ROL_2009-11-12_16k.timecode

[00:16.600 --> 00:23.440]  pressure had eased and he no longer had faith in the agreement. CNN anchor Lou Dobbs announced
[00:23.440 --> 00:28.880]  Thursday he is leaving the network. Dobbs has been the target of pro-immigration activists
[00:28.880 --> 00:35.600]  who launched two campaigns aimed at pressuring CNN to hold Mr. Dobbs to journalistic standards
[00:35.600 --> 00:41.640]  or dump him altogether. His next stop could be the Fox Business Network. The U.K. government
[00:41.640 --> 00:47.200]  said Wednesday DNA samples of innocent people arrested then cleared without charge will
[00:47.200 --> 00:51.800]  be held by the government for no more than six years. The proposals were made to comply
[00:51.800 --> 00:56.840]  with the European ruling which said Britain was in breach of the Convention on Human Rights
[00:56.840 --> 01:04.040]  for holding DNA samples indefinitely. A high school student from Virginia has been diagnosed
[01:04.040 --> 01:10.160]  with Guillain-Barr syndrome hours after receiving a swine flu shot but health authorities are
[01:10.160 --> 01:16.240]  attempting to dismiss the connection as a coincidence. 14-year-old Jordan McFarlane
[01:16.240 --> 01:21.280]  developed severe headaches, muscle spasms and weakness in his legs following a swine
[01:21.280 --> 01:28.120]  flu shot. He was diagnosed by doctors at Inova Fairfax Hospital as having Guillain-Barr syndrome,
[01:28.120 --> 01:33.200]  the nerve disorder prevalent in recipients of the vaccine during the last mass swine
[01:33.200 --> 01:42.200]  flu vaccination program in 1976. MSNBC reports health officials in August warned neurologists
[01:42.200 --> 01:46.800]  to look out for increases in cases of the brain disorder following the launch of the
[01:46.800 --> 01:53.040]  immunization program. Health authorities claim debilitating side effects and nerve disorders
[01:53.040 --> 01:59.400]  such as GBS have no connection to the vaccine despite the fact they are clearly listed on
[01:59.400 --> 02:11.320]  vaccine inserts as potential dangers. A spate of recent deaths of New York police and fire
[02:11.320 --> 02:18.000]  officers who took part in emergency operations at Ground Zero after 9-11 has heightened fears
[02:18.000 --> 02:24.360]  it could be the start of an epidemic of cancer-related illness. Five firefighters and police officers,
[02:24.360 --> 02:28.960]  all of whom were involved in the rescue and clean-up, have died of cancer in the past
[02:28.960 --> 02:34.520]  three months. The cluster of cancer deaths comes as Congress is under pressure to pass
[02:34.520 --> 02:40.120]  legislation that would provide federal help to emergency workers who have contracted illnesses
[02:40.120 --> 02:44.960]  since 9-11. Campaigners hope a bill will be put to the House of Representatives by the
[02:44.960 --> 02:51.040]  end of the year that would set up a $10 billion fund for hundreds of rescue workers. Up to
[02:51.040 --> 02:56.600]  70,000 people took part, including police, firefighters and construction workers who
[02:56.600 --> 03:13.520]  came to New York from all over the US.
[03:56.600 --> 04:12.320]  When you were eight and you had bad traits You go to school and learn the golden rule
[04:12.320 --> 04:27.520]  Bad boys, bad boys What're you gonna do What're you gonna do when they come for you
[04:27.520 --> 04:30.300]  You chuck it on this one Rub it on your mother And rub it on your father
[04:30.300 --> 04:31.300]  Rub it on your brothers And rub it on your sisters
[04:31.300 --> 04:33.240]  Rub it on that one Rub it on me
[04:33.240 --> 04:34.420]  Bad boys, bad boys What're you gonna do What're you gonna do when they come for you
[04:34.420 --> 04:36.400]  Bad boys, bad boys sandbox bad boys OK, bad boys, bad boys. What're you gonna do
[04:36.400 --> 04:43.800]  when we come for you. Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, and our very special guest tonight,
[04:43.800 --> 04:48.980]  Russell from Texas, good friend of ours. And tonight we are going to be talking about his
[04:48.980 --> 04:55.960]  certiorari to the Supreme Court regarding some convictions in Hays County. Russell,
[04:55.960 --> 04:56.960]  thanks for joining us tonight.
[04:56.960 --> 04:58.960]  Hey, how y'all doing?
[04:58.960 --> 05:04.080]  Great. So can you please give us a kind of a background? Well, and what's going on here
[05:04.080 --> 05:06.480]  and what exactly is a certiorari anyway?
[05:06.480 --> 05:15.040]  Well, it's a strange name. I don't know what the name stands for, but it's your last resort
[05:15.040 --> 05:21.760]  to get the Supreme Court to try to overturn your court case when you can find that you've
[05:21.760 --> 05:28.640]  had due process violations or court cases that the Supreme Court have ruled in one way,
[05:28.640 --> 05:33.800]  but yet the state courts are ruling another way or the appeals court rules another way.
[05:33.800 --> 05:39.960]  And you can take it by certiorari. Now, there's only like 1% of all the cases submitted that
[05:39.960 --> 05:47.080]  are ever taken. But if you have your ducks in a row and you have a good argument for
[05:47.080 --> 05:55.280]  the reasons, it's a good, very good possibility that it could be accepted. So right now me
[05:55.280 --> 06:00.280]  and Randy are working on getting it done because I have to get it to the Supreme Court by next
[06:00.280 --> 06:05.680]  Tuesday, which I want to mail it Monday. I actually found out today, I put in for motion
[06:05.680 --> 06:10.840]  for extension of time, but Judge Scalia denied that.
[06:10.840 --> 06:14.480]  The chomp.
[06:14.480 --> 06:16.800]  That happened today.
[06:16.800 --> 06:23.960]  So it's not too great a feat. We'll have it.
[06:23.960 --> 06:30.240]  This actually will bring the due process motions in all of my pleadings before the Supreme
[06:30.240 --> 06:37.160]  Court. If they hear it, this could actually be the one to change everything.
[06:37.160 --> 06:44.840]  I do want to say one thing is all my contact for probably the last 10 years of court clerks
[06:44.840 --> 06:50.920]  and different courts and everything else. I was pleasantly surprised when I contacted
[06:50.920 --> 06:58.080]  the Supreme Court clerk two weeks ago. I mean, those people were nice. They bent their back
[06:58.080 --> 07:03.920]  over backwards to try to help you in every way possible. And I was going to go ahead
[07:03.920 --> 07:09.360]  and pay the three and scrape the money together to pay the $300 filing fee. And she even told
[07:09.360 --> 07:14.080]  me, she said, you're going to get the same benefit in this court, whether you pay for
[07:14.080 --> 07:19.460]  it or not. And she said, if you cannot afford to pay for it, then you should need to come
[07:19.460 --> 07:27.480]  in in form of popras. And when you do, I mean, the majority of the Supreme Court rules do
[07:27.480 --> 07:32.840]  not apply to you when you do it in form of popras. Like they got a very strange rule
[07:32.840 --> 07:37.160]  when you pay for it and stuff that you have to put it in booklet form and it can only
[07:37.160 --> 07:43.680]  be certain size. And I mean, there's all kinds of things that you've got to meet and pay
[07:43.680 --> 07:52.840]  a $300 filing fee. And it has to be, you know, every I dotted and every T crossed and everything
[07:52.840 --> 07:57.640]  has to be perfect or it's thrown out just because of that. But when you do it in form
[07:57.640 --> 08:03.840]  of popras, you're allowed to file it on eight and a half by 11 paper and staple the paper
[08:03.840 --> 08:08.960]  or everything you have to, if you pay for it, you'd have to have a special binding.
[08:08.960 --> 08:12.640]  You know, the whole works when it goes to the Supreme Court. But if you do it in form
[08:12.640 --> 08:18.500]  of popras, then, you know, all these other specific rules are eliminated and you only
[08:18.500 --> 08:27.280]  have basically about nine, you know, 15, 20 rules to correspond with on the informal popras.
[08:27.280 --> 08:32.720]  But I mean, those people, I talk to two different persons there and they were just as helpful
[08:32.720 --> 08:37.160]  and everything is could be. They would tell you if you were confused, they would be right
[08:37.160 --> 08:41.840]  there to tell you to straighten out your confusion and stuff. I mean, I was pleasantly surprised.
[08:41.840 --> 08:48.480]  I called Randy and I said, man, I can't believe the experience I just had. This is not like
[08:48.480 --> 08:54.040]  talking to any other court or district clerk or anything like that that I've been used
[08:54.040 --> 08:55.040]  to.
[08:55.040 --> 09:05.160]  Well, I just hope we have as good an experience when we get to the justices as you're having
[09:05.160 --> 09:06.160]  with the clerks.
[09:06.160 --> 09:07.840]  I hope so too.
[09:07.840 --> 09:14.080]  That would be nice. I've heard, I've heard that Don Zimmerman here in Austin, he had
[09:14.080 --> 09:20.040]  a case that went all the way up to the Supreme Court and he won having to do with voting
[09:20.040 --> 09:26.880]  issues and places of polling. And he said that the justices on the Supreme Court were
[09:26.880 --> 09:33.920]  very, very rude. They were rude to the attorneys of both sides of the case. They were like,
[09:33.920 --> 09:39.200]  they didn't have any prejudice. They were equally as spiteful to both sides, he said.
[09:39.200 --> 09:42.920]  So I hope you guys have a little bit better, better results.
[09:42.920 --> 09:47.040]  I heard that too, but Randy told me, which I didn't ever heard, but he said there's
[09:47.040 --> 09:54.640]  actually been some pro se people that's actually argued in the Supreme Court. Now, I don't
[09:54.640 --> 10:00.480]  know, I haven't heard anything, or if Randy knows how they were treated and stuff, but
[10:00.480 --> 10:06.920]  I don't know that. But I mean, in a way, I would expect those people to be hard on attorneys.
[10:06.920 --> 10:13.440]  Well, I mean, he won his case anyway, even though they were rude to the attorneys.
[10:13.440 --> 10:21.760]  Well, the last one I heard about was a guy out of California. And I think he was, this
[10:21.760 --> 10:28.040]  was over a school issue over his children that he brought to the Supreme Court. And
[10:28.040 --> 10:36.760]  the court justices commented on how well he presented his case. So apparently they didn't
[10:36.760 --> 10:41.280]  treat him too badly. They were impressed with his presentation, or they did treat him badly
[10:41.280 --> 10:46.720]  and he handled them well. But in any case, they commented on how well he handled his
[10:46.720 --> 10:47.720]  case.
[10:47.720 --> 10:49.760]  Well, I wouldn't expect to get-
[10:49.760 --> 10:51.880]  And I never heard if he won or not.
[10:51.880 --> 10:55.960]  I wouldn't expect to get an argument before the Supreme Court anyway. I would just expect
[10:55.960 --> 11:00.280]  them to review the case and say, hey, this is done wrong, that's done wrong, straighten
[11:00.280 --> 11:08.960]  the thing out. And basically, we're going in there based on the Rothgarry v. Gillespie
[11:08.960 --> 11:16.960]  County, Texas case, when they said that when you first go before a judicial officer and
[11:16.960 --> 11:24.480]  that officer tells you the charges against you and commits you to bond and tell you your
[11:24.480 --> 11:30.640]  liberty is restricted, then that's when the adversarial proceeding starts. And, you know,
[11:30.640 --> 11:35.080]  I mean, virtually nowhere in Texas do they do that. They don't do it in Hays County.
[11:35.080 --> 11:44.160]  And that's the argument we're bringing that not just that you're denied right to counsel,
[11:44.160 --> 11:50.720]  but we're bringing the argument as to why and how that comes about. And we maintain
[11:50.720 --> 11:58.200]  the reason the magistrates, as a matter of practice, deny you the right to counsel is
[11:58.200 --> 12:05.920]  because the state has trained the inferior court judges, who generally are the ones that
[12:05.920 --> 12:14.840]  act as magistrates. They have been trained to think that what they're doing is a magistration.
[12:14.840 --> 12:22.080]  And we demonstrate that there is no such thing as a magistration in law. The only thing the
[12:22.080 --> 12:27.960]  magistrate can be doing as a matter of law is holding an examining trial because that's
[12:27.960 --> 12:30.760]  the only thing he's allowed to do.
[12:30.760 --> 12:38.280]  And in that Rothgarry case, one of the people writing the opinion brought that up. But since
[12:38.280 --> 12:44.960]  Rothgarry did not enter that as one of the questions to the court, then that was never
[12:44.960 --> 12:49.680]  addressed in that case. But he still won on the Sixth Amendment.
[12:49.680 --> 12:58.880]  What we're trying to do is expand and say, they didn't provide counsel. And this is why
[12:58.880 --> 13:06.320]  they didn't provide counsel, because they held a magistration. They held a magistration
[13:06.320 --> 13:15.160]  instead of a proper examining trial. And we kind of make the argument that the criminal
[13:15.160 --> 13:22.760]  justice in Texas is in a horrible mess. Everything from an arrest to trial is incredibly illegal.
[13:22.760 --> 13:31.480]  And it all starts right here. This is the kernel where all of these other improprieties
[13:31.480 --> 13:39.040]  germinate. Fix this small thing here, and the vast majority of the problems that build
[13:39.040 --> 13:42.320]  on top of them will simply go away.
[13:42.320 --> 13:48.520]  So we're saying to the court, here's a very simple, easy fix. All the law is in place.
[13:48.520 --> 13:56.480]  This problem exists from no lack of law. It exists from lack of will to follow law. And
[13:56.480 --> 14:03.640]  we're asking the court to direct the lower courts to simply follow the law as it's already
[14:03.640 --> 14:11.600]  written and these problems will go away. At least that's the idea. What do you think,
[14:11.600 --> 14:12.600]  Eddie?
[14:12.600 --> 14:19.560]  I think they'd probably go away if we help a little bit with a kick or two or three.
[14:19.560 --> 14:26.520]  Russell's in a good place. If the Supreme Court, and granted this doesn't have to come
[14:26.520 --> 14:32.600]  before them, the clerks will look at this. And if we are making the sales pitch to the
[14:32.600 --> 14:41.480]  clerk, we're saying to the clerk, here's something that you can do that's real simple,
[14:41.480 --> 14:46.680]  tiny little fix that will cause repercussions through the whole system and right lots of
[14:46.680 --> 14:53.760]  wrongs and make you really look smart. We hope they bite.
[14:53.760 --> 14:58.480]  Got to have that one and two more in the path that walk up and down behind you.
[14:58.480 --> 15:02.720]  We have someone in the background here. Is that you, Eddie?
[15:02.720 --> 15:06.120]  Yeah, that's me. Sorry.
[15:06.120 --> 15:09.800]  You better watch it. Deborah's got her mic taser on.
[15:09.800 --> 15:14.040]  I'm sorry, Deborah.
[15:14.040 --> 15:17.040]  Tell your roommate to shut up.
