ROL_2009-09-25_16k_Hr3-4.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:05.200]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[00:05.200 --> 00:10.880]  In the book, The Ground Truth, the story behind America's defense on 9-11, author John Farmer
[00:10.880 --> 00:15.560]  states the official version of 9-11 is almost entirely untrue.
[00:15.560 --> 00:21.480]  Farmer, dean of Rutgers University's School of Law, was responsible for drafting the original
[00:21.480 --> 00:23.520]  9-11 report.
[00:23.520 --> 00:28.620]  The Obama administration is asking Congress to create a new consumer financial protection
[00:28.620 --> 00:34.040]  agency to regulate consumer financial products from credit cards to mortgages.
[00:34.040 --> 00:39.320]  The US Chamber of Commerce is leading the fight against the proposed agency.
[00:39.320 --> 00:45.200]  The death toll from a US drone strike in Pakistan's Waziristan region has risen to 12.
[00:45.200 --> 00:51.760]  Since August 2008, nearly 60 such attacks have killed more than 550 people.
[00:51.760 --> 00:58.120]  The airstrikes allegedly target pro-Taliban militants, but Pakistani media say only one-sixth
[00:58.120 --> 01:03.840]  of the raids have targeted militant hideouts.
[01:03.840 --> 01:09.160]  General Stanley McChrystal's classified assessment of the war in Afghanistan concluded it would
[01:09.160 --> 01:14.400]  require 500,000 troops over five years to succeed.
[01:14.400 --> 01:19.720]  NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell obtained this figure from an independent source after it
[01:19.720 --> 01:22.720]  had been redacted from the declassified report.
[01:22.720 --> 01:27.640]  McChrystal warned that without an infusion of more troops, the war will likely result
[01:27.640 --> 01:29.000]  in failure.
[01:29.000 --> 01:34.440]  In light of McChrystal's report, Barack Obama is rethinking his Afghanistan strategy, taking
[01:34.440 --> 01:40.760]  into account 2009 is already the deadliest year for US forces since the war began.
[01:40.760 --> 01:47.120]  Fifty-one of the 738 soldiers who have lost their lives were killed last month alone,
[01:47.120 --> 01:51.720]  and the government mired in allegations of fraud and corruption has no hope of regaining
[01:51.720 --> 01:54.080]  the support of the Afghan people.
[01:54.080 --> 02:00.480]  A February poll found only 18 percent of Afghans support increasing the number of US troops.
[02:00.480 --> 02:08.480]  Finally, the presence of additional foreign forces strengthens the hand of Taliban recruiters.
[02:08.480 --> 02:13.440]  Tiger management chairman Julian Robertson says the US is too dependent on Japan and
[02:13.440 --> 02:19.080]  China buying up government debt, and the country could face severe economic problems if that
[02:19.080 --> 02:20.080]  stops.
[02:20.080 --> 02:26.280]  Robertson told CNBC, �It�s almost Armageddon if the Japanese and Chinese don�t buy our
[02:26.280 --> 02:31.400]  debt.� Robertson added, �If they stop buying our bonds, we could easily see inflation
[02:31.400 --> 02:36.440]  go to 15 to 20 percent.� Robertson said he doesn�t think the Chinese will stop buying
[02:36.440 --> 02:41.240]  US bonds, but the Japanese may eventually be forced to sell some of their long-term
[02:41.240 --> 02:42.240]  bonds.
[02:42.240 --> 02:47.400]  That�s much worse than not buying.� Robertson went on, �They�re buying almost exclusively
[02:47.400 --> 02:53.640]  short-term debt because we can�t sell the long-term debt, and people who borrow short-term
[02:53.640 --> 02:55.440]  really get burned.
[02:55.440 --> 03:19.800]  The US has to quit spending, cut back, start saving, and scale backward.�
[03:26.440 --> 03:43.920]  �Well, I received my remedy today, it came in a box, just like they say, I accepted it
[03:43.920 --> 03:53.680]  for value right away, it�s not sooner, not later, we are originators, and the pathway
[03:53.680 --> 04:01.800]  seems to get straighter every day, and I can take anything that belongs to me and put it
[04:01.800 --> 04:02.800]  to good use.�
[04:02.800 --> 04:11.040]  �Okay, we are back.� �Whatever is good for the gander is good for the goose.� �Little
[04:11.040 --> 04:18.800]  Route 1 music for you there.� �Okay, we are going now to Mark in Wisconsin.
[04:18.800 --> 04:23.920]  Mark, thanks for calling in, one of our affiliates, what�s on your mind tonight?
[04:23.920 --> 04:28.360]  �Good evening, excellent show, you should have this Jeff guy on more often, sounds pretty
[04:28.360 --> 04:36.160]  informative.� �Thanks.� �Thank you.� �I had a question for Randy and Deborah,
[04:36.160 --> 04:43.160]  my ox has been gored, and what happened is my daughter took my wife�s car to a community
[04:43.160 --> 04:50.600]  college and the parking lot flooded while she was inside, if you Google MATC flood you
[04:50.600 --> 04:57.600]  will see a picture of a bunch of flooded cars and one of those is mine.� �Anyway, apparently
[04:57.600 --> 05:02.520]  I haven�t verified this information yet, but I have heard that they got $1.5 million
[05:02.520 --> 05:08.000]  last year from the state to fix their parking lot, and for a green horn like me I am wondering
[05:08.000 --> 05:15.120]  what is the best cause of action to go to civil court with, and can I sue for three
[05:15.120 --> 05:21.960]  times damages?� �I don�t think so.� �No.� �Wait a minute, they were given
[05:21.960 --> 05:28.840]  the money to fix the parking lot and they never fixed it and that�s why it flooded.�
[05:28.840 --> 05:34.680]  �Unless they did something else with the money, if they did something else with the
[05:34.680 --> 05:39.480]  money then you probably have a punitive.� �Well they didn�t fix the parking lot
[05:39.480 --> 05:47.280]  with the money so obviously they did something else with it.� �If they are working on
[05:47.280 --> 05:54.240]  getting the parking lot done and just running into delays and after delays then you can
[05:54.240 --> 06:00.520]  hold them responsible for the damage, but if they hadn�t acted irresponsibly I don�t
[06:00.520 --> 06:06.480]  think you could get punitive.� �So it would just be for damages then?� �I think
[06:06.480 --> 06:16.280]  so, and emotional distress and anything else you can think of.� �Probably lost wages
[06:16.280 --> 06:21.080]  and stuff and maybe has to pay for rental cars and taxis and on and on for transportation.�
[06:21.080 --> 06:26.120]  �That would be damages though.� �That would equate to damages.� �Direct damage.�
[06:26.120 --> 06:31.400]  �So I have to prove that they spent the money on something else to get punitive?�
[06:31.400 --> 06:36.760]  �Yes.� �Well to get the trouble damages that comes out of fraud.� �First you would
[06:36.760 --> 06:44.840]  have to show that the money was allotted specifically for that purpose.� �I think it was, that�s
[06:44.840 --> 06:50.840]  the whole point.� �Well a lot of times they give you money and they say well you
[06:50.840 --> 06:56.600]  need to fix the parking lot, but it�s not specifically designated only for fixing the
[06:56.600 --> 07:07.820]  parking lot.� �You know if you go get a loan from a bank to purchase a new car, once
[07:07.820 --> 07:12.200]  you get the loan, if they don�t ask for the car as collateral, once you get the loan
[07:12.200 --> 07:17.920]  you can go spend the money on anything you want to.� �You�re not limited to what
[07:17.920 --> 07:24.640]  you claimed you needed it for, and if that�s the case here, that they requested funds and
[07:24.640 --> 07:30.080]  part of what they requested funds for was the parking lot, but the funds weren�t exclusive
[07:30.080 --> 07:33.200]  for fixing the parking lot, you�re not going to have standing.�
[07:33.200 --> 07:39.120]  �Okay and as far as damages go, my insurance company is going to, fortunately I had gap
[07:39.120 --> 07:47.520]  insurance so they pay off the whole loan rather than just the blue book value. So I was lucky
[07:47.520 --> 07:54.800]  in that respect, but I�ve got $1,000 deductible and probably $25,000 in damages, is that what
[07:54.800 --> 07:57.720]  I can go after.� �Okay here�s the deal, and this is what
[07:57.720 --> 08:03.960]  we mentioned earlier about the insurance. You bought an insurance policy and that was
[08:03.960 --> 08:13.700]  like gambling, and you won the bet. That�s between you and the insurance company. These
[08:13.700 --> 08:20.360]  guys can�t come back and say you�re not harmed because you�ve been reimbursed for
[08:20.360 --> 08:28.320]  the injury.� �No, that doesn�t count. You had a separate
[08:28.320 --> 08:35.400]  private contract with the insurance company. The university harmed you, you were harmed
[08:35.400 --> 08:39.440]  by the university and regardless of whether you had insurance or not, they owe you for
[08:39.440 --> 08:44.720]  the harm, so you get to collect even what the insurance company paid.�
[08:44.720 --> 08:48.280]  �Okay.� �So if it got flooded and it�s a late model
[08:48.280 --> 08:52.440]  car, they will total it.� �Supposing I can�t get them for negligence,
[08:52.440 --> 08:57.560]  I can�t track down what they did with the money or they�ve got money in a big fund
[08:57.560 --> 09:02.120]  and I can�t prove that particular $1.5 million went to something else, this, that and the
[09:02.120 --> 09:05.920]  other. What�s the slam dunk cause of action on a case like this?�
[09:05.920 --> 09:11.680]  �You may get negligence anyway. Has that parking lot ever flooded before?�
[09:11.680 --> 09:17.160]  �Yes.� �Is there notices that to be cautious that
[09:17.160 --> 09:21.480]  the parking lot is subject to flood?� �Now how do I bring that evidence into
[09:21.480 --> 09:26.400]  court? Do I need a competent fact witness or can I use � I can�t necessarily use
[09:26.400 --> 09:29.400]  newspaper accounts, can I?� �Yes.�
[09:29.400 --> 09:32.800]  �Oh, that�s public knowledge then, I can use that?�
[09:32.800 --> 09:37.600]  �Yes, that�s public knowledge and if it�s flooded before, there will be meteorological
[09:37.600 --> 09:43.560]  evidence. If you bring in a newspaper article, that�s prima facie and the other side is
[09:43.560 --> 09:50.280]  going to have to refute it and if the newspaper article is true and it almost certainly is,
[09:50.280 --> 09:54.080]  the other side is not going to object to something that�s true.�
[09:54.080 --> 09:58.440]  �Okay, but Randy, I have another question here. What if there�s notices posted in
[09:58.440 --> 10:03.640]  the parking lot that this parking lot is subject to flood and you park here at your own risk
[10:03.640 --> 10:09.720]  and peril? Does that mean that he loses any standing to sue to get damages?�
[10:09.720 --> 10:13.200]  �Yes.� �Is it posted in the parking lot that it�s
[10:13.200 --> 10:15.840]  subject to flood and you park here at your own risk?�
[10:15.840 --> 10:16.840]  �No.� �Okay.�
[10:16.840 --> 10:22.600]  �So if they know it�s subject to flood.� �There�s no flood signs in that parking
[10:22.600 --> 10:28.760]  lot, are there?� �No.� �If you have no reason to suspect that there is a flood
[10:28.760 --> 10:32.320]  concern.� �How about a flood plain sign?�
[10:32.320 --> 10:37.320]  �No.� �So that�s an airplane with water running
[10:37.320 --> 10:44.520]  out of the windows?� �It�s right next to Truax Air Base. I wonder if that has anything
[10:44.520 --> 10:56.760]  to do with the chemtrails.� �The university has a duty to due diligence.
[10:56.760 --> 11:03.240]  If they know there�s a specific risk and by parking in the parking lot you subject
[11:03.240 --> 11:09.720]  yourself to that risk, they have a duty to give you opportunity to avoid the risk. If
[11:09.720 --> 11:16.240]  they knew it was risky and they did nothing to warn you, then now you can go after them.�
[11:16.240 --> 11:21.200]  �Now, Brandy, where is it in law that says that they�re liable for this and do I have
[11:21.200 --> 11:26.080]  to prove that up?� �This just goes to premises�
[11:26.080 --> 11:32.040]  �Reasonable care.� �Go ahead.�
[11:32.040 --> 11:38.600]  �Reasonable care.� �It�s about premises liability. If I�m
[11:38.600 --> 11:48.440]  on your property and I step on a loose piece of concrete, there�s a chip in the concrete
[11:48.440 --> 11:51.520]  and I don�t know it and I step on it and it flips loose and I fall down and bash my
[11:51.520 --> 11:57.120]  head in, you�re responsible because you�re responsible to keep your property in reasonable
[11:57.120 --> 12:03.080]  repair. If I come on your property and I�m climbing over a fence and I fall and break
[12:03.080 --> 12:11.160]  my nose, too bad, stay off the fence. But if I encounter a harm by something I could
[12:11.160 --> 12:19.360]  not predict or could not reasonably avoid because I was not aware of it, you have a
[12:19.360 --> 12:28.920]  duty to give me some protection from unforeseeable hazard and they�re going to have that duty.�
[12:28.920 --> 12:34.760]  �Okay, I�m going to take a poll here. What does everybody think the best cause of
[12:34.760 --> 12:39.960]  action would be? The easiest for somebody who�s a novice because I�m not going to
[12:39.960 --> 12:43.360]  hire an attorney.� �I would guess it negligence.�
[12:43.360 --> 12:48.000]  �I was going to guess negligence, too, especially if there�s a history that this parking lot
[12:48.000 --> 12:50.480]  has flooded in the past and even newspaper articles.�
[12:50.480 --> 12:59.920]  �Because information you had a right to know and had you had that information or negligence
[12:59.920 --> 13:10.080]  or I want to say negligence by non-disclosure, but that�s not a cause of action. Just straight
[13:10.080 --> 13:16.320]  out negligence, they had a duty to warn you of a specific hazard of which they were aware.�
[13:16.320 --> 13:22.360]  �If you can show that they were given money specifically for the purpose of fixing the
[13:22.360 --> 13:27.760]  parking lot, even if they just hadn�t gotten around to it yet or they were in the process
[13:27.760 --> 13:32.520]  of hiring a contractor, even if they didn�t misappropriate the funds, if you can show
[13:32.520 --> 13:38.520]  that they were given money to fix the parking lot and that the newspaper articles and everything
[13:38.520 --> 13:45.600]  else, I mean, at that point, surely they should have at least posted signs and notices in
[13:45.600 --> 13:51.480]  the parking lot that you park here at your own risk because of potential flooding and
[13:51.480 --> 13:56.320]  that we�re in the process of doing something about it, but just realize that this is a
[13:56.320 --> 14:00.600]  risk right now.� �If they simply allotted money for that
[14:00.600 --> 14:03.880]  purpose, that demonstrates that they were aware of that.�
[14:03.880 --> 14:06.440]  �That�s what I�m saying. That�s exactly what I just said.�
[14:06.440 --> 14:12.080]  �Okay, yeah, that sounds good. Now, do you guys think that I should call a bunch of the
[14:12.080 --> 14:16.360]  administrators on the stand and ask them questions about it?�
[14:16.360 --> 14:20.640]  �No, do a tort letter.� �Yeah, well, be informed. You have to give
[14:20.640 --> 14:23.360]  them notice before you attempt to go after them.�
[14:23.360 --> 14:28.000]  �Well, I�m just waiting for my adjuster to find out exactly the digits I�m going
[14:28.000 --> 14:31.800]  to install into my tort letter. That will probably go off in the next two days.�
[14:31.800 --> 14:37.120]  �Yeah, and you make your tort letter as ugly sounding as you possibly can, and they
[14:37.120 --> 14:45.320]  may just write you a check.� �Yeah, so don�t go for the three times
[14:45.320 --> 14:48.360]  damages?� �Yeah, go for the three times damages and
[14:48.360 --> 14:52.760]  let them make you an offer.� �Okay, okay. Yeah, that�s a good idea.�
[14:52.760 --> 14:58.720]  �Hey, Jeff, my wife had a credit card and it was like $300 or something like that, and
[14:58.720 --> 15:04.800]  they said we missed a couple payments, and I got the bill and it was like $1,700, and
[15:04.800 --> 15:08.160]  my wife said, �Should I pay it?� I said, �No, I�m not paying that.� But anyway,
[15:08.160 --> 15:12.160]  so they just keep calling me. They won�t invite me into court, and how do I get them
[15:12.160 --> 15:15.920]  to get off the dime and sue me so I can do something about it?�
[15:15.920 --> 15:22.720]  �Oh, why wait?� �Yeah, sorry, why wait?� �Sue them first.�
[15:22.720 --> 15:28.960]  �Right, FDCPA action.� �Okay, good enough. Where can I find out about
[15:28.960 --> 15:31.440]  it?� �And also take a look at the FCRA as well.�
[15:31.440 --> 15:35.800]  �Okay.� �The FCRA is credit fair credit reporting.�
[15:35.800 --> 15:46.080]  �Okay.� �And I�ve given Randy a name, and I�ll
[15:46.080 --> 15:51.720]  give him some contact information so that he can bring on an expert that I particularly
[15:51.720 --> 15:59.160]  like, because he and his group of close-knit friends have 176 consecutive wins.�
[15:59.160 --> 16:04.600]  �Oh, my God, that�s great. That is to say, every time they file a suit, they�ve
[16:04.600 --> 16:09.040]  won. They have never lost one.� �This sounds like the group we met when
[16:09.040 --> 16:13.360]  we were in Deming, New Mexico.� �Yeah, I didn�t remember if they were
[16:13.360 --> 16:16.760]  dealing with credit card stuff, but I did remember that they had already taken down
[16:16.760 --> 16:23.760]  like two or three judges and basically removed half of their city council and on and on and
[16:23.760 --> 16:24.760]  on.� �And they were from Albuquerque.�
[16:24.760 --> 16:30.600]  �No, they weren�t from Albuquerque. They were from the Roswell.�
[16:30.600 --> 16:35.480]  �Oh, that�s right.� �Yeah, they were from the UFO place.�
[16:35.480 --> 16:41.120]  �Ah, so they were aliens that knew our system better than us.�
[16:41.120 --> 16:44.800]  �Apparently so. Okay, Mark, do you have anything else for us?�
[16:44.800 --> 16:48.240]  �I just have one more quick question.� �Okay, one more quick question, then we�ll
[16:48.240 --> 16:51.920]  go to Dominic. He�s been holding forever, one of our big supporters here in Austin.
