist
[01:59:43.560 --> 01:59:45.560]  I'm not requiring mine
[01:59:45.560 --> 01:59:46.560]  It's only mine
[01:59:46.560 --> 01:59:47.560]  With a pencil and a pen
[01:59:47.560 --> 01:59:49.560]  And a light on a mission
[01:59:49.560 --> 01:59:52.560]  Unlock the secret of news prohibition
[01:59:52.560 --> 01:59:53.560]  Time to go
[01:59:53.560 --> 01:59:55.560]  She's upset and it's driving down her health
[01:59:55.560 --> 02:00:23.560]  And it's a feeling that I've been waiting on