[15:17.040 --> 15:20.320]  Well, see, he's got headphones on. He wouldn't notice either.
[15:20.320 --> 15:23.320]  Ah, I see, I see.
[15:23.320 --> 15:33.240]  Okay, but anyway, Russell, can you kind of give us a chronology of how we got here?
[15:33.240 --> 15:40.720]  September 14, 2005, I was indicted, and then they came and arrested me, which you point
[15:40.720 --> 15:48.200]  out is non-proper, for filing a false financing statement and retaliation, obstruction of
[15:48.200 --> 15:55.240]  retaliation against public officials. And they also arrested us for filing a false court
[15:55.240 --> 16:02.960]  record or whatever the hell they call it, which we end up getting that one dismissed.
[16:02.960 --> 16:07.360]  I thought that was funny how we did that too. But anyway-
[16:07.360 --> 16:09.880]  Oh, when you filed 100 criminal complaints?
[16:09.880 --> 16:16.640]  No, no, no. When I subpoenaed the new Hays County prosecuting attorney, so her to testify
[16:16.640 --> 16:20.360]  all the changes she'd been doing down there. They didn't want that on the record. Boy,
[16:20.360 --> 16:25.720]  they dropped that case like a hot potato. And I had to fight before B.B. Schrobb to
[16:25.720 --> 16:28.080]  get the subpoenaed good.
[16:28.080 --> 16:32.800]  That raises a question that came to mind the other day when I was talking to Eddie about
[16:32.800 --> 16:39.640]  the Administrative Procedures Act. Schrobb's an administrative judge. He's not an elected
[16:39.640 --> 16:44.320]  district judge. Where did he get authority to rule in that case? Okay, we're going to
[16:44.320 --> 16:48.000]  break. I'd like to kind of kick this around a little bit when we come back.
[16:48.000 --> 16:54.560]  Yep. And we also have Paul, who's also a guest with Russell. Okay, we'll be right back.
[16:54.560 --> 17:00.200]  Eddie, Randy, Paul, Russell, and me. We'll be right back.
[17:00.200 --> 17:03.880]  You feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics?
[17:03.880 --> 17:04.880]  Boring.
[17:04.880 --> 17:07.560]  Are you confused by words like the Constitution or the Federal Reserve?
[17:07.560 --> 17:08.560]  What?
[17:08.560 --> 17:14.080]  You may be diagnosed with the deadliest disease known today, stupidity. Hi, my name is Steve
[17:14.080 --> 17:18.480]  Holt, and like millions of other Americans, I was diagnosed with stupidity at an early
[17:18.480 --> 17:23.080]  age. I had no idea that the number one cause of the disease is found in almost every home
[17:23.080 --> 17:28.200]  in America, the television. Unfortunately, that puts most Americans at risk of catching
[17:28.200 --> 17:32.560]  stupidity, but there is hope. The staff at Brave New Books have helped me and thousands
[17:32.560 --> 17:37.600]  of other Foxaholics suffering from sports-zombie-ism recover, and because of Brave New Books, I
[17:37.600 --> 17:43.200]  now enjoy reading and watching educational documentaries without feeling tired or uninterested.
[17:43.200 --> 17:50.560]  So if you or anybody you know suffers from stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503
[17:50.560 --> 17:54.600]  or visit them at 1904Guadalupe or bravenewbookstore.com.
[17:54.600 --> 17:58.040]  Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include discernment and enlarged vocabulary
[17:58.040 --> 18:05.040]  and an overall increase in mental functioning.
[18:28.040 --> 18:40.680]  Okay, we are back. Excuse me. Okay, Randy, you were discussing before we were going
[18:40.680 --> 18:42.760]  to the break about Schraub.
[18:42.760 --> 18:50.320]  Yes, this is just an interesting point. It's not a major point, but Judge Schraub is the
[18:50.320 --> 18:59.920]  head administrative judge for this district. He's in Seguin, and he administers a very
[18:59.920 --> 19:08.640]  large area, a number of counties, a number of judicial districts. Well, Russell had hammered
[19:08.640 --> 19:15.880]  them so hard in Hayes County that there was no judges left who could sit in his case,
[19:15.880 --> 19:24.440]  so Judge Schraub sat in the case. My question is, where did Judge Schraub, an administrative
[19:24.440 --> 19:34.320]  judge, get authority to sit as a trial judge? The administrative judge is different. All
[19:34.320 --> 19:44.880]  he does is administer the courts. If you file a motion to disqualify a judge, then the motion
[19:44.880 --> 19:51.160]  must be forwarded to Judge Schraub, the head administrative judge of the district, and
[19:51.160 --> 19:58.640]  he will appoint a judge to hear the case, to hear the motion. He can't hear the motion,
[19:58.640 --> 20:07.400]  but he can appoint a judge, supposedly a neutral, uninvolved judge, to hear the disqualification
[20:07.400 --> 20:16.120]  or recusal motion. That's one that's specified in statute. But he essentially administers
[20:16.120 --> 20:21.800]  the business of the court. He's not a trial judge.
[20:21.800 --> 20:26.400]  And what happened was, is when I filed the criminal complaint against the county court
[20:26.400 --> 20:32.040]  law judge, I can't remember her name, but she turned around and basically recused herself
[20:32.040 --> 20:37.520]  and brought Breabee Schraub in. She didn't want to touch the case.
[20:37.520 --> 20:42.400]  Yeah, that's my issue. How did she bring in Schraub? Now, he's supposed to appoint somebody
[20:42.400 --> 20:46.240]  else when a judge is accused, not sit himself.
[20:46.240 --> 20:50.600]  Well, over 10 years, I've had him three times.
[20:50.600 --> 20:56.480]  Well, I would like very much to find out where he gets that authority. And you would ask
[20:56.480 --> 21:03.760]  yourself, would he sit in a case when he has no authority? Well, I think Eddie could address
[21:03.760 --> 21:04.760]  that issue.
[21:04.760 --> 21:10.960]  Oh yeah, they'll sit in that case. It doesn't make it right, but they'll sure do it if you
[21:10.960 --> 21:12.760]  let them.
[21:12.760 --> 21:19.680]  And we were discussing, and we'll get to this probably later in the show, how municipal
[21:19.680 --> 21:27.960]  court judges don't have authority to rule over a violation of the transportation code
[21:27.960 --> 21:34.480]  as that goes to the administrative court. And the administrative court has jurisdiction
[21:34.480 --> 21:42.400]  and the trial court does not, but we'll get to that later. Right now, okay, Russell, you
[21:42.400 --> 21:47.600]  were charged with this. And in reading the pleadings, it shows you pled guilty.
[21:47.600 --> 21:54.960]  Well, basically I pled a conditional guilty because of my diabetes, everything else I
[21:54.960 --> 22:00.600]  got going on. Because when I spent three days, they didn't give me proper medication, everything.
[22:00.600 --> 22:05.560]  I was almost messed up in three days. So I really didn't want to go to jail. So I thought
[22:05.560 --> 22:10.840]  I'll plead guilty and I'll just deal with them after that.
[22:10.840 --> 22:16.440]  So now you're dealing with them. How did you get to the point of raising these issues if
[22:16.440 --> 22:18.960]  you entered a guilty plea?
[22:18.960 --> 22:23.560]  Because I was still, I didn't do like my wife did where she's accepted a plea bargain and
[22:23.560 --> 22:28.840]  couldn't appeal. I went ahead and had appeal rights. And then I appealed to the third court
[22:28.840 --> 22:34.320]  of appeals and they actually overturned part of the case, but left the rest of majority
[22:34.320 --> 22:39.440]  of the case there. And then I filed a petition for discretionary review in the court of criminal
[22:39.440 --> 22:46.920]  appeals, which turned down the discretionary review. And then the next stop is the certiorari
[22:46.920 --> 22:48.840]  to the Supreme court.
[22:48.840 --> 22:55.160]  Yes. And the court of criminal appeals, now, wait a minute, court of criminal appeals or
[22:55.160 --> 22:57.960]  court of appeal or the appeals court?
[22:57.960 --> 23:03.840]  Appeals court was the first one, third district. And then it went by a petition for discretionary
[23:03.840 --> 23:07.400]  review, which they turned down.
[23:07.400 --> 23:14.880]  So the court of criminal appeals didn't exactly make a substantive ruling. They just refused
[23:14.880 --> 23:16.040]  to review the case.
[23:16.040 --> 23:20.200]  That right. They refused the petition for discretionary review.
[23:20.200 --> 23:26.240]  Too bad. Cause I sure wanted a shot at those guys. And now it's going to Supreme court.
[23:26.240 --> 23:32.740]  And here's the, here are the issues. The primary, one of the primary issues that Russell brought
[23:32.740 --> 23:37.220]  was that the court was without subject matter jurisdiction because there was no complaint
[23:37.220 --> 23:47.400]  in the court record. And when you read the opinion by the court of appeals, it's very
[23:47.400 --> 23:54.600]  clear that they were doing song and dance and seltzer down your pants, trying to find
[23:54.600 --> 24:01.880]  a way to address this, to give it the appearance of making some kind of legal sense when it
[24:01.880 --> 24:14.600]  absolutely did not. So what they claim was that Russell made a argument that the prosecuting
[24:14.600 --> 24:24.960]  attorney could not present a criminal complaint. And that goes to a Kennedy state. I'm looking
[24:24.960 --> 24:30.240]  for the right place in the code here. Here we go. Appellate contends that indictments
[24:30.240 --> 24:35.680]  were unlawful and the convictions are void because no complaints were filed. Appellates
[24:35.680 --> 24:42.440]  contention rests, however, on statutes and opinions governed prosecutions based on information
[24:42.440 --> 24:52.640]  filed by the prosecutor. Article 2122, information must be based on complaint. Okay. And valid
[24:52.640 --> 24:58.200]  complaint is prerequisite to valid information. In a prosecution based on an information,
[24:58.200 --> 25:04.280]  the requirement of a valid supporting complaint serves to protect against the dangers arising
[25:04.280 --> 25:11.720]  from the concentration of power in a single prosecutor. Then it references Kennedy state.
[25:11.720 --> 25:19.400]  What Kennedy state actually says in order to avoid the obvious evils of the accumulation
[25:19.400 --> 25:27.080]  of powers in any one office for the purpose of filing a criminal complaint, the prosecuting
[25:27.080 --> 25:36.080]  attorney is not a credible person. And what this goes to was the prohibition against the
[25:36.080 --> 25:46.240]  state being the accuser and the prosecutor. This is what happened when the king was the
[25:46.240 --> 25:53.560]  head of the courts. The king could accuse you and then use his courts to prosecute you.
[25:53.560 --> 26:00.960]  And our founders said, that's not going to happen here. The only way the state can get
[26:00.960 --> 26:09.920]  authority to prosecute is if some sovereign citizen files a criminal affidavit, a verified
[26:09.920 --> 26:20.640]  criminal affidavit. This was a primary protection. So what they said was, while that's true,
[26:20.640 --> 26:27.280]  in a prosecution based on an indictment, this protection is provided by the grand jury,
[26:27.280 --> 26:34.720]  which has the duty of inquiring into all offenses liable to indictment of which any member may
[26:34.720 --> 26:45.640]  have knowledge. Well, that is not true. Now, if we were in a federal court and we were
[26:45.640 --> 26:53.860]  talking about a federal grand jury, that's the duty imposed upon a federal grand jury.
[26:53.860 --> 27:02.600]  That is not the duty imposed on a Texas grand jury. A Texas grand jury under 20.09, and
[27:02.600 --> 27:12.360]  they referenced 20.09, but they quote federal law. 20.09 says, the grand jury shall examine
[27:12.360 --> 27:19.520]  into all criminal accusations that come to their knowledge by way of the prosecuting
[27:19.520 --> 27:27.280]  attorney or any credible person. Now, the prosecuting attorney can present a criminal
[27:27.280 --> 27:34.800]  accusation to the grand jury, but it can't be his. He's forbidden to. He must present
[27:34.800 --> 27:44.000]  someone else's criminal accusation, or the person actually making the criminal accusation
[27:44.000 --> 27:50.400]  can make it known to the grand jury. Now, the person making the accusation cannot present
[27:50.400 --> 27:57.640]  to the grand jury. A person making the accusation can only bring it to the knowledge of the
[27:57.640 --> 28:05.320]  grand jury. The only one authorized to present to the grand jury as a matter of right is
[28:05.320 --> 28:12.840]  the prosecuting attorney, but anyone can testify before a grand jury if the grand jury authorizes
[28:12.840 --> 28:21.960]  you to or asks you to or demands that you do. So what they've tried to say is, is that
[28:21.960 --> 28:32.440]  on the one hand, a prosecutor is forbidden to initiate a prosecution. It must be initiated
[28:32.440 --> 28:38.920]  by criminal complaint. And on the other, it says, the grand jury can initiate a prosecution
[28:38.920 --> 28:47.200]  on its own. Well, that's not what the statute said. A federal grand jury can investigate
[28:47.200 --> 28:54.680]  into anything it wants to. It can investigate into criminal accusations, or it can investigate
[28:54.680 --> 29:02.440]  into any matter where they think a crime might have been committed. So they don't need a
[29:02.440 --> 29:08.920]  criminal accusation. They can investigate into anything they want. And what the courts
[29:08.920 --> 29:15.800]  did was juxtapose the federal on the state, and it simply does not apply. What they go
[29:15.800 --> 29:27.360]  on to say here is that, essentially, it makes no difference what happens to you before indictment.
[29:27.360 --> 29:33.160]  After indictment, everything before that is moot. So they can arrest you, hold you for
[29:33.160 --> 29:38.200]  10 years, hang you by your toenails, beat you every day. None of that matters after
[29:38.200 --> 29:40.240]  the prosecutor gets an indictment.
[29:40.240 --> 29:48.400]  We'll pick this up on the other side. All right. And we also have Paul, who is also
[29:48.400 --> 29:53.560]  a guest of ours as well. He's going to be discussing some of this too. We'll be right
[29:53.560 --> 30:00.600]  back after this break.
[30:00.600 --> 30:07.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with JurisDictionary,
[30:07.000 --> 30:15.040]  the affordable, easy-to-understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[30:15.040 --> 30:20.320]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer,
[30:20.320 --> 30:25.640]  know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and
[30:25.640 --> 30:32.560]  now you can too. JurisDictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning
[30:32.560 --> 30:38.400]  experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[30:38.400 --> 30:44.160]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio
[30:44.160 --> 30:50.920]  classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much
[30:50.920 --> 31:03.720]  more. Please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com and click on the banner, or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[31:03.720 --> 31:33.080]  Okay, we are back. Okay, Randy, please continue.
[31:33.080 --> 31:40.120]  Please continue. Paul was asking us to discuss on the break, he was asking us if you could
[31:40.120 --> 31:43.840]  please remind everyone of what a credible witness is.