[16:51.920 --> 16:56.400]  We�ll be right back. This is the Rule of Law, Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens,
[16:56.400 --> 17:03.640]  and Jeff Sedgwick.� �Hello, Austin. My name is Harlan Dietrich,
[17:03.640 --> 17:08.000]  owner of Brave New Books, a local independent bookstore here in town. Many of you are familiar
[17:08.000 --> 17:11.600]  with the bookstore and have attended some of our events. We�ve been proud to host
[17:11.600 --> 17:16.120]  speakers like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, Jim Mars, Catherine Albert, Wester Carpley, Theodore
[17:16.120 --> 17:20.800]  Griffin, and many other heroic figures in the patriot movement. But now, Brave New Books
[17:20.800 --> 17:25.680]  needs your help. In order to continue to provide a space for these events and be an outlet
[17:25.680 --> 17:29.680]  for hard-to-find materials, we�re going to need you, Austin, to help spread the word
[17:29.680 --> 17:34.000]  about the bookstore. Please tell your friends and family about the wide variety of materials
[17:34.000 --> 17:39.960]  we offer. We also have DVD duplication capabilities for all you activists. Also, if you haven�t
[17:39.960 --> 17:44.400]  visited us yet, please come down and show your support. It is so easy to support the
[17:44.400 --> 17:48.600]  big corporate chain stores that do nothing to further our message. Remember, you vote
[17:48.600 --> 17:52.720]  with your dollars. We�re counting on you, Austin. If you need any information, please
[17:52.720 --> 18:19.720]  call 512-480-2503 or visit us at 1904 Guadalupe Street. Thank you, everyone.
[18:19.720 --> 18:42.920]  Okay, we�re back. Yeah, and just a quick note about Brave New Books. Folks, please support
[18:42.920 --> 18:48.160]  the bookstore. They are very much needed in the community here. You can order books from
[18:48.160 --> 18:56.960]  them online. If you need a book or if you�d like to have a book that they don�t have
[18:56.960 --> 19:02.400]  in stock, even if you�re not in Austin, call them up and have them order it, even
[19:02.400 --> 19:07.080]  if you just want a recipe book or something or a book on art or whatever. I mean, they�re
[19:07.080 --> 19:17.480]  mostly carrying truth, news, and patriot information, well-written authors in the truth and patriot
[19:17.480 --> 19:25.080]  community, but they can order any book that you would like, and so please visit the bravenewbookstore.com.
[19:25.080 --> 19:29.240]  If they don�t have something in stock, then call them up and have them order it and send
[19:29.240 --> 19:35.040]  it to you instead of ordering it on Amazon or instead of going down to Book People or
[19:35.040 --> 19:39.080]  Barnes & Noble. You can get any book you want through Brave New Books, even if they have
[19:39.080 --> 19:44.440]  to order it. Please, folks, get all your publications through Brave New Books so that you can support
[19:44.440 --> 19:50.840]  the Patriot Community Bookstore here in Austin. It�s very much needed as a meeting place,
[19:50.840 --> 19:56.200]  as a meeting of the minds. There�s a jurisdictionary meeting. Harlan doesn�t charge for any of
[19:56.200 --> 20:03.120]  the meetings. He lets everyone use his facilities basically for free, and they�ve got great
[20:03.120 --> 20:09.880]  coffee, and they have a lot of great events there and movie screenings, documentary screenings.
[20:09.880 --> 20:15.320]  We�re having our seminar there next month, so definitely everyone needs to support Brave
[20:15.320 --> 20:20.720]  New Books. With that being said, let�s go back to Mark in Wisconsin. Okay, Mark, you
[20:20.720 --> 20:27.240]  had a couple more comments. Yeah, I wanted to say, being a micro-broadcast
[20:27.240 --> 20:33.840]  right here, a lot of audio, a lot of different live streams from the patriot community, and
[20:33.840 --> 20:39.760]  the protests and petitions and things like that seem to be almost useless. I�m beginning
[20:39.760 --> 20:44.760]  to think when it says in the Constitution that you have the right to petition the government,
[20:44.760 --> 20:50.680]  it means you have the right to sue the government. In that vein, I�m looking for more programming.
[20:50.680 --> 20:56.680]  I�d have rule of law on 24 hours a day because it deals with action, but you just don�t
[20:56.680 --> 21:02.160]  have that much programming yet. If the callers or any of your guests know where I can get
[21:02.160 --> 21:07.240]  archives or live streams from similar programs, well, I�m sure it won�t be as good as
[21:07.240 --> 21:12.320]  rule of law. Mark, it�s coming. It�s coming. I need
[21:12.320 --> 21:17.440]  the funding to put on more programming, and I�m going to be putting on more programming.
[21:17.440 --> 21:22.320]  I produce all the shows myself. This is practically a one-man show around here. I have a couple
[21:22.320 --> 21:27.080]  of producers that volunteer to help me produce a couple of the shows, but we�re going to
[21:27.080 --> 21:33.560]  be adding John Bush and Katherine Bleich in the morning, 7 to 10 a.m. Katherine Bleich,
[21:33.560 --> 21:37.480]  of course, of Liberty Restoration Project. She is kicking some serious booty up there
[21:37.480 --> 21:42.440]  in Missouri. She�s the one that uncovered the MIAC report and all these kinds of things.
[21:42.440 --> 21:46.600]  She�s basically doing what John Bush is doing with Texans for Accountable Government.
[21:46.600 --> 21:52.960]  She�s doing that in Missouri, so we�re adding that. We�re going to be adding Steve,
[21:52.960 --> 21:57.080]  who�s been a guest on our show, talking about the financial analysts. He�s going
[21:57.080 --> 22:03.680]  to be doing a show, and also Lisa Marie Copoletta and her husband Daniel, who�s one of the
[22:03.680 --> 22:09.400]  San Marcos Seven. They�re going to be doing a show, but basically I�ve given up my job,
[22:09.400 --> 22:14.560]  so we�re even hitting more financially hard times than we are already, just so that we
[22:14.560 --> 22:21.680]  can bring this great programming to you and all your listeners. It�s coming, Mark. Believe
[22:21.680 --> 22:25.040]  me, I�m doing everything I can to get more programming for you.
[22:25.040 --> 22:30.560]  I�m not blaming you. I appreciate your sacrifice. You�re doing a wonderful job. It�s just
[22:30.560 --> 22:37.360]  that I need programs that get people off the dime, get people acting, because the only
[22:37.360 --> 22:40.920]  thing that seems to matter to these people is when you get into their pocketbooks or
[22:40.920 --> 22:45.640]  you put them behind bars. With that, I want to thank you for all your efforts. You�re
[22:45.640 --> 22:50.880]  all wonderful people, and have a good night. Thank you. Well, Mark, by the middle of next
[22:50.880 --> 22:57.200]  month, we should have about another 25 hours a week of programming on the air, including
[22:57.200 --> 22:58.200]  in the morning. You�re wonderful.
[22:58.200 --> 23:01.280]  Okay, awesome. Thanks, Mark. Mark, before you go away...
[23:01.280 --> 23:08.400]  He hung up. He�s listening still, though. Go ahead. Make your comment, Jeff.
[23:08.400 --> 23:13.320]  All right. Mark, when the adjuster goes to settle on your vehicle, anything that you
[23:13.320 --> 23:16.760]  pay for that you haven�t received full benefit, you want him to make sure that he refunds
[23:16.760 --> 23:22.720]  to you, such as if you had to have a $15 environmental inspection and only a year has gone by, you
[23:22.720 --> 23:28.440]  want the $750. If you had to pay sales tax on the vehicle and they�re refunding some
[23:28.440 --> 23:34.160]  back to you, you want the equivalent and that sales tax refunded to you. That�s all I
[23:34.160 --> 23:36.960]  wanted to put in front of you. Interesting. I hadn�t thought of that.
[23:36.960 --> 23:40.360]  Awesome. No, of course not. You�re not supposed
[23:40.360 --> 23:42.360]  to. Oh, okay.
[23:42.360 --> 23:47.160]  They don�t want you to, at any rate. That�s right.
[23:47.160 --> 23:50.360]  There is something I�d like to comment on about what he said about where he�s talking
[23:50.360 --> 23:56.560]  about where it means to sue the government. I just want to point out that this thing that
[23:56.560 --> 24:03.920]  the courts have about you cannot sue the government, that is something created by the judiciary.
[24:03.920 --> 24:11.560]  Nowhere in the Constitution of this state is that written. In fact, it states very emphatically
[24:11.560 --> 24:18.240]  that the people of Texas have the right and the authority to abolish or reform their government
[24:18.240 --> 24:24.560]  at any time if that government fails to respond to the desires and voice of the people. Now,
[24:24.560 --> 24:29.680]  if we can tear them apart and rebuild them from the ground up, that to me would seem
[24:29.680 --> 24:34.840]  to imply that we also have the power to hold them accountable in the courts.
[24:34.840 --> 24:44.120]  Yeah, I think that part�s in the declaration that we have the right to abolish. The way
[24:44.120 --> 24:53.120]  I read the code, the way I read the case law, essentially it says that you can sue the government
[24:53.120 --> 25:00.560]  for about anything that you could sue an ordinary person for if the government official is not
[25:00.560 --> 25:10.120]  acting within the scope of an authority, or if the government engages in commerce, then
[25:10.120 --> 25:13.840]  they become just like any other person engaging in commerce.
[25:13.840 --> 25:20.440]  Well, there are two to which O�Connor speaks of in addition to that. You can sue a government
[25:20.440 --> 25:28.020]  official in both his personal and professional capacities if that official or group of officials
[25:28.020 --> 25:33.560]  is involved in an act that is a direct violation of a self-enacting clause of the Constitution
[25:33.560 --> 25:42.960]  of Texas, or if it is an ultra-virus act. So in those instances, they have exactly the
[25:42.960 --> 25:48.120]  same level of liability and suitability as any Joe Blow on the street.
[25:48.120 --> 25:55.560]  Okay. In this case, ultra-virus, is that different from beyond scope?
[25:55.560 --> 26:02.160]  Well, from my understanding of the way O�Connor has it addressed, it�s basically any criminal
[26:02.160 --> 26:09.100]  act. If they commit a crime using the capacity of their office, then that�s considered
[26:09.100 --> 26:10.360]  a tortable offense.
[26:10.360 --> 26:18.200]  Well, ultra-virus generally goes to something that�s not included, that�s outside of
[26:18.200 --> 26:24.520]  a contract. And I�m just wondering if they�re using ultra-virus here. Is the same as saying
[26:24.520 --> 26:25.600]  beyond scope?
[26:25.600 --> 26:30.000]  Well, it would have to be considering that it deals both civil and criminal if they act
[26:30.000 --> 26:34.760]  outside of the authority granted to them by the legislature, or if they act in a criminal
[26:34.760 --> 26:35.760]  capacity.
[26:35.760 --> 26:40.760]  Okay. I was just looking to see. Maybe there was a distinction I wasn�t aware of there.
[26:40.760 --> 26:45.400]  That�s why they would use ultra-virus instead of beyond outside of scope.
[26:45.400 --> 26:50.280]  Yeah. Well, that�s the term that she used to describe it in the causes of action is
[26:50.280 --> 26:51.280]  ultra-virus.
[26:51.280 --> 26:55.680]  Okay. So it essentially goes to the same thing. There�s not another issue that I wasn�t
[26:55.680 --> 27:01.360]  aware of. Good. Although bad, it would be nice if there was another issue that I wasn�t
[27:01.360 --> 27:02.360]  aware of.
[27:02.360 --> 27:09.600]  Yeah. Oh, and also, unless you want to deal with it now, I found some clarification on
[27:09.600 --> 27:16.880]  the injury by motor vehicle proposition that we talk about from time to time. It�s actually
[27:16.880 --> 27:23.160]  much more broad in our favor than you might have supposed.
[27:23.160 --> 27:29.040]  Can you elaborate?
[27:29.040 --> 27:39.960]  Well, it�s not just simply a matter of that the vehicle itself caused you an injury of
[27:39.960 --> 27:45.800]  a particular type. The injury must be physical. Now, that�s one limitation against us. It
[27:45.800 --> 27:50.840]  can�t be that they used to transport you to cause you the harm. It has to be the cause
[27:50.840 --> 28:02.220]  of the harm based upon what I�ve gotten out of this. However, it is not just an automobile.
[28:02.220 --> 28:06.760]  It is not just some sort of piece of farm equipment or anything like that. They can
[28:06.760 --> 28:13.640]  use any type of motorized equipment to cause you the injury. It doesn�t have to necessarily
[28:13.640 --> 28:16.440]  be one that can be driven upon the road.
[28:16.440 --> 28:22.520]  Right. That�s why they said motorized piece of equipment, like if they�re using a ship.
[28:22.520 --> 28:27.600]  So if they hit you with a wood chipper or anything of that nature, then it still applies.
[28:27.600 --> 28:29.640]  I wonder if a taser would apply.
[28:29.640 --> 28:30.640]  No motor.
[28:30.640 --> 28:37.920]  Well, isn�t there something that causes the ejection of the little taser grappler
[28:37.920 --> 28:41.760]  things that they shoot out and grab onto?
[28:41.760 --> 28:44.720]  It�s there in some cases, but that�s not a motor.
[28:44.720 --> 28:45.720]  That�s not motorized.
[28:45.720 --> 28:47.720]  Yes, it is. It�s an air motor.
[28:47.720 --> 28:51.160]  Huh. Yeah, now we have to go back to the definition.
[28:51.160 --> 28:53.040]  Not if it�s a CO2 car can train.
[28:53.040 --> 28:54.520]  We could bring that under.
[28:54.520 --> 29:01.240]  Well, you have to look at definition of motor, what motorized really is.
[29:01.240 --> 29:04.000]  We could certainly make the claim and give them�
[29:04.000 --> 29:11.240]  Yeah, you give them grief over it, but you know�
[29:11.240 --> 29:18.240]  But okay, I want to get to the� I want that vehicle to take away their subject matter
[29:18.240 --> 29:25.080]  jurisdiction. If they transport me in it, they cause me harm.
[29:25.080 --> 29:31.960]  Yeah, well, if they transport you to a location for the intent and purpose of causing you
[29:31.960 --> 29:35.520]  harm, then that could probably be put into it very easily.
[29:35.520 --> 29:40.480]  Okay, well listen, we�re going to break, so we can talk about this some more on the
[29:40.480 --> 29:44.160]  other side. We also got a full board of callers stacking up. We got Dominic, who�s been
[29:44.160 --> 29:47.920]  holding for a long time, Matt, Jesse, Gary, and more.
[29:47.920 --> 29:49.920]  Yeah, let�s get to Dominic.
[29:49.920 --> 29:53.760]  Okay, yeah, Dominic�s one of our biggest supporters here in Austin. Okay, we�ll be
[29:53.760 --> 30:02.120]  right back. This is the rule of law, 512-646-1984.
