ROL_2010-07-09_16k_Hr3-4.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:10.880]  UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says Israel is violating international law by expanding
[00:10.880 --> 00:15.440]  its settlements in occupied Palestinian land, including East Jerusalem.
[00:15.440 --> 00:21.040]  The same trailers that were banned after Hurricane Katrina for having unacceptable levels of
[00:21.040 --> 00:26.000]  formaldehyde are getting a second life as living quarters for clean-up workers in the
[00:26.000 --> 00:31.600]  BP oil spill. The trailers, which are being resold for $2,500, started down their road
[00:31.600 --> 00:37.800]  to infamy after Katrina when FEMA officials ordered $2.7 billion worth of trailers to
[00:37.800 --> 00:39.280]  house victims of the storm.
[00:39.280 --> 00:44.440]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[00:44.440 --> 00:51.180]  In Pakistan Thursday, at least 37 people were killed and 175 injured after two bombs exploded
[00:51.180 --> 00:56.680]  at a Muslim shrine in Lahore. The death toll is expected to rise as some of those injured
[00:56.680 --> 00:58.000]  are in critical condition.
[00:58.000 --> 01:02.440]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[01:02.440 --> 01:07.040]  Britain's military spokesman in Afghanistan says roadside bombs that kill British troops
[01:07.040 --> 01:12.320]  are being supplied from Iran and Pakistan. Major General Gordon Messenger also revealed
[01:12.320 --> 01:17.880]  that Taliban insurgents are altering their tactics to launch more long-range sniper attacks
[01:17.880 --> 01:24.640]  on NATO forces. 309 British personnel have been killed in Afghanistan since 2001, many
[01:24.640 --> 01:30.320]  by roadside bombs. General Messenger said UK forces and Afghan civilians now face an
[01:30.320 --> 01:33.160]  unprecedented threat from such devices.
[01:33.160 --> 01:39.080]  A London School of Economics report last month said Pakistan's ISI spy service is giving
[01:39.080 --> 01:44.060]  extensive backing to the Afghan insurgency. Prime Minister David Cameron has promised
[01:44.060 --> 01:46.440]  to double the number of bomb disposal teams.
[01:46.440 --> 01:51.400]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[01:51.400 --> 01:57.640]  About a quarter of the swine flu vaccine produced for the US public has expired, meaning a whopping
[01:57.640 --> 02:04.480]  40 million doses worth about $260 million are being written off as trash. The outdated
[02:04.480 --> 02:09.800]  vaccine, some of which expired Wednesday, will be burnt. The amount, as much as four
[02:09.800 --> 02:16.360]  times the usual leftover seasonal flu vaccine, is a record. A further 30 million doses is
[02:16.360 --> 02:21.680]  set to expire soon, meaning more than 43% of the supply for the US public will have
[02:21.680 --> 02:27.360]  gone to waste. Many health experts have feared swine flu could be the deadly global epidemic
[02:27.360 --> 02:32.280]  they had long warned about, but it ended up killing fewer people than seasonal flu.
[02:32.280 --> 02:37.080]  In Europe, where nations also found themselves with millions of unused doses, critics attacked
[02:37.080 --> 02:43.560]  the World Health Organization, which declared swine flu a global pandemic, accusing WHO
[02:43.560 --> 02:50.560]  advisors of having links to the pharmaceutical industry.
[03:13.560 --> 03:40.560]  Well, I received my remedy today. It came in a box just like they say. I accept it for
[03:40.560 --> 03:59.560]  what it is, but I don't accept it for what it is. I don't accept it for what it is. I
[03:59.560 --> 04:18.560]  don't accept it for what it is. I don't accept it for what it is. I don't accept it for what
[04:18.560 --> 04:19.560]  it is.
[04:19.560 --> 04:24.560]  Okay, we are back folks. We're taking your calls. We're halfway through our Friday evening
[04:24.560 --> 04:31.040]  info marathon here on the Rule of Law. Callers, if you would like to call in and talk with
[04:31.040 --> 04:42.640]  us on the air, 512-646-1984. If you would like to listen, please call up ruleoflawradio.com
[04:42.640 --> 04:48.200]  and click on the radio. You'll be led to a sub page which has multiple different players,
[04:48.200 --> 04:56.240]  radio, media player, real player, et cetera, flash players. We urge people to please listen
[04:56.240 --> 05:02.040]  online or at least call it up online. If you don't have speakers, just pull the stream
[05:02.040 --> 05:07.660]  anyway so we can get our numbers up. You can listen on AM and FM in many different cities
[05:07.660 --> 05:12.600]  around the country. And if you don't have any of those options for listening, you can
[05:12.600 --> 05:20.160]  call 512-485-9010 for listening purposes. If you would like to talk on the air with
[05:20.160 --> 05:28.400]  us, 512-646-1984. We're taking your calls. We're going now to Dan in Connecticut and
[05:28.400 --> 05:32.600]  then Ann in Utah. Dan, thanks for calling in. What's on your mind tonight?
[05:32.600 --> 05:36.920]  Oh, nothing much. I was just listening to a few of the calls that came in tonight and
[05:36.920 --> 05:43.520]  I couldn't help but just think about some things that I would want to know about if
[05:43.520 --> 05:51.320]  I were in your shoes and Lord knows I have been lately. So let me go through those. I
[05:51.320 --> 05:56.080]  think this is good advice if anybody wants to call in or anybody wants, you know, myself
[05:56.080 --> 06:01.240]  or anybody else to help them out. And the first question I think that a caller should
[06:01.240 --> 06:06.960]  answer is who's involved? Who did what? You know, what role do they play and when do they
[06:06.960 --> 06:12.720]  come in? The second thing I think anybody should do if they want to call into your program
[06:12.720 --> 06:18.680]  or go to anybody else who can help out is, you know, write down a timeline. What happened
[06:18.680 --> 06:26.480]  when? Who came in when? What did they do? And I think for the purposes of your program,
[06:26.480 --> 06:31.560]  what court documents were involved? What happened in court? You know, what was filed? Who filed
[06:31.560 --> 06:39.720]  what? What does the other party think? And I think above all, what is the outcome somebody
[06:39.720 --> 06:44.360]  is looking for? The thing that I'm seeing when a lot of people call in is they don't
[06:44.360 --> 06:50.160]  quite seem to know what the outcome that they're looking for is. And I think that's an important
[06:50.160 --> 06:54.720]  question to answer. Otherwise, they're going to kind of go in all sorts of different directions
[06:54.720 --> 06:59.360]  that they don't quite understand. And at the same time, they're going to get all sorts
[06:59.360 --> 07:06.040]  of different outcomes that they never expected. So I figured I would just put that out there
[07:06.040 --> 07:10.680]  just to save everybody some time and, you know, really let them think about what they
[07:10.680 --> 07:14.040]  were looking for.
[07:14.040 --> 07:20.400]  Thank you, Dan. Very helpful information. And I think telling us the facts specifically
[07:20.400 --> 07:27.120]  of what's happened and what's going on is very important because, and we really do want
[07:27.120 --> 07:34.720]  to help Stefan, but a lot of his issues are, well, what if this and what if that? And we
[07:34.720 --> 07:41.000]  can't speculate here, okay? These kinds of situations, every kind of situation involving
[07:41.000 --> 07:48.400]  legal issues, it's always very complex. And no two situations are the same. And we can't
[07:48.400 --> 07:54.720]  speculate and hypothesize what if this, what if that? And if in this case, well, then this
[07:54.720 --> 08:01.480]  and if in that case, well, then that. It's too, we're not into speculation here or theorizing
[08:01.480 --> 08:07.400]  or hypothesizing. We need facts. We need you people to have the traffic ticket in front
[08:07.400 --> 08:14.040]  of you. And so you'll be able to answer specific questions when we ask. And if it has to do
[08:14.040 --> 08:18.320]  with credit card issues or these kind of contractual issues, have the contract in front of you.
[08:18.320 --> 08:23.720]  If it was a verbal agreement, well, hopefully you at least remember what you agreed to or
[08:23.720 --> 08:28.960]  what the verbal agreement encompassed or entailed. Hopefully you at least wrote down your side
[08:28.960 --> 08:32.280]  of the verbal agreement when you made a verbal agreement. But we have to have specifics.
[08:32.280 --> 08:38.760]  We have to have facts. We can't speculate and hypothesize. So yes, Dan, excellent words
[08:38.760 --> 08:43.200]  of advice here. Eddie, Randy, you have comments?
[08:43.200 --> 08:51.560]  Yes. Go ahead. Go ahead, Eddie. No, I'm just saying I'm in agreement with it. The more
[08:51.560 --> 08:55.160]  planned you are on what you need to ask us folks, the quicker we can get to the point
[08:55.160 --> 09:01.000]  and see what answer we can give you. So lay it out step by step. So we have the facts
[09:01.000 --> 09:05.800]  we need to evaluate your question and give you a viable answer.
[09:05.800 --> 09:11.000]  Yes. Go ahead. I'm sorry. No, I just said please.
[09:11.000 --> 09:20.520]  Oh, okay. When we ask, you'll hear us ask a lot of times for a narrative and the narrative
[09:20.520 --> 09:28.880]  is more important than just giving us a timeline. People have these experiences and for the
[09:28.880 --> 09:36.600]  most part, these are emotional experiences. And having the emotions with the experience
[09:36.600 --> 09:47.440]  has the effect of making us unable to accurately remember what all happened unless we exercise
[09:47.440 --> 09:54.880]  a personal self-discipline. Because what we really remember is what we felt and not what
[09:54.880 --> 10:01.400]  we thought or not what we heard and not always what was happening, but what we felt about
[10:01.400 --> 10:07.560]  what was happening. So when we ask someone to write a narrative, they have to go back
[10:07.560 --> 10:18.720]  and we have those experiences and refill what they felt from a disassociated perspective.
[10:18.720 --> 10:25.840]  So they have to go have that feeling and then step back mentally away from it and look at
[10:25.840 --> 10:32.520]  all of the facts that caused that feeling and write it down and give us as accurate
[10:32.520 --> 10:38.760]  a list of those things that actually happened as it could. That's a lot harder than it sounds.
[10:38.760 --> 10:46.520]  You know, we say, well, just go write us a narrative. We understand it's very difficult,
[10:46.520 --> 10:53.200]  but the narrative is more important for you than it is for us because you are the one
[10:53.200 --> 10:58.000]  that had these experiences. And when you listen to people telling us their stories, you can
[10:58.000 --> 11:05.280]  hear the emotion. They jump from one emotional issue to another, to another, to another and
[11:05.280 --> 11:12.200]  leave us in the dust because they're bouncing around with their emotions. Once they've sat
[11:12.200 --> 11:19.480]  down and walked through all of those with pen and paper in hand, it has the effect of
[11:19.480 --> 11:25.960]  dispelling most of the emotion. Then when they come back to us, they can talk, speak
[11:25.960 --> 11:33.240]  clearly, talk about what happened without actually having the emotional experience again.
[11:33.240 --> 11:40.640]  Then we can get really interesting things like referential index. When you bring up
[11:40.640 --> 11:47.840]  an issue, you will have told us why that issue is important, what it refers to and how it
[11:47.840 --> 11:58.400]  connects to things coming after it. That way, we don't get lost. Did that make sense?
[11:58.400 --> 12:05.240]  That made a lot of sense, actually. I was just thinking how great it would be if there
[12:05.240 --> 12:11.720]  was somebody like a regular listener like myself in every state who could be kind of,
[12:11.720 --> 12:17.960]  you know, not quite a point of contact, but somebody who could maybe be in front of the
[12:17.960 --> 12:23.320]  keyboard or a pen and paper who could just kind of like ask the right questions and take
[12:23.320 --> 12:29.600]  all of this down. You know, because the detached observer who isn't involved in this situation
[12:29.600 --> 12:36.440]  could kind of go ahead and ask, okay, well, what happened at such and such a time? That's
[12:36.440 --> 12:39.240]  the thing that I've found is incredibly useful.
[12:39.240 --> 12:45.920]  Another thing that I was thinking of that I should mention at this point is, and I understand
[12:45.920 --> 12:51.440]  this is two or three steps ahead of the game, but regardless of what is done, and I just
[12:51.440 --> 12:55.560]  don't say this in terms of legal things, I say this in terms of anything that one would
[12:55.560 --> 13:00.800]  do, I would recommend that anything that, you know, somebody would think they should
[13:00.800 --> 13:08.920]  do, it should have more than one different purpose. You know, just in case one different
[13:08.920 --> 13:14.880]  purpose didn't work out. I don't know if that makes any sense.
[13:14.880 --> 13:18.320]  You mean like consolation prize goals, so to speak?
[13:18.320 --> 13:24.240]  Yeah, and if the primary goal doesn't work out, then what's the fallback plan of that?
[13:24.240 --> 13:29.280]  You know, what would happen if, you know, there was an ancillary benefit to it, or what
[13:29.280 --> 13:33.520]  would happen if that particular benefit didn't work out, what would the next one in line
[13:33.520 --> 13:38.400]  be?
[13:38.400 --> 13:44.400]  Plan A, B, C, and D with different sub-goals, so to speak?
[13:44.400 --> 13:45.880]  Yes, pretty much.
[13:45.880 --> 13:50.960]  So that you don't put all your eggs in one basket maybe, and if plan A doesn't work out,
[13:50.960 --> 13:57.000]  well then you've got a plan B to get a different goal that may not be the ultimate goal that
[13:57.000 --> 13:59.920]  you wanted, but at least you'll get something instead of nothing.
[13:59.920 --> 14:06.040]  Yeah, and even more to the point on that, you know, if you didn't get the primary goal,
[14:06.040 --> 14:11.480]  how could you shift around that potentially different outcome to make sure you moved closer
[14:11.480 --> 14:14.720]  to that primary goal if, you know, you could do it that way?
[14:14.720 --> 14:22.860]  And lay the groundwork ahead of time. This is one of the teachings of Frederick Graves
[14:22.860 --> 14:29.800]  when he talks about getting everything on record during the trial court stage or phase
[14:29.800 --> 14:32.960]  because you're setting everything up for appeal.
[14:32.960 --> 14:39.000]  Yeah, and I think, you know, if you're going to do this in the legal sense, which is what
[14:39.000 --> 14:43.520]  we're talking about, that should always be a goal. That should always be a secondary
[14:43.520 --> 14:49.480]  goal. But what I want to mention in terms of that is I just wrote a motion to dismiss,
[14:49.480 --> 14:55.760]  and there were four different parts I put into this. And each different part, you know,
[14:55.760 --> 15:01.640]  had a different thing, a different way for the judge to find a way out. And of course,
[15:01.640 --> 15:08.160]  part D was all the really nasty criminal charges, you know, that could be brought up based on
[15:08.160 --> 15:14.040]  what the prosecutor did, based on, you know, what the cops did. And the first three parts
[15:14.040 --> 15:19.760]  just all involved, like, subject matter jurisdiction, you know, the practice book and other different
[15:19.760 --> 15:24.700]  things. So there was kind of that release valve in there. So the judge could just go
[15:24.700 --> 15:31.200]  ahead and deny parts like A through C, and he could grant part D, or he could only grant
[15:31.200 --> 15:37.160]  part C, or he could only grant part B. But, you know, the bottom line is he had that option
[15:37.160 --> 15:40.980]  in there. He could just basically choose to grant one part of it, and the whole case would
[15:40.980 --> 15:44.440]  go away.