[31:43.840 --> 31:53.600]  Yes, there are. Anyone who is over the age of 18, never convicted of a felony, and not
[31:53.600 --> 32:02.520]  the prosecuting attorney. The prosecuting attorney is as a matter of law for this particular
[32:02.520 --> 32:10.000]  purpose not a credible person. So, in one breath they say that, and in the next breath
[32:10.000 --> 32:19.060]  they say, well, the prosecutor can just get an indictment. Well, my question is, how does
[32:19.060 --> 32:32.120]  he do that? Because 2010 says that the grand jury shall vote to true bill or no bill.
[32:32.120 --> 32:38.720]  And if a majority votes to true bill, the foreman of the grand jury shall gather up
[32:38.720 --> 32:44.120]  all the evidence had in the case and forward it to the district attorney and request that
[32:44.120 --> 32:51.920]  he prepare an indictment. And in talking to prosecutors about how this works, they take
[32:51.920 --> 32:58.640]  the indictment to the grand jury and ask them to vote on it. Well, according to the code
[32:58.640 --> 33:07.320]  that's backwards. They must have a criminal accusation on which to vote. And once they
[33:07.320 --> 33:15.440]  vote on to true bill or no bill, if they vote to true bill, then the foreman requests that
[33:15.440 --> 33:22.900]  the prosecutor prepare an indictment. And the case we use is Tom DeLay. Whatever you
[33:22.900 --> 33:28.840]  may think of him, he was taken down from one of the most prominent political positions
[33:28.840 --> 33:37.880]  in the country and no one ever accused him of a crime. He cannot be faced with his accuser
[33:37.880 --> 33:44.200]  because he doesn't have one. Russell cannot be faced with his accuser because he doesn't
[33:44.200 --> 33:53.480]  have one. No one ever accused Russell of a crime. The grand jury voted on something,
[33:53.480 --> 33:59.000]  but it wasn't a criminal accusation because if it was a criminal accusation, that accusation
[33:59.000 --> 34:07.760]  would be in the court record, but it's not in the court record. There's nothing in the
[34:07.760 --> 34:15.560]  court record where anyone made any criminal accusation against Russell Moreland. And this
[34:15.560 --> 34:22.360]  is the argument that we're bringing to the Supreme Court, that the prosecuting attorney
[34:22.360 --> 34:27.840]  has circumvented the intent of the statute and created a circumstance where the state
[34:27.840 --> 34:36.200]  becomes the accuser and the prosecutor. Just fun.
[34:36.200 --> 34:40.880]  I'm glad you know this stuff like the hair on the back of your hand because I get confused
[34:40.880 --> 34:41.880]  with it.
[34:41.880 --> 34:54.880]  Well, it took this code apart and apparently there is a complaint somewhere. The prosecutor
[34:54.880 --> 35:04.500]  provided a copy of the complaint in discovery. That means that the complaint was in the hands
[35:04.500 --> 35:11.560]  of the prosecuting attorney. Well, that's interesting. I want to know what he's doing
[35:11.560 --> 35:17.440]  with that because the law on that matter is very specific.
[35:17.440 --> 35:23.640]  Randy, let me ask you a question.
[35:23.640 --> 35:29.960]  Would it not stand to reason then that if you went back under the Texas Open Meetings
[35:29.960 --> 35:37.520]  Act and looked at the agendas that exist prior to the time that this indictment was filed,
[35:37.520 --> 35:44.000]  look at the agendas that the grand jury had of their prior meetings that have to be posted
[35:44.000 --> 35:49.280]  under that rule by 72 hours before they hold the meeting, that there should be an agenda
[35:49.280 --> 35:55.120]  item for Russell, and then after that there should be an agenda item for the prosecuting
[35:55.120 --> 35:56.840]  attorney to bring the indictment?
[35:56.840 --> 36:03.320]  Oh, okay. Actually, the grand jury doesn't fall under the Open Meetings Act. The meetings
[36:03.320 --> 36:09.040]  of the grand jury are secret. But there's another way to find it.
[36:09.040 --> 36:12.560]  The hearings are secret, but they should have an agenda item.
[36:12.560 --> 36:19.360]  They don't have an agenda item. What they do have are minutes of the grand jury.
[36:19.360 --> 36:27.240]  Minutes of the grand jury go to how an indictment is brought. And this goes to the issue. The
[36:27.240 --> 36:36.720]  primary issue here is about an examining trial. And the argument that the Court of Appeals
[36:36.720 --> 36:42.320]  is making is that after an indictment, you no longer have a right to an examining trial.
[36:42.320 --> 36:52.160]  Yeah, that's right. I agree with that 100%. And that's because 2022 Texas Code of Criminal
[36:52.160 --> 37:02.040]  Procedure Chapter 20 talks about grand juries and how indictments are brought. 2022, presentment
[37:02.040 --> 37:07.580]  entered of record. The fact of a presentment of indictment by the grand jury shall be entered
[37:07.580 --> 37:14.880]  upon the record of the court if the defendant is in custody or under bond, notifying briefly,
[37:14.880 --> 37:21.240]  noting briefly the style of the criminal action and the file number of the indictment and
[37:21.240 --> 37:29.120]  the defendant's name. If the defendant is not in custody or under bond at the time of
[37:29.120 --> 37:34.680]  the presentment of indictment, the entry in the record of the court relating to said indictment
[37:34.680 --> 37:42.760]  shall be delayed until such time as the capious is served and the defendant is placed in custody
[37:42.760 --> 37:52.680]  or under bond. So the indictment is not filed with the court until the person has been arrested.
[37:52.680 --> 37:58.680]  Now, why the heck would they do a thing like that? If the grand jury can just indict you
[37:58.680 --> 38:06.560]  willy-nilly and have you thrown into whose cow? Why are they forbidden to register the
[38:06.560 --> 38:10.760]  fact of the indictment with the court until you've been arrested?
[38:10.760 --> 38:18.240]  Until we got the discovery, I didn't even know that that existed. But they're playing
[38:18.240 --> 38:25.320]  the investigator's own report showed that he went and gave his testimony before the
[38:25.320 --> 38:31.960]  grand jury and the grand jury indicted me. And then that was like two o'clock, 2.30 that
[38:31.960 --> 38:37.320]  afternoon and they didn't come to arrest me until six o'clock that night.
[38:37.320 --> 38:43.840]  Okay. Here's what the law says. Upon a complaint being made before district or county attorney
[38:43.840 --> 38:48.480]  that an offense has been committed in his district or county, he shall reduce complaint
[38:48.480 --> 38:52.600]  to writing and cause the same to be signed and sworn to by complainant and it shall be
[38:52.600 --> 38:59.200]  duly attested by said attorney. So, when the prosecutor was made known that the crime's
[38:59.200 --> 39:04.840]  been committed, he's required to create a criminal complaint. That's what a complaint
[39:04.840 --> 39:05.840]  is.
[39:05.840 --> 39:12.320]  2.05, when complaint is made, if the offense will be a misdemeanor, the attorney shall
[39:12.320 --> 39:17.000]  forthwith prepare an information based upon such complaint and file the same in the court
[39:17.000 --> 39:23.040]  having jurisdiction provided that the county's having no county attorney misdemeanor, having
[39:23.040 --> 39:28.280]  no county attorney, misdemeanor cases may be tried upon complaint alone without an information
[39:28.280 --> 39:32.540]  provided, however, in counties having one or more criminal district courts, the information
[39:32.540 --> 39:39.760]  must be filed in each misdemeanor case. If the offense be a felony, he shall forthwith
[39:39.760 --> 39:48.040]  file the complaint with a magistrate of the county. Now, in either case, the complaint
[39:48.040 --> 39:57.640]  must be filed with a judicial officer, misdemeanor with court jurisdiction, felony with a magistrate
[39:57.640 --> 40:06.200]  of the county. So, my question is, where is it? If the prosecutor provided it in discovery,
[40:06.200 --> 40:19.960]  he had it. Why doesn't a magistrate have it? If he forwarded it to a magistrate, the magistrate
[40:19.960 --> 40:26.480]  would immediately issue a warrant for the person's arrest, and the warrant would state
[40:26.480 --> 40:33.840]  that you are to arrest this person and bring him before me. And there's only one thing
[40:33.840 --> 40:40.320]  that a magistrate is authorized to do when someone is arrested and brought before him.
[40:40.320 --> 40:50.280]  And that's not a magistration, that's an examining trial. Article 2.11 Code of Criminal Procedure.
[40:50.280 --> 40:55.240]  When a magistrate sits for the purpose of examining into a criminal accusation, that
[40:55.240 --> 41:02.840]  is an examining trial, and that's the only judicial duty he has. He can marry people,
[41:02.840 --> 41:11.120]  and he can set bail, but he can only set bail according to 17.05 Code of Criminal Procedure
[41:11.120 --> 41:20.160]  after an examining trial. And in this case, and in the case of every person against whom
[41:20.160 --> 41:28.320]  a true bill is had, and the true bill is brought to the court before the person has been arrested,
[41:28.320 --> 41:38.520]  in every case, the clerk of the court is directed to prepare a capious warrant for his arrest.
[41:38.520 --> 41:46.240]  But the clerk is not a judicial officer, so the clerk cannot set bail. The person is to
[41:46.240 --> 41:52.520]  be arrested and brought before a magistrate, and the magistrate sets bail. But...
[41:52.520 --> 41:56.840]  But on my capious, it has the bail set.
[41:56.840 --> 42:01.680]  The clerk has no authority to set that, the magistrate has to do that. That's the purpose
[42:01.680 --> 42:11.040]  of it. After an examining trial, bail is taken by a magistrate after examining trial by a
[42:11.040 --> 42:16.400]  judge in habeas corpus, or by a police officer under 17, 22, and 122, and those three are
[42:16.400 --> 42:23.440]  cases where bail is preset by statute on minor offenses. By a magistrate, the only time a
[42:23.440 --> 42:30.200]  magistrate can take bail is after an examining trial. It states that clearly, therefore all
[42:30.200 --> 42:36.240]  other circumstances are excluded. Any of us for that.
[42:36.240 --> 42:43.640]  So the reason after indictment you don't have a right to an examining trial is because as
[42:43.640 --> 42:51.440]  a matter of law, you had to have already had one. That's why they won't let the true bill
[42:51.440 --> 42:57.120]  become an indictment, yet, because the person hasn't been arrested as he has an examining
[42:57.120 --> 43:02.360]  trial. What if he comes before the examining trial and says, hey, you got the wrong guy,
[43:02.360 --> 43:05.800]  bubba. The guy's got the same name, he kind of looks like me, but that's this guy over
[43:05.800 --> 43:13.200]  here. Then it all goes away. And that's the reason, that's what examining trials are for.
[43:13.200 --> 43:21.200]  Also required to take all the documents in the hearing and seal them up and forward them
[43:21.200 --> 43:22.200]  to the clerk and everything.
[43:22.200 --> 43:29.240]  Yeah, that was the next thing. After the examining trial, the magistrate is, see magistrates
[43:29.240 --> 43:34.640]  are generally inferior court judges. They can be laypersons. They don't have to be attorneys
[43:34.640 --> 43:38.440]  because they may screw up. They're required to seal all the documents, had an hearing
[43:38.440 --> 43:41.200]  cause of name to be written across the seal of the envelope for the clerk of the court
[43:41.200 --> 43:46.040]  of jurisdiction. So if the complaint existed, was given to a magistrate, he had to hold
[43:46.040 --> 43:50.400]  an examining trial and send it to the clerk of the court. Why isn't it in there?
[43:50.400 --> 43:54.480]  Good question. Why isn't it in there? Cause he secreted the documents away, felony tampering
[43:54.480 --> 43:56.120]  with a government document.
[43:56.120 --> 43:57.120]  Exactly.
[43:57.120 --> 44:00.120]  We'll be right back.
[44:00.120 --> 44:05.160]  Special Roast Hemp Coffee from HempUSA.org. Our coffee grows in the dense volcanic rich
[44:05.160 --> 44:10.280]  soil, herbicide and pesticide free, and in the high altitudes of Guatemala. In conditions
[44:10.280 --> 44:14.400]  that are ideal for natural growth of this high quality coffee. Try our mellow cup of
[44:14.400 --> 44:19.520]  coffee that is ground and roasted with 25% hemp seed from Canada. With the wonderful
[44:19.520 --> 44:24.720]  nutty flavor that contains 18% protein. Our roasters bring a unique flavor that makes
[44:24.720 --> 44:29.640]  this the best cup of coffee you'll ever have. Try our new Special Roast Hemp Coffee from
[44:29.640 --> 44:34.800]  HempUSA.org and wake up your brain without the jitters. Our customers look forward to
[44:34.800 --> 44:43.800]  their next cup of hemp coffee. Visit us at HempUSA.org or call 908-691-2608. That's
[44:43.800 --> 44:50.760]  908-691-2608 and see if you'll change your mind about drinking coffee again. Taste the
[44:50.760 --> 45:14.880]  difference, feel the difference at HempUSA.org today.
[45:14.880 --> 45:21.880]  Okay it's the case of the missing warrant. Where did it go? Does anyone know? Where could
[45:21.880 --> 45:27.160]  it be? It's kind of like the weapons of mass destruction. Where did it go? I don't know.
[45:27.160 --> 45:31.960]  Where and it's kind of like the bailout money. Where did it go? Cash carry. Did you carry
[45:31.960 --> 45:36.200]  off the cash Mr. Cash carry? Where did it go? I don't know. Have you seen a picture
[45:36.200 --> 45:41.880]  of this guy? He's like ooh. So where is the missing warrant? Yeah I said warrant. And
[45:41.880 --> 45:47.040]  then yeah the missing documents. I should have said complaint. Complaint. Yeah missing
[45:47.040 --> 45:53.760]  complaint. Sorry. Randy was talking about missing warrant on the break. Yeah the missing
[45:53.760 --> 45:58.120]  complaint. So where could it be? So after we discuss this then we're going to bring
[45:58.120 --> 46:06.440]  Paul into the conversation. But also tell them Randy, if someone ever has an examining
[46:06.440 --> 46:16.200]  trial, what is supposed to happen in there? Oh yes. There are a few cases that mention
[46:16.200 --> 46:22.800]  a Magistration hearing. And you hear this from the JPs and police all the time. They
[46:22.800 --> 46:29.200]  bring you before the judge for a Magistration. Well I ask in constructing the argument to
[46:29.200 --> 46:35.640]  the court, where did you come up with this? When I type it into Word, Word puts a little
[46:35.640 --> 46:41.680]  red line under it. It doesn't recognize it. Well I don't either. I cannot find a Magistration
[46:41.680 --> 46:48.320]  hearing defined anywhere in law. I do find an examining trial defined in law and the
[46:48.320 --> 46:55.800]  legislature devoted an entire chapter, chapter 16 Code of Criminal Procedure, is devoted
[46:55.800 --> 47:06.360]  to an examining trial. And chapter 17 specifically states that the only time a Magistrate can
[47:06.360 --> 47:14.680]  set bail is after that examining trial in the chapter before. And chapter 16, if you
[47:14.680 --> 47:24.120]  read it, it sounds like the kinds of things they did in the comedy program night court,
[47:24.120 --> 47:32.280]  where the person is brought before the court, the prosecutor is there with the accuser,
[47:32.280 --> 47:37.800]  they appoint an attorney for the accused, they have themselves a hearing, the prosecution
[47:37.800 --> 47:44.220]  states its case, the accused states its defense, and the judge determines whether or not the
[47:44.220 --> 47:50.440]  person should stand and answer for the criminal accusation. He determines if there is sufficient
[47:50.440 --> 47:57.320]  cause to believe that a crime has been committed and the person before him committed the crime.