[30:02.120 --> 30:05.840]  This is Lisa Marie Coppelletta, and I�m a Liberty defender. I�m running for City
[30:05.840 --> 30:11.040]  Council Place Five in San Marcos, Texas. The key issues guiding my campaign this year are
[30:11.040 --> 30:15.960]  smart growth, environmental stewardship, and balanced budgets. The patterns of growth that
[30:15.960 --> 30:21.160]  we choose to select here in San Marcos will not only affect the integrity of the perception
[30:21.160 --> 30:26.960]  of our city, but also tangible results in our neighborhoods, resulting in housing, job
[30:26.960 --> 30:32.800]  opportunities, transportation, and currency circulation. Please join us this Saturday,
[30:32.800 --> 30:38.120]  September 26th, at 730 at Wake the Dead Coffee House in San Marcos, Texas. We�ll have our
[30:38.120 --> 30:43.360]  campaign celebration kick off, and we�ll rock on through midnight. For further details
[30:43.360 --> 30:56.360]  on this and other events, please visit the website at www.lmc4sanmarcos.com, www.lmc4sanmarcos.com.
[30:56.360 --> 31:03.360]  We�ll be right back.
[31:26.360 --> 31:48.440]  Okay. We are back with our very special guest, Jeff Sedgwick from Your Remedy is in the Law.
[31:48.440 --> 31:53.120]  Okay, we�re going now to Dominic from Texas. Hey, Dominic, thanks for calling in. What�s
[31:53.120 --> 31:56.760]  on your mind? What�s your question for our guest? Well, first of all, how�s everybody
[31:56.760 --> 32:02.720]  doing? Oh, pretty good. That�s good. I have one for you, Randy. They caused you harm with
[32:02.720 --> 32:06.800]  a motor vehicle because they took you to the jail instead of the magistrate where they
[32:06.800 --> 32:12.760]  were supposed to, and they lost jurisdiction. That is exactly the point that I was going
[32:12.760 --> 32:18.440]  to. And what Annie�s saying is that they had to cause physical harm.
[32:18.440 --> 32:24.480]  Yeah, that�s what appears that at O�Connor�s is stipulating that it can only be a�
[32:24.480 --> 32:28.600]  Well, how if I was so frightened that I wet my drawers?
[32:28.600 --> 32:34.360]  Well, wait a minute. Wait a minute. I�m sorry. If they�ve handcuffed you and taken
[32:34.360 --> 32:39.320]  you away from your liberty, they�ve caused you physical harm because I�m not out walking
[32:39.320 --> 32:44.320]  around doing whatever I want to do. I�m sitting in the back of a cop car with my hands
[32:44.320 --> 32:48.880]  cuffed behind my back and my liberties have been taken away. That�s a physical harm
[32:48.880 --> 32:53.880]  in my book. What they�ve done by and large is that they
[32:53.880 --> 33:01.280]  have put that into a false imprisonment cause of action. It is separate from an injury by
[33:01.280 --> 33:08.440]  motor vehicle claim. So the other thing these books are making very clear is you must be
[33:08.440 --> 33:15.520]  very, very choosy about what you use for your causes of action because the necessities and
[33:15.520 --> 33:20.040]  elements of one can upset the apple cart for another.
[33:20.040 --> 33:25.920]  Right. Yeah, but�
[33:25.920 --> 33:31.640]  I mean, I agree. It�s an injury. It�s an invasion. It is in no way right. I completely
[33:31.640 --> 33:36.320]  agree. They would have to physically harm you with
[33:36.320 --> 33:40.680]  a vehicle, you�re saying? Well, they could have a wreck and that would
[33:40.680 --> 33:46.400]  be a cause of an injury, the use of the motorized vehicle. They could run over you. They could
[33:46.400 --> 33:51.480]  slam the door on your foot, you know, things of that nature. But yeah, there has to be
[33:51.480 --> 33:55.040]  a palpable injury according to what they�re stating in this.
[33:55.040 --> 34:01.840]  Now, I can read the cases to verify that these assessments are accurate the way we want them
[34:01.840 --> 34:04.360]  to be, but� And it has to be directly associated with
[34:04.360 --> 34:09.080]  the vehicle because what I was thinking is that with the handcuffs, because they pretty
[34:09.080 --> 34:15.520]  much always cause basically micro-fractures in the bones of your wrist when they put on
[34:15.520 --> 34:19.320]  handcuffs now. Would that be�
[34:19.320 --> 34:22.280]  But that would be directly associated with the vehicle though?
[34:22.280 --> 34:25.400]  Okay. Now, when the morons in love can handcuff me
[34:25.400 --> 34:29.040]  and threw me in the back of the car without a seatbelt and then the guy driving me to
[34:29.040 --> 34:34.640]  the jail runs and tailgates every vehicle on the street, slams his brakes on and causes
[34:34.640 --> 34:38.600]  me to slide back and forth, smacking into the glass and smacking into the back of the
[34:38.600 --> 34:44.080]  fiberglass seat, that could be construed as a method of injury through the use of the
[34:44.080 --> 34:48.600]  motor vehicle because he drove like he was at an Indy race rather than just trying to
[34:48.600 --> 34:54.440]  take a leisurely drive down to the jail. And when they slammed you on the hood of the
[34:54.440 --> 34:58.960]  car to put the cuffs on you? Well, they didn�t do that. They actually
[34:58.960 --> 35:07.080]  slammed me on the rooftop of my car. I still think we can make the claim even
[35:07.080 --> 35:13.040]  if I can�t get it to hold up. I have other ways to get to them. I just wanted as many�
[35:13.040 --> 35:17.760]  Well, I�m sticking strictly to the claim of a violation of a self-enacting clause of
[35:17.760 --> 35:23.480]  the Constitution of Texas. That�s a very easy claim to make when the law and the Constitution
[35:23.480 --> 35:28.400]  says one thing and they acted contrary to that one thing. It�s a definite breach of
[35:28.400 --> 35:38.160]  the self-enacting clause. Believe it or not, guys, one of those is the no arrest shall
[35:38.160 --> 35:43.840]  occur without a warrant issued on probable cause. That�s a self-enacting clause, guys.
[35:43.840 --> 35:51.040]  Well, actually, there is a special statute that authorizes a police officer to arrest
[35:51.040 --> 35:54.680]  for a crime. Yes, I don�t wear a special statute, however.
[35:54.680 --> 35:58.880]  In this particular instance, they don�t have that.
[35:58.880 --> 36:03.400]  Nope. They�d have to have a warrant.
[36:03.400 --> 36:10.560]  Right. I�ve got tons of case law, Randy, where it�s a misdemeanor case in which the
[36:10.560 --> 36:15.000]  officer was not a witness of the misdemeanor or anything else. But if it�s a misdemeanor
[36:15.000 --> 36:20.640]  that did not consist of a breach of the peace, they cannot arrest without warrant. That has
[36:20.640 --> 36:28.160]  been the case law in Texas for decades. That�s very clear. They would have to personally
[36:28.160 --> 36:33.560]  see or hear. But it�s got to be resulting in a breach
[36:33.560 --> 36:37.680]  of the peace, Randy. That�s the thing. That�s what the case law has always been.
[36:37.680 --> 36:43.760]  No, no, no, no, no. He can arrest for a breach of the peace that he did not personally see
[36:43.760 --> 36:47.520]  or hear. No, we can�t. Read the statute. He cannot
[36:47.520 --> 36:54.440]  arrest for a breach of the peace that he did not witness. Now, if it resulted in a felony,
[36:54.440 --> 37:00.160]  yes he could. But a breach of the peace must be committed in the officer�s presence or
[37:00.160 --> 37:05.760]  it must be about to be re-initiated in the officer�s presence before he can arrest
[37:05.760 --> 37:11.940]  without a warrant. And that is exactly how the case law in Texas has read for a very
[37:11.940 --> 37:17.240]  long time. You�ve brought that point up before, Randy.
[37:17.240 --> 37:21.160]  That he has to actually witness the crime being committed.
[37:21.160 --> 37:31.680]  Yeah, I can�t. There are two things. I�ll reread the statute, but I was under the impression
[37:31.680 --> 37:38.200]  that a breach of the peace he could arrest for without a warrant must take him to court.
[37:38.200 --> 37:43.240]  He can arrest for a breach of the peace without a warrant if it�s committed in his presence.
[37:43.240 --> 37:47.520]  Yeah, and if it�s not committed in his presence, it has to be a felony.
[37:47.520 --> 37:50.280]  Correct. That�s right, Randy. I remember us talking
[37:50.280 --> 37:55.200]  about this before. That�s another reason why what happened in the parking lot at the
[37:55.200 --> 38:00.880]  Wyndham Hotel to one of Michael Badnerich�s participants in his seminar was completely
[38:00.880 --> 38:06.640]  over the top and illegal, because the alleged breach of the peace, the hearsay that was
[38:06.640 --> 38:15.640]  relayed was not a felony. Dominic, did you have something else for Jeff?
[38:15.640 --> 38:18.840]  You�ve been calling for quite a while. I mean, you�re addressing what we�ve recently
[38:18.840 --> 38:22.360]  been talking about, but I�m sure you have something else.
[38:22.360 --> 38:26.400]  Yes, I was calling because you all were talking about this credit card issue.
[38:26.400 --> 38:28.880]  Right. That�s something that I�ve been giving
[38:28.880 --> 38:38.480]  them a headache on these collection agencies since 2004, 2005. I would always dispute the
[38:38.480 --> 38:47.480]  debt. The ones that I would like to buy the debt would always be attorneys, because attorneys,
[38:47.480 --> 38:51.120]  even though you disputed the debt, they would ignore it, because most people crumble in
[38:51.120 --> 38:57.200]  front of them. I had a couple of them that instead of verifying the debt, they just send
[38:57.200 --> 39:05.400]  me another bill, which then I would answer that, A, I send you the dispute on such and
[39:05.400 --> 39:10.720]  such a date, because I had everything that was sent certified mail. I would tell them
[39:10.720 --> 39:15.760]  that I send it to you on such and such a date, and you received it on that date, and I always
[39:15.760 --> 39:23.680]  gave them 30 days to respond, or else they agreed to stop any further attempts to collect.
[39:23.680 --> 39:27.520]  I would tell them that since they didn�t do that, then I was going to have to sue them
[39:27.520 --> 39:36.400]  for damages, and I never heard from them again. A lot of the credit card debts, when I did
[39:36.400 --> 39:43.840]  go to my credit report, they would say on their paid satisfactory never late. I really
[39:43.840 --> 39:51.280]  didn�t make any payments on them. This stuff is real good. When you start disputing
[39:51.280 --> 39:59.480]  the debt and going forward with it. We also had one credit card company or one debt collection
[39:59.480 --> 40:05.400]  agency that I went to sue. My wife actually took us to court, but we brought in � because
[40:05.400 --> 40:11.080]  they took us to small claims court, in which they had no standing. We brought that up in
[40:11.080 --> 40:16.720]  the Indian court, because they didn�t even want to show up once we went all the way through
[40:16.720 --> 40:21.480]  was showing up, because we knew they had no standing. We had a friend that was helping
[40:21.480 --> 40:29.600]  us out, and in the waiting area in the court, they have the paperwork of what jurisdiction
[40:29.600 --> 40:36.400]  they have who can bring cases forward. I was reading that as we were waiting, and it said
[40:36.400 --> 40:42.160]  debt collectors cannot bring a case forward, an assignee. Everything that they were saying
[40:42.160 --> 40:48.920]  on there, they fell under it that that court had no jurisdiction. When we went in there,
[40:48.920 --> 40:53.360]  the judge was saying, �Well, I don�t know what to do, because he�s not showing up.�
[40:53.360 --> 40:56.840]  I�m like, �Well, it doesn�t matter what to do, because he has no standing, and you
[40:56.840 --> 41:02.080]  have no jurisdiction.� He jumped up in his chair. He�s like, �Who are attorneys have
[41:02.080 --> 41:06.480]  you been talking to?� I was honest, because my friend wasn�t an attorney. I said, �None
[41:06.480 --> 41:12.880]  of them. I just know how to read your paperwork.� We haven�t heard anything from these people
[41:12.880 --> 41:19.760]  in the last few years. Basically, I�m just calling to give testimony about how this has
[41:19.760 --> 41:23.680]  worked with what I�ve done, and I�m not that smart.
[41:23.680 --> 41:26.360]  Good for you, Matt.
[41:26.360 --> 41:28.000]  Yes. Kudos to you.
[41:28.000 --> 41:35.840]  Kudos to you. We could also shorten that retort to say, �We know how to read.�
[41:35.840 --> 41:42.480]  Yes. Actually, when I told him that he had no jurisdiction, it�s like somebody stuck
[41:42.480 --> 41:49.000]  a pin in his rear area. He jumped up the way he jumped up.
[41:49.000 --> 41:53.360]  That gets their attention, because that means he can be sued personally.
[41:53.360 --> 42:02.000]  Yes. He was quick to dismiss it. They really don�t like hearing that.
[42:02.000 --> 42:07.560]  I was shuffling papers, because I was looking for a statute, and I found it.
[42:07.560 --> 42:09.560]  Oh, okay.
[42:09.560 --> 42:16.240]  14.03, authority of peace officers. A peace officer may arrest without warrant a person
[42:16.240 --> 42:24.120]  found in suspicious places or under circumstances which reasonably show that such person have
[42:24.120 --> 42:30.320]  been guilty of some felony. Violation of Title IX, Chapter 42 penal code, that�s breach
[42:30.320 --> 42:39.480]  of the peace. Penal code, breach of the peace. Or offense under 49.02 penal code, that�s
[42:39.480 --> 42:46.720]  intoxication. Or threatened or about to commit some offense against the loss.
[42:46.720 --> 42:54.240]  So breach of the peace, they can arrest without person seeing or hearing it, if they have
[42:54.240 --> 42:55.480]  reasonable cause to believe.
[42:55.480 --> 42:57.960]  If it�s a felony, that�s what it just said.
[42:57.960 --> 43:06.720]  They may, or violation of Title IX, Chapter 42 penal code, breach of the peace. Or an
[43:06.720 --> 43:16.000]  offense under 49.02 penal code, which is public intoxication. So they can for breach of the
[43:16.000 --> 43:17.000]  peace.
[43:17.000 --> 43:20.000]  Well, it can just be all-encompassing, or else they wouldn�t list so many things. It�s
[43:20.000 --> 43:21.400]  got to be restricted to something.
[43:21.400 --> 43:26.480]  But then again, breach of the peace is very specific. I was once arrested for breach of
[43:26.480 --> 43:33.400]  the peace. I was in a justice of the peace�s office, trying to talk to the district attorney
[43:33.400 --> 43:40.560]  to ask him to arrest a DPS officer, and they arrested me too.
[43:40.560 --> 43:45.200]  Okay, well listen, listen, we�re going to break. Dominic, do you have any other comments
[43:45.200 --> 43:46.200]  for us on the other side?
[43:46.200 --> 43:49.200]  Yeah, that�s it. I�ll let somebody else get on the line. You all have a great evening.
[43:49.200 --> 43:50.200]  Okay, great. Thanks.
[43:50.200 --> 43:51.200]  Bye-bye.
[43:51.200 --> 43:58.720]  Okay, we�ll be right back. And we�ve got Matt, Jesse, and others coming right up.
[43:58.720 --> 44:06.880]  Attention, an important product from hempusa.org, micro plant powder, will change your life
[44:06.880 --> 44:12.040]  by removing all types of positive toxins, such as heavy metals, parasites, bacteria,
[44:12.040 --> 44:17.320]  viruses, and fungus from the digestive tract and stomach walls so you can absorb nutrients.
[44:17.320 --> 44:22.160]  Micro plant powder is 89 percent silica and packed with a negative charge that attracts
[44:22.160 --> 44:27.280]  positive toxins from the blood, organs, spine, and brain. This product has the ability to
[44:27.280 --> 44:32.440]  rebuild cartilage and bone, which allows synovial fluid to return to the joints. Silica is a
[44:32.440 --> 44:37.960]  precursor to calcium, meaning the body turns silica into calcium and is great for the heart.
[44:37.960 --> 44:42.840]  There is no better time than now to have micro plant powder on your shelf or in your storage
[44:42.840 --> 44:50.200]  shelter. And with an unlimited shelf life, you can store it anywhere. Call 908-691-2608
[44:50.200 --> 44:58.080]  or visit hempusa.org. It�s a great way to change your life. So call 908-691-2608 or
[44:58.080 --> 45:15.000]  visit us at hempusa.org today.
[45:15.000 --> 45:38.360]  I�m just here making my living pushing buttons. I ain�t asking for much, I ain�t trying
[45:38.360 --> 45:49.320]  to be no good. I�m just here making my living pushing buttons. I�ll give my life to anyone.
[45:49.320 --> 45:57.920]  We�re getting our message out. And we are speaking right now with our callers. We�re
[45:57.920 --> 46:03.000]  going now to Matt in Texas. Matt, thanks for calling in. Thanks for holding so long. What
[46:03.000 --> 46:05.080]  is your question for our guest?