[15:44.440 --> 15:47.800]  Right.
[15:47.800 --> 15:58.080]  Well, I think any real effort in thinking outside the emotion of what's occurred to
[15:58.080 --> 16:05.560]  you, any real effort on thinking forward and what you want as an outcome and how to achieve
[16:05.560 --> 16:16.800]  that outcome will go a long way toward dispelling the emotion of the events. And that I see
[16:16.800 --> 16:21.600]  when I listen to people talk, trying to tell us what happens, that I see is the biggest
[16:21.600 --> 16:26.400]  impediment to good communications.
[16:26.400 --> 16:32.840]  Yes, and writing it down will help dispel the emotional drama as well. And then when
[16:32.840 --> 16:39.720]  you go back and reread, you know, your narrative, people will be able to objectively see all
[16:39.720 --> 16:46.440]  the emotion in the situation and understand more how it sounds or appears to other people,
[16:46.440 --> 16:49.840]  and then they can cut all that out, and then we can just all just cut to the chase of the
[16:49.840 --> 16:52.560]  facts and get the job done, so to speak.
[16:52.560 --> 16:54.720]  All right. Thank you, Dan. We appreciate the call.
[16:54.720 --> 16:56.320]  It ain't not a problem.
[16:56.320 --> 17:02.320]  All right. We're going to Ann next.
[17:02.320 --> 17:07.360]  Gold coin and bullion is your local source for rare coins, precious metals and coin supplies
[17:07.360 --> 17:13.440]  in the Austin metro area. We also ship worldwide. We are a family-owned and operated business
[17:13.440 --> 17:18.400]  that offers competitive prices on your coin and metals purchases. We buy, sell, trade
[17:18.400 --> 17:24.040]  and consign rare coins, gold and silver coin collections, precious metals and scrap gold.
[17:24.040 --> 17:28.920]  We will purchase and sell gold and jewelry items as well. We offer daily specials on
[17:28.920 --> 17:35.480]  coins and bullion. We're located at 5448 Barnett Road, Suite 3, and we're open Monday through
[17:35.480 --> 17:41.560]  Friday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturdays, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. You are welcome to stop in our shop
[17:41.560 --> 17:49.880]  during regular business hours or call 512-646-6440 with any questions. Ask for Chad and say you
[17:49.880 --> 17:59.880]  heard about us on Rule of Law Radio or 90.1 FM. That's capital coin and bullion, 512-646-6440.
[18:50.520 --> 18:52.920]  Because the only one could answer him,
[18:53.560 --> 18:59.160]  been a business what begin man say him, man can you know if this lead in the time.
[18:59.160 --> 19:06.840]  Trust him God me friend, tell him your problems dead, call his name once again,
[19:07.880 --> 19:15.480]  tell you cause you know he worth dead. Trust him God me friend, tell him your problems dead,
[19:15.480 --> 19:21.640]  call his name once again, tell you cause you know he worth dead.
[19:30.920 --> 19:37.560]  All right, trust in God. We're taking your calls. We got Ann from Utah. After that,
[19:37.560 --> 19:42.040]  we've got open phone lines. So folks, if you'd like to call in, we've got about another
[19:42.040 --> 19:49.400]  hour and 45 minutes here, 512-646-1984, if you'd like to call in and talk with us on the air.
[19:49.880 --> 19:52.760]  Ann from Utah, thanks for calling in. What's on your mind tonight?
[19:53.640 --> 19:59.160]  Hi, I think I have a couple of simple questions. I've listened to the recording,
[20:00.040 --> 20:04.920]  but it's just dawned on me I haven't listened to the tail end of it and it may give the answer
[20:04.920 --> 20:13.000]  to the question I've got, which is what is the charge for the process to help with the mortgage?
[20:17.640 --> 20:22.040]  Wait, did you say what was the process to help with the mortgage?
[20:22.680 --> 20:23.400]  The charge.
[20:25.160 --> 20:28.280]  What is the fee for helping with the mortgage?
[20:28.280 --> 20:32.120]  Oh, oh, oh, a thousand dollars.
[20:32.120 --> 20:45.240]  Okay. And then another question I have is whether or not Randy or you guys, anybody knows much about
[20:45.240 --> 20:48.600]  filing a Title 42 and collecting on those?
[20:50.040 --> 20:57.560]  Well, it's a lot easier to file under 42 U.S. Code 1983 than it is to collect under it.
[20:57.560 --> 21:07.160]  And 42 U.S. Code 1983 is pretty specific. Is this related to a mortgage issue or something else?
[21:09.080 --> 21:10.120]  Something else.
[21:10.920 --> 21:18.840]  Oh, okay. Then it's not terribly difficult. It's not much different than any other suit,
[21:18.840 --> 21:23.880]  except Title 42 allows you to sue a public official.
[21:23.880 --> 21:31.560]  Right. It's simply that the only reason it's called 42 U.S. Code 1983 is because that's the one that
[21:31.560 --> 21:38.200]  says you can do it. But the actual structuring and prosecuting of the suit is really no different
[21:38.200 --> 21:48.440]  than any other civil action. The key thing to understand is in civil, when you make a claim
[21:48.440 --> 22:00.280]  against someone in civil, you must do so under a defined cause of action or a tort, a defined tort.
[22:01.480 --> 22:07.480]  They must be defined in law. You can't go in there and say, this guy's a dirty rotten scoundrel,
[22:07.480 --> 22:11.080]  and he did this to me, and he did that to me, and I want you to kick his behind.
[22:11.080 --> 22:18.200]  What you have to do is say, this dirty rotten scoundrel committed common law fraud by
[22:18.200 --> 22:25.080]  misrepresenting the truth to me, knowing that his statement was untrue, intended that I take it
[22:25.080 --> 22:32.120]  as true, and I did take it as true, and I was harmed thereby. That's a cause of action.
[22:33.080 --> 22:33.320]  Okay.
[22:33.320 --> 22:36.600]  It's sort of like a criminal charge in a criminal case. So,
[22:36.600 --> 22:41.720]  when you make your accusation, you can say all the bad stuff he did
[22:42.920 --> 22:49.720]  in a statement of cause, and then at the end, you have a section that says causes of action,
[22:50.520 --> 22:55.160]  and that's just like if you're filing criminal complaints, you file it under criminal statute.
[22:56.920 --> 23:02.680]  When you file civil, make sure you name a named, you stipulate a named complaint,
[23:02.680 --> 23:08.600]  and when you file civil, make sure you name a named, you stipulate a named cause of action
[23:08.600 --> 23:10.520]  or a defined tort.
[23:12.520 --> 23:13.080]  Okay.
[23:14.120 --> 23:19.480]  And that's not too hard to do. What state are you in? Utah?
[23:20.040 --> 23:21.080]  I'm in Utah.
[23:22.040 --> 23:24.840]  Okay. Here's a trick you can try.
[23:25.640 --> 23:27.640]  This is for a friend in California.
[23:27.640 --> 23:33.560]  Okay. Well, have your friend in California, call around a few law firms and tell them that you're
[23:34.280 --> 23:42.360]  homeschooling your kids, and you got a, one of your kids wants to do a report on the legal,
[23:43.560 --> 23:51.480]  legal industry. He's thinking of being a lawyer, and you'd like to know what kind of
[23:51.480 --> 23:59.160]  litigation guides are available to lawyers in California, and they'll just be glad to
[23:59.960 --> 24:05.720]  tell you, and then ask them, do you have any old ones laying around as examples?
[24:07.560 --> 24:12.920]  Every time a new litigation guide comes out, the attorneys buy the brand new ones because they want
[24:12.920 --> 24:22.440]  all the latest statutes, all the latest case law. So they cost, you know, we have O'Connor's here
[24:22.440 --> 24:32.520]  in Texas, and there's about 30 books in the whole set, and they're like 150, 140 to 170 a piece.
[24:34.200 --> 24:38.520]  These attorneys replace them every year, every, every two years. I think they come out every two
[24:38.520 --> 24:46.440]  years, and once they replace them, they don't want the old ones around. So you ask them if they've
[24:46.440 --> 24:54.680]  got some old ones, and I had a woman do that in San Antonio, I'm sorry, Amarillo. The third law
[24:54.680 --> 25:04.760]  firm she called said, do you have a station wagon or a pickup truck? Come and get these things out
[25:04.760 --> 25:15.480]  of my way, and you get the litigation guide and look up to U.S. Code 1983, and it'll tell you
[25:15.480 --> 25:23.480]  when to file it, how to file it, what all has to be in it, case law and support, how to defend
[25:23.480 --> 25:29.320]  against it. These lawyers don't have all this stuff in their heads. They go to the litigation guide.
[25:29.320 --> 25:35.560]  Right. I have Texas Civil Law,
[25:37.160 --> 25:44.440]  and I want to know something about emotion. I want to know how to do mandamus. I go to the section
[25:45.000 --> 25:48.840]  on mandamus. It tells me when to file a mandamus, when not to file a mandamus,
[25:48.840 --> 25:51.720]  how to write a mandamus, what goes in. Everything you need to know.
[25:51.720 --> 25:59.400]  Okay. So first, find you a couple of litigation guides, and they give them to you just to haul
[25:59.400 --> 26:07.160]  them off. We don't care if they're a couple of years old. Attorneys, they're competing with one
[26:07.160 --> 26:12.360]  another. They've got to have the latest stuff, but we don't. So that's the first thing I would
[26:12.360 --> 26:17.320]  suggest. Too bad they don't have those for doctors. Maybe they would amputate the right limb.
[26:17.320 --> 26:28.920]  That would be nice. But most of the time, the lawyers don't read them anyway. I helped a friend
[26:28.920 --> 26:36.840]  with a petition for a restraining order. He wrote one. He's real good at civil,
[26:37.480 --> 26:44.280]  and he asked me what I thought, and I said, it's a piece of crap, Ken. So I went to O'Connor's
[26:44.280 --> 26:51.640]  civil forms. I pulled down the form for emergency, for restraining order, and just filled in the
[26:51.640 --> 27:00.200]  blanks, sent it to him. He said, well, that's a pretty nice piece of work. He went to court.
[27:00.200 --> 27:07.080]  That's the only motion he filed that got approved. He walked out with the attorney, and the attorney
[27:07.080 --> 27:11.480]  knew he was pro se, and he said, did you write this? He said, well, a friend helped me. That's
[27:11.480 --> 27:19.000]  a really nice piece of work. I didn't tell him. I hope he's not listening to this program. You'll
[27:19.000 --> 27:31.000]  kill me. But this is the tricks. Look for the... CeCe's got a forms for California. And I know
[27:31.000 --> 27:36.840]  California has litigation guides. One of the problems is one of the main litigation guides
[27:36.840 --> 27:47.480]  comes in a bound folder, kind of a loosely folder, and they send them updates every year,
[27:47.480 --> 27:55.320]  so they don't wind up replacing them so often. But there's bound to be others. Those big folders
[27:55.320 --> 28:00.360]  are kind of hard to take to court, so they have smaller books that are litigation guides. Just
[28:00.360 --> 28:07.240]  check around and see what those are, and that will give you a real leg up on this issue.
[28:08.920 --> 28:16.840]  Otherwise, 42 S. Court 1983 is just your normal lawsuit, except you're naming public officials.
[28:18.280 --> 28:22.440]  Okay. Did that answer everything, or is there more you need to know?
[28:22.440 --> 28:26.120]  No, that definitely answers everything. Thank you very much.
[28:26.120 --> 28:30.840]  Thank you very much. You are most welcome. Okay. Bye.
[28:33.960 --> 28:34.920]  Where's my caller page?
[28:37.720 --> 28:42.280]  Okay. That's all we have for now. But while you were speaking with that caller, Randy,
[28:43.160 --> 28:48.360]  I did look up in the Code of Criminal Procedure, going back to the issue of the family violence,
[28:48.360 --> 29:01.560]  domestic violence, domestic disturbance issue, Article 14.03, authority of peace officers in
[29:01.560 --> 29:08.760]  the Code of Criminal Procedure. This goes to arrest without warrant. It says,
[29:08.760 --> 29:19.640]  peace officer may arrest without warrant persons who the peace officer has probable cause to believe
[29:19.640 --> 29:25.560]  have committed an offense involving family violence. So there you go, probable cause.
[29:26.280 --> 29:34.520]  Just an accusation is not enough. I think there's another statute concerning that. I was thinking
[29:34.520 --> 29:41.560]  it was in 30 section. But yeah, that- Okay. There's a paragraph C underneath it. It says,
[29:41.560 --> 29:47.560]  a peace officer shall remain at the scene of an investigation to verify the allegation
[29:47.560 --> 29:53.880]  and prevent further commission of the violation or family violence. They have to verify the
[29:53.880 --> 29:58.840]  allegation. There still has to be some probable cause. We'll be right back.
[29:58.840 --> 30:04.360]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[30:04.360 --> 30:10.040]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears Proven Method. Michael Mears has won six cases
[30:10.040 --> 30:14.840]  in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win too. You'll get step-by-step
[30:14.840 --> 30:19.800]  instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes.
[30:19.800 --> 30:25.480]  What to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons. How to answer letters and phone calls.
[30:25.480 --> 30:31.400]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit report. How to turn the financial tables on them
[30:31.400 --> 30:37.560]  and make them pay you to go away. The Michael Mears Proven Method is the solution for how to
[30:37.560 --> 30:42.440]  stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well. For more information,
[30:42.440 --> 30:47.640]  please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner, or email
[30:47.640 --> 30:57.560]  michaelmears at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com, or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com
[30:57.560 --> 31:17.960]  to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[31:28.520 --> 31:35.960]  Oh
[31:35.960 --> 32:00.920]  my
[32:00.920 --> 32:07.000]  Okay, we are back, and yeah, just to review what we were discussing right before we went
[32:07.000 --> 32:09.160]  to the break, we've got open phone lines, folks.
[32:10.040 --> 32:11.080]  Oh, no, we don't.
[32:11.080 --> 32:13.240]  We've got Mike in Maine and Gary in Texas.
[32:13.240 --> 32:17.240]  Okay, so we're going to go to your calls, but right before we go to your calls,
[32:17.240 --> 32:22.680]  I just want to read this Article 14.03, Code of Criminal Procedure,
[32:22.680 --> 32:29.800]  Regarding Family Violence, it says, and this is under the subsection regarding a peace officer
[32:29.800 --> 32:35.400]  arresting without warrant, it says, peace officer may, and it doesn't say they have to,
[32:36.120 --> 32:39.560]  it says they may arrest without warrant.
[32:39.560 --> 32:44.760]  Remember, there's a big difference between may and shall, may arrest persons without warrant,
[32:44.760 --> 32:50.600]  persons who the peace officer has probable cause to believe have committed an offense involving
[32:50.600 --> 33:02.120]  family violence, and that is paragraph four, under 14.03, and then under that, further under
[33:02.120 --> 33:12.920]  that paragraph B, paragraph C, sorry, it says, persons, okay, if reasonably necessary to verify
[33:12.920 --> 33:18.200]  the allegation of a violation of a protective order or the commission of an offense involving
[33:18.200 --> 33:24.520]  family violence, a peace officer shall remain at the scene of an investigation to verify
[33:25.080 --> 33:32.200]  the allegation and to prevent further commission of the violation or of family violence.