[47:57.320 --> 48:06.120]  That's an examining trial. And it's required every time a citizen is restricted at his
[48:06.120 --> 48:16.760]  liberty. This is well adjudicated in law and has been a standard in law since 1216. I think
[48:16.760 --> 48:26.160]  that's long enough for it to have been cured. It's clear. And over that time, this served
[48:26.160 --> 48:32.920]  the criminal justice system well, because it tended to protect people from arbitrary
[48:32.920 --> 48:40.760]  prosecution by a overzealous police officer. And then all of a sudden, the last 20 years,
[48:40.760 --> 48:49.720]  it became inconvenient. And they went to other things, something they called a magistration,
[48:49.720 --> 49:02.880]  and now the average conviction rate in Texas is 99.6. That on its face is unreasonable
[49:02.880 --> 49:08.640]  when the conviction rate is high enough that if you round it off to two figures, it rounds
[49:08.640 --> 49:19.480]  up to 100%. Something is terribly wrong. Put that examining trial back where it should
[49:19.480 --> 49:26.560]  be. Put the police officer in a position to where when he arrests someone for any reason,
[49:26.560 --> 49:34.840]  he is to take that person directly to the nearest magistrate and explain himself. When
[49:34.840 --> 49:38.960]  those officers arrested me at the Secretary of State's building, if they knew they had
[49:38.960 --> 49:44.320]  to take me directly to the nearest magistrate and explain themselves, they would have never
[49:44.320 --> 49:50.440]  considered arresting me for that nonsense. It simply would not have happened. It would
[49:50.440 --> 49:56.960]  have protected them from their own stupidity, but they don't have that protection anymore.
[49:56.960 --> 50:04.680]  And now I'm likely to end a few professional careers because they didn't have the protection
[50:04.680 --> 50:08.920]  of the magistrate. It protects not only the citizen, but the state and public officials
[50:08.920 --> 50:16.320]  as well. And this is our whole argument is to get that put back in place. If the magistrate
[50:16.320 --> 50:23.400]  was trained to do an examining trial, the question of whether or not the person should
[50:23.400 --> 50:33.120]  have counsel is answered in the very first statute, 16.01. He must advise the person
[50:33.120 --> 50:39.160]  that he has a right to an examining trial, I mean, a right to counsel, and he's authorized
[50:39.160 --> 50:45.320]  to delay the proceedings to give the person opportunity to secure counsel. This question
[50:45.320 --> 50:51.000]  would go away. And all of these other questions about the due process rights of the citizen
[50:51.000 --> 50:54.360]  would all go away. They would be handled right here.
[50:54.360 --> 51:02.200]  See, I don't believe that that's really correct. Because if you read the Supreme Court rulings,
[51:02.200 --> 51:07.520]  they're basically saying that you should not be confronted by a judicial officer, no matter
[51:07.520 --> 51:14.480]  what, unless you have counsel or you waive counsel. Even if you go before counsel or
[51:14.480 --> 51:18.840]  the judge and say, and the judge looked at you and says, well, you got the right to have
[51:18.840 --> 51:25.720]  counsel or you can waive that right, whatever you want. That judge is talking to that person
[51:25.720 --> 51:32.480]  beyond, to me, beyond authority. That's why...
[51:32.480 --> 51:37.760]  Now it's getting unreasonable. How do they do it with some magical incantation?
[51:37.760 --> 51:39.760]  There's other ways to do those things.
[51:39.760 --> 51:40.760]  Yeah, but now you're pretty...
[51:40.760 --> 51:44.200]  A judge don't have to tell you that you need counsel or not need counsel.
[51:44.200 --> 51:50.160]  Yeah, but the judge is the one that can appoint you counsel and reserve the hearing until
[51:50.160 --> 51:57.240]  you get counsel. It's 1601. It is the very first thing he must do. He doesn't confront
[51:57.240 --> 52:01.520]  you. He doesn't ask you to plead guilty. He doesn't ask you if you're... If anything
[52:01.520 --> 52:09.000]  about this, first thing he does is ensure that if you want counsel, you have counsel.
[52:09.000 --> 52:14.680]  So he's not confronting you at this point in any way. He's there to make sure that your
[52:14.680 --> 52:17.400]  rights are protected first.
[52:17.400 --> 52:24.000]  First of all, they do not care whether you have... I mean, you're going to get counsel
[52:24.000 --> 52:28.160]  because the first thing out of their mouth is fill out these forms.
[52:28.160 --> 52:32.440]  I know what they... You're talking about a magistration now. You're not talking about
[52:32.440 --> 52:33.440]  an exam...
[52:33.440 --> 52:38.880]  No, I'm talking about what happened in district court right before the judge and stuff. When
[52:38.880 --> 52:42.880]  I got rid of my attorneys and stuff, they kept trying to pressure me, threaten me with
[52:42.880 --> 52:48.080]  jail and everything if I didn't produce an attorney. Well, we went through that for straight
[52:48.080 --> 52:51.520]  months and I didn't produce an attorney.
[52:51.520 --> 52:59.160]  Well, I went to court in Travis County. They summoned me to court to find out if I had
[52:59.160 --> 53:05.260]  an attorney and I was prepared to disqualify the judge and file criminal charges against
[53:05.260 --> 53:10.320]  the judge for that. We're not going to go through this song and dance that you're going
[53:10.320 --> 53:14.640]  to push me around like some chump in the parking lot.
[53:14.640 --> 53:21.360]  You're going to follow law or we're going to have a fight about that. But I didn't disqualify
[53:21.360 --> 53:28.600]  the judge because she was smart and I kind of decided I probably wasn't going to get
[53:28.600 --> 53:34.060]  a better judge than this one. But I was fully prepared to demand that the judge stand down
[53:34.060 --> 53:42.160]  from the bench, ask the bailiff to arrest the judge for abusive process. She wanted
[53:42.160 --> 53:48.680]  me to have counsel. Whether or not I have counsel is my decision, not hers. And I don't
[53:48.680 --> 53:53.400]  particularly care what she wants. If she tries to do anything different, then we address
[53:53.400 --> 53:59.960]  that. Then I go after the judge because I'm the sovereign. I intend to hold that judge
[53:59.960 --> 54:01.800]  to the same law as everybody else.
[54:01.800 --> 54:07.560]  But the point I'm getting across is they can give you a simple piece of paper saying that
[54:07.560 --> 54:12.920]  these are your rights. Do you want counsel or do you not want counsel? A judge don't
[54:12.920 --> 54:14.920]  have to tell you that.
[54:14.920 --> 54:25.720]  Who do you want to do that? Who do we trust to do that? A policeman standing there holding
[54:25.720 --> 54:27.600]  a billy club over your head?
[54:27.600 --> 54:29.000]  No, but that could be done as...
[54:29.000 --> 54:33.880]  A prosecuting attorney who's telling you all of the horrible, rotten things he's going
[54:33.880 --> 54:38.400]  to do to you if you don't do exactly what he says. Who do we trust?
[54:38.400 --> 54:46.080]  I'm just saying that it could be done. We could find some way to do it without addressing
[54:46.080 --> 54:52.200]  a judge, an actual judicial officer addressing that to you, basically. That's what they're
[54:52.200 --> 54:56.280]  doing now when they bypass the Magistration.
[54:56.280 --> 54:59.800]  And you're right, there is a real easy way to do that. And in New York, they actually
[54:59.800 --> 55:08.360]  do do that. If you go into court for your preliminary hearing and you don't have counsel,
[55:08.360 --> 55:13.760]  before you ever get to the court, a public defender will approach you and ask you to
[55:13.760 --> 55:20.400]  have counsel. And if you don't, he will offer to represent you if you allow him to. And
[55:20.400 --> 55:25.060]  you've never spoken to a judge yet. You've never been before the court yet, except when
[55:25.060 --> 55:30.640]  you're arrested. You don't go before the court until you've had opportunity for counsel.
[55:30.640 --> 55:36.600]  So yeah, there are procedures to do that, and that would not be a hard thing. To have
[55:36.600 --> 55:45.480]  a public defender available is a very simple thing to do, but it doesn't serve their purpose.
[55:45.480 --> 55:54.920]  Proper examining trials serves their purpose even less. We're coming up on the halfway
[55:54.920 --> 55:57.920]  point. When we come back, I would like to talk to Paul.
[55:57.920 --> 56:01.440]  Yeah, well, we do actually have about three minutes before the break.
[56:01.440 --> 56:12.800]  Yeah, I know. We'd like to get into talking to Paul about issues on foreclosure and mortgages.
[56:12.800 --> 56:16.640]  Paul is one of the most knowledgeable people I've ever talked to on this subject. Just
[56:16.640 --> 56:20.300]  want to let you know, I hadn't forgot he's there. I've been wanting to get him back on
[56:20.300 --> 56:26.400]  for a long time, and I kind of got Russell to bushwhack him today and drag him in here,
[56:26.400 --> 56:34.400]  so I didn't want to leave him there. But we were going to, in the certiorari, in the Supreme
[56:34.400 --> 56:43.400]  Court petition, where's the missing complaint? The court of appeals said you don't have to
[56:43.400 --> 56:51.760]  have one. It did reference the fact that if there was one, then yeah, then it mattered.
[56:51.760 --> 56:56.920]  Wait a minute. The court said that they didn't have to have one. Well, then how do they think
[56:56.920 --> 57:00.720]  is the best way to initiate a prosecution, then, if there's no complaint?
[57:00.720 --> 57:05.400]  Well, they say the grand jury just gives an indictment somehow.
[57:05.400 --> 57:11.800]  Well, no, if the grand jury initiated the prosecution, then the grand jury would have
[57:11.800 --> 57:19.560]  to write up their own complaint, and then you have to indict on a complaint.
[57:19.560 --> 57:26.160]  What they did was applied federal grand jury standards to the state, where the grand jury
[57:26.160 --> 57:37.000]  could ask the prosecutor to prepare a complaint. A federal grand jury can produce an indictment
[57:37.000 --> 57:44.660]  without a complaint, but at some point a complaint has to be created. In Texas, it's different.
[57:44.660 --> 57:51.320]  It takes a criminal accusation to give the grand jury subject matter jurisdiction in
[57:51.320 --> 58:00.120]  the first place. They're not given authority to examine into anything subject to indictment.
[58:00.120 --> 58:06.120]  They're given authority to examine into criminal accusations. That is the complaint. In Russell
[58:06.120 --> 58:11.800]  case, there was one. The prosecutor had it. He was commanded to give it to a magistrate
[58:11.800 --> 58:20.480]  and did not. That's felony tampering. The courts are claiming that since he tampered
[58:20.480 --> 58:24.200]  with a government document and committed a felony, well, now we don't have all these
[58:24.200 --> 58:27.720]  protections in place anymore, and they can go without it.
[58:27.720 --> 58:31.000]  Okay. We also have a caller on the line, Michael from Maryland.
[58:31.000 --> 58:35.400]  Okay. If we come back, we'll take Michael, and then we'll go to Paul.
[58:35.400 --> 58:39.800]  All right. Good deal. We'll be right back after this short break. Top of the hour news.
[58:39.800 --> 59:06.800]  The Iron and World Report coming right up.
[59:39.800 --> 01:00:09.760]  KBR, the largest U.S. contractor in Iraq and Afghanistan, improperly billed the
[01:00:09.760 --> 01:00:17.480]  Pentagon and was paid $103 million for armed security guard services. Senator Claire McCaskill
[01:00:17.480 --> 01:00:22.640]  said the Pentagon has recovered 42 million, but that the Defense Department was not moving
[01:00:22.640 --> 01:00:30.920]  quickly enough to recover the remaining 61 million. A new CNN poll has found 58% of Americans
[01:00:30.920 --> 01:00:38.400]  oppose the war in Afghanistan, 56% oppose sending more troops, and 49% say the president
[01:00:38.400 --> 01:00:44.880]  is taking too long to decide whether to increase U.S. troop levels. The U.S. military consumes
[01:00:44.880 --> 01:00:51.280]  22 gallons of fuel per soldier per day. According to a Deloitte study, the Navy says it costs
[01:00:51.280 --> 01:00:57.520]  more like $300 to $400 a gallon because fuel has to be driven to Afghanistan's isolated
[01:00:57.520 --> 01:01:03.880]  bases. Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev
[01:01:03.880 --> 01:01:10.200]  drawing on his experience of military failure in Afghanistan in the 1980s said the U.S.
[01:01:10.200 --> 01:01:16.480]  cannot win and should begin pulling out. Gorbachev says Afghanistan is too fragmented between
[01:01:16.480 --> 01:01:22.720]  clans to be controlled militarily. Gorbachev added that although Barack Obama is unlikely
[01:01:22.720 --> 01:01:29.080]  to take his advice, he said, I believe there is no prospect of a military solution, adding,
[01:01:29.080 --> 01:01:33.880]  what we need is the reconciliation of Afghan society, and they should be preparing the
[01:01:33.880 --> 01:01:39.360]  ground for withdrawal rather than additional troops. Gorbachev, who became General Secretary
[01:01:39.360 --> 01:01:46.200]  of the ruling Communist Party in 1985, initiated a restructuring program known as Perestroika
[01:01:46.200 --> 01:01:51.920]  that led to the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. He spoke a day after joining Chancellor
[01:01:51.920 --> 01:01:57.640]  Angela Merkel and world leaders in the German capital to mark the fall of the Berlin Wall
[01:01:57.640 --> 01:02:03.720]  20 years ago. The U.S. reversed policy Wednesday and said
[01:02:03.720 --> 01:02:09.760]  it would back talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by
[01:02:09.760 --> 01:02:15.240]  consensus. The decision overturns the position of the Bush administration, which had opposed
[01:02:15.240 --> 01:02:21.680]  such a treaty. While praising the Obama administration's decision, some groups criticized the U.S.
[01:02:21.680 --> 01:02:27.280]  insistence that decisions be unanimous. The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten
[01:02:27.280 --> 01:02:32.960]  regulation of the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons. Supporters say it
[01:02:32.960 --> 01:02:38.680]  would close gaps in existing arms export control systems that currently allow weapons to pass
[01:02:38.680 --> 01:02:44.600]  onto the illicit market. Last year, the U.S. accounted for more than two-thirds of $55
[01:02:44.600 --> 01:02:50.080]  billion in global arms deals. Critics say the treaty is a first step in banning all
[01:02:50.080 --> 01:02:57.080]  firearms in the U.S.
[01:03:50.080 --> 01:03:57.080]  It is also the first step in banning all firearms in the U.S.
[01:04:20.080 --> 01:04:27.080]  It is also the first step in banning all firearms in the U.S.