[46:05.080 --> 46:14.000]  Thanks for having me. I�ve got an issue with credit cards and student debt in that
[46:14.000 --> 46:21.000]  I�ve actually transferred the debt to a third party. And that third party, what they
[46:21.000 --> 46:29.760]  do is they will actually give me a notarized contractual agreement showing that they�ve
[46:29.760 --> 46:37.560]  actually accepted the account. And then what they do is they end up sending in a check
[46:37.560 --> 46:42.680]  which is essentially a novation contract that if the alleged creditor cashed that check
[46:42.680 --> 46:48.760]  then they agree to the terms associated with that contract. And they do all these different
[46:48.760 --> 46:55.840]  things along the lines of Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. And anyway, it looks like it�s
[46:55.840 --> 47:02.760]  a pretty good system in terms of what I know about contract law. But I was kind of curious
[47:02.760 --> 47:11.200]  what you guys might have to say about that as well as I�m going to send each one of
[47:11.200 --> 47:18.920]  the alleged creditors a document just basically advising them that the accounts have been
[47:18.920 --> 47:26.240]  transferred but that I will conditionally accept any of their proposals provided that
[47:26.240 --> 47:31.760]  they provide me with a wedding signature of the contract that I signed, that they verify
[47:31.760 --> 47:36.320]  that they will not and have not violated any of the terms of Fair Debt Collections Practices
[47:36.320 --> 47:43.760]  Act, that the providing me with documentation signed independently particularly that the
[47:43.760 --> 47:49.360]  alleged debt has been verified to be true and exact and a couple other points. But I�m
[47:49.360 --> 47:54.320]  just kind of curious what you guys think about transferring it to a third party. Any issues
[47:54.320 --> 48:04.200]  in terms of validity holding that up in court? How are you going to affect the transfer?
[48:04.200 --> 48:12.160]  Well, they�re notified. For one, they�re notified that the account has been transferred
[48:12.160 --> 48:18.720]  to a third party and the novation contract of sending the third party will actually send
[48:18.720 --> 48:25.240]  them a check just like a credit card company will send you a check and if you utilize that
[48:25.240 --> 48:31.200]  check you�re then bound by the terms that are associated with that check. And so what�s
[48:31.200 --> 48:41.880]  good for the goose is good for the gander. Okay, so you sent them off for a payment.
[48:41.880 --> 48:49.200]  The third party actually does that. If they�re going to send them a payment, why would they
[48:49.200 --> 48:55.240]  transfer as opposed to closing it out? Well, it�s because what they�re doing is they�re
[48:55.240 --> 49:04.080]  creating all these different, I guess, legal snags that the alleged creditor will fall
[49:04.080 --> 49:09.080]  into. For one, we�ve got the documentation. I�ve got the signed documents saying that
[49:09.080 --> 49:16.440]  they accepted the debt, right? And then along with that, the alleged creditor will have
[49:16.440 --> 49:24.360]  signed these or cash these checks that the third party has sent to them and by cashing
[49:24.360 --> 49:28.480]  those checks they�re agreeing to the terms that are associated with those checks also.
[49:28.480 --> 49:35.160]  How long have you been studying this? I�ve been looking at this stuff for over
[49:35.160 --> 49:41.000]  probably a year and a half. I suggest you study it a little bit further.
[49:41.000 --> 49:46.640]  So what�s the error in that? I don�t know, but I�m extremely suspicious
[49:46.640 --> 49:53.200]  of it. I mean, if I were a creditor and they were sending me money for an account, I�d
[49:53.200 --> 49:59.680]  close the account. Okay, assuming they don�t.
[49:59.680 --> 50:03.840]  Why would I assume that they don�t? Well, okay, I guess the question is, how
[50:03.840 --> 50:11.720]  big is the check they send relative to the amount of debt?
[50:11.720 --> 50:18.560]  It represents 2% of the account. Ah, so they send them a small check to kind
[50:18.560 --> 50:23.680]  of suck them in. Yes.
[50:23.680 --> 50:30.480]  Do they find that most of the creditors get sucked in?
[50:30.480 --> 50:35.600]  Evidently they do and evidently every one of them violates the Fair Debt Collections
[50:35.600 --> 50:39.760]  Practices Act too. A creditor can�t violate the Fair Debt
[50:39.760 --> 50:44.400]  Collections Practices Act? Well, the third party that it may be transferred
[50:44.400 --> 50:49.600]  to will violate the Fair Debt Collections Act. They might violate the Fair Credit Billing
[50:49.600 --> 50:54.720]  Act but not the Fair Debt Collections because that only applies to third party debt collectors.
[50:54.720 --> 51:00.680]  Okay, so they also notify them also that there is a billing dispute error.
[51:00.680 --> 51:03.560]  That�s one of them. As I said, it would fall under the Fair Credit
[51:03.560 --> 51:14.040]  Billing Act if it�s with the creditor. I�d be careful of this. I would really be
[51:14.040 --> 51:19.040]  careful because there are too many unknowns and in fact there�s a sufficient number
[51:19.040 --> 51:23.280]  of unknowns that I can�t even ask intelligent questions about it.
[51:23.280 --> 51:30.880]  Yeah, that�s kind of where I was at. It sounds like you�re taking a pretty serious
[51:30.880 --> 51:35.080]  risk. What you referred to in the past, Randy, is
[51:35.080 --> 51:44.720]  a novel idea. Yeah, I�ve heard that before. It may actually
[51:44.720 --> 51:52.720]  be, it may work and it may be valid. It sounds like one of those factoring scams.
[51:52.720 --> 52:02.080]  Well, Hale vs. Hinkle says that we have the right to enter into a contract with anybody
[52:02.080 --> 52:08.080]  so I don�t see why I can�t get away with, you know, transferring.
[52:08.080 --> 52:18.720]  Yeah, okay. Good point but, you know, the bankers began selling the security interest
[52:18.720 --> 52:28.960]  on these mortgages and they could do that. However, if they did do that, according to
[52:28.960 --> 52:35.160]  this recent Kansas case in the Supreme Court, Kansas said, you know, they can do it. They
[52:35.160 --> 52:44.960]  can sell the security instrument but when they do, they create a fatal flaw so that
[52:44.960 --> 52:53.320]  neither the holder of the security interest nor the holder of the deed of trust has standing
[52:53.320 --> 52:58.920]  to repossess on the property. So why you can do something doesn�t necessarily
[52:58.920 --> 53:07.680]  mean that you�re not stepping into quicksand. Okay, and so, you know, the reason why I�m
[53:07.680 --> 53:13.120]  calling in is because I have enough concern that I want to be proactive about this. And
[53:13.120 --> 53:19.480]  so, indeed, I�m proactive about this. What I�m doing is I�m sending in a conditional
[53:19.480 --> 53:27.520]  acceptance that I will accept the alleged balance that I�m lawfully liable for provided
[53:27.520 --> 53:33.200]  they provide proof of claim that they can send me a certified copy of the original contract
[53:33.200 --> 53:41.560]  with the wet ink signature, certified through perjury by the custodian of account. That�s
[53:41.560 --> 53:45.560]  the valid and certified contract which I�ve signed specifically prohibits me from transferring
[53:45.560 --> 53:50.040]  the alleged debt to a third party and that you provide me with the citation of the specific
[53:50.040 --> 53:53.600]  section within the contract which I�ve signed which specifically prohibits me from this
[53:53.600 --> 53:56.920]  account. Whoa, whoa, whoa. You�re going to transfer
[53:56.920 --> 54:00.040]  the debt to a third party? Yes.
[54:00.040 --> 54:09.640]  Okay. Can you transfer the title of my car? No, I can, but I�ve never had any�
[54:09.640 --> 54:16.040]  You can transfer the title of that other property either and that�s what it is. The debt is
[54:16.040 --> 54:25.000]  a property. I�d be careful of this. I�d be very careful of this.
[54:25.000 --> 54:29.120]  Okay. This sounds like a fair amount of research
[54:29.120 --> 54:33.480]  went into it, but it�s also at the same time very incomplete.
[54:33.480 --> 54:41.800]  Yes, and I find this in the Patriot community that a lot of times people do extensive research,
[54:41.800 --> 54:52.720]  but they tend to do research looking for what they want to find. That�s very, very dangerous
[54:52.720 --> 54:57.880]  because you tend to interpret everything in terms of what you want to be there rather
[54:57.880 --> 55:03.440]  than in terms of what you actually find. Okay. Well, I�ve never had any experience
[55:03.440 --> 55:10.120]  where you don�t disagree with anything that you have said. I�m curious what you have
[55:10.120 --> 55:17.120]  to say about the innovation contract. I mean, if a bank can use those blank checks with
[55:17.120 --> 55:23.400]  all those terms associated with those blank checks, which say that you�re bound by a
[55:23.400 --> 55:28.840]  few cashless checks, why couldn�t we send them a blank or a check in a certain amount
[55:28.840 --> 55:32.560]  which will lock them into certain agreements associated with those checks?
[55:32.560 --> 55:37.680]  Do you have a federal statute that gives you the authority to do that with paperwork?
[55:37.680 --> 55:41.120]  No, do they? Yes, they do.
[55:41.120 --> 55:42.120]  Yeah. Here�s my concern.
[55:42.120 --> 55:52.200]  It�s called a charter. Here�s my concern. If I loan you money, then
[55:52.200 --> 56:02.680]  I take the risk with you, and I create a lien against you or your property, and you want
[56:02.680 --> 56:06.760]  to come along and say, �Well, I don�t want to be the one that you have a lien against.
[56:06.760 --> 56:14.760]  I want you to have a lien against this other guy.� How do you get there? When my lien
[56:14.760 --> 56:22.640]  is against you, how do you transfer my lien from you to someone else?
[56:22.640 --> 56:28.640]  Well, if that third party actually accepts agreement to take that lien, then why not?
[56:28.640 --> 56:31.160]  Yeah, that�s a different� If they accept it, certainly.
[56:31.160 --> 56:34.920]  Well, that�s what I�m saying. The third party accepted it.
[56:34.920 --> 56:42.320]  So this only worked if the third party cashes the check? If they send the check back, then
[56:42.320 --> 56:49.600]  what? No, in this instance, in terms of the credit
[56:49.600 --> 56:57.480]  card companies, the credit card companies reportedly don�t have any hesitation to
[56:57.480 --> 57:06.400]  cash in any of these nobation contract checks. Yeah, okay. Now I understand how it works.
[57:06.400 --> 57:11.320]  This works if they cash it, and the fact is these guys probably hadn�t figured it out
[57:11.320 --> 57:19.640]  yet that you�re laying a trap for them. Yeah, and if they repeatedly cash these checks
[57:19.640 --> 57:27.240]  and they repeatedly agree to these terms, then you go after them for breach of contract
[57:27.240 --> 57:30.880]  just like they�re going after you. Actually, I kind of like that.
[57:30.880 --> 57:34.800]  Yeah. Turnabouts, certainly fair play.
[57:34.800 --> 57:44.720]  Yeah, that�s what I mean, Jeff. I�m a little concerned about an unconscionable
[57:44.720 --> 57:54.440]  contract due to the use of subterfuge, and out of that, bank fraud.
[57:54.440 --> 58:01.280]  Well, why would it be bank fraud if you�re actually asking the bank to bump within the
[58:01.280 --> 58:12.480]  contract, as we find an unconscionable contract through subterfuge resulting in bank fraud?
[58:12.480 --> 58:20.320]  Good point on unconscionable contract. All right, listen. Listen, we�re going to
[58:20.320 --> 58:25.560]  break. Matt, if you want to hang on to the other side so we can finish up on this.
[58:25.560 --> 58:29.200]  Sure. We�re at the top of the hour break. Okay,
[58:29.200 --> 58:34.800]  interesting scenario here. We�ve also got Jesse on the line, Gail from Minnesota, Rick
[58:34.800 --> 58:41.400]  from California has called back in. We�ve got one more hour. 512-646-1984. This is the
[58:41.400 --> 58:47.600]  rule of law. Randy Kelton and Craig Devers-Stevens, and we�re here with our special guest, Jeff
[58:47.600 --> 59:03.000]  Sedgwick from Your Remedy is in the Law. We�ll be right back.
[59:03.000 --> 59:18.400]  We�ll be right back.
[59:48.400 --> 01:00:10.660]  According to a high-ranking Pakistani insider, Pakistan has concluded a secret agreement
[01:00:10.660 --> 01:00:15.700]  with Saudi Arabia that will provide them with nuclear weapons technology in exchange for
[01:00:15.700 --> 01:00:16.700]  cheap oil.
[01:00:16.700 --> 01:00:21.480]  The insider said it will be vehemently denied by both countries, but future events will
[01:00:21.480 --> 01:00:23.640]  confirm this to be the case.
[01:00:23.640 --> 01:00:27.880]  Barack Obama has said he would be happy to look at bills before Congress that would give
[01:00:27.880 --> 01:00:33.680]  struggling news organizations tax breaks if they restructure as non-profit businesses.
[01:00:33.680 --> 01:00:39.080]  Obama said, I'm concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, you will end
[01:00:39.080 --> 01:00:43.560]  up getting people shouting at each other, but not a lot of mutual understanding.
[01:00:43.560 --> 01:00:49.640]  UK Major General Andrew McKay, who led the Afghanistan campaign, has resigned over his
[01:00:49.640 --> 01:00:53.360]  disillusion in the direction of the government's strategy.
[01:00:53.360 --> 01:00:59.640]  McKay was the architect of the military's new counterinsurgency doctrine.
[01:00:59.640 --> 01:01:05.600]  A federal judge has ruled the government illegally approved a genetically modified herbicide-resistant
[01:01:05.600 --> 01:01:11.200]  strain of sugar beets without adequately considering the chance they would contaminate other beet
[01:01:11.200 --> 01:01:17.240]  crops, the ruling by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White rejected the Department of Agriculture's
[01:01:17.240 --> 01:01:22.920]  decision to allow chemical giant Monsanto to sell sugar beets known as Roundup Ready
[01:01:22.920 --> 01:01:28.060]  because they're engineered to coexist with Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.
[01:01:28.060 --> 01:01:33.000]  This year's planting is the first to include a full crop of the Monsanto product.
[01:01:33.000 --> 01:01:38.640]  Judge White said the USDA, in concluding that the new crop would have no significant environmental
[01:01:38.640 --> 01:01:45.760]  effects, discounted the likelihood that wind-borne pollen would spread to fields where non-GMO
[01:01:45.760 --> 01:01:48.680]  beets are grown.
[01:01:48.680 --> 01:01:53.560]  The campaign against acorn, the grassroots community group dedicated to helping poor
[01:01:53.560 --> 01:02:00.240]  and working-class people, has gained bipartisan support in the form of the Defund Acorn Act,
[01:02:00.240 --> 01:02:02.600]  which has passed the House and Senate.
[01:02:02.600 --> 01:02:08.480]  Ryan Grim at Huffington Post points out the legislation could plausibly defund the entire
[01:02:08.480 --> 01:02:10.560]  military-industrial complex.
[01:02:10.560 --> 01:02:16.560]  Grim writes, the Congressional legislation intended to defund acorn is written so broadly
[01:02:16.560 --> 01:02:22.440]  it applies to any organization charged with breaking federal or state election laws, lobbying
[01:02:22.440 --> 01:02:28.240]  disclosure laws, campaign finance laws, or filing fraudulent paperwork with any federal
[01:02:28.240 --> 01:02:30.240]  or state agency.
[01:02:30.240 --> 01:02:34.440]  According to the Project on Oversight and Government Reform, this legislation could
[01:02:34.440 --> 01:02:38.160]  eliminate a virtual who's who of war contractors.
[01:02:38.160 --> 01:02:42.920]  Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to contract with Blackwater.
[01:02:42.920 --> 01:02:48.120]  Blackwater is being investigated by Congress, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms,
[01:02:48.120 --> 01:02:54.000]  the Justice Department, and the IRS for arms smuggling, manslaughter, and tax evasion.
[01:02:54.000 --> 01:03:10.680]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at RuleOfLawRadio.com, live free
[01:03:10.680 --> 01:03:26.120]  speech talk radio at its best.
[01:03:26.120 --> 01:03:50.720]  All right, we will occupy our father's house till he returns, taking care of his house.
[01:03:50.720 --> 01:03:54.920]  We are the stewards, trying to be good and faithful stewards.
[01:03:54.920 --> 01:04:02.960]  Okay, so we're speaking with Matt, and Eddie, you had some comments on the break about this
[01:04:02.960 --> 01:04:03.960]  sort of thing.
[01:04:03.960 --> 01:04:09.120]  Well, I would like to begin that comment with a question to the caller there.