[33:32.200 --> 33:37.800]  Okay, so they can stay there until they've verified the situation, right?
[33:37.800 --> 33:43.160]  But it doesn't say they have to arrest, but it does say they shall remain there to verify
[33:43.160 --> 33:51.240]  the situation, and furthermore, it says, it goes to regarding releasing, they can
[33:51.880 --> 33:58.760]  release the individuals in certain situations if they believe that basically the situation
[33:58.760 --> 34:03.480]  is taken care of and there's no further threat of violence.
[34:04.360 --> 34:08.120]  Okay, so still, they have to have probable cause.
[34:08.120 --> 34:13.960]  It can't just be on somebody's accusation if there's no probable cause.
[34:13.960 --> 34:17.560]  Just because somebody says something, that's not enough.
[34:18.200 --> 34:24.120]  If there's no bruises, the table hasn't been overturned, the lamp's not broken,
[34:24.840 --> 34:29.240]  the coat's not torn, you know, there has to be some kind of probable cause.
[34:29.240 --> 34:33.160]  There has to be some kind of evidence that there was a fight, that there was a scuffle.
[34:33.160 --> 34:35.480]  All right, it can't just be, I said so.
[34:35.480 --> 34:43.320]  The only way that it could be, I said so, is if the victim signed an affidavit, a criminal
[34:43.320 --> 34:46.600]  complaint under penalty of perjury notarized.
[34:46.600 --> 34:50.200]  That's a sworn affidavit, accusation, criminal complaint.
[34:50.200 --> 34:57.080]  That's the only case where your word only and nothing else is considered probable cause.
[34:57.080 --> 35:02.680]  That goes straight to Fourth Amendment, but just saying, bawling out, I ain't hear me,
[35:02.680 --> 35:09.000]  I ain't hear me, that's not enough unless the coat's torn, the bruises.
[35:09.000 --> 35:12.600]  Now if there's bruises but they look old and they're yellow, well then that's not probable
[35:12.600 --> 35:12.920]  cause.
[35:12.920 --> 35:13.880]  They have to look fresh.
[35:13.880 --> 35:15.400]  There has to be fresh blood, something.
[35:15.400 --> 35:21.880]  There has to be some probable cause evidence in addition to somebody's word unless that
[35:21.880 --> 35:27.720]  person is willing to fill out a sworn affidavit signed under penalty of perjury, that sort
[35:27.720 --> 35:28.200]  of thing.
[35:28.200 --> 35:34.200]  So this statute doesn't violate Constitution and really it doesn't add anything extra than
[35:34.200 --> 35:36.280]  what the law has already allowed for.
[35:36.280 --> 35:40.280]  So okay, that's my research to this point.
[35:40.280 --> 35:44.520]  Somebody may find something else that may prove it wrong, but if they do find something
[35:44.520 --> 35:48.040]  else in contradiction to that, well then we have an issue because then the law is going
[35:48.040 --> 35:50.040]  to contradict itself if that's the case.
[35:50.040 --> 35:54.920]  So but as it stands now, there still has to be some kind of probable cause or sworn affidavit.
[35:54.920 --> 35:57.160]  Okay, let's go to the calls.
[35:57.160 --> 35:59.160]  We've got Mike in Maine.
[36:00.760 --> 36:01.800]  Mike, thanks for calling in.
[36:01.800 --> 36:02.760]  What's on your mind tonight?
[36:03.320 --> 36:04.760]  Hi, how are you guys doing tonight?
[36:04.760 --> 36:05.400]  Pretty good.
[36:06.440 --> 36:07.720]  How are you up in Kittery?
[36:08.680 --> 36:15.000]  What's on my mind is I've got this situation where I'm trying to find out and maybe get
[36:15.000 --> 36:17.640]  some feedback from you people and see what you think.
[36:17.640 --> 36:27.480]  I have a situation with the bank refusing to cash my paycheck if I put anything on the
[36:27.480 --> 36:29.320]  back of it other than my signature.
[36:32.920 --> 36:38.120]  And I believe that they're violating me, my rights by doing that.
[36:38.120 --> 36:52.120]  Title 18, part 1, chapter 13, subsection 241, which is deprivation of rights, says if two
[36:52.120 --> 36:59.720]  or more persons conspire to oppose, threaten or intimidate any person in any state, territory,
[36:59.720 --> 37:04.440]  Commonwealth possession or district, then the free exercise or enjoyment of any right
[37:04.440 --> 37:09.480]  or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, you know,
[37:09.480 --> 37:12.600]  basically it's a crime and it's punishable.
[37:14.440 --> 37:20.200]  And my position is that I have a right to put an objection on the back of my check
[37:20.200 --> 37:21.320]  before I sign it.
[37:22.360 --> 37:23.480]  Okay, question.
[37:24.040 --> 37:24.280]  Yeah?
[37:25.160 --> 37:26.600]  Where did you get that right?
[37:29.720 --> 37:31.320]  Would be the First Amendment.
[37:31.320 --> 37:36.840]  I have a right to express an objection.
[37:36.840 --> 37:41.640]  Where is the bank compelled to do business with you?
[37:44.440 --> 37:44.920]  Excuse me?
[37:45.960 --> 37:49.160]  Where's the bank compelled to cash that check?
[37:49.160 --> 37:55.240]  What duty do they have that they would be violating by not cashing the check?
[37:55.240 --> 38:01.000]  It's their check made out to me.
[38:01.000 --> 38:03.080]  I'm the holder and do...
[38:03.080 --> 38:03.960]  Okay, wait, wait, wait.
[38:03.960 --> 38:05.320]  What did you just say?
[38:05.320 --> 38:06.680]  What's that?
[38:06.680 --> 38:09.080]  That was the answer we needed.
[38:09.080 --> 38:11.320]  So the check was drawn on this bank?
[38:11.320 --> 38:11.640]  Right.
[38:12.440 --> 38:13.560]  Oh, okay.
[38:13.560 --> 38:19.720]  Now, if it was a different bank's check and you came to this third-party bank,
[38:20.600 --> 38:22.840]  they wouldn't be compelled to do business with you.
[38:22.840 --> 38:29.320]  But if this bank, the check was drawn on this bank, then they have a duty to do business.
[38:29.320 --> 38:32.680]  Now, what did you write on the back of the check again other than your name?
[38:33.960 --> 38:40.920]  Federal Reserve Note accepted under duress and without prejudice in lieu of lawful money.
[38:40.920 --> 38:42.280]  And then I would sign it.
[38:42.280 --> 38:44.120]  And I've been doing it for five and a half years.
[38:45.640 --> 38:46.360]  No problem.
[38:47.560 --> 38:48.280]  Okay.
[38:48.280 --> 38:50.840]  Now, suddenly, they've changed their policy.
[38:50.840 --> 38:55.000]  And they told me that if I did that, continued to do that, that they wouldn't catch it.
[38:55.800 --> 38:56.040]  Okay.
[38:56.040 --> 38:57.000]  I have another question.
[38:57.000 --> 38:58.440]  And this may seem kind of technical.
[38:59.400 --> 39:05.560]  But regarding the place on the back of the check where you wrote this, did you...
[39:05.560 --> 39:06.680]  It's above the line.
[39:06.680 --> 39:07.480]  It's above the line.
[39:07.480 --> 39:07.800]  Okay.
[39:07.800 --> 39:08.840]  That was my next question.
[39:11.000 --> 39:11.320]  Okay.
[39:14.520 --> 39:15.960]  I don't understand what they've...
[39:16.920 --> 39:17.240]  Okay.
[39:17.240 --> 39:21.000]  See, I confronted them five and a half years ago.
[39:21.000 --> 39:22.280]  I went with my paycheck.
[39:22.280 --> 39:24.600]  My paycheck says dollars, right?
[39:25.160 --> 39:32.200]  And I went to the bank and I took with me the law titled 12, United States Code Section 411,
[39:32.920 --> 39:37.000]  in which it expressly says that Federal Reserve Notes are redeemable
[39:37.000 --> 39:41.160]  in lawful money at any Federal Reserve Bank, right?
[39:41.800 --> 39:46.760]  And that, you know, basically, you know, I'm saying, you know, I didn't want Federal Reserve
[39:46.760 --> 39:48.440]  Notes. I wanted to be paid in real dollars.
[39:49.400 --> 39:51.320]  They said, well, we can't pay you in real dollars.
[39:51.320 --> 39:53.640]  All we can do is give you these Federal Reserve Notes.
[39:53.640 --> 39:56.920]  I said, no, I want real dollars.
[39:56.920 --> 39:58.120]  My check says dollars.
[39:58.120 --> 40:00.120]  I want dollars, right?
[40:00.840 --> 40:02.040]  So they got really upset.
[40:02.680 --> 40:06.920]  It says, well, the only thing they could do is give me Federal Reserve Notes.
[40:06.920 --> 40:09.480]  So I had to take them or get nothing.
[40:09.480 --> 40:10.520]  It was either that or nothing.
[40:11.080 --> 40:15.080]  So I said, well, from that point on, I began signing my check like that.
[40:15.080 --> 40:18.120]  And what is the purpose of you signing your check like that?
[40:18.680 --> 40:21.160]  Are you trying to release yourself from some liability?
[40:21.160 --> 40:23.160]  Are you trying to build a case against them?
[40:23.160 --> 40:25.160]  Well, both.
[40:26.120 --> 40:31.400]  Well, if I can interject for a second, there's several problems you've got here.
[40:32.520 --> 40:39.160]  One is you were correct in what you said when you said it was their check, okay?
[40:39.160 --> 40:40.520]  Not your check.
[40:40.520 --> 40:46.120]  Your check, it's just a negotiable instrument that they have bartered for you to exchange to them,
[40:46.120 --> 40:47.320]  kind of like a...
[40:47.320 --> 40:49.000]  Okay, wait a minute.
[40:49.000 --> 40:49.640]  Wait a minute.
[40:50.840 --> 40:53.640]  That's a negotiable instrument.
[40:53.640 --> 40:54.520]  That's correct.
[40:54.520 --> 40:54.840]  It is.
[40:55.880 --> 40:58.120]  He's the holder in due course.
[40:58.120 --> 40:59.400]  I understand that as well.
[40:59.880 --> 41:05.240]  It's his at this point, and they're required to redeem it from him.
[41:05.240 --> 41:11.960]  Okay, but the redemption kit is under the condition set for them by law or their policy,
[41:11.960 --> 41:13.720]  which they believe to be law.
[41:14.600 --> 41:18.280]  That's problem number one, which is what I was getting at.
[41:18.280 --> 41:24.600]  A bank treats its policy as if it supersedes law, okay?
[41:24.600 --> 41:25.400]  What does it?
[41:25.400 --> 41:30.760]  So if you've actually got the statute that says under federal law,
[41:30.760 --> 41:37.560]  that bank is required to redeem that Federal Reserve note in lawful money of the United States,
[41:39.160 --> 41:39.480]  okay?
[41:40.440 --> 41:44.280]  Have you looked up the current definition of lawful money of the United States?
[41:46.200 --> 41:49.160]  Nobody can define what a US dollar is.
[41:49.160 --> 41:50.520]  Well, but that's not my question.
[41:50.520 --> 41:53.560]  I'm not asking if anybody else has told you what it is.
[41:53.560 --> 41:55.000]  Have you looked it up?
[41:55.000 --> 42:01.800]  Have you looked up what the law currently defines as current money of the United States?
[42:03.800 --> 42:12.280]  Yes, it will say that Federal Reserve notes to be considered as lawful money of the United States.
[42:12.280 --> 42:15.480]  Legal tender payment of debts.
[42:15.480 --> 42:21.000]  It does not say it's lawful money, at least not the definition of it I've read.
[42:21.000 --> 42:25.240]  Right, it says lawful legal tender.
[42:26.120 --> 42:31.000]  Right, so where's the definition for lawful money of the United States?
[42:32.600 --> 42:33.080]  What's that?
[42:33.880 --> 42:37.480]  Where is the definition for lawful money of the United States?
[42:37.480 --> 42:53.400]  Uh, I haven't found that other than the Coinage Act of 1792 defines the dollar
[42:54.120 --> 42:56.600]  as being the unit of money.
[42:57.240 --> 43:01.960]  Defines it as being 371.25 grains of silver.
[43:01.960 --> 43:06.440]  Yeah, that's what it defines it as, but that was in 1792.
[43:06.440 --> 43:07.720]  I haven't seen that change.
[43:07.720 --> 43:09.240]  Has that changed?
[43:09.240 --> 43:11.000]  I think Bill Veath would say no.
[43:12.520 --> 43:13.480]  That's what I was thinking.
[43:13.480 --> 43:16.600]  Dr. Veath, that's exactly what he would call a dollar.
[43:17.480 --> 43:20.360]  Yeah, but in order for them to change that,
[43:20.360 --> 43:24.120]  they would have had to amend the Constitution, which they never did.
[43:24.680 --> 43:30.360]  Or they would have had to repeal or overturn or somehow otherwise amend that Coinage Act.
[43:31.560 --> 43:35.080]  Then you might want to sue the bank for all the dollars they didn't give you.
[43:35.080 --> 43:37.080]  Well, that's my case.
[43:37.080 --> 43:39.480]  And so I called the attorney general.
[43:40.760 --> 43:46.760]  Yeah, US Attorney General in New Hampshire because I wanted to complain.
[43:46.760 --> 43:47.480]  Okay, wait a minute.
[43:47.480 --> 43:48.840]  Hang on the line, Mike.
[43:48.840 --> 43:52.600]  We're going to break and we'll talk about this some more on the other side.
[43:52.600 --> 43:54.440]  This is a rule of law.
[43:54.440 --> 43:55.160]  We'll be right back.
[43:55.160 --> 44:01.400]  Attention, an important product from HempUSA.org, Micro Plant Powder, will change your life by
[44:01.400 --> 44:06.680]  removing all types of positive toxins such as heavy metals, parasites, bacteria, viruses,
[44:06.680 --> 44:11.160]  and fungus from the digestive tract and stomach wall so you can absorb nutrients.
[44:11.160 --> 44:16.920]  Micro Plant Powder is 89% silica and packed with a negative charge that attracts positive
[44:16.920 --> 44:19.800]  toxins from the blood, organs, spine, and brain.
[44:19.800 --> 44:25.000]  This product has the ability to rebuild cartilage and bone, which allows synovial fluid to return
[44:25.000 --> 44:26.040]  to the joints.
[44:26.040 --> 44:30.840]  Silica is a precursor to calcium, meaning the body turns silica into calcium and is
[44:30.840 --> 44:32.040]  great for the heart.
[44:32.040 --> 44:37.000]  There is no better time than now to have Micro Plant Powder on your shelf or in your storage
[44:37.000 --> 44:38.040]  shelter.
[44:38.040 --> 44:41.160]  And with an unlimited shelf life, you can store it anywhere.