[01:04:50.080 --> 01:05:03.640]  Okay, we are back. The rule of law. Okay, we're going to bring up our guest, Paul now,
[01:05:03.640 --> 01:05:08.880]  to talk about mortgage issues. And since Michael from Maryland has been waiting so long and
[01:05:08.880 --> 01:05:13.240]  he told my call screener he has a mortgage question, so we're going to let Michael ask
[01:05:13.240 --> 01:05:16.720]  his mortgage question. Michael, thanks for calling in. I know you also have a red light
[01:05:16.720 --> 01:05:21.800]  camera issue, but I would like to stick just to the mortgage issues right now because we've
[01:05:21.800 --> 01:05:26.040]  got our guest, Paul, who has been waiting for over half an hour to speak. So how about
[01:05:26.040 --> 01:05:31.800]  you ask your question to Paul about your mortgage, about mortgage issues, Michael.
[01:05:31.800 --> 01:05:40.760]  Okay, can you hear me first of all? Yes. Okay, great. Well, I just was curious because we
[01:05:40.760 --> 01:05:48.160]  refinanced about a year after we purchased our home, and I went back in the initial stages
[01:05:48.160 --> 01:05:55.760]  of working with Randy Kelton in regards to the forensic fraud finding process, went back
[01:05:55.760 --> 01:06:01.840]  and I noticed that there was reference to MERS, and so I was wondering whether that
[01:06:01.840 --> 01:06:08.480]  was a slam dunk, that there's a better chance than not that we have a cloud over our title
[01:06:08.480 --> 01:06:13.120]  and that there's a very good chance that we have standing. I realize I'm getting a little
[01:06:13.120 --> 01:06:16.200]  ahead of ourselves, but again, that wasn't my main purpose for calling initially, but
[01:06:16.200 --> 01:06:19.880]  when I found out that I was off topic, that was the only question that came to mind, and
[01:06:19.880 --> 01:06:29.120]  I do want to know. Okay, you want to address that, Paul, or should I? Well, I'm not 100%
[01:06:29.120 --> 01:06:36.400]  sure I fully understand his question about, he mentioned you and forensic fraud. I have
[01:06:36.400 --> 01:06:47.440]  no understanding of that. Okay, I'm doing a forensic analysis of the loan process, and
[01:06:47.440 --> 01:06:55.000]  there's been a number of court cases recently, primarily one out of the State of Kansas Supreme
[01:06:55.000 --> 01:07:02.420]  Court. Kansas Supreme Court, right. Yeah, addressing MERS, but to answer your question,
[01:07:02.420 --> 01:07:11.520]  just because MERS is involved doesn't necessarily mean there is any impropriety. What the Kansas
[01:07:11.520 --> 01:07:20.040]  case said that MERS tried to intervene in the case, and the State of Kansas said, who
[01:07:20.040 --> 01:07:26.160]  the heck are you? You have no standing in the case, and they said, well, we were assigned
[01:07:26.160 --> 01:07:30.680]  the mortgage, and so we don't care what you were assigned, it didn't give you standing.
[01:07:30.680 --> 01:07:39.960]  So all that would go to is if MERS tries to initiate the repossession or the foreclosure.
[01:07:39.960 --> 01:07:45.180]  Right. We are all paid up on our home, so that's really not the issue. I was more concerned
[01:07:45.180 --> 01:07:53.880]  about the fact that if the Kansas Supreme Court decision introduced the concept of a
[01:07:53.880 --> 01:07:59.000]  fatal flaw, then what concerned me logically as the next step would be that if that's the
[01:07:59.000 --> 01:08:05.520]  case and if MERS is somehow mixed up in our current situation in one form or another,
[01:08:05.520 --> 01:08:12.000]  do we very possibly have a cloud on the title? And I guess the devil's in the details, right?
[01:08:12.000 --> 01:08:20.680]  Right. MERS in itself, there's not something inherently wrong with MERS. Although the Supreme
[01:08:20.680 --> 01:08:29.760]  Court did address the fact that MERS was put in place to give the mortgage company a different
[01:08:29.760 --> 01:08:39.880]  place to register the mortgages. And the Supreme Court agreed that the statutory requirement
[01:08:39.880 --> 01:08:51.120]  to file the lien in the county court was antiquated, but that's a problem they would have to take
[01:08:51.120 --> 01:08:58.840]  up with the legislature. The requirement still stands, and so long as it stands, they must
[01:08:58.840 --> 01:09:07.000]  follow it or suffer the consequences. And in this case, they suffered the consequences.
[01:09:07.000 --> 01:09:13.120]  And we have another one where they went to the records of the clerk of the court and
[01:09:13.120 --> 01:09:22.600]  the lien was not filed. So quick like a bunny rabbit, we need to get a set of trusts in
[01:09:22.600 --> 01:09:31.700]  place so the trust can lien the property before these guys can. Now they got a cloud. Now
[01:09:31.700 --> 01:09:40.960]  they got a problem. So these are some issues, but MERS in itself is not necessarily an indication
[01:09:40.960 --> 01:09:47.760]  of a problem with a mortgage unless you're behind it and they're attempting to foreclose.
[01:09:47.760 --> 01:09:54.280]  What we look at, the primary thing I want to look at with the mortgages and the reason
[01:09:54.280 --> 01:10:02.360]  I wanted to talk to Paul is I'm looking for the details of what goes on behind the scenes
[01:10:02.360 --> 01:10:11.040]  and what kinds of things that are done that the person with the note that were with the
[01:10:11.040 --> 01:10:18.760]  borrower should know about, but generally doesn't know about. Paul, the first time
[01:10:18.760 --> 01:10:23.880]  you had a song, you talked about how the note was securitized and you were the first one
[01:10:23.880 --> 01:10:29.520]  that explained that in a way that it made absolute and utter sense. And I have used
[01:10:29.520 --> 01:10:35.200]  your explanation over and over and everybody understands it. So I'm hoping you'll give
[01:10:35.200 --> 01:10:41.520]  me more things that I can say that sound intelligent so I don't have to draw on my own and sound
[01:10:41.520 --> 01:10:42.520]  stupid.
[01:10:42.520 --> 01:10:51.600]  As far as the first thing I think that we all do that's an error is at the time of
[01:10:51.600 --> 01:11:00.000]  closing and all the documentation is presented and everybody sits there, you know, the borrower's
[01:11:00.000 --> 01:11:06.320]  husband and wife or whomever sit on one side of the desk and the closing officers sitting
[01:11:06.320 --> 01:11:10.800]  on the opposite side of the desk and keep pushing papers across to sign and sign and
[01:11:10.800 --> 01:11:19.440]  sign and sign is that we all fail to ask for the receipt once we're finished. I think if
[01:11:19.440 --> 01:11:26.480]  that were a practice that were started, because they don't have a receipt, but when you're
[01:11:26.480 --> 01:11:33.720]  dealing with the documentation that you're putting your signatures on, one of those documents
[01:11:33.720 --> 01:11:41.520]  is a promissory note and it's a note that's immediately going to be negotiated and it's
[01:11:41.520 --> 01:11:46.720]  like making a deposit in any bank. When you take your paycheck to the bank with a deposit
[01:11:46.720 --> 01:11:53.880]  slip that you filled out and you put it through their little pneumatic tube system and they
[01:11:53.880 --> 01:12:00.920]  welcome you and they do what they do inside the bank and then they send that tube back
[01:12:00.920 --> 01:12:06.240]  to you. It contains a receipt that demonstrates that on this date you put X number of Federal
[01:12:06.240 --> 01:12:13.920]  Reserve notes into an account and when you sign a promissory note at a closing, we fail
[01:12:13.920 --> 01:12:21.040]  to ask for the receipt. I think if we ever got that receipt then there would be proof
[01:12:21.040 --> 01:12:29.920]  that the deposit was just affected and you have now an asset on deposit. That's a really
[01:12:29.920 --> 01:12:37.880]  good idea, Paul. Okay, if I wanted to ask for this receipt. Where's my receipt? I just
[01:12:37.880 --> 01:12:46.200]  gave you a $300,000 note to pay a million dollars on this thing over the next 360 months.
[01:12:46.200 --> 01:12:52.240]  Where's my receipt for it? Because in all actuality, they're going to take your note
[01:12:52.240 --> 01:12:57.040]  and immediately turn it over and pay to the order of and put it wherever they want to
[01:12:57.040 --> 01:13:04.320]  put it and the bank is going to generate, the lending institution is going to generate
[01:13:04.320 --> 01:13:10.000]  all the revenue for their benefit and you're stuck with a coupon book of payments for the
[01:13:10.000 --> 01:13:17.040]  next 30 years, but they didn't give you a receipt. What benefit will the receipt give
[01:13:17.040 --> 01:13:24.920]  me? That's your asset. You see, they're not loaning any money when you affect that transaction.
[01:13:24.920 --> 01:13:29.720]  Yeah, the receipt shows that you've already given them something of value, your signature.
[01:13:29.720 --> 01:13:37.080]  That's your deposit. Yeah, the house is already paid for when you sign the note because they're
[01:13:37.080 --> 01:13:43.280]  not loaning you any money. They're monetizing your signature. Actually, you're the one that's
[01:13:43.280 --> 01:13:48.400]  monetizing the debt and they're monetizing your signature. You've already given them
[01:13:48.400 --> 01:13:52.480]  a deposit. You've already given them something of consideration. You've given them an asset.
[01:13:52.480 --> 01:13:56.120]  Now you want a receipt. Makes perfect sense to me. Right, and that's something I've been
[01:13:56.120 --> 01:14:00.720]  learning lately and I'm appreciative of your bringing that to our attention, but is that
[01:14:00.720 --> 01:14:04.560]  the basis of an accusation of fraud or where do we go with that? What do we do with that
[01:14:04.560 --> 01:14:09.360]  information? Notwithstanding whether we got a receipt or not, where do you go with that
[01:14:09.360 --> 01:14:17.920]  legally? Well, the whole system is based on fraud, but it's a fraud that they are aware
[01:14:17.920 --> 01:14:25.680]  of and that we're kept in the dark about, but have you actually sat down and really
[01:14:25.680 --> 01:14:33.840]  concentrated on the Deed of Trust as part of that package? No. There's two or three
[01:14:33.840 --> 01:14:42.080]  pages to the Deed of Trust. If you will really pay close attention to the articles, there's
[01:14:42.080 --> 01:14:46.760]  about four or five articles in there, but it talks about the lender and it talks about
[01:14:46.760 --> 01:14:54.460]  the guarantor and it talks about the beneficiary. You ought to really pay some close attention
[01:14:54.460 --> 01:15:01.400]  to just what you're effectively doing when you sign that Deed of Trust. You see, the
[01:15:01.400 --> 01:15:10.200]  promissory note is never recorded. It is what is used by the lending institution to generate
[01:15:10.200 --> 01:15:16.320]  the revenue for their benefit, but they do immediately take the Deed of Trust over and
[01:15:16.320 --> 01:15:22.760]  record it in the county where that property is located, and that's an event that creates
[01:15:22.760 --> 01:15:29.080]  two problems for you. Number one, once that's recorded, it goes back into the public and
[01:15:29.080 --> 01:15:35.320]  it appears for the public's purpose as a corporation or some type of, and corporations are all
[01:15:35.320 --> 01:15:41.960]  their fictions, and that's the only thing that can be taxed as far as property tax and
[01:15:41.960 --> 01:15:46.760]  so forth. So that's the purpose behind why they want to record that Deed of Trust. That
[01:15:46.760 --> 01:15:53.360]  puts that property back into play as far as the ability for the county and the city or
[01:15:53.360 --> 01:16:01.600]  whoever to place taxes against it, you know, for your privilege of living there. If that
[01:16:01.600 --> 01:16:06.000]  were never recorded, then there would never be an ability for the county to send you a
[01:16:06.000 --> 01:16:16.000]  tax bill. But it's really critical. You become very familiar with the terminology, you know,
[01:16:16.000 --> 01:16:23.680]  the definitions of who is the grantor and who is the beneficiary and who is the trustee.
[01:16:23.680 --> 01:16:30.600]  The trustee is who they're going to appoint to administer your loan, and that trustee
[01:16:30.600 --> 01:16:37.360]  will appoint a servicing agent, which is what MERS basically does. They're pooling and servicing
[01:16:37.360 --> 01:16:38.360]  them.
[01:16:38.360 --> 01:16:44.880]  Okay, wait, hold on. Hold on that thought, Paul. We're going to break now. Michael, would
[01:16:44.880 --> 01:16:46.880]  you like to stay on until the other side as well?
[01:16:46.880 --> 01:16:48.600]  That would be great. Thanks.
[01:16:48.600 --> 01:16:52.600]  Okay, great. We have Mike from Oklahoma, John from Georgia. We see you. We'll be getting
[01:16:52.600 --> 01:16:58.400]  to your calls a little bit later. We'll be right back.
[01:16:58.400 --> 01:17:04.600]  Hello, Austin. My name is Harlan Diedrich, owner of Brave New Books, a local independent
[01:17:04.600 --> 01:17:08.720]  bookstore here in town. Many of you are familiar with the bookstore and have attended some
[01:17:08.720 --> 01:17:13.600]  of our events. We've been proud to host speakers like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, Jim Mars, Katherine
[01:17:13.600 --> 01:17:17.960]  Albert, Webster Tarpley, G. Edward Griffin, and many other heroic figures in the Patriot
[01:17:17.960 --> 01:17:23.000]  Movement. But now, Brave New Books needs your help. In order to continue to provide a space
[01:17:23.000 --> 01:17:27.840]  for these events and be an outlet for hard-to-find materials, we're going to need you, Austin,
[01:17:27.840 --> 01:17:31.600]  to help spread the word about the bookstore. Please tell your friends and family about
[01:17:31.600 --> 01:17:36.680]  the wide variety of materials we offer. We also have DVD duplication capabilities for
[01:17:36.680 --> 01:17:41.840]  all you activists. Also, if you haven't visited us yet, please come down and show your support.
[01:17:41.840 --> 01:17:45.880]  It is so easy to support the big corporate chain stores that do nothing to further our
[01:17:45.880 --> 01:17:50.640]  message. Remember, you vote with your dollars. We're counting on you, Austin. If you need
[01:17:50.640 --> 01:17:57.640]  any information, please call 512-480-2503 or visit us at 1904 Guadalupe Street. Thank
[01:17:57.640 --> 01:17:58.640]  you, everyone.
[01:17:58.640 --> 01:18:23.640]  Ain't gonna blind me, don't bore me. Well, ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick
[01:18:23.640 --> 01:18:33.640]  again. I was blindsided, but now I can see your plan. You put the fear in my pockets,
[01:18:33.640 --> 01:19:01.640]  took the money from my hand. Ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick again. Ain't gonna
[01:19:01.640 --> 01:19:09.640]  fool me with that same old sucker punch. I get it now, but then I must have been too
[01:19:09.640 --> 01:19:13.640]  much. Back then you had room to move.