[01:04:09.120 --> 01:04:15.240]  On this instrument that you're sending in, is this instrument negotiable in the form
[01:04:15.240 --> 01:04:23.120]  of a check, and what is the statement on the back of this check that is eliminating the
[01:04:23.120 --> 01:04:25.120]  debt owed?
[01:04:25.120 --> 01:04:27.040]  Eddie, I'm not sending it in.
[01:04:27.040 --> 01:04:29.120]  The third party sends it in.
[01:04:29.120 --> 01:04:35.240]  Okay, but still, you're taking the responsibility of having a debt that you owe canceled out
[01:04:35.240 --> 01:04:37.960]  by the acceptance of this instrument, correct?
[01:04:37.960 --> 01:04:39.880]  That's part of it.
[01:04:39.880 --> 01:04:46.640]  There's a whole strategy that goes behind actually dealing with the alleged debt, and
[01:04:46.640 --> 01:04:50.240]  the novation contract is one of the things that they use.
[01:04:50.240 --> 01:04:51.240]  Okay.
[01:04:51.240 --> 01:05:00.000]  My question is, is you're willing to entrust a third party that, by what you're stating
[01:05:00.000 --> 01:05:05.560]  here, it seems that you're unfamiliar with the exact specifics of what they do.
[01:05:05.560 --> 01:05:15.520]  I've seen a similar novation contract in dealing with credit cards, and it appeared to me,
[01:05:15.520 --> 01:05:20.800]  you know, I'm certainly not a legal scholar, and I would be one of those people within
[01:05:20.800 --> 01:05:26.800]  the Patriot community that has a tendency of grasping onto things, but I guess I'd say
[01:05:26.800 --> 01:05:29.280]  I'm a little bit more discerning than the average Joe.
[01:05:29.280 --> 01:05:30.280]  Yeah.
[01:05:30.280 --> 01:05:36.680]  Well, be that as it may, the one thing I can tell you about getting the grasp of things
[01:05:36.680 --> 01:05:41.320]  is make sure that it's not something you've got wrapped around your neck at the time.
[01:05:41.320 --> 01:05:47.680]  No, I'm not in a position to where I've been sued at all.
[01:05:47.680 --> 01:05:52.400]  I'm really in the position of where I want to be as proactive about fighting this issue
[01:05:52.400 --> 01:05:57.680]  as I can be, and I'm going to act under the presumption that anything that this third
[01:05:57.680 --> 01:06:01.200]  party does isn't going to hold any water.
[01:06:01.200 --> 01:06:06.120]  So what I'm doing right now is I'm asking of any of the alleged creditors to provide
[01:06:06.120 --> 01:06:10.600]  me with the wedding signature of the contract, certified under the penalties of perjury by
[01:06:10.600 --> 01:06:20.680]  the custodian account, as well as any element within that contract that I signed which specifically
[01:06:20.680 --> 01:06:28.360]  prohibits me from transferring the account, and giving me 30 days to provide it up along
[01:06:28.360 --> 01:06:30.240]  with a couple of other points.
[01:06:30.240 --> 01:06:40.000]  I think in a novation contract, it's very important that both sides have full disclosure
[01:06:40.000 --> 01:06:41.640]  and full agreement.
[01:06:41.640 --> 01:06:47.520]  Well, and that's specifically the novation contract.
[01:06:47.520 --> 01:06:53.640]  When they cash that check, they're also being provided with documentation of all the things
[01:06:53.640 --> 01:07:00.440]  that come along with cashing that check, and I can't tell you exactly how they go about
[01:07:00.440 --> 01:07:10.360]  doing it except to assume that they probably provide them with a notarial presentment of
[01:07:10.360 --> 01:07:11.360]  a document.
[01:07:11.360 --> 01:07:15.360]  Well, here's why it raises concerns to me.
[01:07:15.360 --> 01:07:22.120]  There was a company that was mailing out little $3.25 checks to people here in Texas, and
[01:07:22.120 --> 01:07:28.240]  in very, very small print on the back of this check was the agreement that you were giving
[01:07:28.240 --> 01:07:37.400]  off that by signing and depositing this check, you agreed to be billed a sum of $499 for advertising
[01:07:37.400 --> 01:07:44.080]  on this company's website, and it was written in the light gray coloration of the depositor
[01:07:44.080 --> 01:07:48.400]  stamp and all that, where it was not on the back of the check where it was truly intelligible
[01:07:48.400 --> 01:07:53.080]  as to what you were signing and what you were doing at the time.
[01:07:53.080 --> 01:07:58.640]  This company wound up in very deep hot water with the attorney general of the state, in
[01:07:58.640 --> 01:08:06.720]  fact, sued them and made them repay all the money they had collected for this purpose,
[01:08:06.720 --> 01:08:13.400]  and that company is no longer allowed to perform these activities within the borders of Texas,
[01:08:13.400 --> 01:08:20.680]  but by the same token, by affiliating yourself with this company, you would have been a party
[01:08:20.680 --> 01:08:25.120]  to the action brought by the attorney general.
[01:08:25.120 --> 01:08:33.020]  My concern here is that even though what your concern is is that you're not directly responsible
[01:08:33.020 --> 01:08:38.800]  for this third party, you're the gateway they're using to commit an act that potentially has
[01:08:38.800 --> 01:08:46.160]  a downside in the legal area, and so without getting too deep into that, it just comes
[01:08:46.160 --> 01:08:51.280]  to mind that there's a possibility that some sharp attorney is going to find some way to
[01:08:51.280 --> 01:08:54.440]  drag as many people into this mix as possible.
[01:08:54.440 --> 01:08:59.920]  Okay, well, the bottom line is that it still comes down to there has to be a valid signed
[01:08:59.920 --> 01:09:00.920]  contract, right?
[01:09:00.920 --> 01:09:05.640]  Well, you're correct, but you're talking two different distinctions here at the moment.
[01:09:05.640 --> 01:09:10.200]  One is a valid contract which anyone can negate if it's not valid.
[01:09:10.200 --> 01:09:16.680]  Any party to an invalid contract can negate it as soon as they're aware of the problem.
[01:09:16.680 --> 01:09:23.360]  I got you, but the third party is doing its thing, but I'm also acting as if, okay, I
[01:09:23.360 --> 01:09:27.200]  will accept this alleged debt provided you provide me with the wedding signature.
[01:09:27.200 --> 01:09:32.280]  They don't do it within 30 days, along with identifying specifically within that contract
[01:09:32.280 --> 01:09:34.360]  that I can't transfer the debt, then...
[01:09:34.360 --> 01:09:39.180]  Okay, but now, see, that's a contradiction in terms.
[01:09:39.180 --> 01:09:43.680]  You want them to prove that you legally owe the debt, but at the same time, you're asking
[01:09:43.680 --> 01:09:47.240]  for proof that you can't transfer the debt.
[01:09:47.240 --> 01:09:51.920]  How can you have a debt that doesn't exist?
[01:09:51.920 --> 01:09:53.880]  It's a contradiction in terms.
[01:09:53.880 --> 01:09:57.840]  Prove the debt's not transferable, but at the same time, prove the debt exists.
[01:09:57.840 --> 01:10:01.440]  Okay, well, there's another problem here.
[01:10:01.440 --> 01:10:06.760]  You're asking them to prove that you can't transfer it.
[01:10:06.760 --> 01:10:09.120]  They're not doing anything proactive.
[01:10:09.120 --> 01:10:10.120]  You are.
[01:10:10.120 --> 01:10:16.280]  Since you're the one that's proactively trying to transfer the debt, the onus will be on
[01:10:16.280 --> 01:10:22.720]  you to show that you have standing or authority to do that, that the responsibility is not
[01:10:22.720 --> 01:10:25.160]  on them to prove that you can't do it.
[01:10:25.160 --> 01:10:31.280]  Okay, so just notify them, the document, which the document cites Hale versus Hinkle.
[01:10:31.280 --> 01:10:36.360]  Hale versus Hinkle's not enough because the contract itself...
[01:10:36.360 --> 01:10:41.920]  I have case law on small print in a contract.
[01:10:41.920 --> 01:10:52.320]  The courts have addressed where contracts are long and not decipherable or where clauses
[01:10:52.320 --> 01:10:59.880]  in contracts are deliberately printed in such small print or couched in language that tend
[01:10:59.880 --> 01:11:08.080]  to mislead the reader that the contract is not consumable.
[01:11:08.080 --> 01:11:12.760]  If you have very much of a contract on the back of this check, it's going to have to
[01:11:12.760 --> 01:11:19.240]  be awful small, and it appears as though they deliberately put it on a check that they know
[01:11:19.240 --> 01:11:28.560]  doesn't go to the legal department, but goes to a processing center with people who are
[01:11:28.560 --> 01:11:38.640]  generally not educated in law, who do a simple routine that they do over and over, and would
[01:11:38.640 --> 01:11:44.880]  be expected not to look at the back of a check to look for a contract.
[01:11:44.880 --> 01:11:45.880]  I hear you.
[01:11:45.880 --> 01:11:46.880]  I'm not...
[01:11:46.880 --> 01:11:49.160]  Something they could enter by mistake.
[01:11:49.160 --> 01:11:53.480]  I hear what you're saying, but I know that they do engage in communication with the legal
[01:11:53.480 --> 01:11:56.360]  department, so...
[01:11:56.360 --> 01:11:57.360]  That's not it.
[01:11:57.360 --> 01:12:06.200]  Surely they can, but this appears as though it's designed to take advantage of the way
[01:12:06.200 --> 01:12:13.480]  the normal way business is done and take advantage of a tendency for mistakes to occur.
[01:12:13.480 --> 01:12:15.080]  Yeah, I have to agree.
[01:12:15.080 --> 01:12:18.640]  I have to agree with Randy and Jeff on this one.
[01:12:18.640 --> 01:12:24.480]  This sounds dangerous to me, even if somebody or some group of people have put this whole
[01:12:24.480 --> 01:12:33.320]  thing together to try to seal up every legal loophole.
[01:12:33.320 --> 01:12:35.320]  It just seems like it lacks integrity.
[01:12:35.320 --> 01:12:37.040]  It seems like it's deceptive.
[01:12:37.040 --> 01:12:44.880]  Even if it's somehow lawful or legal, somewhere, someday down the line, it's going to lead
[01:12:44.880 --> 01:12:50.600]  to trouble because it just doesn't come with integrity.
[01:12:50.600 --> 01:12:53.640]  That's just what hits to me.
[01:12:53.640 --> 01:12:57.640]  I would proceed with extreme caution.
[01:12:57.640 --> 01:13:02.720]  You don't always want to try to... Just because they're committing fraud or somehow managing
[01:13:02.720 --> 01:13:08.440]  to find ways to get around it, committing fraud through loopholes or whatever, that
[01:13:08.440 --> 01:13:12.600]  doesn't mean that we necessarily want to do the same thing, so I don't know.
[01:13:12.600 --> 01:13:13.600]  I don't like it.
[01:13:13.600 --> 01:13:14.600]  I'm with Jeff.
[01:13:14.600 --> 01:13:15.600]  I don't like it.
[01:13:15.600 --> 01:13:24.040]  They've dotted every I and crossed every T. Going back to what Dr. Gray says, when he
[01:13:24.040 --> 01:13:33.360]  was in law school, everything went to the reasonable person standard.
[01:13:33.360 --> 01:13:39.600]  The court will absolutely look at this from a reasonable person standard, and they're
[01:13:39.600 --> 01:13:45.880]  going to look at this and say, could this company who's processing thousands of checks
[01:13:45.880 --> 01:13:52.000]  a day reasonably be expected to closely examine the backs of every check that goes through
[01:13:52.000 --> 01:14:00.160]  their facility, or is it reasonable to expect that one check out of thousands would slip
[01:14:00.160 --> 01:14:01.160]  through?
[01:14:01.160 --> 01:14:09.480]  If so, they're going to say, that's unconscionable, and you can't hold a company responsible
[01:14:09.480 --> 01:14:16.880]  when they've exercised due diligence for not exercising extreme and unreasonable diligence.
[01:14:16.880 --> 01:14:19.600]  I think that's probably where the standard will go to.
[01:14:19.600 --> 01:14:28.080]  The thing is also is that these banksters violate the law so much, every single step
[01:14:28.080 --> 01:14:34.840]  of the way, and commit fraud just blatantly, flagrantly all the time.
[01:14:34.840 --> 01:14:41.400]  We've got plenty of ammunition against them, and we don't need to go to this place.
[01:14:41.400 --> 01:14:47.840]  We need to always take the high ground, morally, ethically, spiritually, if we really want
[01:14:47.840 --> 01:14:50.240]  to beat these guys.
[01:14:50.240 --> 01:14:54.880]  If that fails, it'll be better shots.
[01:14:54.880 --> 01:15:04.480]  That's my concern, is that it looks like really deep water, and you could be right, and frankly,
[01:15:04.480 --> 01:15:06.080]  I think they deserve it.
[01:15:06.080 --> 01:15:08.120]  I'm not certain they do.
[01:15:08.120 --> 01:15:10.160]  That's what I'm doing.
[01:15:10.160 --> 01:15:14.280]  However, I think it can also come back and bite you in the hymen.
[01:15:14.280 --> 01:15:18.320]  Well, if I don't have anything in my name, what are they going to get?
[01:15:18.320 --> 01:15:20.560]  You've got a good point there.
[01:15:20.560 --> 01:15:26.080]  I'd just be reluctant to recommend this to someone else, because we do have so many things
[01:15:26.080 --> 01:15:27.080]  we can beat them up with.
[01:15:27.080 --> 01:15:33.240]  We have so many things we can go after them for, and we can come out on top, and where
[01:15:33.240 --> 01:15:40.120]  we're obviously coming from a position of integrity and moral and ethical fortitude
[01:15:40.120 --> 01:15:43.320]  that we don't... I just don't think it's necessary.
[01:15:43.320 --> 01:15:50.000]  We can justify it and figure out ways to make it so that it's totally lawful and the whole
[01:15:50.000 --> 01:15:53.440]  thing, but it just doesn't seem like... I don't know.
[01:15:53.440 --> 01:15:55.040]  It's not the approach I would take.
[01:15:55.040 --> 01:15:59.440]  I agree with you, and I appreciate all your commentary.
[01:15:59.440 --> 01:16:03.320]  You may want to do some research on this and see if anyone has ever gotten prosecuted for
[01:16:03.320 --> 01:16:07.080]  something like this, or really taken the task.
[01:16:07.080 --> 01:16:12.720]  They've been in business for over two or three years, and they don't have one mark against
[01:16:12.720 --> 01:16:13.720]  their better business.
[01:16:13.720 --> 01:16:14.720]  That's not long enough.
[01:16:14.720 --> 01:16:15.720]  That's not long enough.
[01:16:15.720 --> 01:16:19.600]  How long was Al Capone in business before they found a way to bring him in?
[01:16:19.600 --> 01:16:26.280]  You may want to look not just for this business, but just in general, this type of practice.
[01:16:26.280 --> 01:16:31.680]  You may want to look and see if anyone else who has ever attempted anything like this
[01:16:31.680 --> 01:16:33.040]  may have gotten in any trouble.
[01:16:33.040 --> 01:16:34.040]  Just be careful.
[01:16:34.040 --> 01:16:35.040]  Yeah.
[01:16:35.040 --> 01:16:38.040]  When we come back from break, I'll give you a real good example of how long it can take
[01:16:38.040 --> 01:16:39.040]  to come back from the house.
[01:16:39.040 --> 01:16:43.360]  Yes, and we kind of need to move on so that we can get to some of our other callers too.
[01:16:43.360 --> 01:16:44.360]  All right.
[01:16:44.360 --> 01:16:45.360]  Bye.
[01:16:45.360 --> 01:16:46.360]  All right.
[01:16:46.360 --> 01:16:47.360]  Thank you so much, Matt.
[01:16:47.360 --> 01:16:48.360]  Bye.
[01:16:48.360 --> 01:16:49.360]  Okay.
[01:16:49.360 --> 01:16:50.360]  Yeah.
[01:16:50.360 --> 01:16:55.480]  It's good to go over these things so that we can keep ourselves out of harm's way.
[01:16:55.480 --> 01:16:56.480]  We'll be right back.
[01:16:56.480 --> 01:16:57.480]  Hello, Austin.
[01:16:57.480 --> 01:16:58.480]  My name is Harlan Dietrich, owner of Brave New Books, a local independent bookstore here
[01:16:58.480 --> 01:16:59.480]  in town.
[01:16:59.480 --> 01:17:00.480]  Many of you are familiar with the bookstore and have attended some of our events.
[01:17:00.480 --> 01:17:01.480]  We've been proud to host speakers like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, Jim Marsh, Katherine Albert,
[01:17:01.480 --> 01:17:02.480]  Webster Carpley, G. Edward Griffin, and many other heroic figures in the patriot movement.