[44:41.160 --> 44:46.200]  Call 908-691-2608 or call 908-691-2608.
[44:46.200 --> 44:51.720]  Call 908-691-2608 or visit HempUSA.org.
[44:51.720 --> 44:53.880]  It's a great way to change your life.
[44:53.880 --> 45:17.160]  So call 908-691-2608 or visit us at HempUSA.org today.
[45:17.160 --> 45:39.640]  Okay, we're back, sounds to me like Mike here is trying to go after the federal, possibly
[45:39.640 --> 45:43.640]  maybe go after the Federal Reserve for counterfeiting dollars.
[45:43.640 --> 45:48.040]  And Dr. Bill Vies has discussed this before, what the definition of a dollar really is
[45:48.040 --> 45:50.040]  according to the Coinage Act.
[45:50.040 --> 45:55.320]  And as far as paying a debt, for one thing, I don't know how anybody's going to get past
[45:55.320 --> 45:58.680]  HGR 192, which is more than just a house joint resolution.
[45:58.680 --> 46:03.680]  It was passed into law regarding the fact that you cannot pay a debt anymore in the
[46:03.680 --> 46:07.200]  state of bankruptcy of the United States.
[46:07.200 --> 46:09.920]  You can only discharge a debt.
[46:09.920 --> 46:14.720]  And furthermore, Eddie has some citations from the UCC code.
[46:14.720 --> 46:16.720]  Go ahead, Eddie.
[46:16.720 --> 46:22.200]  Okay, if you look, this was given to me by one of our listeners, Tim.
[46:22.200 --> 46:25.360]  He Skyped me while we were having this discussion.
[46:25.360 --> 46:32.940]  Out of UCC Article 3, Section 3-204, Subsection A, endorsement means a signature other than
[46:32.940 --> 46:39.500]  that of a signer as maker, drawer, or acceptor that alone or accompanied by other words is
[46:39.500 --> 46:47.560]  made on an instrument for the purpose of one, negotiating the instrument, two, restricting
[46:47.560 --> 46:53.000]  payment of the instrument, or three, incurring endorser's liability on the instrument.
[46:53.000 --> 46:58.200]  But regardless of the intent of the signer, a signature and its accompanying words is
[46:58.200 --> 47:03.360]  an endorsement unless the accompanying words, terms of the instrument, place of the signature,
[47:03.360 --> 47:08.880]  or other circumstances unambiguously indicate that the signature was made for a purpose
[47:08.880 --> 47:11.640]  other than endorsement.
[47:11.640 --> 47:16.240]  For the purpose of determining whether a signature is made on an instrument, a paper affixed
[47:16.240 --> 47:18.960]  to the instrument is a part of the instrument.
[47:18.960 --> 47:26.120]  Well, I think the question here is were the other accompanying words for the purpose of
[47:26.120 --> 47:28.280]  some other purpose other than endorsement?
[47:28.280 --> 47:29.960]  Yes, it is.
[47:29.960 --> 47:35.400]  It is a reservation of rights which would, in this case, make it separate from the endorsement.
[47:35.400 --> 47:41.520]  So in this case, Mike, really the bank would win in this case, is that what you're saying,
[47:41.520 --> 47:42.520]  Eddie?
[47:42.520 --> 47:46.120]  That seems to be what the law would say, yes.
[47:46.120 --> 47:47.120]  Okay.
[47:47.120 --> 47:51.320]  So one doesn't have a right to make a reservation of rights?
[47:51.320 --> 47:56.760]  Sure you can, but there's nothing in the UCC the right must be reserved in writing.
[47:56.760 --> 48:00.600]  It says you shall make a declaration of a reservation of your rights.
[48:00.600 --> 48:04.200]  That means it can be oral or written.
[48:04.200 --> 48:07.640]  Not as part of the endorsement is what the law says.
[48:07.640 --> 48:14.000]  Yeah, but is there anything that restricts that verbiage from the endorsement?
[48:14.000 --> 48:15.880]  Yes, that's what Eddie just read.
[48:15.880 --> 48:20.520]  If it's any purpose other than creating the endorsement.
[48:20.520 --> 48:23.760]  You can't do it.
[48:23.760 --> 48:30.480]  So what I would recommend you do, Mike, is file a letter with the bank making that reservation
[48:30.480 --> 48:33.040]  of rights.
[48:33.040 --> 48:38.440]  Have them put it in as a part of your record with the bank that you have specifically and
[48:38.440 --> 48:41.440]  explicitly reserved your rights.
[48:41.440 --> 48:46.840]  Now I can almost guarantee you they're going to refuse to accept the letter.
[48:46.840 --> 48:54.040]  So what I recommend you do is send it to them, certified mail, return receipt requested,
[48:54.040 --> 48:57.000]  and get a return receipt that the bank received it.
[48:57.000 --> 49:01.040]  What they do with it after that is entirely their problem, not yours.
[49:01.040 --> 49:04.400]  Well I've got five and a half years of checks where they haven't.
[49:04.400 --> 49:06.240]  That doesn't make any difference.
[49:06.240 --> 49:11.160]  The fact that they didn't enforce this particular law doesn't abrogate their ability to do it
[49:11.160 --> 49:13.920]  at any point because it is a law.
[49:13.920 --> 49:15.880]  Now I have an idea.
[49:15.880 --> 49:20.840]  You guys tell me what you think about this because it has to do with the endorsement.
[49:20.840 --> 49:26.320]  Somebody could open up a new bank account, brand new account, and they always want to
[49:26.320 --> 49:32.000]  try to make you sign these signature cards to see, you know, for matching up the endorsement.
[49:32.000 --> 49:37.080]  If at that point in time on the signature card you could sign your name and then have
[49:37.080 --> 49:42.400]  this little disclaimer or whatever, then you've made that your official endorsement on your
[49:42.400 --> 49:43.400]  signature card.
[49:43.400 --> 49:44.400]  And so then after-
[49:44.400 --> 49:49.640]  In actuality, Deborah, that's exactly what I did in a bank in Wichita, Kansas.
[49:49.640 --> 49:50.640]  Okay.
[49:50.640 --> 49:55.400]  I went in, I filled out the signature card, and I put on the signature card without prejudice
[49:55.400 --> 49:59.520]  UCC 1-207 underneath the signature.
[49:59.520 --> 50:04.240]  Two weeks later I got a call from the bank attorney saying that I had to come in and
[50:04.240 --> 50:07.200]  fill out a new signature card, and I said, why?
[50:07.200 --> 50:11.640]  He said, because we can't accept a signature card that's made like this.
[50:11.640 --> 50:17.080]  And I said, since when does the bank have the right to tell me what my signature can
[50:17.080 --> 50:19.680]  or cannot be comprised of?
[50:19.680 --> 50:23.280]  He goes, well, I just can't, we just can't let you have an account with a signature card
[50:23.280 --> 50:24.280]  like this.
[50:24.280 --> 50:25.920]  Excuse me.
[50:25.920 --> 50:27.880]  That is my signature.
[50:27.880 --> 50:34.640]  You have no authority or right to tell me what my signature is or is not under any law.
[50:34.640 --> 50:41.760]  Therefore, you shall not touch my signature, nor in any way alter it upon that card.
[50:41.760 --> 50:48.040]  And if you do anything to close the account without my consent, then I will sue you.
[50:48.040 --> 50:51.560]  I never heard from him again, and I got it in as a part of my signature.
[50:51.560 --> 50:52.560]  All right.
[50:52.560 --> 50:54.360]  So there's the answer.
[50:54.360 --> 50:55.920]  Eddie is in concurrence with my idea.
[50:55.920 --> 50:57.160]  He's already implemented the idea.
[50:57.160 --> 51:03.480]  You have to put those words, or whatever your disclaimer is, as part of your signature as
[51:03.480 --> 51:07.600]  your official endorsement on the signature card when you open the account.
[51:07.600 --> 51:12.120]  And what I highly recommend you do, Mike, is shorten it as much as possible.
[51:12.120 --> 51:16.720]  I would simply put in quotations, all rights reserved.
[51:16.720 --> 51:18.840]  You don't have to put anything else.
[51:18.840 --> 51:25.320]  1-207 is very clear, it can be all rights reserved, it can be without prejudice, it
[51:25.320 --> 51:31.200]  can be any of those things, and it does not have to cite the article to be valid.
[51:31.200 --> 51:34.840]  You don't have to cite the UCC 1-207?
[51:34.840 --> 51:36.800]  No, you do not.
[51:36.800 --> 51:40.240]  Not according to the way it read at the time that I did it, no.
[51:40.240 --> 51:42.000]  Now I have another question.
[51:42.000 --> 51:44.360]  Why do we even need to do this at all?
[51:44.360 --> 51:50.720]  Aren't your rights automatically reserved unless you specifically waive them?
[51:50.720 --> 51:51.720]  Not under contract.
[51:51.720 --> 51:57.000]  If the contract stipulates a waiver of rights, you are considered to have specifically waived
[51:57.000 --> 51:58.000]  them.
[51:58.000 --> 51:59.240]  Okay, okay.
[51:59.240 --> 52:00.240]  Now that's a big...
[52:00.240 --> 52:03.680]  The contract would have to stipulate waiver.
[52:03.680 --> 52:09.840]  Yes it does, but there is a very, very big problem with bank contracts, and they begin
[52:09.840 --> 52:12.220]  with the bank signature card.
[52:12.220 --> 52:16.400]  If you read the back of the signature card, the signature card itself is telling you you
[52:16.400 --> 52:18.620]  are signing a contract.
[52:18.620 --> 52:26.880]  The problem is, is the contract tells you that it specifically includes any other policies,
[52:26.880 --> 52:36.240]  laws, codes, or anything else the bank wishes to include in the agreement at any time.
[52:36.240 --> 52:41.300]  Therefore you have fraud through non-disclosure because you are never given access or any
[52:41.300 --> 52:44.920]  information regarding what those other things are.
[52:44.920 --> 52:49.400]  Yes, just like with the band contract with the booking agent, like what I was describing
[52:49.400 --> 52:52.160]  earlier, and there is another problem with that too.
[52:52.160 --> 52:56.240]  It's not technically a contract because nobody from the bank signs it.
[52:56.240 --> 53:00.940]  It's a unilateral contract, and in all practical purposes and all reality, you are creating
[53:00.940 --> 53:02.120]  a debt instrument.
[53:02.120 --> 53:03.640]  It's not even really a contract.
[53:03.640 --> 53:10.600]  Yes, now Tim is also pointing out to me that they have revised the UCC in what was 1-207
[53:10.600 --> 53:13.280]  about a year ago, became 1-308.
[53:13.280 --> 53:17.280]  Yes, I'm aware of that.
[53:17.280 --> 53:22.280]  All right, well anyway, I thought I'd call it in and run it by you guys.
[53:22.280 --> 53:27.600]  I'd like to get the feedback on it, give me something to research.
[53:27.600 --> 53:32.680]  What if somebody never signs the signature card to begin with, then what?
[53:32.680 --> 53:35.040]  Then you won't get an account.
[53:35.040 --> 53:37.800]  But I don't even have an account there.
[53:37.800 --> 53:41.160]  Again, it's drawn on that bank.
[53:41.160 --> 53:43.760]  It's a paycheck paid to me.
[53:43.760 --> 53:50.160]  Yes, but then again, I've just read you what the UCC says about what can be on the endorsement.
[53:50.160 --> 53:55.960]  If the purpose of what you're adding is for anything other than signing your name.
[53:55.960 --> 54:00.080]  Now had you filled out a signature card with the bank like that, then they couldn't make
[54:00.080 --> 54:01.260]  that argument.
[54:01.260 --> 54:07.400]  But because you are doing it for an express purpose other than endorsement, the UCC will
[54:07.400 --> 54:09.600]  protect the bank and not you.
[54:09.600 --> 54:22.680]  Okay, so how about I open up a bank account and I deposit checks in it or deposit only
[54:22.680 --> 54:31.920]  and I put some wording on the back of it, cash it, deposit in my check, not my check,
[54:31.920 --> 54:34.120]  my savings account.
[54:34.120 --> 54:37.440]  I wait for those checks to clear.
[54:37.440 --> 54:42.920]  And then I go to the bank to draw it out and tell them, you know, I want real money.
[54:42.920 --> 54:48.200]  I won't accept a Federal Reserve note.
[54:48.200 --> 54:50.480]  They'll just simply refuse to pay you.
[54:50.480 --> 54:57.040]  Well, okay, the law states that Federal Reserve notes are legal tender for all debts.
[54:57.040 --> 54:58.040]  That's right.
[54:58.040 --> 55:02.800]  So they're going to say that they made you offer, you refuse to accept it, therefore
[55:02.800 --> 55:08.680]  the debt is extinguished or discharged rather.
[55:08.680 --> 55:09.680]  Okay.
[55:09.680 --> 55:13.440]  Yeah, I see where they're going to go with that.
[55:13.440 --> 55:16.120]  And that's per HJR 192.
[55:16.120 --> 55:21.920]  Yeah, and that right there is exactly how the wealth of America has been stolen right
[55:21.920 --> 55:24.840]  out from under the people.
[55:24.840 --> 55:27.240]  Yeah.
[55:27.240 --> 55:29.800]  Because technically what you're doing is creating a debt instrument.
[55:29.800 --> 55:30.800]  It's not a contract.
[55:30.800 --> 55:34.920]  It's a debt instrument, and then you have no control over it once you create it.
[55:34.920 --> 55:38.200]  And then they trade wildly on it and create all these derivatives.
[55:38.200 --> 55:40.240]  And that's where all the inflation comes from.
[55:40.240 --> 55:44.000]  So try not to create any debt instruments if you can.
[55:44.000 --> 55:45.000]  Yeah.
[55:45.000 --> 55:48.520]  Well, I thought it might be a good way to at least get it into a court of law to be
[55:48.520 --> 55:54.400]  heard without going after the state or the Federal Government, because they're going
[55:54.400 --> 55:57.200]  to hide behind their sovereign immunity.
[55:57.200 --> 56:00.640]  Well, what does the state or the Federal Government have to do with anything?
[56:00.640 --> 56:01.640]  This is the banksters.
[56:01.640 --> 56:03.840]  These are private banks.
[56:03.840 --> 56:05.480]  The Federal Reserve is a private bank.
[56:05.480 --> 56:08.240]  It's a private central bank that controls all the other banks.
[56:08.240 --> 56:10.080]  They have nothing to do with the government.
[56:10.080 --> 56:14.240]  Well, yeah, but they're going to claim that they're part of the government, the Federal
[56:14.240 --> 56:15.240]  Reserve Bank.
[56:15.240 --> 56:17.240]  I don't know.
[56:17.240 --> 56:27.360]  Well, they play both ends of the thing there, because it depends on what suits them.
[56:27.360 --> 56:33.280]  You know, they would basically hide behind sovereign immunity.
[56:33.280 --> 56:38.640]  But if you go after a private bank or a company, then they wouldn't be able to do that.
[56:38.640 --> 56:41.960]  So at least you'd be able to be heard.
[56:41.960 --> 56:48.800]  You're not even going to get into court if you go after the state or the federal, right?