[01:19:13.640 --> 01:19:18.640]  Okay, we are back. We're speaking with Michael in Maryland. We've got a very special guest,
[01:19:18.640 --> 01:19:21.640]  Paul. So, Paul, please continue.
[01:19:21.640 --> 01:19:27.640]  Well, I have to apologize to your caller, Michael, because I'm not 100% familiar with
[01:19:27.640 --> 01:19:34.640]  everything he's attempting to do. So, you know, I may be addressing things that are
[01:19:34.640 --> 01:19:38.640]  not really pertinent to what he's trying to determine.
[01:19:38.640 --> 01:19:45.640]  Well, no, I think every little bit helps me, actually, but Randy's a little more in tune
[01:19:45.640 --> 01:19:50.640]  with where I'm going, but I appreciate the fact that he respects your opinion, and I'm
[01:19:50.640 --> 01:19:55.640]  just glad to learn from him as he is and as Debra is, so thank you for your time.
[01:19:55.640 --> 01:20:01.640]  I will say this. I used to be a realtor years ago, and I do know that there's transfer and
[01:20:01.640 --> 01:20:06.640]  recordation taxes that get settled on the HUD-1 when you close. I didn't have to be
[01:20:06.640 --> 01:20:11.640]  a realtor to know that, but I'm very well accustomed to it. So I was just wondering,
[01:20:11.640 --> 01:20:15.640]  you know, in a perfect world, knowing what you know now and what you're teaching people,
[01:20:15.640 --> 01:20:23.640]  making people aware of, it would be interesting to know just how you would foresee or be able
[01:20:23.640 --> 01:20:30.640]  to avoid the scenario in which they form the basis for all this property taxes by taking
[01:20:30.640 --> 01:20:35.640]  your deed of trust down to the courthouse and recording it. How could you even get around
[01:20:35.640 --> 01:20:39.640]  that, since there's all this transfer and recordation taxes that need to be handled at
[01:20:39.640 --> 01:20:45.640]  closing by most states, if not all states, before, you know, they're going to do the
[01:20:45.640 --> 01:20:48.640]  deal and consider it done?
[01:20:48.640 --> 01:20:54.640]  Well, you can, there's a couple of different ways you can do that, but one is you use a
[01:20:54.640 --> 01:21:04.640]  quick claim and quiet title it, and, you know, it's more complicated than we probably have
[01:21:04.640 --> 01:21:14.640]  time to go into now, but it's through a, you transfer it more than just one time, and I
[01:21:14.640 --> 01:21:19.640]  guess the easiest way to explain that was we had people that, you know, when you get
[01:21:19.640 --> 01:21:26.640]  to be 65 years old down here where we are, you get an exemption. There's also what's
[01:21:26.640 --> 01:21:31.640]  called a homestead exemption in our state. I don't know if Maryland has that or not,
[01:21:31.640 --> 01:21:40.640]  but you would transfer for good and valuable services a piece of property from, say, a
[01:21:40.640 --> 01:21:49.640]  mother to a child for a fair consideration of $10. That's a new sale, even though it's
[01:21:49.640 --> 01:21:55.640]  only $10. Well, if you record that, that goes on the books in the property tax. Business
[01:21:55.640 --> 01:22:03.640]  is a sale for $10, and you figure out what the tax is on $10. The counties come along
[01:22:03.640 --> 01:22:09.640]  and they try to, again, that happens after you get to be age 65, so the taxes are basically
[01:22:09.640 --> 01:22:18.640]  frozen at that point. They stay the same. They can't go up. But I had a number of people
[01:22:18.640 --> 01:22:23.640]  that, you know, were paying a dollar, dollar and a quarter a year in property tax once
[01:22:23.640 --> 01:22:30.640]  they did this, but it's just a method of determining how you want to arrange the ownership
[01:22:30.640 --> 01:22:35.640]  of the property and then how you register that deed with the county.
[01:22:35.640 --> 01:22:40.640]  Wow. Okay, well, I know there are other people waiting, so let me turn it over to them. But
[01:22:40.640 --> 01:22:44.640]  if you know the answer to this, I'd be curious to know, and I'll hang up after I ask, which
[01:22:44.640 --> 01:22:51.640]  is if there's some type of mortgage fraud associated with past transactions and you
[01:22:51.640 --> 01:22:55.640]  litigated and the judges just happened to rule in your favor to the tune of thousands
[01:22:55.640 --> 01:23:01.640]  and thousands of dollars, I was curious to know how you would anticipate that being handled
[01:23:01.640 --> 01:23:07.640]  either by the IRS or the state authorities in terms of taxable gain. So I'll let it go.
[01:23:07.640 --> 01:23:08.640]  Thank you very much.
[01:23:08.640 --> 01:23:21.640]  Okay. That one is real easy. Any thing you receive as repair or something to make you
[01:23:21.640 --> 01:23:31.640]  whole from harm, not taxable. If you sue the mortgage company for triple the harm they
[01:23:31.640 --> 01:23:38.640]  did to you, you're being made whole. You've been harmed by them and you're being brought
[01:23:38.640 --> 01:23:42.640]  back to zero. No taxes.
[01:23:42.640 --> 01:23:43.640]  Wow.
[01:23:43.640 --> 01:23:44.640]  Period.
[01:23:44.640 --> 01:23:48.640]  All right. Thank you very much, folks.
[01:23:48.640 --> 01:23:52.640]  Okay. We now have Mike from Oklahoma.
[01:23:52.640 --> 01:23:58.640]  Yes. Paul, did you want to present some material first before we continue with the callers?
[01:23:58.640 --> 01:23:59.640]  Paul?
[01:23:59.640 --> 01:24:04.640]  Hello. I'm here, but I don't know.
[01:24:04.640 --> 01:24:09.640]  Okay. Did you want to present some material first before we go to the rest of the callers?
[01:24:09.640 --> 01:24:10.640]  I didn't really.
[01:24:10.640 --> 01:24:11.640]  Okay.
[01:24:11.640 --> 01:24:15.640]  Maddie, you have to answer for me because I don't have any material.
[01:24:15.640 --> 01:24:20.640]  Okay. Well, then we'll go to Mike from Oklahoma. Okay. Thanks.
[01:24:20.640 --> 01:24:29.640]  Good evening, folks. On the internet, under the cap and trade law, they're advertising
[01:24:29.640 --> 01:24:37.640]  that the federal government is going to require a license to sell your home if it's not retrofitted
[01:24:37.640 --> 01:24:45.640]  and certified as energy efficient home. How can they do that under the 10th Amendment
[01:24:45.640 --> 01:24:53.640]  without the state passing such a law? And how can they make that sale of the home requirement
[01:24:53.640 --> 01:24:59.640]  and send you to license to sell your home when you already own the home prior to the
[01:24:59.640 --> 01:25:01.640]  enactment?
[01:25:01.640 --> 01:25:06.640]  That's a good question. I don't see how they can interfere with that at all. It goes to
[01:25:06.640 --> 01:25:07.640]  the contract.
[01:25:07.640 --> 01:25:13.640]  Exactly. Our home is paid for. If we decide to sell it, they want to come in and have
[01:25:13.640 --> 01:25:18.640]  an inspector certified that it's energy efficient and cost us thousands of dollars to bring
[01:25:18.640 --> 01:25:23.640]  it up to the current standards. I don't see how they can do that.
[01:25:23.640 --> 01:25:29.640]  The government is always passing laws that they know full well are unconstitutional.
[01:25:29.640 --> 01:25:38.640]  They don't care. They create lots of unauthorized tax before someone is harmed enough or gathers
[01:25:38.640 --> 01:25:44.640]  together a large enough group to run it through the courts and get it declared unconstitutional.
[01:25:44.640 --> 01:25:51.640]  It's like the red light camera laws. They know that's unconstitutional. They don't
[01:25:51.640 --> 01:25:56.640]  care. They're going to make a lot of money in the interim. And that appears to be what
[01:25:56.640 --> 01:26:02.640]  this is. Getting into telling people when they can sell their homes and when they can't
[01:26:02.640 --> 01:26:08.640]  and that they have to be licensed to sell their own home, this is not going to fly.
[01:26:08.640 --> 01:26:10.640]  It's absolutely unconstitutional.
[01:26:10.640 --> 01:26:17.640]  First of all, cap and trade hasn't been approved yet as far as I'm aware.
[01:26:17.640 --> 01:26:23.640]  I understand that. I'm just scared to death the way they're reading Pelosi and others
[01:26:23.640 --> 01:26:29.640]  forcing the health care bill through. They're going to pin that thing through as well.
[01:26:29.640 --> 01:26:32.640]  But you've answered my question.
[01:26:32.640 --> 01:26:39.640]  Yeah, they may push it through, but no way it will stand up before the courts.
[01:26:39.640 --> 01:26:45.640]  That goes to something that's so incredibly basic to the whole nature of this country,
[01:26:45.640 --> 01:26:51.640]  that when the government steps in a position of telling you when you can enter trade and
[01:26:51.640 --> 01:26:58.640]  when you can't enter trade, that was such a primary, basic consideration when this country
[01:26:58.640 --> 01:27:02.640]  was put together, that it would destabilize the whole nation.
[01:27:02.640 --> 01:27:06.640]  Yes, it would. And that's what they're trying to do, in my opinion.
[01:27:06.640 --> 01:27:17.640]  They're always competing forces. And the way it appears to me is this pendulum has swung
[01:27:17.640 --> 01:27:23.640]  out about as far as it can go, and it's just the nature of things.
[01:27:23.640 --> 01:27:29.640]  The more they move off center, the more forces try to pull it back to center.
[01:27:29.640 --> 01:27:36.640]  And with both Bush's and Clinton, they have pushed things way off center,
[01:27:36.640 --> 01:27:40.640]  and now the sleeping giant's beginning to stir.
[01:27:40.640 --> 01:27:41.640]  Amen.
[01:27:41.640 --> 01:27:46.640]  The American people are, you know, we don't hear this asleep and awake anymore.
[01:27:46.640 --> 01:27:51.640]  It's not a matter of whether someone's asleep or awake, it's just how awake are they?
[01:27:51.640 --> 01:27:56.640]  So the nation's waking up, the pressure's on, and we'll be pulling things back to center.
[01:27:56.640 --> 01:28:03.640]  It may take us a few years to get it there, but I'm confident that we will get this nation back.
[01:28:03.640 --> 01:28:07.640]  I'm just not sure what condition it'll be in when we do.
[01:28:07.640 --> 01:28:11.640]  Amen to that. I'm 65 years old.
[01:28:11.640 --> 01:28:18.640]  Can I ask you a question, if I might? And I have to apologize, I'm not that familiar.
[01:28:18.640 --> 01:28:26.640]  I know Oklahoma was a territory and was one of the last states that entered the Union.
[01:28:26.640 --> 01:28:33.640]  But what are they doing to the Indian tribes in Oklahoma?
[01:28:33.640 --> 01:28:35.640]  They're all under treason.
[01:28:35.640 --> 01:28:41.640]  I mean, as far as their land, are they doing to tell them that they're going to have to have energy-efficient land to sell their land?
[01:28:41.640 --> 01:28:43.640]  No.
[01:28:43.640 --> 01:28:50.640]  How can they discriminate against you and not discriminate against the Indians?
[01:28:50.640 --> 01:28:53.640]  Indians have a separate treaty, is what they're telling us.
[01:28:53.640 --> 01:28:56.640]  Well, yeah, but see, Oklahoma, that's what I'm getting at.
[01:28:56.640 --> 01:29:03.640]  I don't know the full history of your territory, but I'm familiar with Texas's history as far as the land grants go.
[01:29:03.640 --> 01:29:09.640]  If they ever come around here and start doing that stuff to us, I'm going back into the Spanish land grants
[01:29:09.640 --> 01:29:19.640]  and get back into meets and bounds and quiet title some property as opposed to accepting what they're wanting to do.
[01:29:19.640 --> 01:29:22.640]  Paul, did you hear Friday's show?
[01:29:22.640 --> 01:29:24.640]  No, I did not.
[01:29:24.640 --> 01:29:27.640]  You need to go back and listen to Friday's show. It's starting the second hour.
[01:29:27.640 --> 01:29:33.640]  We had Pat Baker from West Texas on, and he was talking precisely about that.
[01:29:33.640 --> 01:29:39.640]  And by the way, speaking of that, tomorrow night we're going to have Eric Madsen on for the full four hours from Team Law
[01:29:39.640 --> 01:29:42.640]  talking about the land patent issues as well.
[01:29:42.640 --> 01:29:52.640]  So this is going to be a perfect part two from last Friday's show from when Pat was talking about that.
[01:29:52.640 --> 01:29:59.640]  OK, we'll be right back.
[01:30:22.640 --> 01:30:42.640]  You can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:30:42.640 --> 01:30:51.640]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:30:51.640 --> 01:31:00.640]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:31:21.640 --> 01:31:48.640]  Thank you.
[01:31:48.640 --> 01:32:16.640]  Thank you.
[01:32:16.640 --> 01:32:43.640]  Thank you.
[01:32:43.640 --> 01:32:52.640]  OK, we are back.
[01:32:52.640 --> 01:32:55.640]  Sorry for that extended break there.
[01:32:55.640 --> 01:32:59.640]  We were planning out the content for how we're going to conduct the next couple of segments.
[01:32:59.640 --> 01:33:01.640]  OK, we've still got callers on the line.
[01:33:01.640 --> 01:33:06.640]  Randy wanted to ask Paul a question about how mortgages are originated.
[01:33:06.640 --> 01:33:12.640]  So we're going to finish up with Mike, and then we're going to go to Randy's question, and then we'll continue to take the calls, John and more.
[01:33:12.640 --> 01:33:20.640]  OK, so Paul, you wanted to address Mike concerning setting up some trust agreements perhaps with some of these Indians?
[01:33:20.640 --> 01:33:21.640]  Right.
[01:33:21.640 --> 01:33:22.640]  Go ahead, Paul.
[01:33:22.640 --> 01:33:26.640]  Mike, you indicated your house is paid for.
[01:33:26.640 --> 01:33:27.640]  Right.
[01:33:27.640 --> 01:33:38.640]  I don't know fully whether you have it in your mind to live there until you pass on and then leave it to your heirs, or if this is going to be the...
[01:33:38.640 --> 01:33:39.640]  Yeah, that's the plan right now.
[01:33:39.640 --> 01:33:43.640]  We've got a nine-year-old adopted daughter we're going to leave everything to.
[01:33:43.640 --> 01:33:45.640]  OK.
[01:33:45.640 --> 01:33:58.640]  At nine years old and you said you were in your mid-60s, one thing you might consider doing is if you have any connections with any of these Indian tribes,
[01:33:58.640 --> 01:34:12.640]  is to go to one of them and create what's called a Section 2503C trust for the benefit of the granddaughter, or your adopted daughter, I apologize,
[01:34:12.640 --> 01:34:24.640]  and use the value of that property as the substance of the trust that you and your wife would be able to live there as long as you're alive,
[01:34:24.640 --> 01:34:34.640]  that the property would then deed to the Indian tribe, because they're not going to be affected by any of this cap and trade stuff,
[01:34:34.640 --> 01:34:41.640]  with the idea that they would generate a life annuity for the adopted daughter,
[01:34:41.640 --> 01:34:58.640]  and you would figure that out on a projected value of the real property and fund that through an insurance annuity that would only come into play
[01:34:58.640 --> 01:35:04.640]  when you and your wife passed away and the daughter, as long as she was under a certain age of majority,
[01:35:04.640 --> 01:35:11.640]  and let the Indian tribe have the land and let them fund the annuity.