[01:17:02.480 --> 01:17:03.480]  But now, Brave New Books needs your help in order to continue to provide a space for these
[01:17:03.480 --> 01:17:04.480]  events and be an outlet for the next generation of people.
[01:17:04.480 --> 01:17:05.480]  We're going to be back in a minute.
[01:17:05.480 --> 01:17:06.480]  We'll be right back.
[01:17:06.480 --> 01:17:07.480]  Hello, Austin.
[01:17:07.480 --> 01:17:08.480]  My name is Harlan Dietrich, owner of Brave New Books, a local independent bookstore here
[01:17:08.480 --> 01:17:09.480]  in town.
[01:17:09.480 --> 01:17:10.480]  Many of you are familiar with the bookstore and have attended some of our events.
[01:17:10.480 --> 01:17:29.480]  We've been proud to host speakers like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, Jim Marsh, Katherine Albert,
[01:17:29.480 --> 01:17:54.480]  Webster Carpley, G. Edward Griffin, and many other heroic figures in the patriot movement
[01:17:54.480 --> 01:18:13.480]  and are proud to host speakers like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, Jim Marsh, Katherine Albert, and
[01:18:13.480 --> 01:18:28.480]  many other heroic figures in the patriot movement.
[01:18:28.480 --> 01:18:47.480]  We're going to be back in a minute.
[01:18:47.480 --> 01:19:07.480]  We're going to be back in a minute.
[01:19:17.480 --> 01:19:30.480]  Okay, we are back here on the Rule of Law, ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:19:30.480 --> 01:19:35.480]  I want to thank all of our affiliates out there, AM and FM.
[01:19:35.480 --> 01:19:37.840]  We've got about 20 affiliates right now.
[01:19:37.840 --> 01:19:41.240]  We want to thank each and every one of them, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.
[01:19:41.240 --> 01:19:46.960]  We've got Madison, Wisconsin, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Tulsa, Durant, Guthrie.
[01:19:46.960 --> 01:19:55.800]  We've got South Bend, Indiana, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Minneapolis.
[01:19:55.800 --> 01:20:02.760]  The list goes on and on, St. Louis, Missouri, Corvallis, Oregon, Albany, Oregon.
[01:20:02.760 --> 01:20:05.680]  So I want to thank all of y'all out there for carrying us.
[01:20:05.680 --> 01:20:09.680]  Okay, we are going to go now to Rick in California.
[01:20:09.680 --> 01:20:12.960]  Okay, Rick, thanks for calling back in.
[01:20:12.960 --> 01:20:13.960]  What you got?
[01:20:13.960 --> 01:20:14.960]  How's it going?
[01:20:14.960 --> 01:20:15.960]  Good.
[01:20:15.960 --> 01:20:22.960]  Okay, I just wanted to bring up something you guys were talking about in the beginning.
[01:20:22.960 --> 01:20:33.960]  When you said that the count is closed, and then your guest said that it's still there,
[01:20:33.960 --> 01:20:36.960]  they're just taking off the books.
[01:20:36.960 --> 01:20:39.960]  And you said that once closed, it doesn't mean anything.
[01:20:39.960 --> 01:20:47.960]  But my question was this because I've actually encountered this when I helped someone because of credit card.
[01:20:47.960 --> 01:20:52.960]  My question was that aren't they insured?
[01:20:52.960 --> 01:20:57.960]  Like every account doesn't have some kind of insurance in case a person does not pay?
[01:20:57.960 --> 01:21:02.960]  Because if that's the case, the way I'm thinking about it is that they collect the insurance.
[01:21:02.960 --> 01:21:03.960]  Okay, that's my belief.
[01:21:03.960 --> 01:21:08.960]  They collect the insurance once the account is closed, then they go ahead and sell it.
[01:21:08.960 --> 01:21:17.960]  So what I did is I called this bank, and I said, excuse me, but did you guys – I want to pay you guys.
[01:21:17.960 --> 01:21:19.960]  And they said, oh, I'm sorry, sir, but your account is closed.
[01:21:19.960 --> 01:21:21.960]  I said, could I please get that in writing?
[01:21:21.960 --> 01:21:26.960]  And she said, well, yeah, sure, we'll send you a letter saying it's closed and we're sorry, blah, blah, blah.
[01:21:26.960 --> 01:21:27.960]  I said, okay.
[01:21:27.960 --> 01:21:28.960]  I said, well, I have another question.
[01:21:28.960 --> 01:21:35.960]  I have this debt collection agency here, and they told me that you authorized them to go ahead
[01:21:35.960 --> 01:21:39.960]  and collect the money that I owe.
[01:21:39.960 --> 01:21:42.960]  And she said, well, I don't know anything about that,
[01:21:42.960 --> 01:21:46.960]  but your account has been referred to, and then they'll say the collection agency.
[01:21:46.960 --> 01:21:50.960]  I said, excuse me, ma'am, but I don't understand that because if the account is closed
[01:21:50.960 --> 01:21:56.960]  and you guys collected insurance, wouldn't that be insurance fraud if indeed you guys did collect insurance on that?
[01:21:56.960 --> 01:22:03.960]  And she said – so that's when I asked her, so did you guys – and I would, of course, let them know that I'm recording them.
[01:22:03.960 --> 01:22:09.960]  And then I said, so did you guys authorize this debt collection agency to come after me?
[01:22:09.960 --> 01:22:14.960]  And then she said, no, I didn't, or we didn't.
[01:22:14.960 --> 01:22:15.960]  I said, okay, thank you very much.
[01:22:15.960 --> 01:22:19.960]  I called them back and I said, excuse me, why don't you guys – I have a question
[01:22:19.960 --> 01:22:21.960]  because I don't know if you guys are committing fraud here,
[01:22:21.960 --> 01:22:24.960]  since they told me I had to record it that they did not authorize you guys.
[01:22:24.960 --> 01:22:29.960]  So, you know, I mean, that's how I went about it, and then I was left alone.
[01:22:29.960 --> 01:22:30.960]  Am I wrong there?
[01:22:30.960 --> 01:22:34.960]  Or, I mean – is it on your credit record, Rick?
[01:22:34.960 --> 01:22:35.960]  No, no, no.
[01:22:35.960 --> 01:22:36.960]  Well, it wasn't for me.
[01:22:36.960 --> 01:22:37.960]  It was for someone that I know.
[01:22:37.960 --> 01:22:39.960]  Is it on that credit record?
[01:22:39.960 --> 01:22:41.960]  I'm going to have to find out.
[01:22:41.960 --> 01:22:42.960]  I think that's a real good point.
[01:22:42.960 --> 01:22:50.960]  If it hasn't been too long and there's a two-year statute of limitations on FCRA,
[01:22:50.960 --> 01:23:01.960]  then you might want to consider taking an FCRA, which is a Fair Credit Reporting Act, type of action.
[01:23:01.960 --> 01:23:06.960]  Okay, because he was in Texas and he came to L.A., and they were still calling him from there.
[01:23:06.960 --> 01:23:09.960]  So that was, you know, it was kind of weird because I'm like,
[01:23:09.960 --> 01:23:13.960]  I don't think you guys even have a business license to be, you know, in California to be doing that,
[01:23:13.960 --> 01:23:15.960]  but they were doing it anyways.
[01:23:15.960 --> 01:23:21.960]  So, but isn't that correct in my belief as far as that they collect some kind of insurance?
[01:23:21.960 --> 01:23:23.960]  Because if that's the case, would that be insurance as well?
[01:23:23.960 --> 01:23:30.960]  According to the GAO's testimony before Congress a few years ago, yes, it is accurate.
[01:23:30.960 --> 01:23:32.960]  Okay.
[01:23:32.960 --> 01:23:41.960]  So they go to the – they collect insurance on it when they're still in the process of collecting it.
[01:23:41.960 --> 01:23:42.960]  Mm-hmm.
[01:23:42.960 --> 01:23:46.960]  So that comes – you're saying that comes up insurance fraud.
[01:23:46.960 --> 01:23:48.960]  Yeah, it's double-dipping.
[01:23:48.960 --> 01:23:50.960]  They've made fraud in the insurance program.
[01:23:50.960 --> 01:23:53.960]  Remember, Randy, they're not selling the debt, they're selling evidence of debt.
[01:23:53.960 --> 01:23:57.960]  Correct.
[01:23:57.960 --> 01:23:59.960]  Wait a minute, do that again?
[01:23:59.960 --> 01:24:02.960]  They're not selling the debt, they're selling evidence of the debt.
[01:24:02.960 --> 01:24:09.960]  So evidence of the debt would give who standing to collect.
[01:24:09.960 --> 01:24:15.960]  Not really, no one.
[01:24:15.960 --> 01:24:19.960]  That's like me coming with my photocopy of a $100 bill.
[01:24:19.960 --> 01:24:22.960]  No kidding.
[01:24:22.960 --> 01:24:26.960]  Who is required to accept that as legal tender?
[01:24:26.960 --> 01:24:31.960]  I don't know why that doesn't work for us, it's what the Fed does.
[01:24:31.960 --> 01:24:35.960]  They don't make a photocopy, they make the original.
[01:24:35.960 --> 01:24:37.960]  Well, see, yeah, that just doesn't make any sense.
[01:24:37.960 --> 01:24:40.960]  Yeah, but they both have the same value.
[01:24:40.960 --> 01:24:44.960]  They don't make a photocopy of a bad check, they make the original bad check.
[01:24:44.960 --> 01:24:53.960]  Just because they're selling evidence of the debt, like Jeff says, how does that give the buyer standing to try to collect on it,
[01:24:53.960 --> 01:24:57.960]  just because he's got evidence that a debt exists?
[01:24:57.960 --> 01:25:02.960]  Legally it doesn't, but they're hoping you won't challenge it legally, which exactly is.
[01:25:02.960 --> 01:25:18.960]  The other side of the coin is that you can't prove that transaction took place, so that's what they're relying on.
[01:25:18.960 --> 01:25:20.960]  Wait, who can't prove what transaction?
[01:25:20.960 --> 01:25:27.960]  You can't prove that they bought evidence of the debt, you can't prove that they sold evidence of the debt,
[01:25:27.960 --> 01:25:32.960]  until you can get somebody in there from the institution.
[01:25:32.960 --> 01:25:35.960]  Standing, standing.
[01:25:35.960 --> 01:25:47.960]  If I allow this guy to move ahead and the court, and I don't raise the objection, and the court renders him a judgment and I pay him,
[01:25:47.960 --> 01:25:59.960]  and he really didn't have agency, what's to keep someone else who actually does have the claim from coming back and trying to collect again?
[01:25:59.960 --> 01:26:00.960]  Not a thing.
[01:26:00.960 --> 01:26:02.960]  And I'll say, well, I already paid it.
[01:26:02.960 --> 01:26:06.960]  Well, you didn't pay it to me, and I'm the one with agency.
[01:26:06.960 --> 01:26:09.960]  Very good.
[01:26:09.960 --> 01:26:11.960]  He needs to prove who he is.
[01:26:11.960 --> 01:26:14.960]  Okay, we are stacking up.
[01:26:14.960 --> 01:26:28.960]  Okay, one last question was that I wanted to ask if he can hire – I'm sorry, and this is a question from Kenny.
[01:26:28.960 --> 01:26:34.960]  He wanted to know if he could file criminal charges against the clerk for signing the judgment instead of the judge.
[01:26:34.960 --> 01:26:37.960]  I did that recently.
[01:26:37.960 --> 01:26:39.960]  So he can do that, right?
[01:26:39.960 --> 01:26:43.960]  In Cherokee County, I accused the judge of impersonating a judicial officer.
[01:26:43.960 --> 01:26:45.960]  You accused the clerk, you mean?
[01:26:45.960 --> 01:26:51.960]  I'm sorry, I accused the clerk of impersonating a judicial officer for signing a warrant.
[01:26:51.960 --> 01:26:53.960]  Oh, okay.
[01:26:53.960 --> 01:27:00.960]  Okay, well, thank you very much, you guys, and you guys are awesome, and I really appreciate your work.
[01:27:00.960 --> 01:27:01.960]  Okay, excellent.
[01:27:01.960 --> 01:27:02.960]  Thank you, Rick.
[01:27:02.960 --> 01:27:03.960]  Thank you, Rick.
[01:27:03.960 --> 01:27:04.960]  Okay, bye.
[01:27:04.960 --> 01:27:09.960]  Okay, we're going now to Ben in Pennsylvania.
[01:27:09.960 --> 01:27:13.960]  Ben, thanks for calling in. What is your question for our guest?
[01:27:13.960 --> 01:27:16.960]  I just tuned in, so I don't know who the guest is today.
[01:27:16.960 --> 01:27:19.960]  I had a question for Randy.
[01:27:19.960 --> 01:27:21.960]  Can I ask that?
[01:27:21.960 --> 01:27:25.960]  Well, yeah, but we have only like a half an hour left of the show.
[01:27:25.960 --> 01:27:27.960]  We kind of wanted to stay on topic.
[01:27:27.960 --> 01:27:29.960]  Okay, are you going into overtime tonight?
[01:27:29.960 --> 01:27:32.960]  Guys, do you all want to do that?
[01:27:32.960 --> 01:27:35.960]  Well, we can if everybody's agreeable.
[01:27:35.960 --> 01:27:37.960]  I can go on until then.
[01:27:37.960 --> 01:27:41.960]  That's Randy's way of saying yes.
[01:27:41.960 --> 01:27:46.960]  I'm going to beg off on the overtime because it is actually 1230 here.
[01:27:46.960 --> 01:27:52.960]  Okay, so Jeff's going to beg off on the overtime, so let's only take calls right now that are pertinent to Jeff's topic.
[01:27:52.960 --> 01:27:54.960]  Okay, I'll just stay on the line a minute, all right?
[01:27:54.960 --> 01:27:56.960]  Okay, just hang on, Ben.
[01:27:56.960 --> 01:28:02.960]  Okay, all right, we're going to go now to Gail in Minnesota.
[01:28:02.960 --> 01:28:06.960]  Gail, thanks for calling in. What's your question for our guest?
[01:28:06.960 --> 01:28:09.960]  Hey, hi, thanks for taking the call.
[01:28:09.960 --> 01:28:12.960]  This was actually when you were talking about a little bit earlier,
[01:28:12.960 --> 01:28:20.960]  you were talking about a case where a judge turned something over to another judge.
[01:28:20.960 --> 01:28:26.960]  And my question is, I had this traffic ticket in Wisconsin from a long time ago,
[01:28:26.960 --> 01:28:32.960]  and I sent it back, accepted for value return for cause under lawful protest.
[01:28:32.960 --> 01:28:40.960]  Then I sent a notice of fault, and I sent it to the judge and to the district attorney.
[01:28:40.960 --> 01:28:43.960]  Well, that and a presentment.
[01:28:43.960 --> 01:28:51.960]  And then I got a letter back trying to have me come in,
[01:28:51.960 --> 01:28:56.960]  sent that back to accepted for value return for cause under lawful protest.
[01:28:56.960 --> 01:29:04.960]  Then I got sent back a letter from telling me that I've been found,
[01:29:04.960 --> 01:29:09.960]  that I've been sentenced, I'm at fault, I'm guilty, whatever.
[01:29:09.960 --> 01:29:17.960]  And it was signed by a different judge and a different assistant district attorney,
[01:29:17.960 --> 01:29:21.960]  not even the first judge or the district attorney that was on it.
[01:29:21.960 --> 01:29:25.960]  So they tried to get, you know, they tried to get it off.
[01:29:25.960 --> 01:29:27.960]  Let me answer that.
[01:29:27.960 --> 01:29:35.960]  They cannot convict you in absentia, period.
[01:29:35.960 --> 01:29:37.960]  Okay, yeah, we got to go to break.
[01:29:37.960 --> 01:29:40.960]  Okay, I've been skipping breaks a lot the last few weeks,
[01:29:40.960 --> 01:29:43.960]  but I can't do it anymore because we have a lot of our affiliates now
[01:29:43.960 --> 01:29:48.960]  are dropping in local PSAs and local news breaks over our breaks.
[01:29:48.960 --> 01:29:49.960]  So we have to take the breaks now.
[01:29:49.960 --> 01:29:50.960]  Can I hold it?
[01:29:50.960 --> 01:29:51.960]  Yeah, you can hold.
[01:29:51.960 --> 01:29:53.960]  All right, we'll be right back.
[01:29:53.960 --> 01:30:01.960]  Rule of law, ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:30:01.960 --> 01:30:04.960]  This is Lisa Marie Coppelletta, and I'm a Liberty Defender.
[01:30:04.960 --> 01:30:07.960]  I'm running for City Council Place 5 in San Marcos, Texas.
[01:30:07.960 --> 01:30:11.960]  The key issues guiding my campaign this year are smart growth,
[01:30:11.960 --> 01:30:14.960]  environmental stewardship, and balanced budgets.