[56:48.800 --> 56:54.040]  Because they're going to automatically, you know, they're going to kick it out for sovereign
[56:54.040 --> 56:55.040]  immunity.
[56:55.040 --> 56:57.560]  They're going to hide behind that shield.
[56:57.560 --> 57:01.880]  But I thought that this might be a way of at least getting it before a court and, you
[57:01.880 --> 57:09.400]  know, maybe get some notice of it, public view might become an issue.
[57:09.400 --> 57:14.320]  That's basically what I was trying to do.
[57:14.320 --> 57:17.000]  But also I wanted to protect my rights as well.
[57:17.000 --> 57:22.040]  And I think, I don't know, you know, it just doesn't seem to make sense why you wouldn't
[57:22.040 --> 57:24.960]  be able to reserve your rights.
[57:24.960 --> 57:27.640]  Because it has to do with contract.
[57:27.640 --> 57:32.240]  Your rights are automatically reserved when it comes to criminal actions.
[57:32.240 --> 57:38.400]  You don't have to sign to reserve your rights when it comes to the criminal side of law.
[57:38.400 --> 57:43.440]  But when it comes to contracts, apparently you do.
[57:43.440 --> 57:44.440]  Yeah.
[57:44.440 --> 57:46.600]  But then they're saying you can't.
[57:46.600 --> 57:51.280]  Well, this is under UCC law, what Eddie just said.
[57:51.280 --> 57:54.000]  You can, but you have to do it in the proper way.
[57:54.000 --> 58:00.520]  You have to do it on the signature card as part of your authorized official endorsement
[58:00.520 --> 58:04.880]  on record, on file, on the signature card with the bank.
[58:04.880 --> 58:09.980]  If you sign your signature card in a certain way and then you try to add additional words
[58:09.980 --> 58:15.600]  onto it for a purpose other than endorsement, then under UCC law they're not going to let
[58:15.600 --> 58:16.600]  you do it.
[58:16.600 --> 58:21.840]  But if you put those words as part of your endorsement on the official signature card
[58:21.840 --> 58:24.600]  from the get-go, then you can do it.
[58:24.600 --> 58:25.600]  You see?
[58:25.600 --> 58:26.600]  Okay.
[58:26.600 --> 58:29.560]  Well, I'm going to look into that a little further then, okay?
[58:29.560 --> 58:30.560]  All right.
[58:30.560 --> 58:31.560]  Great.
[58:31.560 --> 58:32.560]  Thank you for your input.
[58:32.560 --> 58:33.560]  All right.
[58:33.560 --> 58:34.560]  Thanks.
[58:34.560 --> 58:35.560]  Have a good evening.
[58:35.560 --> 58:36.560]  All right.
[58:36.560 --> 58:37.560]  Thanks, Mike.
[58:37.560 --> 58:38.560]  Yeah.
[58:38.560 --> 58:39.560]  Okay.
[58:39.560 --> 58:40.560]  We are at the top of the hour break.
[58:40.560 --> 58:44.240]  We've got one more hour on our Friday four-hour info marathon here on the rule of law.
[58:44.240 --> 58:46.640]  We've got Gloria and Jason coming up.
[58:46.640 --> 58:53.600]  Callers, if you'd like to call in and speak with us on the air, 512-646-1984.
[58:53.600 --> 59:23.480]  We will be right back.
[59:23.480 --> 59:46.960]  Thanks.
[59:46.960 --> 59:51.960]  Monday through Saturday, 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. and 1 to 6 p.m. on Sundays.
[59:51.960 --> 59:58.960]  So give them a call at 512-480-2503 or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com.
[59:58.960 --> 01:00:03.960]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[01:00:03.960 --> 01:00:10.960]  In Afghanistan, three U.N. staff members were killed Thursday by a roadside bomb in Parwan Province.
[01:00:10.960 --> 01:00:16.960]  Europe's highest court Thursday said it would not allow Abu Hamza and three other men held in Britain
[01:00:16.960 --> 01:00:23.960]  to be extradited to the U.S. to face terrorism charges until it is satisfied they will not be treated inhumanely.
[01:00:23.960 --> 01:00:30.960]  The court's decision means it will in effect sit in judgment on parts of the U.S. criminal justice system.
[01:00:30.960 --> 01:00:34.960]  Senator Joe Lieberman told a news conference in Jerusalem Wednesday,
[01:00:34.960 --> 01:00:40.960]  there is wide support in Congress for using all means to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power
[01:00:40.960 --> 01:00:44.960]  quote, through military actions if we must, adding,
[01:00:44.960 --> 01:00:50.960]  a certain trumpet needs to be sounded for the Iranian regime to hear.
[01:00:50.960 --> 01:00:54.960]  Transocean is the world's largest offshore drilling company,
[01:00:54.960 --> 01:00:57.960]  but until its Deepwater Horizon rig exploded in April,
[01:00:57.960 --> 01:01:00.960]  few people outside the energy business had heard of it.
[01:01:00.960 --> 01:01:05.960]  However, the company is well known in other countries for testing local laws and regulations.
[01:01:05.960 --> 01:01:11.960]  Human rights advocates have called for an investigation into Transocean's recent dealings in Myanmar.
[01:01:11.960 --> 01:01:17.960]  They cite its involvement in a drilling project that included a company suspected of having ties
[01:01:17.960 --> 01:01:23.960]  to two men accused of laundering money from Myanmar's government, which is under U.S. trade sanctions.
[01:01:23.960 --> 01:01:27.960]  Transocean states in Securities and Exchange Commission filings
[01:01:27.960 --> 01:01:31.960]  its drilling equipment was shipped by a forwarder through Iran,
[01:01:31.960 --> 01:01:35.960]  and until last year it held a stake in a company doing business in Syria.
[01:01:35.960 --> 01:01:39.960]  The State Department says both countries sponsor terrorism,
[01:01:39.960 --> 01:01:43.960]  and in Norway the company says Norwegian officials could assess it,
[01:01:43.960 --> 01:01:48.960]  $840 million in taxes and penalties for tax fraud.
[01:01:48.960 --> 01:01:52.960]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[01:01:52.960 --> 01:01:58.960]  The New York Times reports Afghan construction companies working on contracts for U.S. and NATO military bases
[01:01:58.960 --> 01:02:02.960]  have accused U.S. middlemen of reneging on payments
[01:02:02.960 --> 01:02:07.960]  and in one case of leaving the country, owing hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars.
[01:02:07.960 --> 01:02:13.960]  The failure of U.S. companies to pay for contracted work has left hundreds of Afghan workers unpaid
[01:02:13.960 --> 01:02:19.960]  in southern Afghanistan and dozens of factories and small businesses deep in debt.
[01:02:19.960 --> 01:02:23.960]  A military official with the International Security Assistance Force said,
[01:02:23.960 --> 01:02:30.960]  families, relatives, friends, village and tribal elders all know that ISAF does not pay for the work,
[01:02:30.960 --> 01:02:35.960]  so one can understand why they may say, we should get these Western soldiers out of here.
[01:02:35.960 --> 01:02:43.960]  One Afghan businessman, Jalaluddin Saeed, said he is owed $1.5 million by Bennett Foosh LLC of Michigan
[01:02:43.960 --> 01:02:50.960]  to provide concrete barriers for U.S. and NATO military bases and has had to move his family
[01:02:50.960 --> 01:02:53.960]  to avoid his many angry creditors.
[01:02:53.960 --> 01:02:57.960]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[01:03:00.960 --> 01:03:06.960]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at ruleoflawradio.com,
[01:03:06.960 --> 01:03:13.960]  a live free speech talk radio at its best.
[01:03:36.960 --> 01:03:51.960]  Alright, we will occupy our father's house until he returns.
[01:03:51.960 --> 01:04:01.960]  We pray that we are good stewards, taking care of his possessions and his house until he returns.
[01:04:01.960 --> 01:04:07.960]  Okay, I wanted to address the situation regarding the Federal Reserve notes and legal tender just a little bit more.
[01:04:07.960 --> 01:04:14.960]  We talked about this on the break some and Eddie said he agreed with my conclusions here
[01:04:14.960 --> 01:04:17.960]  regarding the legal tender laws.
[01:04:17.960 --> 01:04:26.960]  Okay, the legal tender laws don't go to whoever is being offered the Federal Reserve notes.
[01:04:26.960 --> 01:04:30.960]  The legal tender laws go to protect the offeror.
[01:04:30.960 --> 01:04:39.960]  In other words, the legal tender laws make it lawful for someone to offer Federal Reserve notes
[01:04:39.960 --> 01:04:48.960]  to discharge a debt so that the offeror will not be accused of offering counterfeit currency
[01:04:48.960 --> 01:04:54.960]  or counterfeiting, basically to protect the Federal Reserve counterfeiters themselves.
[01:04:54.960 --> 01:05:03.960]  It makes it lawful for them to offer the Federal Reserve notes to discharge a debt.
[01:05:03.960 --> 01:05:15.960]  The legal tender laws do not require the other party to accept them, case in point, Michael Badnerich.
[01:05:15.960 --> 01:05:19.960]  It used to be in days past, now he does accept Federal Reserve notes,
[01:05:19.960 --> 01:05:27.960]  but it used to be that he required a certain method or mode of payment, not discharge of debt,
[01:05:27.960 --> 01:05:31.960]  but he insisted on payment for his services.
[01:05:31.960 --> 01:05:38.960]  Remember, you cannot pay a debt anymore per HJR 192, which is law, by the way.
[01:05:38.960 --> 01:05:40.960]  It's not just a resolution.
[01:05:40.960 --> 01:05:45.960]  You cannot pay a debt anymore through the banking system.
[01:05:45.960 --> 01:05:50.960]  That's ever since when HJR 192 was passed.
[01:05:50.960 --> 01:05:53.960]  You can only discharge a debt.
[01:05:53.960 --> 01:05:57.960]  Michael Badnerich said, if you want to take my class, you have to pay me,
[01:05:57.960 --> 01:06:05.960]  and the only payment I will accept is four ounces of silver,.999 fine.
[01:06:05.960 --> 01:06:09.960]  Now, Michael Badnerich was not in violation of the legal tender laws
[01:06:09.960 --> 01:06:14.960]  because the legal tender laws do not go to the person who's being offered.
[01:06:14.960 --> 01:06:16.960]  It goes to the offeror.
[01:06:16.960 --> 01:06:21.960]  So somebody could still try to offer Federal Reserve notes to Michael Badnerich for his course,
[01:06:21.960 --> 01:06:24.960]  but he could still say, no, I've already stated publicly,
[01:06:24.960 --> 01:06:28.960]  I will only accept silver as payment for my course.
[01:06:28.960 --> 01:06:31.960]  Now, if someone was going to pick and choose and say,
[01:06:31.960 --> 01:06:37.960]  well, I'm going to require payment in silver from one person,
[01:06:37.960 --> 01:06:40.960]  but I'll accept Federal Reserve notes from another person,
[01:06:40.960 --> 01:06:45.960]  then that possibly could be violation of price-fixing laws
[01:06:45.960 --> 01:06:49.960]  because you're setting different standards for different customers,
[01:06:49.960 --> 01:06:53.960]  and according to price-fixing, that's not allowed.
[01:06:53.960 --> 01:06:56.960]  You have to make it the same across the board for everyone.
[01:06:56.960 --> 01:07:01.960]  But the point that I'm trying to make going to all this regarding our previous caller, Mike,
[01:07:01.960 --> 01:07:07.960]  has to do with the fact that if you engage in the banking industry at all,
[01:07:07.960 --> 01:07:13.960]  if you open an account, et cetera, sign the card, whatever, even if you don't sign the card,
[01:07:13.960 --> 01:07:17.960]  because I know people who have managed to open bank accounts without signing the card,
[01:07:17.960 --> 01:07:23.960]  still, if you are making a contract with the bank to deal with the banking,
[01:07:23.960 --> 01:07:25.960]  then according to the terms and conditions of the bank,
[01:07:25.960 --> 01:07:33.960]  you have already agreed to accept Federal Reserve notes as a discharge of debt.
[01:07:33.960 --> 01:07:40.960]  And so if you make that contract with the bank, per the legal tender laws,
[01:07:40.960 --> 01:07:44.960]  that they are offering you Federal Reserve notes to discharge debt,
[01:07:44.960 --> 01:07:49.960]  and you open an account, then you have agreed to accept Federal Reserve notes
[01:07:49.960 --> 01:07:52.960]  to discharge whatever debts are due to you,
[01:07:52.960 --> 01:08:00.960]  then you cannot, after the fact, go back and require real payment.
[01:08:00.960 --> 01:08:05.960]  So unfortunately, I think Mike possibly may be barking up the wrong tree here
[01:08:05.960 --> 01:08:08.960]  by trying to insist on real payment from the banks,
[01:08:08.960 --> 01:08:13.960]  because just by nature of engaging in the banking industry at all,
[01:08:13.960 --> 01:08:20.960]  you've already established a contract with them to agree to accept Federal Reserve notes as payment of debt.
[01:08:20.960 --> 01:08:23.960]  However, even that still in and of itself is somewhat fuzzy,
[01:08:23.960 --> 01:08:29.960]  because unless you get a signature from someone authorized to represent the bank,
[01:08:29.960 --> 01:08:30.960]  it's still not a contract.
[01:08:30.960 --> 01:08:37.960]  It's still a unilateral contract, which really is, in effect, you're creating a debt instrument.
[01:08:37.960 --> 01:08:40.960]  But the bottom line is you're still agreeing to their terms and conditions.
[01:08:40.960 --> 01:08:43.960]  So Eddie, comments?
[01:08:43.960 --> 01:08:45.960]  No, I agree.
[01:08:45.960 --> 01:08:48.960]  Okay. Randy, comments?
[01:08:48.960 --> 01:08:50.960]  I agree 100 percent.
[01:08:50.960 --> 01:08:51.960]  Okay. All right.
[01:08:51.960 --> 01:08:52.960]  We're going to go to the callers now.
[01:08:52.960 --> 01:08:54.960]  Gloria in Texas.
[01:08:54.960 --> 01:08:55.960]  Gloria, thanks for calling in.
[01:08:55.960 --> 01:08:57.960]  What's on your mind tonight?
[01:08:57.960 --> 01:09:01.960]  Hi. I have a question about a citation that my daughter got.
[01:09:01.960 --> 01:09:08.960]  She's being sued by an attorney for a state farm for an accident she was involved in.
[01:09:08.960 --> 01:09:15.960]  And my question is, first of all, it's with the county court at Law 2 in Austin, Texas.
[01:09:15.960 --> 01:09:21.960]  And my question, I guess, is first of all about their jurisdiction.
[01:09:21.960 --> 01:09:28.960]  If they're suing for, you know, like $14,000, is that with the jurisdiction of that court,
[01:09:28.960 --> 01:09:31.960]  or how do I find that out?
[01:09:31.960 --> 01:09:34.960]  Okay. Which court is it in?
[01:09:34.960 --> 01:09:37.960]  County court at Law 2.
[01:09:37.960 --> 01:09:40.960]  County court will have jurisdiction over that.
[01:09:40.960 --> 01:09:41.960]  Okay.