[01:35:11.640 --> 01:35:13.640]  That's an idea.
[01:35:13.640 --> 01:35:14.640]  OK.
[01:35:14.640 --> 01:35:20.640]  That might eliminate whatever the cap and trade, because they're not going to impact the Native Indians,
[01:35:20.640 --> 01:35:28.640]  because they have a treaty that is not going to be affected by whatever the Congress passes that you and I are going to have to deal with.
[01:35:28.640 --> 01:35:29.640]  Exactly.
[01:35:29.640 --> 01:35:32.640]  Well, I appreciate your time, guys.
[01:35:32.640 --> 01:35:34.640]  Indian Affairs is who I'd contact.
[01:35:34.640 --> 01:35:35.640]  Right.
[01:35:35.640 --> 01:35:37.640]  BIA is right here in Chickasha.
[01:35:37.640 --> 01:35:39.640]  Yeah.
[01:35:39.640 --> 01:35:44.640]  Maybe they could turn it into a tobacco store when you're gone.
[01:35:44.640 --> 01:35:47.640]  Right in the middle of a residential neighborhood.
[01:35:47.640 --> 01:35:49.640]  Yeah, I can see that.
[01:35:49.640 --> 01:35:56.640]  I just returned from a town hall meeting put on by Dr. Tom Coburn tonight,
[01:35:56.640 --> 01:36:05.640]  and along the lines of taking our government back, he advocated that everybody get off their duck and go get active in some way.
[01:36:05.640 --> 01:36:06.640]  Yeah.
[01:36:06.640 --> 01:36:09.640]  So Tom Coburn is one of our guys.
[01:36:09.640 --> 01:36:11.640]  Wonderful.
[01:36:11.640 --> 01:36:15.640]  He's fighting to help try to take the country back.
[01:36:15.640 --> 01:36:16.640]  Wonderful.
[01:36:16.640 --> 01:36:18.640]  With that, I will say adieu.
[01:36:18.640 --> 01:36:21.640]  Well, thank you for calling, Mike.
[01:36:21.640 --> 01:36:27.640]  You're quite welcome, and to bowl down in Texas, I'm a native Texan, so I understand what you're talking about, the Spanish language.
[01:36:27.640 --> 01:36:31.640]  Well, you just live a little north of heaven, then.
[01:36:31.640 --> 01:36:33.640]  That's it.
[01:36:33.640 --> 01:36:34.640]  I appreciate y'all's time.
[01:36:34.640 --> 01:36:36.640]  It's been wonderful talking to you.
[01:36:36.640 --> 01:36:37.640]  Thank you.
[01:36:36.640 --> 01:36:38.640]  You do answer my question.
[01:36:38.640 --> 01:36:39.640]  Y'all have a good night.
[01:36:39.640 --> 01:36:40.640]  Thank you.
[01:36:40.640 --> 01:36:53.640]  Since you're an ex-Texan, I suspect that when you moved to Oklahoma, you raised the average IQ of both states.
[01:36:53.640 --> 01:36:54.640]  That's possible.
[01:36:54.640 --> 01:36:55.640]  Oh, good Lord.
[01:36:55.640 --> 01:36:56.640]  Okay.
[01:36:56.640 --> 01:36:57.640]  All right.
[01:36:57.640 --> 01:37:00.640]  I don't know if that was an insult or a compliment or both.
[01:37:00.640 --> 01:37:01.640]  Okay.
[01:37:01.640 --> 01:37:02.640]  Good night, Joe.
[01:37:02.640 --> 01:37:03.640]  Good night.
[01:37:03.640 --> 01:37:04.640]  Okay.
[01:37:04.640 --> 01:37:09.640]  You've got to be dumb for leaving Texas, but he's probably smarter than anybody in Oklahoma.
[01:37:09.640 --> 01:37:10.640]  Yeah.
[01:37:10.640 --> 01:37:11.640]  Okay.
[01:37:11.640 --> 01:37:12.640]  All right, Randy.
[01:37:12.640 --> 01:37:13.640]  Okay.
[01:37:13.640 --> 01:37:17.640]  Now, you wanted Paul to discuss on how mortgages are initiated and created.
[01:37:17.640 --> 01:37:27.640]  Yes, and at first, I want to chastise our guests, our callers, because there were some questions that we specifically wanted you to ask us, and you didn't have the good graces to do that.
[01:37:27.640 --> 01:37:32.640]  So now, Randy's going to have to pretend like he's a caller and ask the questions you want, and then we'll continue on with the calls.
[01:37:32.640 --> 01:37:33.640]  Okay.
[01:37:33.640 --> 01:37:34.640]  Go ahead, Randy.
[01:37:34.640 --> 01:37:45.640]  Yes, the main reason I brought Paul on is, the first time I had Paul on, he talked about how these mortgages are originated.
[01:37:45.640 --> 01:38:03.640]  It was the first time that, for me, listening to it, I understood how the process worked, and it made absolute sense as to why this thing of securitizing the note becomes a problem.
[01:38:03.640 --> 01:38:16.640]  Paul, will you explain what you did the first time about the company you were with and how you created these mortgages and what you did with them?
[01:38:16.640 --> 01:38:20.640]  Well, actually, Randy, the company I was with didn't create any mortgages.
[01:38:20.640 --> 01:38:24.640]  What we did was we put together pools of mortgages.
[01:38:24.640 --> 01:38:38.640]  The mortgages are already – I mean, each lending institution across the country, their boards and however their hierarchy is developed inside their company,
[01:38:38.640 --> 01:38:52.640]  they determine how much revenue they're going to allocate to the area of automobile loans and how much they're going to allocate to boat loans and home improvement loans and that sort of thing.
[01:38:52.640 --> 01:39:01.640]  But their primary interest is in being able to have a pool of mortgage money.
[01:39:01.640 --> 01:39:12.640]  And they allocate that based on the sections of the country that their bank covers.
[01:39:12.640 --> 01:39:18.640]  And where real property is moving at what would be considered a premium.
[01:39:18.640 --> 01:39:31.640]  Most banks are not that involved with new lending preferences in the city or the surrounding area of Detroit, Michigan, because of the economic climate in Detroit.
[01:39:31.640 --> 01:39:54.640]  But if you take that same bank and put them in Phoenix, Arizona or San Antonio or Austin, there's a tremendous incentive to have available funding in those markets to attract and to lend for mortgages.
[01:39:54.640 --> 01:40:04.640]  The problem then becomes that as that local bank approaches its allocated amount of mortgage money,
[01:40:04.640 --> 01:40:08.640]  they basically have loaned themselves out of the mortgage business.
[01:40:08.640 --> 01:40:21.640]  And the only way they can generate additional funding internally to continue to make bank loans in the form of mortgage loans
[01:40:21.640 --> 01:40:27.640]  is to take the existing pool of funds that they have created and monetize it.
[01:40:27.640 --> 01:40:38.640]  In other words, turn it into the Fed Reserve windows or take it to an investment banking firm
[01:40:38.640 --> 01:40:44.640]  and put a pool together of mortgage-backed securities and sell it to that pool
[01:40:44.640 --> 01:40:50.640]  and effectively create additional funding for the local bank so they can continue to make these loans.
[01:40:50.640 --> 01:40:56.640]  I don't know if that's where you want me to head or if it's something else.
[01:40:56.640 --> 01:41:04.640]  That was precisely because I'm looking at the guys who actually make the loan.
[01:41:04.640 --> 01:41:11.640]  And with all of this fraud going on, I'm looking for the underlying motivation.
[01:41:11.640 --> 01:41:14.640]  I don't have this idea that people are evil.
[01:41:14.640 --> 01:41:24.640]  I have this idea that everybody, for the most part, wants to be a good guy, and they're all working for their own self-interest.
[01:41:24.640 --> 01:41:36.640]  And how the way things came together made it in the interest of these individuals to create,
[01:41:36.640 --> 01:41:42.640]  to generate loans that were less than fair and equal and savory.
[01:41:42.640 --> 01:41:50.640]  Well, I can kind of – you know, the news media, as poorly as it has become,
[01:41:50.640 --> 01:41:55.640]  has touched on some of this and what you hear about the bonuses and so forth
[01:41:55.640 --> 01:42:03.640]  that the folks at, say, AIG or Lehman Brothers took all this tarp money and all this bailout money,
[01:42:03.640 --> 01:42:09.640]  and yet they're still issuing these huge bonuses.
[01:42:09.640 --> 01:42:15.640]  Well, that's – you know, that's what's broadcast heavily because it's, you know,
[01:42:15.640 --> 01:42:19.640]  that they think is really a news story.
[01:42:19.640 --> 01:42:30.640]  But the local bank operates on much the same parameter as these investment banks in that the officers,
[01:42:30.640 --> 01:42:37.640]  the loan officers, you know, everybody – almost everybody draws air in a bank as a vice president or something.
[01:42:37.640 --> 01:42:45.640]  But there are a few people inside the bank that, you know, the president and three or four or five members
[01:42:45.640 --> 01:42:52.640]  of the bank's management team that are, you know, the real movers and shakers, as it were,
[01:42:52.640 --> 01:42:55.640]  within that bank operation.
[01:42:55.640 --> 01:43:02.640]  And they have a lot of things, you know, they call them the backside of the loan.
[01:43:02.640 --> 01:43:08.640]  When you pool a group of loans together, let's – I mean, just for the sake of this discussion,
[01:43:08.640 --> 01:43:11.640]  we'll call this XYZ Bank.
[01:43:11.640 --> 01:43:20.640]  And XYZ Bank has $50 million that it's allocated towards mortgage generation, let's say.
[01:43:20.640 --> 01:43:25.640]  So they go out and – people come to them and we want to borrow money,
[01:43:25.640 --> 01:43:29.640]  and they do all the, you know, the things that go into, you know,
[01:43:29.640 --> 01:43:36.640]  the surveys and the appraisals and the – I mean, I need to wait till after.
[01:43:36.640 --> 01:43:38.640]  Yeah. Hold on one second, Paul.
[01:43:38.640 --> 01:43:43.640]  Okay. When we come back on the other side, we're going to finish talking about the backside of loans
[01:43:43.640 --> 01:43:46.640]  and the pooling of them. This is good stuff.
[01:43:46.640 --> 01:43:54.640]  And callers John from Georgia and George, we'll be getting to you guys this next segment as well.
[01:43:54.640 --> 01:43:59.640]  We'll be right back.
[01:44:24.640 --> 01:44:30.640]  USA.org or call 908-691-2608.
[01:44:30.640 --> 01:44:35.640]  It's odorless and tasteless and used in any liquid or food.
[01:44:35.640 --> 01:44:39.640]  Protect your family now with micro-plan powder.
[01:44:39.640 --> 01:44:43.640]  Cleaning out heavy metals, parasites and toxins,
[01:44:43.640 --> 01:44:48.640]  order it now for daily intake and stock it now for long-term storage.
[01:44:48.640 --> 01:44:55.640]  Visit HempUSA.org or call 908-691-2608 today.
[01:45:19.640 --> 01:45:25.640]  Some things in this world I will never understand.
[01:45:25.640 --> 01:45:29.640]  Some things I realize fully.
[01:45:29.640 --> 01:45:33.640]  Somebody's on a police, a policeman.
[01:45:33.640 --> 01:45:37.640]  Somebody's on a police, a bully.
[01:45:37.640 --> 01:45:42.640]  There's always a room at the top of the hill.
[01:45:42.640 --> 01:45:47.640]  I hear through the grapevine and it's lonely still.
[01:45:47.640 --> 01:45:51.640]  They're wishing it was more than a position to build.
[01:45:51.640 --> 01:45:55.640]  They know that if they don't do it, somebody will.
[01:45:55.640 --> 01:45:59.640]  Some things in this world I will never understand.
[01:45:59.640 --> 01:46:03.640]  Some things I realize fully.
[01:46:03.640 --> 01:46:08.640]  Somebody's on a police, a policeman.
[01:46:08.640 --> 01:46:12.640]  Somebody's on a police, a bully.
[01:46:12.640 --> 01:46:17.640]  Anyway, I understand.
[01:46:17.640 --> 01:46:20.640]  Okay, we are back.
[01:46:20.640 --> 01:46:23.640]  Sorry, wanted to get the bumper music down so people could hear what you're saying.
[01:46:23.640 --> 01:46:26.640]  Okay, so go ahead and please finish.
[01:46:26.640 --> 01:46:29.640]  We're close to the end of the show and I'll make it this quick
[01:46:29.640 --> 01:46:33.640]  so if there's a few callers left we can get them in.
[01:46:33.640 --> 01:46:37.640]  These banks are operating the same way that the investment bankers are operating.
[01:46:37.640 --> 01:46:40.640]  They have a pool of $50 million.
[01:46:40.640 --> 01:46:42.640]  They're right close to the edge of that pool.
[01:46:42.640 --> 01:46:45.640]  In other words, they've had that much subscribed.
[01:46:45.640 --> 01:46:51.640]  So they start looking around for how do we monetize this pool,
[01:46:51.640 --> 01:46:55.640]  get it sold into the secondary market as a mortgage-backed security
[01:46:55.640 --> 01:47:00.640]  so we free up additional money in the bank that we can continue to make loans.
[01:47:00.640 --> 01:47:03.640]  We're going to work on some type of a little bonus arrangement
[01:47:03.640 --> 01:47:06.640]  with whoever comes in here to sell.
[01:47:06.640 --> 01:47:10.640]  Whether it be Lehman Brothers or Goldman Sachs.
[01:47:10.640 --> 01:47:14.640]  So they carve out a portion of that pool of funding
[01:47:14.640 --> 01:47:20.640]  to award these bank loan officers and president and so forth
[01:47:20.640 --> 01:47:22.640]  because of the great job they've done.
[01:47:22.640 --> 01:47:26.640]  So it's the same type of arrangement that the broker-dealers make,
[01:47:26.640 --> 01:47:29.640]  the investment banking community makes,
[01:47:29.640 --> 01:47:32.640]  if they do a good job and make the firm a lot of money.
[01:47:32.640 --> 01:47:38.640]  And you have to understand that all of these funds are hypothecated
[01:47:38.640 --> 01:47:40.640]  is the term that we use.
[01:47:40.640 --> 01:47:46.640]  They're being funded in both the Fed Reserve window and this mortgage-backed pool
[01:47:46.640 --> 01:47:53.640]  because they're selling these notes as well as taking the monetized signature
[01:47:53.640 --> 01:47:56.640]  of all their clients, they take those to the Fed window
[01:47:56.640 --> 01:48:00.640]  and they take the notes to the secondary marketers.