[01:30:14.960 --> 01:30:17.960]  The patterns of growth that we choose to select here in San Marcos
[01:30:17.960 --> 01:30:21.960]  will not only affect the integrity of the perception of our city,
[01:30:21.960 --> 01:30:25.960]  but also tangible results in our neighborhoods, resulting in housing,
[01:30:25.960 --> 01:30:30.960]  job opportunities, transportation, and currency circulation.
[01:30:30.960 --> 01:30:34.960]  Please join us this Saturday, September 26th at 730
[01:30:34.960 --> 01:30:36.960]  at Wake the Dead Coffee House in San Marcos, Texas.
[01:30:36.960 --> 01:30:39.960]  We'll have our campaign celebration kick off,
[01:30:39.960 --> 01:30:41.960]  and we'll rock on through midnight.
[01:30:41.960 --> 01:30:44.960]  For further details on this and other events,
[01:30:44.960 --> 01:30:55.960]  please visit the website at www.lmc4sanmarcos.com.
[01:31:14.960 --> 01:31:39.960]  Thank you.
[01:31:39.960 --> 01:32:04.960]  Okay, tools of ingenuity.
[01:32:04.960 --> 01:32:08.960]  That's what we're about here, remedies, remedies and solutions.
[01:32:08.960 --> 01:32:13.960]  Tools of ingenuity to overcome these workers of iniquity, as it were.
[01:32:13.960 --> 01:32:17.960]  Okay, we're speaking with Gail, and then we're going to go to Jim.
[01:32:17.960 --> 01:32:18.960]  Okay, so go ahead, Randy.
[01:32:18.960 --> 01:32:19.960]  You had some comments for Gail?
[01:32:19.960 --> 01:32:21.960]  Yeah, there's a lot of things they can do,
[01:32:21.960 --> 01:32:25.960]  but convict you in absenteeism is not one of them.
[01:32:25.960 --> 01:32:26.960]  Convict me in what?
[01:32:26.960 --> 01:32:28.960]  In absenteeism.
[01:32:28.960 --> 01:32:30.960]  Meaning without you being present.
[01:32:30.960 --> 01:32:33.960]  Without you being there, they can't convict you.
[01:32:33.960 --> 01:32:36.960]  Now, they can hold the prosecution.
[01:32:36.960 --> 01:32:39.960]  They can issue a warrant for your arrest and do all kinds of things,
[01:32:39.960 --> 01:32:44.960]  but convict you without you being there is not one of those things they can do.
[01:32:44.960 --> 01:32:45.960]  This is what they sent.
[01:32:45.960 --> 01:32:48.960]  They sent a motion and order for default judgment,
[01:32:48.960 --> 01:32:50.960]  which had the assistant district attorney,
[01:32:50.960 --> 01:32:54.960]  which was not the district attorney they originally sent.
[01:32:54.960 --> 01:32:58.960]  Then the bottom half of the same page said,
[01:32:58.960 --> 01:33:00.960]  order for default judgment,
[01:33:00.960 --> 01:33:05.960]  which was separately signed by a second judge that was not the same judge as the first one.
[01:33:05.960 --> 01:33:11.960]  And then the second page was a page called straight out default judgment,
[01:33:11.960 --> 01:33:14.960]  and that says by the court,
[01:33:14.960 --> 01:33:17.960]  and it says underneath the signature line,
[01:33:17.960 --> 01:33:23.960]  under the signature line says circuit court judge slash circuit court commissioner,
[01:33:23.960 --> 01:33:24.960]  but it wasn't.
[01:33:24.960 --> 01:33:28.960]  It was signed by the clerk of court, Vicki Meister.
[01:33:28.960 --> 01:33:31.960]  So she wasn't even a circuit court judge or a court commissioner.
[01:33:31.960 --> 01:33:33.960]  Is it an order?
[01:33:33.960 --> 01:33:35.960]  Is it an order in the case?
[01:33:35.960 --> 01:33:40.960]  Well, the order is for, there's a motion and order.
[01:33:40.960 --> 01:33:44.960]  The motion was signed by the assistant district attorney, the second one,
[01:33:44.960 --> 01:33:46.960]  not the first one, no matter.
[01:33:46.960 --> 01:33:52.960]  The order itself was signed by a second judge that was not the original judge.
[01:33:52.960 --> 01:33:54.960]  Okay, another judge can do that.
[01:33:54.960 --> 01:33:55.960]  Okay.
[01:33:55.960 --> 01:34:03.960]  But it would have to know what the motion for a default judgment was.
[01:34:03.960 --> 01:34:07.960]  Now, this sounds like they turned it into a civil act instead of a criminal.
[01:34:07.960 --> 01:34:09.960]  Right.
[01:34:09.960 --> 01:34:13.960]  But we're running out of time with our guest.
[01:34:13.960 --> 01:34:15.960]  Yes, Gail, maybe we could discuss this after midnight.
[01:34:15.960 --> 01:34:16.960]  That's okay.
[01:34:16.960 --> 01:34:20.960]  Well, Gail, listen, maybe we could discuss this after midnight,
[01:34:20.960 --> 01:34:22.960]  but our guest is going to leave at midnight,
[01:34:22.960 --> 01:34:24.960]  and so we want to try to finish up with that material.
[01:34:24.960 --> 01:34:27.960]  You're welcome to hold, and we'll go into overtime mode,
[01:34:27.960 --> 01:34:30.960]  and then we can discuss your case some more at length.
[01:34:30.960 --> 01:34:31.960]  Okay.
[01:34:31.960 --> 01:34:32.960]  Thank you.
[01:34:32.960 --> 01:34:33.960]  Okay, excellent.
[01:34:33.960 --> 01:34:35.960]  Okay, I'm going to go to one more caller
[01:34:35.960 --> 01:34:39.960]  before we just turn the floor back over to our guest to finish up.
[01:34:39.960 --> 01:34:44.960]  We're going to go to Jim in Texas.
[01:34:44.960 --> 01:34:45.960]  Yes.
[01:34:45.960 --> 01:34:47.960]  Okay, Jim, what is your question for our guest?
[01:34:47.960 --> 01:34:54.960]  Well, on these legal cases, these cases where they go back and forth
[01:34:54.960 --> 01:35:02.960]  to different collection agencies, from what I've seen and what I've read,
[01:35:02.960 --> 01:35:16.960]  I mean, the best thing you can do on any of this stuff is file a dispute.
[01:35:16.960 --> 01:35:20.960]  I mean, if the amount or anything is in dispute,
[01:35:20.960 --> 01:35:26.960]  then, I mean, when they sell these things to a third-party debt collector,
[01:35:26.960 --> 01:35:36.960]  the debt transfers to them but only for what they buy it for, not the full amount.
[01:35:36.960 --> 01:35:42.960]  And if they're claiming the full amount, then they're violating the law.
[01:35:42.960 --> 01:35:45.960]  Well, that's exactly what we were about to start talking about
[01:35:45.960 --> 01:35:47.960]  because they actually don't transfer the debt.
[01:35:47.960 --> 01:35:50.960]  Jeff is saying that they're only selling the evidence of the debt.
[01:35:50.960 --> 01:35:57.960]  Well, but they're not holder in due course of the note or any part of it.
[01:35:57.960 --> 01:36:05.960]  And as far as what I just read in one of the law cases, no, in Black's law,
[01:36:05.960 --> 01:36:13.960]  the only part that they can claim or purchase the claim of is what they paid for it.
[01:36:13.960 --> 01:36:15.960]  That's the only thing they can even claim.
[01:36:15.960 --> 01:36:21.960]  And if they did anything besides that, they have, you know, you can go after their bond for it.
[01:36:21.960 --> 01:36:24.960]  I mean, that's, to me, the remedy.
[01:36:24.960 --> 01:36:28.960]  Well, now, I've read through this on N. O'Connor's Causes of Action,
[01:36:28.960 --> 01:36:34.960]  and one of the things that they specified was it is absolutely illegal for a debt collector
[01:36:34.960 --> 01:36:40.960]  to charge you any fees above and beyond the original amount of the unpaid debt,
[01:36:40.960 --> 01:36:45.960]  but they can come after you for the full amount of the unpaid debt,
[01:36:45.960 --> 01:36:49.960]  at least according to O'Connor's and here in Texas.
[01:36:49.960 --> 01:36:57.960]  But the fact is is that they always pad the amount they're coming after you for with fees of their own.
[01:36:57.960 --> 01:37:01.960]  They always do that, and according to what I read in O'Connor's, that's illegal.
[01:37:01.960 --> 01:37:02.960]  That's a debt collector.
[01:37:02.960 --> 01:37:04.960]  That's not a third-party debt collector.
[01:37:04.960 --> 01:37:07.960]  That's somebody that's working directly with them.
[01:37:07.960 --> 01:37:12.960]  Oh, they're working directly with them, as Jess said earlier.
[01:37:12.960 --> 01:37:17.960]  If they are not an actual employee of that company, an in-house legal counsel,
[01:37:17.960 --> 01:37:20.960]  they are a third-party debt collector.
[01:37:20.960 --> 01:37:23.960]  No ifs, ands, or buts.
[01:37:23.960 --> 01:37:35.960]  Well, under the Texas statute, the third-party debt collector would be a different description there.
[01:37:35.960 --> 01:37:38.960]  What statute is that?
[01:37:38.960 --> 01:37:44.960]  Let's see, on the bonds, let's see, finance code, debt collection.
[01:37:44.960 --> 01:37:50.960]  I'm looking at their surety bond right now, which is Chapter 392 of the finance code, Title V,
[01:37:50.960 --> 01:37:59.960]  Protection of Consumers on Financial Services, Chapter 392, debt collection.
[01:37:59.960 --> 01:38:02.960]  392. Okay, good.
[01:38:02.960 --> 01:38:11.960]  I mean, there's a lot of different things I think you could read into these,
[01:38:11.960 --> 01:38:19.960]  but the very first thing is to challenge the validity or dispute the debt as far as the actual amount,
[01:38:19.960 --> 01:38:22.960]  or get a dispute in.
[01:38:22.960 --> 01:38:29.960]  Sure, but I mean, the thing is you have to somehow stop them from continually passing it around,
[01:38:29.960 --> 01:38:32.960]  because what happens is you'll challenge it, you dispute it, and they go,
[01:38:32.960 --> 01:38:36.960]  oh no, we've got a hot potato on our hands, let's hurry up and sell it.
[01:38:36.960 --> 01:38:39.960]  They'll sell it to somebody else, and every time it turns over,
[01:38:39.960 --> 01:38:42.960]  negative entries are made on your credit report.
[01:38:42.960 --> 01:38:46.960]  You may get sued over and over again, and you just end up having to fight it for the rest of your life.
[01:38:46.960 --> 01:38:51.960]  There's got to be a way to stop the cycle, and that's what Jeff,
[01:38:51.960 --> 01:38:56.960]  we're about to have Jeff discuss with this process.
[01:38:56.960 --> 01:39:01.960]  And what that looks like is that Black's Law victory says they have to be holder in due course of the note,
[01:39:01.960 --> 01:39:04.960]  and if they're not, they can't claim.
[01:39:04.960 --> 01:39:09.960]  If they claim more than what they purchased it for, they try to claim the full amount.
[01:39:09.960 --> 01:39:12.960]  Well, Jeff is saying that they don't even purchase the debt at all,
[01:39:12.960 --> 01:39:19.960]  that they're only purchasing evidence of debt, and they can't even collect one dime.
[01:39:19.960 --> 01:39:26.960]  Wait a minute, as far as I've been able to gather, they don't purchase anything.
[01:39:26.960 --> 01:39:32.960]  The debtor just puts these out there for whoever can collect them.
[01:39:32.960 --> 01:39:38.960]  They buy them in bulk, whatever it is they buy in bulk, and maybe they get whatever.
[01:39:38.960 --> 01:39:42.960]  That goes to a question I've been having here.
[01:39:42.960 --> 01:39:46.960]  How do they prove that they are the holder in due course?
[01:39:46.960 --> 01:39:51.960]  They don't, and they never do. They don't even want to.
[01:39:51.960 --> 01:39:59.960]  What would it take to be able to prove that they have standing to collect the debt?
[01:39:59.960 --> 01:40:06.960]  Well, more importantly, what would it take to convince the court to even look at that argument?
[01:40:06.960 --> 01:40:12.960]  Challenge to the subject matter jurisdiction the importance to the judge themselves.
[01:40:12.960 --> 01:40:16.960]  They don't even hear you.
[01:40:16.960 --> 01:40:19.960]  They do if you sue them debt personally.
[01:40:19.960 --> 01:40:26.960]  Look, see, these third-party debt collectors that pass this evidence of debt around between each other,
[01:40:26.960 --> 01:40:30.960]  when they don't have any legal standing whatsoever to collect a single dime,
[01:40:30.960 --> 01:40:33.960]  they know they're committing fraud, and so they don't push the envelope.
[01:40:33.960 --> 01:40:39.960]  If you challenge them, they will drop it, and they'll just sell it to somebody else.
[01:40:39.960 --> 01:40:44.960]  The next sucker chump third-party debt collector to let somebody else try to collect,
[01:40:44.960 --> 01:40:50.960]  and what ends up happening is it just gets passed around and passed around for years and years and years,
[01:40:50.960 --> 01:40:55.960]  and if the amount is large enough, you'll get sued multiple times, and you have to keep fighting it,
[01:40:55.960 --> 01:40:59.960]  and it keeps making entries on your credit record. You have to keep getting it removed.
[01:40:59.960 --> 01:41:04.960]  So there's got to be a way to stop the cycle, and that's why I wanted to give the floor to Jeff
[01:41:04.960 --> 01:41:10.960]  for the rest of the show to talk about what the process is to stop this cycle.
[01:41:10.960 --> 01:41:15.960]  And that would be the FDCPA, or the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
[01:41:15.960 --> 01:41:18.960]  Okay, so why don't you talk about that some, please?
[01:41:18.960 --> 01:41:21.960]  I'm going to get off here. Maybe I can try to call back in after he's gone.
[01:41:21.960 --> 01:41:24.960]  Okay, thanks, Jim.
[01:41:24.960 --> 01:41:30.960]  That is an action against the third-party debt collector for his violation,
[01:41:30.960 --> 01:41:35.960]  the statutory violations that are contained within the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
[01:41:35.960 --> 01:41:42.960]  that regulates what it is that they can or cannot do in an attempt to collect the debt.
[01:41:42.960 --> 01:41:49.960]  For instance, you send in a letter of dispute and demand of validation and verification,
[01:41:49.960 --> 01:41:53.960]  and you also put in a statement, let's say, at the bottom of the letter that says,
[01:41:53.960 --> 01:42:04.960]  do not contact me at work or at home via phone. Everything must be reduced to writing. Do not call me.
[01:42:04.960 --> 01:42:13.960]  Well, I know of one particular instance where this was done to a third-party debt collector,
[01:42:13.960 --> 01:42:20.960]  and it ended up being written to the same third-party debt collector five times.
[01:42:20.960 --> 01:42:27.960]  Well, from the time the first letter was received by the third-party debt collector,
[01:42:27.960 --> 01:42:37.960]  that third-party debt collector called 38 more times.
[01:42:37.960 --> 01:42:46.960]  Basically, that's up to a $1,000 penalty for each time they called.
[01:42:46.960 --> 01:42:51.960]  Texas has its own statute that it's a $500 penalty each time.
[01:42:51.960 --> 01:42:52.960]  Say again, sir?
[01:42:52.960 --> 01:42:59.960]  Texas has an additional statute of its own that puts out a $500 penalty each time they call,
[01:42:59.960 --> 01:43:01.960]  after they've been warned not to.
[01:43:01.960 --> 01:43:09.960]  When they call and you speak to them, if they don't give you the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Miranda,
[01:43:09.960 --> 01:43:16.960]  that's a violation, up to $1,000 each time. If they send you a letter,
[01:43:16.960 --> 01:43:21.960]  and they tell you in the letter that they're there to collect a debt,
[01:43:21.960 --> 01:43:28.960]  and they don't put the full Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Miranda in the letter,
[01:43:28.960 --> 01:43:36.960]  that's a violation, and each time they do that, that's another violation, up to $1,000 per violation.
[01:43:36.960 --> 01:43:40.960]  Okay, hold that thought. We're going into the final segment here with our guests.
[01:43:40.960 --> 01:43:47.960]  Thank you, Jeff, so much for hanging with us this whole four-hour show. This is great, great information here.
[01:43:47.960 --> 01:43:50.960]  Okay, we'll be right back to the final segment with our guests,
[01:43:50.960 --> 01:43:53.960]  and then we'll go into overtime mode and finish taking the rest of your calls.
[01:43:53.960 --> 01:44:06.960]  This is a rule of law.