[01:09:41.960 --> 01:09:46.960]  Okay. Now, the other problem is you said this is regarding a citation.
[01:09:46.960 --> 01:09:49.960]  Is State Farm her insurance company or the other parties?
[01:09:49.960 --> 01:09:53.960]  Right. That's the other party.
[01:09:53.960 --> 01:09:55.960]  That's the plaintiff.
[01:09:55.960 --> 01:10:00.960]  Right. But I mean, I'm assuming the citation was issued because of an accident.
[01:10:00.960 --> 01:10:02.960]  Oh, I'm sorry.
[01:10:02.960 --> 01:10:05.960]  The citation is the paperwork that was served.
[01:10:05.960 --> 01:10:09.960]  She didn't get a ticket or anything.
[01:10:09.960 --> 01:10:11.960]  Okay.
[01:10:11.960 --> 01:10:14.960]  She's talking about the insurance company suing her.
[01:10:14.960 --> 01:10:15.960]  Yeah, that's a complaint.
[01:10:15.960 --> 01:10:17.960]  The complaint, yes, the complaint.
[01:10:17.960 --> 01:10:18.960]  I'm sorry.
[01:10:18.960 --> 01:10:19.960]  Okay.
[01:10:19.960 --> 01:10:20.960]  That wasn't clear on that.
[01:10:20.960 --> 01:10:26.960]  But yes, that's the complaint that, and for you, I wanted to ask you about what they're
[01:10:26.960 --> 01:10:35.960]  saying that, okay, it says it was an accident where she was driving in an unsafe and negligent
[01:10:35.960 --> 01:10:40.960]  manner, caused the accident, caused a collision with the plaintiff's vehicle.
[01:10:40.960 --> 01:10:45.960]  A defendant had a duty to exercise ordinary care and operate his or her vehicle reasonably
[01:10:45.960 --> 01:10:52.960]  and prudently, and then they stated that furthermore, the negligent conduct of the defendant was
[01:10:52.960 --> 01:11:01.960]  in violation of Texas Transportation Code 5452.256, and it was in a parking lot at South
[01:11:01.960 --> 01:11:11.960]  Park Meadows by the target, and they state what the transportation code is about an operator
[01:11:11.960 --> 01:11:19.960]  emerging from an alley driveway or a building in a business or residence district, and so
[01:11:19.960 --> 01:11:20.960]  I guess...
[01:11:20.960 --> 01:11:21.960]  Who hit who?
[01:11:21.960 --> 01:11:22.960]  Okay.
[01:11:22.960 --> 01:11:30.960]  My daughter was driving from the parking lot, the target parking lot, and she made the stop
[01:11:30.960 --> 01:11:33.960]  to look both ways, didn't see anybody.
[01:11:33.960 --> 01:11:35.960]  A stop where?
[01:11:35.960 --> 01:11:38.960]  To go further into the parking lot or out onto a public street?
[01:11:38.960 --> 01:11:40.960]  At the end of the parking lot to come onto the roadway.
[01:11:40.960 --> 01:11:45.960]  She was actually crossing the parking lot from one parking lot to the other, from the
[01:11:45.960 --> 01:11:48.960]  target parking lot to the border's parking lot.
[01:11:48.960 --> 01:11:52.960]  So she went across a public street to do that, or is this a road they share?
[01:11:52.960 --> 01:11:58.960]  That's the road they share between the two borders and target.
[01:11:58.960 --> 01:11:59.960]  Yes.
[01:11:59.960 --> 01:12:03.960]  Was the road part of the parking lot, or was it a public thoroughfare?
[01:12:03.960 --> 01:12:07.960]  Was it a street that went out into other streets?
[01:12:07.960 --> 01:12:10.960]  No, it didn't go into the public part.
[01:12:10.960 --> 01:12:13.960]  It was the private parking in the south parking lot.
[01:12:13.960 --> 01:12:14.960]  Okay.
[01:12:14.960 --> 01:12:21.960]  So anyway, the girl, the other party, was speeding, wasn't paying attention, and my
[01:12:21.960 --> 01:12:26.960]  daughter was crossing and she just came and hit her.
[01:12:26.960 --> 01:12:27.960]  Okay.
[01:12:27.960 --> 01:12:28.960]  What was your...
[01:12:28.960 --> 01:12:32.960]  I'm sure that your daughter would be able to answer this if she's available.
[01:12:32.960 --> 01:12:33.960]  Right.
[01:12:33.960 --> 01:12:40.960]  What was her point of view and what was her range of view at the time before she got hit?
[01:12:40.960 --> 01:12:41.960]  Okay.
[01:12:41.960 --> 01:12:49.960]  That's the other part that, I mean, this, I guess it's relevant, but there's an area
[01:12:49.960 --> 01:12:54.960]  right there where she came out that there's a lot of shrubs, that the parking lot itself
[01:12:54.960 --> 01:12:57.960]  is very hazardous right there.
[01:12:57.960 --> 01:13:03.960]  And the actual road is kind of, it kind of turns.
[01:13:03.960 --> 01:13:08.960]  It's not a straightforward roadway.
[01:13:08.960 --> 01:13:14.960]  So the other party was driving, according to my daughter, very fast.
[01:13:14.960 --> 01:13:20.960]  And I guess by the damage to my daughter's car, you know, you can tell that she was
[01:13:20.960 --> 01:13:23.960]  driving fast.
[01:13:23.960 --> 01:13:24.960]  Did anybody go out?
[01:13:24.960 --> 01:13:29.960]  Is there a police report that measured the brake marks or anything like that, the skid
[01:13:29.960 --> 01:13:31.960]  marks from her tires or anything?
[01:13:31.960 --> 01:13:36.960]  No, they didn't measure anything, but he did put down...
[01:13:36.960 --> 01:13:41.960]  His diagram that he drew is totally wrong.
[01:13:41.960 --> 01:13:46.960]  And then he put down that Unit 2, which was the plaintiff, was traveling south on the
[01:13:46.960 --> 01:13:49.960]  two-way road separating the parking lot.
[01:13:49.960 --> 01:13:55.960]  Unit 1, which was my daughter, was traveling east through the parking lot and pulled out
[01:13:55.960 --> 01:14:01.960]  onto the road in the path that Unit 2 was on, which resulted in the collision.
[01:14:01.960 --> 01:14:02.960]  Both drivers...
[01:14:02.960 --> 01:14:07.960]  Okay, that sounds like just what you said.
[01:14:07.960 --> 01:14:09.960]  Your daughter went through a stop sign...
[01:14:09.960 --> 01:14:11.960]  No, there's a stop sign.
[01:14:11.960 --> 01:14:16.960] ...into a thoroughfare, whether it was a public roadway or not, and the other party didn't
[01:14:16.960 --> 01:14:21.960]  have a stop sign and ran into your daughter.
[01:14:21.960 --> 01:14:22.960]  But there's no stop signs.
[01:14:22.960 --> 01:14:24.960]  It's just...
[01:14:24.960 --> 01:14:25.960]  Right.
[01:14:25.960 --> 01:14:30.960]  It actually terminates up in the general vicinity of the buildings in question, right?
[01:14:30.960 --> 01:14:31.960]  Right.
[01:14:31.960 --> 01:14:36.960]  It's a dead-end entryway that is actually a street, but it divides two large parking
[01:14:36.960 --> 01:14:40.960]  lots.
[01:14:40.960 --> 01:14:41.960]  Repeat that.
[01:14:41.960 --> 01:14:42.960]  I'm sorry.
[01:14:42.960 --> 01:14:47.960]  Is it actually a more or less a dead-end street because it ends at the two buildings
[01:14:47.960 --> 01:14:53.960]  or the two businesses and it travels between two parking lots?
[01:14:53.960 --> 01:15:01.960]  The road that the plaintiff was driving on divides the two parking lots, but it's inside
[01:15:01.960 --> 01:15:04.960]  the south park meadows.
[01:15:04.960 --> 01:15:09.960]  Right, but there's no exit on one end, right?
[01:15:09.960 --> 01:15:12.960]  You either go left to one business or right to the other business.
[01:15:12.960 --> 01:15:14.960]  No, you can keep going.
[01:15:14.960 --> 01:15:15.960]  You can keep going.
[01:15:15.960 --> 01:15:16.960]  There's no...
[01:15:16.960 --> 01:15:22.960]  Okay, then it is a three-way.
[01:15:22.960 --> 01:15:25.960]  It's actually four ways because it's a two-way.
[01:15:25.960 --> 01:15:27.960]  Okay, wait, wait.
[01:15:27.960 --> 01:15:29.960]  This is pretty clear.
[01:15:29.960 --> 01:15:30.960]  Uh-huh.
[01:15:30.960 --> 01:15:34.960]  Other than did your daughter have a stop sign?
[01:15:34.960 --> 01:15:35.960]  No, she didn't.
[01:15:35.960 --> 01:15:42.960]  There's no stop sign, but they're saying I guess that it's assumed stop right there.
[01:15:42.960 --> 01:15:43.960]  Okay.
[01:15:43.960 --> 01:15:49.960]  There is one possibility your daughter has in this case.
[01:15:49.960 --> 01:15:55.960]  That is to take photographs of the place where she crossed, especially if her view was allegedly
[01:15:55.960 --> 01:15:57.960]  blocked by these hedges.
[01:15:57.960 --> 01:15:58.960]  Right.
[01:15:58.960 --> 01:15:59.960]  Okay?
[01:15:59.960 --> 01:16:05.960]  And to take measurements of the height of the hedges, width of the hedges, the percentage
[01:16:05.960 --> 01:16:10.960]  of the road that it obscures from view at the height she would be sitting in the automobile
[01:16:10.960 --> 01:16:13.960]  in question and so on and so forth.
[01:16:13.960 --> 01:16:14.960]  Okay.
[01:16:14.960 --> 01:16:23.960]  And then bring the owner of the portion of the parking lot into the suit as a third-party
[01:16:23.960 --> 01:16:27.960]  person liable for that blockage of the roadway.
[01:16:27.960 --> 01:16:30.960]  Okay.
[01:16:30.960 --> 01:16:33.960]  I have one more question also, Gloria, if you would hang on the line.
[01:16:33.960 --> 01:16:34.960]  Sure.
[01:16:34.960 --> 01:16:37.960]  Uh-huh.
[01:16:37.960 --> 01:16:42.960]  It has to do with who was on the right of who in a clockwise manner.
[01:16:42.960 --> 01:16:46.960]  My daughter was on the right.
[01:16:46.960 --> 01:16:50.960]  So the other entity, the plaintiff was on her left.
[01:16:50.960 --> 01:16:51.960]  Right.
[01:16:51.960 --> 01:16:52.960]  Okay, we'll be right back.
[01:16:52.960 --> 01:16:53.960]  Okay.
[01:16:53.960 --> 01:17:01.960]  Okay.
[01:17:01.960 --> 01:17:06.960]  Capital Coin and Bullion is your local source for rare coins, precious metals, and coin
[01:17:06.960 --> 01:17:08.960]  supplies in the Austin metro area.
[01:17:08.960 --> 01:17:10.960]  We also ship worldwide.
[01:17:10.960 --> 01:17:14.960]  We are a family-owned and operated business that offers competitive prices on your coin
[01:17:14.960 --> 01:17:16.960]  and metals purchases.
[01:17:16.960 --> 01:17:21.960]  We buy, sell, trade, and consign rare coins, gold and silver coin collections, precious
[01:17:21.960 --> 01:17:23.960]  metals, and scrap gold.
[01:17:23.960 --> 01:17:26.960]  We will purchase and sell gold and jewelry items as well.
[01:17:26.960 --> 01:17:29.960]  We offer daily specials on coins and bullion.
[01:17:29.960 --> 01:17:35.960]  We're located at 5448 Barnett Road, Suite 3, and we're open Monday through Friday, 10
[01:17:35.960 --> 01:17:39.960]  a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturdays, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
[01:17:39.960 --> 01:17:46.960]  You are welcome to stop in our shop during regular business hours or call 512-646-6440
[01:17:46.960 --> 01:17:47.960]  with any questions.
[01:17:47.960 --> 01:17:52.960]  Ask for Chad and say you heard about us on Rule of Law Radio or 90.1 FM.
[01:17:52.960 --> 01:18:01.960]  That's Capital Coin and Bullion, 512-646-6440.
[01:18:01.960 --> 01:18:10.960]  Oh, come on.
[01:18:10.960 --> 01:18:13.960]  Okay, we're back.
[01:18:13.960 --> 01:18:18.960]  All right, what I was asking, the reason I was asking, and Eddie's going to discuss this
[01:18:18.960 --> 01:18:25.960]  also, concerning who is on the right of whom is because typically in a situation where
[01:18:25.960 --> 01:18:34.960]  each person or each direction would have equal right or right of way, it's pretty much been
[01:18:34.960 --> 01:18:40.960]  adjudicated and well established that whoever is on the right is going to have the right
[01:18:40.960 --> 01:18:45.960]  of way, especially concerning a four-way stop, like if two people get there at the same time,
[01:18:45.960 --> 01:18:47.960]  then whoever is on the right would have the right of way.
[01:18:47.960 --> 01:18:53.960]  And Eddie is saying that because the plaintiff's direction, the road that the plaintiff was
[01:18:53.960 --> 01:18:58.960]  on went straight through, that that would not apply in this case.
[01:18:58.960 --> 01:19:00.960]  Eddie, you want to explain?
[01:19:00.960 --> 01:19:06.960]  Yeah, if the street either went on through the intersection where the collision occurred,
[01:19:06.960 --> 01:19:10.960]  whether it be between the parking lots and the street or whatever, if it could have gone on
[01:19:10.960 --> 01:19:16.960]  and did not dead end at the buildings, but instead either made it where you could go
[01:19:16.960 --> 01:19:21.960]  through between the buildings and then go right or left and reaccess a public street,
[01:19:21.960 --> 01:19:27.960]  it would have been considered entering an alleyway or have been an actual through street.
[01:19:27.960 --> 01:19:32.960]  So either way, the girl on the street would have had the right of way.
[01:19:32.960 --> 01:19:33.960]  Okay.
[01:19:33.960 --> 01:19:40.960]  The question becomes is did the business whose property that the bushes are on create a hazardous
[01:19:40.960 --> 01:19:45.960]  liability and become liable for this resulting accident?
[01:19:45.960 --> 01:19:47.960]  Okay.
[01:19:47.960 --> 01:19:51.960]  That's going to be the issue to argue in this case.
[01:19:51.960 --> 01:19:52.960]  Okay.
[01:19:52.960 --> 01:19:59.960]  Now, so there's no way that we can present a motion to dismiss because of the situation,
[01:19:59.960 --> 01:20:01.960]  because of what they're alleging?
[01:20:01.960 --> 01:20:07.960]  No, you can, as Randy said and I brought up, you can file a cross complaint and draw the
[01:20:07.960 --> 01:20:14.960]  business owner into the suit and get the suit redirected at them instead of your daughter.
[01:20:14.960 --> 01:20:15.960]  Okay.
[01:20:15.960 --> 01:20:16.960]  All right?
[01:20:16.960 --> 01:20:17.960]  Okay.