[01:48:00.640 --> 01:48:04.640]  So it's a win-win deal for the banks all the way around
[01:48:04.640 --> 01:48:11.640]  and they're rewarding the high prestige positions with bonusing at the end of the year.
[01:48:11.640 --> 01:48:13.640]  The same thing happens with credit life insurance.
[01:48:13.640 --> 01:48:16.640]  Every time they make a loan, would you like credit life insurance?
[01:48:16.640 --> 01:48:18.640]  Well, sure. So it's a little bit of premium.
[01:48:18.640 --> 01:48:22.640]  The guy makes a payment, he adds it to the loan.
[01:48:22.640 --> 01:48:26.640]  Well, the insurance agency is owned by the bank
[01:48:26.640 --> 01:48:30.640]  and these people are licensed insurance agents that are selling that credit life.
[01:48:30.640 --> 01:48:34.640]  So they get a commission to sell you credit life
[01:48:34.640 --> 01:48:37.640]  and you think, you know, you're buying the loan.
[01:48:37.640 --> 01:48:39.640]  You're securing the loan with an insurance.
[01:48:39.640 --> 01:48:45.640]  Well, great, you are, but they get 90% of your premium as a commission.
[01:48:45.640 --> 01:48:53.640]  So anyhow, that's the backside of the loan business inside the commercial banks.
[01:48:53.640 --> 01:49:03.640]  The thing I'm looking at is the incentive of the banks themselves
[01:49:03.640 --> 01:49:11.640]  to create these loans even if they're not quite as good a loan as they could be.
[01:49:11.640 --> 01:49:16.640]  Because Fannie Mae, Freddie Mae, Jenny Mae, Freddie Mac, or VA or FHA are all gone.
[01:49:16.640 --> 01:49:20.640]  Every loan in the country eventually will be insured by the government.
[01:49:20.640 --> 01:49:23.640]  What does this bank care?
[01:49:23.640 --> 01:49:25.640]  Yeah, and that's one of the things I'm looking at.
[01:49:25.640 --> 01:49:32.640]  The bank writes the note and then they sell it to a pooling and service company
[01:49:32.640 --> 01:49:34.640]  or they monetize it one way or another.
[01:49:34.640 --> 01:49:38.640]  They get their money out and then they serve it.
[01:49:38.640 --> 01:49:42.640]  Then they step in and they become the servicer.
[01:49:42.640 --> 01:49:45.640]  I was talking to people recently, to some real estate agents,
[01:49:45.640 --> 01:49:50.640]  about how the banks on short sales were really screwing around the agents
[01:49:50.640 --> 01:49:51.640]  and they were wondering.
[01:49:51.640 --> 01:49:55.640]  It's like the banks didn't care if they short sold the property or not
[01:49:55.640 --> 01:49:58.640]  and they were saying they couldn't imagine the banks wanting to foreclose.
[01:49:58.640 --> 01:50:02.640]  And I'm saying, sure they do. They don't care.
[01:50:02.640 --> 01:50:05.640]  The bank has got their money out.
[01:50:05.640 --> 01:50:08.640]  It's the poor schmuck who owns the bank.
[01:50:08.640 --> 01:50:12.640]  Honest to goodness, the bank never had any money in.
[01:50:12.640 --> 01:50:13.640]  Precisely.
[01:50:13.640 --> 01:50:17.640]  Yeah, that's right. They got paid right off the bat.
[01:50:17.640 --> 01:50:21.640]  They got their profit on the front end on the sale
[01:50:21.640 --> 01:50:28.640]  and if they now preside over the foreclosure, they get more money on that end.
[01:50:28.640 --> 01:50:34.640]  No, they don't because they don't have anything to deal with.
[01:50:34.640 --> 01:50:42.640]  Once that property is sold the first time, you sign the promissory note with XYZ Bank.
[01:50:42.640 --> 01:50:46.640]  XYZ Bank that day turned your promissory note over
[01:50:46.640 --> 01:50:49.640]  and wrote on the back, it would pay to the ardor of,
[01:50:49.640 --> 01:50:54.640]  and endorsed that thing and deposited it with the Fed window
[01:50:54.640 --> 01:51:00.640]  and picked up an extra 90% of whatever that paper was
[01:51:00.640 --> 01:51:04.640]  immediately as a drawing account for that bank.
[01:51:04.640 --> 01:51:09.640]  How do we find records of that transaction?
[01:51:09.640 --> 01:51:13.640]  It's called forensic accounting.
[01:51:13.640 --> 01:51:18.640]  I know, but what is the record I look for? What specifically?
[01:51:18.640 --> 01:51:22.640]  You would have to have a complaint against the bank
[01:51:22.640 --> 01:51:27.640]  and you would want to depose the auditors who have audited that bank
[01:51:27.640 --> 01:51:29.640]  under generally accepted accounting standards
[01:51:29.640 --> 01:51:34.640]  and the Federal Accounting Standards Board rule.
[01:51:34.640 --> 01:51:39.640]  That's what I'm looking at. Under the generally accepted accounting standards,
[01:51:39.640 --> 01:51:43.640]  where is that trace left in the record?
[01:51:43.640 --> 01:51:47.640]  Where do they keep a record? What would they call that transaction?
[01:51:47.640 --> 01:51:53.640]  It's called an auditor's report and every bank goes through one every 90 days.
[01:51:53.640 --> 01:51:56.640]  The auditor's report has a lot of stuff on it.
[01:51:56.640 --> 01:52:03.640]  What is the name of the transaction where they actually deposit that note for money with the Fed?
[01:52:03.640 --> 01:52:11.640]  It's called their asset and disbursement ledger for the Fed window.
[01:52:11.640 --> 01:52:13.640]  Oh, there we go.
[01:52:13.640 --> 01:52:15.640]  That's what I wanted to know.
[01:52:15.640 --> 01:52:23.640]  What I want to be able to do is create pressure on the mortgage company
[01:52:23.640 --> 01:52:30.640]  for someone who's in financial trouble on their loan or in foreclosure.
[01:52:30.640 --> 01:52:35.640]  We want to create pressure on the mortgage company to make them a deal they can live with.
[01:52:35.640 --> 01:52:38.640]  Could you get that information through Discovery?
[01:52:38.640 --> 01:52:41.640]  You bet I can get it through RESPA.
[01:52:41.640 --> 01:52:45.640]  No, I'm talking about the transaction that we're looking for.
[01:52:45.640 --> 01:52:48.640]  Yeah, I don't care what it is. I'm going to ask for it in RESPA
[01:52:48.640 --> 01:52:51.640]  because I don't really care if I actually get it or not.
[01:52:51.640 --> 01:52:53.640]  It's just about applying pressure.
[01:52:53.640 --> 01:52:58.640]  It's about saying, this is where I'm going to come and kick you in the behind.
[01:52:58.640 --> 01:53:00.640]  If you don't...
[01:53:00.640 --> 01:53:07.640]  Well, more important than that is if this guy, whoever this is, is in potential foreclosure,
[01:53:07.640 --> 01:53:12.640]  have you any indication whatsoever that that loan has been monetized
[01:53:12.640 --> 01:53:21.640]  through a secondary mortgage-backed security such as a trust arrangement,
[01:53:21.640 --> 01:53:30.640]  Series 2007 asset-backed securities trust account?
[01:53:30.640 --> 01:53:37.640]  What that means, Randy, is that that loan is part of a banking investment pool,
[01:53:37.640 --> 01:53:42.640]  and that pool has been taken to the SEC for registration.
[01:53:42.640 --> 01:53:47.640]  I guarantee you, when they registered that, they showed all that real property
[01:53:47.640 --> 01:53:50.640]  as not having any liens against it. There was no loans against it.
[01:53:50.640 --> 01:53:54.640]  This is one of the places I'm going. I want to know...
[01:53:54.640 --> 01:54:00.640]  That's the 424B prospectus and the S3 registration statement.
[01:54:00.640 --> 01:54:07.640]  S is in SAM-3 registration statement and the 424B prospectus.
[01:54:07.640 --> 01:54:16.640]  If they have done anything, they're supposed to notify this homeowner
[01:54:16.640 --> 01:54:23.640]  if they've changed anything about his mortgage, if they've sold it to a new servicing company
[01:54:23.640 --> 01:54:28.640]  or are they sold it to a new entity, he's to be notified.
[01:54:28.640 --> 01:54:34.640]  If that notification indicates that this is now owned by Lehman Brothers
[01:54:34.640 --> 01:54:43.640]  mortgage-backed securities trust B, 2003 or 2007, that is a new security.
[01:54:43.640 --> 01:54:47.640]  That security has been issued a CUSIP number, and that CUSIP number is registered
[01:54:47.640 --> 01:54:55.640]  with the SEC along with the 424B and the S3. Once they did that,
[01:54:55.640 --> 01:54:59.640]  number one, they voided that loan. That loan is no longer a valid loan.
[01:54:59.640 --> 01:55:06.640]  That loan was paid for when the investing public purchased that mortgage-backed security portfolio.
[01:55:06.640 --> 01:55:10.640]  Yes, this is what the Supreme Court of Kansas said.
[01:55:10.640 --> 01:55:13.640]  That's exactly right. That's exactly what they're ruling.
[01:55:13.640 --> 01:55:20.640]  The guy holding the lien against the property, he was made whole.
[01:55:20.640 --> 01:55:26.640]  Therefore, he could not be harmed and could have no standing to enforce the lien.
[01:55:26.640 --> 01:55:30.640]  Okay, guys, listen, we've got three minutes left. Do you want to try to take John from Georgia?
[01:55:30.640 --> 01:55:32.640]  Yes, okay, let's take John from Georgia.
[01:55:32.640 --> 01:55:35.640]  Okay, are you done? I mean, did you say whatever you had to say, Randy?
[01:55:35.640 --> 01:55:36.640]  Hello, John.
[01:55:36.640 --> 01:55:40.640]  Okay, John, thanks for calling in. What's your question for our guest?
[01:55:40.640 --> 01:55:44.640]  Yeah, Jesus Christ, three minutes. It's hard to get all this in in three minutes.
[01:55:44.640 --> 01:55:48.640]  Yeah, I'm sorry. We're going to have to have Paul on again for a longer period of time.
[01:55:48.640 --> 01:55:51.640]  That's all right, and I'm going to tell you something about Paul.
[01:55:51.640 --> 01:55:56.640]  I listened to him, and he's still on receipt. He's dead on page with that.
[01:55:56.640 --> 01:56:00.640]  First of all, in order to have a contract, you have to have a meeting of the minds.
[01:56:00.640 --> 01:56:03.640]  You have two parties that agree to a certain thing.
[01:56:03.640 --> 01:56:09.640]  A lot of people get their mortgage. They never get a copy of the contract,
[01:56:09.640 --> 01:56:13.640]  and it has to be signed by the first party and by the second party,
[01:56:13.640 --> 01:56:16.640]  which is usually the bank or the mortgage company.
[01:56:16.640 --> 01:56:20.640]  And as far as a receipt, I've taken all my money out of the banking system,
[01:56:20.640 --> 01:56:22.640]  and I've put it into investment.
[01:56:22.640 --> 01:56:29.640]  And when I go cash my check as an employee for a fee, and I have to pay a $5 fee to cash my check,
[01:56:29.640 --> 01:56:33.640]  I refuse, but I've got another way in which I get around doing that.
[01:56:33.640 --> 01:56:37.640]  And what they say is that you have to pay that fee to cash your check.
[01:56:37.640 --> 01:56:42.640]  Well, the check says pay exactly this amount, not $5 less, not challenge it.
[01:56:42.640 --> 01:56:48.640]  Even through the FDIC, you can get to the Real Trade Commission Act as far as mortgage foreclosures,
[01:56:48.640 --> 01:56:55.640]  Fair Debt Collectors Act, and also go to Red Flag, and you'll see a lot of information on there,
[01:56:55.640 --> 01:57:01.640]  which there will be a lot of remedies as far as your mortgage foreclosures or even credit card debt,
[01:57:01.640 --> 01:57:05.640]  because I've got five people off on that, my friend Gary.
[01:57:05.640 --> 01:57:08.640]  Okay, listen, hold on. I'm sorry to have to cut you off, John, but listen,
[01:57:08.640 --> 01:57:10.640]  we literally have a minute and 30 seconds left.
[01:57:10.640 --> 01:57:14.640]  Do you have a question for Paul that he could answer quickly?
[01:57:14.640 --> 01:57:21.640]  Not really. The reason why I called today and I'll call back next week is I want another case here in Georgia.
[01:57:21.640 --> 01:57:26.640]  I've challenged the Solicitor General and I've challenged the court, subject matter of jurisdiction,
[01:57:26.640 --> 01:57:31.640]  your jurisdictionary faith I've gotten from Gary here in Georgia.
[01:57:31.640 --> 01:57:37.640]  You know Gary personally, and it's lead me through five wins that I've had in the court.
[01:57:37.640 --> 01:57:39.640]  Wonderful, wonderful.
[01:57:39.640 --> 01:57:43.640]  John, send me an email on that, will you? I would like to converse with you.
[01:57:43.640 --> 01:57:47.640]  I will. Right, I'll have to do that through Gary. You know Gary here in Georgia.
[01:57:47.640 --> 01:57:53.640]  Why don't you just go to our website and send us an email. Go to ruleoflawradio.com and send us an email.
[01:57:53.640 --> 01:57:56.640]  Okay, but Gary's a hillbilly.
[01:57:56.640 --> 01:57:58.640]  No, Gary's a hillbilly.
[01:57:58.640 --> 01:58:01.640]  Okay, listen, we're at the end of the show.
[01:58:01.640 --> 01:58:07.640]  Okay, just send us an email. We've got contacts for our emails on our website.
[01:58:07.640 --> 01:58:10.640]  I sure will. Have a good day.
[01:58:10.640 --> 01:58:14.640]  Thank you, John. Thank you. And call back in again. Sorry there wasn't much time.
[01:58:14.640 --> 01:58:16.640]  That's okay. And thank you for everything you've done.
[01:58:16.640 --> 01:58:20.640]  Thank you. Okay, Paul, do you have any closing comments?
[01:58:20.640 --> 01:58:23.640]  I wish you all the best and God bless.
[01:58:23.640 --> 01:58:28.640]  All right, thank you, Paul. And we're definitely going to have you on again for more time.
[01:58:28.640 --> 01:58:36.640]  And tomorrow night, Eric Madsen from Team Law is going to be talking about land patents to follow up on the sequel,
[01:58:36.640 --> 01:58:41.640]  part two from last Friday when we had Pat on from Texas.
[01:58:41.640 --> 01:58:47.640]  We'll talk to you tomorrow night. Stay tuned right now for endless fraud detection.
[01:58:47.640 --> 01:59:15.640]  Steve Skidmore and Neil Switkowski. They're coming right up.
[01:59:15.640 --> 01:59:31.640]  Thank you.
[01:59:31.640 --> 01:59:59.640]  Thank you.
[01:59:59.640 --> 02:00:23.640]  Thank you.