[01:44:06.960 --> 01:44:13.960]  Aerial spray, chemtrails, the modified atmosphere, heavy metals and pesticides,
[01:44:13.960 --> 01:44:18.960]  carcinogens and chemical fibers all falling from the sky.
[01:44:18.960 --> 01:44:26.960]  If you have a choice to keep your body clean, detoxify with micro plant powder from hempusa.org
[01:44:26.960 --> 01:44:35.960]  or call 908-691-2608. It's odorless and tasteless and used in any liquid or food.
[01:44:35.960 --> 01:44:39.960]  Protect your family now with micro plant powder.
[01:44:39.960 --> 01:44:43.960]  Cleaning out heavy metals, parasites and toxins.
[01:44:43.960 --> 01:44:48.960]  Order it now for daily intake and stock it now for long-term storage.
[01:44:48.960 --> 01:45:16.960]  Visit hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608 today.
[01:45:18.960 --> 01:45:47.960]  The people come
[01:45:47.960 --> 01:45:59.960]  down from the hill, into the city they will shuffle.
[01:45:59.960 --> 01:46:05.960]  Okay, we are back. Final segment with a very special guest, Jeff Sedgwick from Your Remedy is in the Law.
[01:46:05.960 --> 01:46:11.960]  Okay, so Jeff, you're talking about how they're racking up all these violations every time they call
[01:46:11.960 --> 01:46:19.960]  after they've been noticed. And in some states like Texas, it's additional fines on top of the federal every time.
[01:46:19.960 --> 01:46:24.960]  So what do you do from there? Do you file a lawsuit in federal and state court?
[01:46:24.960 --> 01:46:34.960]  And how does the remedy prevent them from just saying, oh no, we've got a hot potato and selling it to the next guy
[01:46:34.960 --> 01:46:38.960]  and it just keeps happening and over and over. We've got to have a way to stop the cycle here.
[01:46:38.960 --> 01:46:41.960]  So can you please explain on that?
[01:46:41.960 --> 01:46:46.960]  Okay. Well, it doesn't really stop them from selling it to the next guy.
[01:46:46.960 --> 01:46:53.960]  But at the same time, selling it to the next guy doesn't stop your action either because remember the action is about their violations.
[01:46:53.960 --> 01:47:00.960]  Okay. And you do file an action in the federal court.
[01:47:00.960 --> 01:47:04.960]  Most definitely you file an action in the federal court.
[01:47:04.960 --> 01:47:14.960]  And where it becomes extremely effective is one of the first things you do when you file an action in the federal court is you demand a jury trial.
[01:47:14.960 --> 01:47:25.960]  You would be very hard pressed not to come up with 30 or 40 violations under FDCPA.
[01:47:25.960 --> 01:47:33.960]  And if you go to bench trial, it's not likely that you get more than two or three or four or $5,000 from a bench trial.
[01:47:33.960 --> 01:47:37.960]  It's a different story when you go to jury trial.
[01:47:37.960 --> 01:47:48.960]  You would be hard pressed to find somebody who is on the jury that either has not had an occasion to deal with a debt collector or know of someone who has
[01:47:48.960 --> 01:47:57.960]  and the experiences they've had with that and the horror and the harassment that's gone on.
[01:47:57.960 --> 01:48:05.960]  The jury is almost built in prejudice against the third party debt collector.
[01:48:05.960 --> 01:48:09.960]  He is extremely vulnerable.
[01:48:09.960 --> 01:48:23.960]  And if you've got $30,000 or $40,000 just in compensatory damages, that opens them up to vast numbers of punitive damages.
[01:48:23.960 --> 01:48:34.960]  And the other thing that you sort of have to keep in mind on this is that the court logs this type of action as a civil rights violation.
[01:48:34.960 --> 01:48:41.960]  So the damages virtually can be unlimited.
[01:48:41.960 --> 01:48:53.960]  And facing that and realizing what the jury could actually do to them financially, you will find that they are very willing to come to the settlement table,
[01:48:53.960 --> 01:49:09.960]  eradicate the debt, promise never to sell it, transfer it, sign it or whatever, take it off your credit record, and pay you to go away.
[01:49:09.960 --> 01:49:14.960]  How do we get to civil rights?
[01:49:14.960 --> 01:49:28.960]  That's what the courts hold an FDCPA action is because in handling the third party debt collector, violating the various statutes, they stepped on your rights.
[01:49:28.960 --> 01:49:33.960]  You have a right not to be harassed. You have a right not to be threatened.
[01:49:33.960 --> 01:49:42.960]  Oh, so a Fair Debt Collections Protection Act action is by its nature a civil rights action.
[01:49:42.960 --> 01:49:51.960]  That's right. It doesn't fall under the civil rights statute. It is by its nature a civil rights action.
[01:49:51.960 --> 01:49:57.960]  We don't have to claim a civil rights violation. That acts as one on its own.
[01:49:57.960 --> 01:50:00.960]  It is by its nature a civil rights action, yes.
[01:50:00.960 --> 01:50:03.960]  Wonderful.
[01:50:03.960 --> 01:50:06.960]  And everything we're doing, we're looking for leverage.
[01:50:06.960 --> 01:50:14.960]  If you think that's great, you ought to see what you can do to them with an FCRA.
[01:50:14.960 --> 01:50:17.960]  There, that's even better.
[01:50:17.960 --> 01:50:18.960]  All right, tell us.
[01:50:18.960 --> 01:50:26.960]  In this show, you have given me so much stuff I'm going to have to read, it's going to give me a headache.
[01:50:26.960 --> 01:50:28.960]  So tell us, Jeff.
[01:50:28.960 --> 01:50:36.960]  Well, you've got an FDCPA action. You have one-year statute of limitations.
[01:50:36.960 --> 01:50:40.960]  With an FCRA action, you have the two-year statute of limitations.
[01:50:40.960 --> 01:50:48.960]  However, with an FCRA action, you can restart the clock.
[01:50:48.960 --> 01:50:54.960]  Now, what is the statute of limitations and what starts the clock, what event?
[01:50:54.960 --> 01:51:01.960]  Well, I'm going to go to dispute with this creditor who's got a report on my credit record of a debt,
[01:51:01.960 --> 01:51:06.960]  and I'm going to dispute with the credit reporting agency.
[01:51:06.960 --> 01:51:11.960]  And they're not going to list that debt as being in dispute.
[01:51:11.960 --> 01:51:15.960]  The clock's reset.
[01:51:15.960 --> 01:51:19.960]  Does it reset for everyone?
[01:51:19.960 --> 01:51:28.960]  Not just the reporting agency, but does it reset for everyone who's filing the reports?
[01:51:28.960 --> 01:51:37.960]  Well, you dispute with the creditor or the listed creditor and the credit bureau.
[01:51:37.960 --> 01:51:40.960]  Who else is involved?
[01:51:40.960 --> 01:51:49.960]  What I'm saying is if the credit bureau continues to report, does that reset the clock for the creditor?
[01:51:49.960 --> 01:51:54.960]  Well, you disputed it with the creditor, too.
[01:51:54.960 --> 01:52:02.960]  And they're supposed to report that that's in dispute. They didn't do it.
[01:52:02.960 --> 01:52:04.960]  Reset the clock.
[01:52:04.960 --> 01:52:05.960]  Good.
[01:52:05.960 --> 01:52:15.960]  Now, Jeff, these actions, does this matter if the person disputed within that initial 30 days or not?
[01:52:15.960 --> 01:52:17.960]  On the FCRA, no.
[01:52:17.960 --> 01:52:20.960]  And what about the other one?
[01:52:20.960 --> 01:52:22.960]  Well, yes and no.
[01:52:22.960 --> 01:52:31.960]  Remember now, the 30-day dispute is to get them to stop collection activities until they're verified and validated.
[01:52:31.960 --> 01:52:32.960]  Right.
[01:52:32.960 --> 01:52:47.960]  Once they're verified and validated, which I have really never really seen, they can continue with the collection activities.
[01:52:47.960 --> 01:52:51.960]  They oftentimes just ignore and start to continue with the collection activities anyway.
[01:52:51.960 --> 01:52:53.960]  Right.
[01:52:53.960 --> 01:52:59.960]  Because they feel like if they just keep applying pressure, you'll eventually knuckle under
[01:52:59.960 --> 01:53:03.960]  and get this impression that nothing you do makes any difference.
[01:53:03.960 --> 01:53:10.960]  Hey, well, you know, he's an American. He's a maroon.
[01:53:10.960 --> 01:53:14.960]  My brother was a maroon.
[01:53:14.960 --> 01:53:21.960]  Anyway, okay, so fair debt collection practices.
[01:53:21.960 --> 01:53:25.960]  Fair debt collection practices act.
[01:53:25.960 --> 01:53:27.960]  And fair credit reporting.
[01:53:27.960 --> 01:53:29.960]  Fair debt collection practices act.
[01:53:29.960 --> 01:53:31.960]  Fair credit reporting act.
[01:53:31.960 --> 01:53:39.960]  Anyone who has a credit issue should turn off the television for a couple of days and read both of those twice.
[01:53:39.960 --> 01:53:48.960]  They can get those from the FTC.gov website, and they can get them in PDF format.
[01:53:48.960 --> 01:53:59.960]  It would be best to get them annotated, but it will suffice to get started just pulling down the PDF files with the codes in them.
[01:53:59.960 --> 01:54:03.960]  Does the FTC have them annotated?
[01:54:03.960 --> 01:54:06.960]  I don't, not on their website.
[01:54:06.960 --> 01:54:12.960]  Okay, for those of you who don't know what annotated is, that means with case citations.
[01:54:12.960 --> 01:54:21.960]  And there is case law showing that these third-party debt collectors basically will pay you to get rid of you
[01:54:21.960 --> 01:54:24.960]  and promise to leave you alone and take all this.
[01:54:24.960 --> 01:54:29.960]  Well, it's not going to show up in the court records that way.
[01:54:29.960 --> 01:54:32.960]  Where it will show up is settled.
[01:54:32.960 --> 01:54:34.960]  Right.
[01:54:34.960 --> 01:54:40.960]  The only ones that will show up in the court record are the ones that took you to the wall and lost in the end.
[01:54:40.960 --> 01:54:44.960]  So if it's an out-of-court settlement, they're not going to say what the settlement was.
[01:54:44.960 --> 01:54:45.960]  Oh, I know.
[01:54:45.960 --> 01:54:46.960]  Right.
[01:54:46.960 --> 01:54:48.960]  Because they don't want to know.
[01:54:48.960 --> 01:54:50.960]  I mean, they don't want everyone to know.
[01:54:50.960 --> 01:54:51.960]  Yeah.
[01:54:51.960 --> 01:54:58.960]  But anytime you can find annotated code, it's just wonderful because you read the code and you think you know what it means,
[01:54:58.960 --> 01:55:06.960]  and then you go down and start reading the case law addressing that code, and now you really understand what it means.
[01:55:06.960 --> 01:55:13.960]  Yeah, and so there may not be anything to prevent them from selling it again and having to go through this with the next guy,
[01:55:13.960 --> 01:55:20.960]  but basically you're hanging them out to dry so hard that no one else is going to want to touch it.
[01:55:20.960 --> 01:55:25.960]  And plus, if part of the settlement agreement is that they're not going to sell it anymore, well, then that's it.
[01:55:25.960 --> 01:55:26.960]  Right.
[01:55:26.960 --> 01:55:27.960]  They can't.
[01:55:27.960 --> 01:55:28.960]  Kind of handles the issue, doesn't it?
[01:55:28.960 --> 01:55:30.960]  Yeah.
[01:55:30.960 --> 01:55:32.960]  Sounds like pretty powerful stuff.
[01:55:32.960 --> 01:55:33.960]  Yeah.
[01:55:33.960 --> 01:55:41.960]  Now, this is not something that I've – I am just beginning to do this from a position of firsthand experience.
[01:55:41.960 --> 01:55:50.960]  The person who is teaching me was a student, a Bill out of Oklahoma, and as I mentioned earlier,
[01:55:50.960 --> 01:56:04.960]  he and his five or six students have more than 176 consecutive wins on their FDCPA and SDRA actions.
[01:56:04.960 --> 01:56:06.960]  Fantastic.
[01:56:06.960 --> 01:56:11.960]  And the win consists of settling.
[01:56:11.960 --> 01:56:14.960]  Consists of what?
[01:56:14.960 --> 01:56:16.960]  Settling.
[01:56:16.960 --> 01:56:18.960]  Settling, okay.
[01:56:18.960 --> 01:56:20.960]  They don't want to go to court.
[01:56:20.960 --> 01:56:22.960]  Absolutely don't want to go to court.
[01:56:22.960 --> 01:56:25.960]  The risk is too great.
[01:56:25.960 --> 01:56:32.960]  Plus, they know they're committing fraud anyway, so it keeps them out of trouble on the criminal side.
[01:56:32.960 --> 01:56:34.960]  Well, that could come out in court.
[01:56:34.960 --> 01:56:36.960]  Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
[01:56:36.960 --> 01:56:42.960]  They don't want that to come out in court.
[01:56:42.960 --> 01:56:48.960]  And the truth of the matter is that they wouldn't be able to commit the fraud if the courts weren't complicit.
[01:56:48.960 --> 01:56:50.960]  Right.
[01:56:50.960 --> 01:56:54.960]  That's precisely why we went after this judge in Travis County.
[01:56:54.960 --> 01:56:58.960]  And they wouldn't be able to commit the fraud if the people were educated and knew what was going on too.
[01:56:58.960 --> 01:57:05.960]  Well, as Rex Limbaugh says, America's most expensive product is ignorance.
[01:57:05.960 --> 01:57:06.960]  Indeed.
[01:57:06.960 --> 01:57:10.960]  Fortunately, ignorance can be cured.
[01:57:10.960 --> 01:57:12.960]  That it can.
[01:57:12.960 --> 01:57:15.960]  Yeah, but stupidity is usually permanent.
[01:57:15.960 --> 01:57:18.960]  Yeah, stupid is forever.
[01:57:18.960 --> 01:57:20.960]  Well, Harlan would say there's a cure for it.
[01:57:20.960 --> 01:57:23.960]  You go to Brave New Books.
[01:57:23.960 --> 01:57:27.960]  That's ignorance.
[01:57:27.960 --> 01:57:28.960]  Oh, I remember.
[01:57:28.960 --> 01:57:29.960]  That's right, the advertisement.
[01:57:29.960 --> 01:57:30.960]  I'm sorry.
[01:57:30.960 --> 01:57:33.960]  I forgot about that.
[01:57:33.960 --> 01:57:35.960]  Okay.
[01:57:35.960 --> 01:57:40.960]  I really like the FDCPA and the FCR Act.
[01:57:40.960 --> 01:57:41.960]  Oh, yeah.
[01:57:41.960 --> 01:57:44.960]  These are the tools we can really pound these guys with.
[01:57:44.960 --> 01:57:46.960]  We're not fighting a defensive action.
[01:57:46.960 --> 01:57:51.960]  I've set up an attorney with our HOA.
[01:57:51.960 --> 01:57:53.960]  All these acronyms are driving me crazy.
[01:57:53.960 --> 01:58:12.960]  And I'm, you know, right now, drawing up the paperwork, take him into federal court on FDCPA action, and then I'm going to, at the same time, I'm also going to suck in the mandate for affirming the HOA as...
[01:58:12.960 --> 01:58:14.960]  What's HOA?
[01:58:14.960 --> 01:58:15.960]  Pardon?
[01:58:15.960 --> 01:58:16.960]  What's HOA?
[01:58:16.960 --> 01:58:18.960]  Homeowners Association.
[01:58:18.960 --> 01:58:20.960]  Oh, okay.
[01:58:20.960 --> 01:58:23.960]  All right, well, listen, guys, we're at the end of the show.
[01:58:23.960 --> 01:58:27.960]  We're at the top of the hour at midnight, top of the night.
[01:58:27.960 --> 01:58:32.960]  We'll go into overtime mode for the rest of the callers that are waiting on the line.
[01:58:32.960 --> 01:58:34.960]  Jeff, thank you so much for joining us tonight.
[01:58:34.960 --> 01:58:35.960]  We really appreciate it.
[01:58:35.960 --> 01:58:36.960]  You're indeed welcome, Debra.
[01:58:36.960 --> 01:58:37.960]  Okay.
[01:58:37.960 --> 01:58:38.960]  Great show.
[01:58:38.960 --> 01:58:39.960]  Great show.
[01:58:39.960 --> 01:58:40.960]  Yes, thank you.
[01:58:40.960 --> 01:58:41.960]  This is the rule of law.
[01:58:41.960 --> 01:58:49.960]  Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens, we'll be back in just a few minutes, and we'll take the rest of your calls.
[01:58:49.960 --> 01:58:50.960]  Thank you.
[01:59:19.960 --> 01:59:21.960]  Thank you.
[01:59:49.960 --> 01:59:51.960]  Thank you.