[01:20:17.960 --> 01:20:21.960]  But you're not going to be able to dismiss it because she has a claim.
[01:20:21.960 --> 01:20:22.960]  Okay.
[01:20:22.960 --> 01:20:23.960]  Okay.
[01:20:23.960 --> 01:20:29.960]  So then when I do the counterclaim, now this accident, I'm concerned about the statute
[01:20:29.960 --> 01:20:33.960]  limitations, this accident was July the 13th of last year.
[01:20:33.960 --> 01:20:39.960]  She just got served July the 8th of this year, last week or this past week.
[01:20:39.960 --> 01:20:41.960]  So is this-
[01:20:41.960 --> 01:20:43.960]  They have up to two years to file it.
[01:20:43.960 --> 01:20:44.960]  Okay.
[01:20:44.960 --> 01:20:45.960]  All right.
[01:20:45.960 --> 01:20:49.960]  So I was concerned that I wasn't going to have enough time to do this counterclaim.
[01:20:49.960 --> 01:20:50.960]  Oh, no, no.
[01:20:50.960 --> 01:20:51.960]  It's already done.
[01:20:51.960 --> 01:20:52.960]  They filed.
[01:20:52.960 --> 01:20:53.960]  Okay.
[01:20:53.960 --> 01:20:57.960]  You have, but you have a certain amount of time in which you must answer.
[01:20:57.960 --> 01:20:58.960]  Right, right.
[01:20:58.960 --> 01:20:59.960]  Okay.
[01:20:59.960 --> 01:21:04.960]  So aside from the counterclaim, I have to go ahead and have her answer these questions,
[01:21:04.960 --> 01:21:11.960]  right, because the questions that are on these papers that she got served, whether she admits
[01:21:11.960 --> 01:21:16.960]  or denies the, I guess, the allegations here.
[01:21:16.960 --> 01:21:17.960]  Right.
[01:21:17.960 --> 01:21:18.960]  Okay.
[01:21:18.960 --> 01:21:22.960]  She has to answer to that or everything in there will be presumed answered in favor of
[01:21:22.960 --> 01:21:23.960]  the plaintiff.
[01:21:23.960 --> 01:21:24.960]  Okay.
[01:21:24.960 --> 01:21:25.960]  Okay.
[01:21:25.960 --> 01:21:26.960]  All right.
[01:21:26.960 --> 01:21:27.960]  As a question-
[01:21:27.960 --> 01:21:32.960]  There are certain things you need to be aware of about those admissions, and that's what
[01:21:32.960 --> 01:21:34.960]  that is, is a request for admissions.
[01:21:34.960 --> 01:21:35.960]  Okay.
[01:21:35.960 --> 01:21:36.960]  Okay.
[01:21:36.960 --> 01:21:38.960]  You need to read those carefully.
[01:21:38.960 --> 01:21:39.960]  Okay.
[01:21:39.960 --> 01:21:43.960]  And if you had your dictionary, it would explain to you how to answer admissions.
[01:21:43.960 --> 01:21:44.960]  Okay.
[01:21:44.960 --> 01:21:45.960]  All right.
[01:21:45.960 --> 01:21:53.960]  But remember that if they used a compound question and any part of it is false, the
[01:21:53.960 --> 01:21:59.960]  entire question is false, and you can say no knowledge or deny it.
[01:21:59.960 --> 01:22:00.960]  Okay.
[01:22:00.960 --> 01:22:01.960]  All right.
[01:22:01.960 --> 01:22:02.960]  Okay.
[01:22:02.960 --> 01:22:08.960]  There's a paragraph here that I'm not understanding why they wrote this in, and I don't know if
[01:22:08.960 --> 01:22:10.960]  you can help me with this.
[01:22:10.960 --> 01:22:12.960]  Is it a paragraph as a question?
[01:22:12.960 --> 01:22:17.960]  Well, no, it's something that they're writing, I guess, to the court.
[01:22:17.960 --> 01:22:24.960]  It says, plaintiff assigned to State Farm Insurance, a corporation, da-da-da.
[01:22:24.960 --> 01:22:31.960]  That portion of this cause of action herewith asserted, which does not exceed 13,118.
[01:22:31.960 --> 01:22:37.960]  This assignment was in writing and took place before the filing of the plaintiff's petition.
[01:22:37.960 --> 01:22:44.960]  Under the terms of assignment of this cause of action, State Farm received the right to
[01:22:44.960 --> 01:22:48.960]  file the suit in the name of the plaintiff.
[01:22:48.960 --> 01:22:53.960]  State Farm has elected to prosecute this case of action, which was assigned to it in the
[01:22:53.960 --> 01:22:54.960]  name of the plaintiff.
[01:22:54.960 --> 01:22:58.960]  Thus, that insurance company is the real plaintiff in this cause of action.
[01:22:58.960 --> 01:23:03.960]  But then it says, this paragraph is not to be read to the jury, nor is fact of assignment
[01:23:03.960 --> 01:23:05.960]  to be known to the jury.
[01:23:05.960 --> 01:23:07.960]  Why is that?
[01:23:07.960 --> 01:23:14.960]  Because what they don't, in Texas, the, you're not allowed to bring up the issue of there
[01:23:14.960 --> 01:23:17.960]  being an insurance company involved.
[01:23:17.960 --> 01:23:21.960]  The suit is to be treated as it's between you and the other individual.
[01:23:21.960 --> 01:23:22.960]  Okay.
[01:23:22.960 --> 01:23:23.960]  All right?
[01:23:23.960 --> 01:23:24.960]  So that's-
[01:23:24.960 --> 01:23:26.960]  Now, it's stupid and it's wrong.
[01:23:26.960 --> 01:23:27.960]  Okay.
[01:23:27.960 --> 01:23:32.960]  Because most of the time, these cases go to court simply because the insurance company
[01:23:32.960 --> 01:23:37.960]  refuses to pay what their client rightfully owes.
[01:23:37.960 --> 01:23:46.960]  In the gamble that a jury will give the plaintiff less money, or the defendant, less money than
[01:23:46.960 --> 01:23:50.960]  they would have had to have paid if they had paid what they owed.
[01:23:50.960 --> 01:23:51.960]  Okay.
[01:23:51.960 --> 01:23:52.960]  All right?
[01:23:52.960 --> 01:23:58.960]  It's a big thing that the legislature has acquiesced to the insurance companies over
[01:23:58.960 --> 01:24:00.960]  to protect their profits.
[01:24:00.960 --> 01:24:02.960]  And that's all it is.
[01:24:02.960 --> 01:24:04.960]  But that's why it's in there.
[01:24:04.960 --> 01:24:11.960]  However, this does give you a hole to stick your finger in and see what you can break
[01:24:11.960 --> 01:24:12.960]  loose.
[01:24:12.960 --> 01:24:13.960]  Okay.
[01:24:13.960 --> 01:24:20.960]  In your discovery, demand proof of agency to this attorney from State Farm.
[01:24:20.960 --> 01:24:21.960]  Okay.
[01:24:21.960 --> 01:24:23.960]  Demand proof of agency?
[01:24:23.960 --> 01:24:25.960]  Proof of agency.
[01:24:25.960 --> 01:24:26.960]  Okay.
[01:24:26.960 --> 01:24:33.960]  Because what State Farm will do is hire these ambulance-chasing attorneys to try and recover
[01:24:33.960 --> 01:24:38.960]  some or all of the money they would have had to have paid on the insurance claim.
[01:24:38.960 --> 01:24:39.960]  Okay.
[01:24:39.960 --> 01:24:40.960]  Now, here's the other thing.
[01:24:40.960 --> 01:24:49.960]  You demand State Farm produce all of the receipts and documents certifying the total amount
[01:24:49.960 --> 01:24:53.960]  paid to the plaintiff already.
[01:24:53.960 --> 01:24:54.960]  Okay.
[01:24:54.960 --> 01:25:03.960]  Or they intend to pay to the plaintiff in addition to what they have already paid.
[01:25:03.960 --> 01:25:04.960]  Okay.
[01:25:04.960 --> 01:25:05.960]  Okay?
[01:25:05.960 --> 01:25:06.960]  Okay.
[01:25:06.960 --> 01:25:07.960]  And then the-
[01:25:07.960 --> 01:25:13.960]  Because they may have only paid $600, but they're suing you for $14,000 and no declaration
[01:25:13.960 --> 01:25:14.960]  as to why.
[01:25:14.960 --> 01:25:15.960]  Okay.
[01:25:15.960 --> 01:25:18.960]  Are they claiming bodily injury?
[01:25:18.960 --> 01:25:19.960]  No.
[01:25:19.960 --> 01:25:22.960]  You know, medical bills, are they claiming anything like that is the question.
[01:25:22.960 --> 01:25:25.960]  No, it's just the market value of the vehicle.
[01:25:25.960 --> 01:25:28.960]  Was the other girl's vehicle declared total?
[01:25:28.960 --> 01:25:32.960]  I imagine just because of the wording here, market value of the vehicle.
[01:25:32.960 --> 01:25:35.960]  Well, that doesn't prove it was total.
[01:25:35.960 --> 01:25:36.960]  Okay.
[01:25:36.960 --> 01:25:39.960]  That just proves they're trying to recover the entire cost of the car.
[01:25:39.960 --> 01:25:41.960]  Okay.
[01:25:41.960 --> 01:25:42.960]  Okay.
[01:25:42.960 --> 01:25:45.960]  That does not, or at least the market value cost of the car.
[01:25:45.960 --> 01:25:53.960]  Yeah, the personal property damage is $13,000.
[01:25:53.960 --> 01:25:58.960]  So then the other thing is it says here, the judgment against defendant for some in excess
[01:25:58.960 --> 01:26:06.960]  of minimum jurisdictional limits of the court, some in excess of the minimum.
[01:26:06.960 --> 01:26:11.960]  Is there a minimum in that court?
[01:26:11.960 --> 01:26:18.960]  Well, the state legislature has attempted to make the minimum $10,000 for that or anything
[01:26:18.960 --> 01:26:25.960]  less than $10,001 in that court so that they can give municipal court's jurisdiction up
[01:26:25.960 --> 01:26:30.960]  to $10,000 and justice court's jurisdiction up to $10,000.
[01:26:30.960 --> 01:26:35.960]  Unfortunately, those legislative acts conflict with the state constitution, which limits
[01:26:35.960 --> 01:26:38.960]  that amount to $200.
[01:26:38.960 --> 01:26:40.960]  Okay.
[01:26:40.960 --> 01:26:48.960]  Well, we've got pictures of when the accident happened of both vehicles and where they were
[01:26:48.960 --> 01:26:55.960]  located after the accident and stuff and then the bushes and everything.
[01:26:55.960 --> 01:27:00.960]  Do you know anyone that has a car similar to that of your daughter's?
[01:27:00.960 --> 01:27:02.960]  Yes.
[01:27:02.960 --> 01:27:03.960]  Okay.
[01:27:03.960 --> 01:27:07.960]  Then what you need to do is have them take a video camera on the passenger side of that
[01:27:07.960 --> 01:27:15.960]  car and recreate the process of what your daughter was doing at that time and make sure
[01:27:15.960 --> 01:27:23.960]  that they film the bushes, the street, and the view of the street from the direction
[01:27:23.960 --> 01:27:30.960]  the plaintiff was traveling from before the collision occurred so that there is a perspective
[01:27:30.960 --> 01:27:36.960]  of what your daughter saw for the jury to see.
[01:27:36.960 --> 01:27:41.960]  And your daughter is going to have to testify to that in court.
[01:27:41.960 --> 01:27:42.960]  Right.
[01:27:42.960 --> 01:27:43.960]  Okay.
[01:27:43.960 --> 01:27:47.960]  So we kind of need an attorney to do all of this, right?
[01:27:47.960 --> 01:27:53.960]  You don't have to have one, but if you don't know what you're doing, you're going to lose
[01:27:53.960 --> 01:27:54.960]  without one.
[01:27:54.960 --> 01:27:55.960]  Okay.
[01:27:55.960 --> 01:27:58.960]  And it's possible that you're going to lose even with one.
[01:27:58.960 --> 01:27:59.960]  Okay.
[01:27:59.960 --> 01:28:03.960]  Because either way, most of them will be getting your money.
[01:28:03.960 --> 01:28:04.960]  Okay.
[01:28:04.960 --> 01:28:17.960]  Okay, well, and then the counterclaim as far as bringing the parking lot people or the
[01:28:17.960 --> 01:28:26.960]  building people as being hazards, that is separate from what I'm doing with them with
[01:28:26.960 --> 01:28:27.960]  this other...
[01:28:27.960 --> 01:28:28.960]  No, no, no.
[01:28:28.960 --> 01:28:31.960]  You're going to draw them into the same suit with the cross complaint.
[01:28:31.960 --> 01:28:32.960]  Okay.
[01:28:32.960 --> 01:28:33.960]  All right.
[01:28:33.960 --> 01:28:40.960]  And that's the other reason why you want to document what your daughter saw before you
[01:28:40.960 --> 01:28:45.960]  notify them that you're drawing them into the suit and why, because the next thing you
[01:28:45.960 --> 01:28:47.960]  know, those hedges will be gone.
[01:28:47.960 --> 01:28:48.960]  Okay.
[01:28:48.960 --> 01:28:54.960]  Yeah, if they're still there, I mean, they're the same as they were that day.
[01:28:54.960 --> 01:28:59.960]  Right, because right now the company that owns them has not been brought into the suit,
[01:28:59.960 --> 01:29:04.960]  but the moment they have been and the moment they know why, they are going to destroy the
[01:29:04.960 --> 01:29:05.960]  evidence.
[01:29:05.960 --> 01:29:06.960]  I guarantee you they will.
[01:29:06.960 --> 01:29:07.960]  Okay.
[01:29:07.960 --> 01:29:09.960]  So why are you going to get the video first?
[01:29:09.960 --> 01:29:10.960]  Okay.
[01:29:10.960 --> 01:29:11.960]  Okay.
[01:29:11.960 --> 01:29:12.960]  And is it...
[01:29:12.960 --> 01:29:19.960]  I know it's not relevant, but there are several areas in that same section that is hazardous
[01:29:19.960 --> 01:29:24.960]  that I've seen people going to the wrong lane because it's not specific.
[01:29:24.960 --> 01:29:31.960]  I mean, it's very confusing and it's right in the approximate area of where...
[01:29:31.960 --> 01:29:32.960]  Okay.
[01:29:32.960 --> 01:29:36.960]  And what you may want to do is also get your hands on blueprints for the layout of that
[01:29:36.960 --> 01:29:38.960]  parking lot for those businesses.
[01:29:38.960 --> 01:29:39.960]  I already got that.
[01:29:39.960 --> 01:29:44.960]  Could she also get any kind of a history of other accidents in the parking lot?
[01:29:44.960 --> 01:29:48.960]  She's willing to pay the police department for the research, yeah.
[01:29:48.960 --> 01:29:49.960]  And would they...
[01:29:49.960 --> 01:29:53.960]  I mean, how would I go about doing that?
[01:29:53.960 --> 01:29:56.960]  Well, hang on just a minute and we'll cover that on the other side of the break.
[01:29:56.960 --> 01:29:57.960]  Okay.
[01:29:57.960 --> 01:29:58.960]  Okay.
[01:29:58.960 --> 01:30:03.960]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:30:03.960 --> 01:30:09.960]  Win your case without an attorney with Juris Dictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand
[01:30:09.960 --> 01:30:14.960]  4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[01:30:14.960 --> 01:30:18.960]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:30:18.960 --> 01:30:22.960]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:30:22.960 --> 01:30:27.960]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:30:27.960 --> 01:30:34.960]  Juris Dictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:30:34.960 --> 01:30:39.960]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the
[01:30:39.960 --> 01:30:43.960]  principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:30:43.960 --> 01:30:49.960]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[01:30:49.960 --> 01:30:52.960]  pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:30:52.960 --> 01:31:20.960]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:31:20.960 --> 01:31:35.960]  All right, Tools of Ingenuity.
[01:31:35.960 --> 01:31:38.960]  All right, we're speaking with Gloria in Texas.
[01:31:38.960 --> 01:31:40.960]  Jason, Mike, hang on the line.
[01:31:40.960 --> 01:31:41.960]  We're definitely going to get to you guys.
[01:31:41.960 --> 01:31:45.960]  We're going to finish up with Gloria quickly, and Gloria, if we don't get all your questions
[01:31:45.960 --> 01:31:48.960]  answered right now, you're free to call back in on Monday.
[01:31:48.960 --> 01:31:50.960]  So, Eddie, go ahead.
[01:31:50.960 --> 01:31:52.960]  Please finish up.
[01:31:52.960 --> 01:31:53.960]  Okay.
[01:31:53.960 --> 01:31:57.960]  If you've already got the blueprints and everything of the parking lots and everything,
[01:31:57.960 --> 01:32:03.960]  then start making your documentation of the areas in question that you're talking about.
[01:32:03.960 --> 01:32:04.960]  Okay.
[01:32:04.960 --> 01:32:10.960]  And then what you can do is go to the police department and see if they can pull up any
[01:32:10.960 --> 01:32:20.960]  and all accident reports that originated from those locations in that parking lot.
[01:32:20.960 --> 01:32:23.960]  And you generally will be at the business address.
[01:32:23.960 --> 01:32:24.960]  Okay.
[01:32:24.960 --> 01:32:26.960]  And you may have to pay for that.
[01:32:26.960 --> 01:32:27.960]  Okay.
[01:32:27.960 --> 01:32:28.960]  Yeah, most likely you will.
[01:32:28.960 --> 01:32:32.960]  But if they give it to you, not only do you want a listing of the accidents,
[01:32:32.960 --> 01:32:37.960]  you want copies of each of the police reports associated with that accident.
[01:32:37.960 --> 01:32:41.960]  Okay, but they have a way of researching that.
[01:32:41.960 --> 01:32:45.960]  They should be able to pull it up by location in the computer.
[01:32:45.960 --> 01:32:46.960]  Okay.
[01:32:46.960 --> 01:32:51.960]  But not knowing who you're having to get it from, I can't say that for certain.
[01:32:51.960 --> 01:32:52.960]  Okay.
[01:32:52.960 --> 01:32:59.960]  Okay, well, I will try that, and I really appreciate your help, and thank you so much.
[01:32:59.960 --> 01:33:01.960]  Okay, Gloria, you're welcome to call back in on Monday night as well,
[01:33:01.960 --> 01:33:05.960]  because Monday night says Eddie's night, so we can spend more time with you then.
[01:33:05.960 --> 01:33:06.960]  All right, thank you.
[01:33:06.960 --> 01:33:07.960]  Okay, thank you.
[01:33:07.960 --> 01:33:09.960]  Okay, we're going now to Jason in Texas.
[01:33:09.960 --> 01:33:13.960]  And then Mike, Jason, what's your question for us tonight?
[01:33:13.960 --> 01:33:18.960]  Hey, guys, this is my second time to call, and a quick recap on the first call.
[01:33:18.960 --> 01:33:25.960]  I was pulled over as I was attempting to park in front of my house.
[01:33:25.960 --> 01:33:26.960]  I had a pistol with me.
[01:33:26.960 --> 01:33:29.960]  They didn't find it on their initial search because they stopped me
[01:33:29.960 --> 01:33:34.960]  because somebody called 911 and said somebody was shooting from a vehicle similar in line.
[01:33:34.960 --> 01:33:37.960]  They didn't find the pistol in their initial search.
[01:33:37.960 --> 01:33:38.960]  They came back and talked to me.
[01:33:38.960 --> 01:33:40.960]  I told them I had a weapon where it was.
[01:33:40.960 --> 01:33:43.960]  Is this a case where they pulled you over
[01:33:43.960 --> 01:33:48.960]  because they thought your vehicle resembled some other vehicle they were looking for?
[01:33:48.960 --> 01:33:49.960]  Yes.
[01:33:49.960 --> 01:33:50.960]  Okay.
[01:33:50.960 --> 01:33:53.960]  So anyways, I've talked to Mike.
[01:33:53.960 --> 01:33:57.960]  You know, you guys say don't try practicing this stuff until you know it,
[01:33:57.960 --> 01:34:01.960]  which is probably the best piece of advice, but I went and hired a lawyer,
[01:34:01.960 --> 01:34:05.960]  and this happened in August of last year.
[01:34:05.960 --> 01:34:08.960]  So in January, I hired a lawyer, and we're just now coming.
[01:34:08.960 --> 01:34:10.960]  We've been reset four times.
[01:34:10.960 --> 01:34:15.960]  And he told me that he talked to the junior persecuting attorney
[01:34:15.960 --> 01:34:19.960]  and that she agreed that there was no case
[01:34:19.960 --> 01:34:25.960]  and would agree to drop it if he would submit to her, I guess, case law,
[01:34:25.960 --> 01:34:29.960]  the things that have happened in the past according to what he's saying.
[01:34:29.960 --> 01:34:31.960]  So he tells me...
[01:34:31.960 --> 01:34:33.960]  What state are you in?
[01:34:33.960 --> 01:34:35.960]  In Texas.
[01:34:35.960 --> 01:34:39.960]  And Jason, can you speak up, please,
[01:34:39.960 --> 01:34:41.960]  or if you're on a speakerphone, please get back on the handset.
[01:34:41.960 --> 01:34:42.960]  Go ahead, Eddie.
[01:34:42.960 --> 01:34:44.960]  I'm on the regular phone, but I'll speak up.
[01:34:44.960 --> 01:34:45.960]  Okay, that's better.
[01:34:45.960 --> 01:34:46.960]  Thanks.
[01:34:46.960 --> 01:34:47.960]  Go ahead, Eddie.
[01:34:47.960 --> 01:34:48.960]  Well, here's the problem.
[01:34:48.960 --> 01:34:50.960]  The prosecuting attorney has no authority to drop the case
[01:34:50.960 --> 01:34:53.960]  without the consent of the presiding judge.
[01:34:53.960 --> 01:34:55.960]  Okay.
[01:34:55.960 --> 01:35:00.960]  And this is exactly which goes to the reason I'm calling.
[01:35:00.960 --> 01:35:06.960]  You know, these attorneys, they have this rare tendency to tell half-truths and fibs.
[01:35:06.960 --> 01:35:08.960]  So in order to...
[01:35:08.960 --> 01:35:12.960]  He said that he'd already filed a brief and a motion to suppress and all this stuff,
[01:35:12.960 --> 01:35:14.960]  and they didn't want to go through that.
[01:35:14.960 --> 01:35:15.960]  So he said he filed a...
[01:35:15.960 --> 01:35:17.960]  Bruce, they didn't want to go through that.
[01:35:17.960 --> 01:35:23.960]  This attorney that we're talking about that he said was going to drop this.
[01:35:23.960 --> 01:35:24.960]  Okay, wait a minute.
[01:35:24.960 --> 01:35:26.960]  Who filed the briefs?
[01:35:26.960 --> 01:35:28.960]  My attorney.
[01:35:28.960 --> 01:35:29.960]  Your attorney.
[01:35:29.960 --> 01:35:34.960]  And who didn't want to go through all that, your attorney or the prosecution?
[01:35:34.960 --> 01:35:40.960]  The prosecution didn't want to prosecute because he says, well, I don't have a record,
[01:35:40.960 --> 01:35:44.960]  and number two, they consider 911 an anonymous tip,
[01:35:44.960 --> 01:35:47.960]  and they didn't want to bring that caller to face me.
[01:35:47.960 --> 01:35:52.960]  And he said that the prosecuting attorney said they had no case.
[01:35:52.960 --> 01:35:54.960]  So they would drop the case.
[01:35:54.960 --> 01:35:55.960]  He would file a brief.
[01:35:55.960 --> 01:35:59.960]  So he said he filed a brief, and this was kind of beside the point.
[01:35:59.960 --> 01:36:03.960]  He said he filed a brief, and so I went down to the courthouse.
[01:36:03.960 --> 01:36:06.960]  I went to the clerk's office, and she said that...
[01:36:06.960 --> 01:36:09.960]  or the guy there went and got the clerk,
[01:36:09.960 --> 01:36:13.960]  and she came up and said that she did not have my file in her possession.
[01:36:13.960 --> 01:36:16.960]  So I went to court again.
[01:36:16.960 --> 01:36:18.960]  Did you ask who had it?
[01:36:18.960 --> 01:36:19.960]  What's that?
[01:36:19.960 --> 01:36:22.960]  Did you ask who did have it?
[01:36:22.960 --> 01:36:32.960]  He says it was upstairs in the courtroom because I was summoned to a pretrial hearing
[01:36:32.960 --> 01:36:37.960]  on the 23rd of last month, and when I got there, the judge wasn't there,
[01:36:37.960 --> 01:36:41.960]  and the court coordinator, she was telling me,
[01:36:41.960 --> 01:36:46.960]  well, we're going to have to reset you because the judge is in some kind of training.
[01:36:46.960 --> 01:36:50.960]  So that probably goes to abuse of process or something there
[01:36:50.960 --> 01:36:54.960]  because they summoned me to the court when he wasn't even there.
[01:36:54.960 --> 01:37:01.960]  But the point being, I guess my question is how long should I have to wait
[01:37:01.960 --> 01:37:05.960]  until the clerk gets my record back into her possession?
[01:37:05.960 --> 01:37:06.960]  Wait a minute.
[01:37:06.960 --> 01:37:07.960]  Okay.
[01:37:07.960 --> 01:37:10.960]  When the clerk told you the record was not in her possession,
[01:37:10.960 --> 01:37:12.960]  it was upstairs in the courtroom,
[01:37:12.960 --> 01:37:15.960]  was this the same day that you were summoned to court?
[01:37:15.960 --> 01:37:17.960]  No, that was today.
[01:37:17.960 --> 01:37:21.960]  I was summoned to court on the 23rd, and I went and I asked her that day.
[01:37:21.960 --> 01:37:30.960]  And she said that your record was still upstairs in a courtroom in which no one is located.
[01:37:30.960 --> 01:37:32.960]  Well, there were people up there.
[01:37:32.960 --> 01:37:37.960]  The judge was up there, but this was today when I asked her for my record,
[01:37:37.960 --> 01:37:41.960]  and she says it's still upstairs from the 23rd of last month when he was there.
[01:37:41.960 --> 01:37:48.960]  Okay, but what I'm getting at is who has retained possession of those records
[01:37:48.960 --> 01:37:52.960]  to the exclusion of the clerk of the court since the 23rd of last month?
[01:37:52.960 --> 01:37:55.960]  Whose possession have they been in?
[01:37:55.960 --> 01:38:00.960]  That's what I want to know because that's the felony from what I understand.
[01:38:00.960 --> 01:38:04.960]  Well, the clerk is saying that it's in the courtroom.
[01:38:04.960 --> 01:38:10.960]  Yeah, contact the judge's coordinator or the judge's clerk.
[01:38:10.960 --> 01:38:15.960]  She'll have it, and if you want to examine it, she'll make it available to you.
[01:38:15.960 --> 01:38:18.960]  So it's still in the possession of the court,
[01:38:18.960 --> 01:38:22.960]  essentially in the constructive possession of the clerk.
[01:38:22.960 --> 01:38:24.960]  So you won't be able to make that claim.
[01:38:24.960 --> 01:38:28.960]  But if you go to the coordinator, she'll get the file short to you.
[01:38:28.960 --> 01:38:31.960]  Yeah, the coordinator is basically the judge's secretary.
[01:38:31.960 --> 01:38:33.960]  And here's the other thing.
[01:38:33.960 --> 01:38:36.960]  Go to your attorney and tell him that you want a photocopy
[01:38:36.960 --> 01:38:41.960]  of that file stamped copy of the brief he says he filed.
[01:38:41.960 --> 01:38:42.960]  Okay, I will do that.
[01:38:42.960 --> 01:38:46.960]  And what I did when I was there, I was there two days ago,
[01:38:46.960 --> 01:38:51.960]  and I asked for a certified copy of everything in my file that day,
[01:38:51.960 --> 01:38:55.960]  a certified, you know, they're going to stamp it and notarize it and all that stuff.
[01:38:55.960 --> 01:39:00.960]  So I'll be able to tell by that, you know, whether he filed a brief or not,
[01:39:00.960 --> 01:39:04.960]  and then I can go back on him for that deal.
[01:39:04.960 --> 01:39:07.960]  It does concern me that he tells me that he filed a brief
[01:39:07.960 --> 01:39:09.960]  and all this stuff is taken care of.
[01:39:09.960 --> 01:39:12.960]  But the clerk in her records, she got on her computer and says,
[01:39:12.960 --> 01:39:17.960]  well, you still have a pretrial hearing for the 22nd of this month.
[01:39:17.960 --> 01:39:20.960]  That's why you need to get copies of everything in the file.
[01:39:20.960 --> 01:39:21.960]  Right.
[01:39:21.960 --> 01:39:27.960]  Now, that would still be valid because at the pretrial the judge could dismiss the case.
[01:39:27.960 --> 01:39:28.960]  Okay.
[01:39:28.960 --> 01:39:29.960]  Okay.
[01:39:29.960 --> 01:39:33.960]  It's not likely to happen any other way.
[01:39:33.960 --> 01:39:36.960]  It could, but it's not likely to.
[01:39:36.960 --> 01:39:37.960]  Right.
[01:39:36.960 --> 01:39:37.960]  Okay.
[01:39:37.960 --> 01:39:42.960]  So the fact that it's still on the schedule is not necessarily bad,
[01:39:42.960 --> 01:39:49.960]  but you still don't want to go in there trusting your lawyer to do everything he's supposed to do.
[01:39:49.960 --> 01:39:53.960]  If you do that, you will get sold down the river.
[01:39:53.960 --> 01:39:54.960]  That's right.
[01:39:54.960 --> 01:39:55.960]  That's what I've come to understand.
[01:39:55.960 --> 01:39:58.960]  And, you know, on my first call, Eddie, you asked me what I was being charged with,
[01:39:58.960 --> 01:40:03.960]  and I could tell you unlawful carry of a weapon, but I didn't know what it was in the statute.
[01:40:03.960 --> 01:40:09.960]  And that kind of woke me up to, you know, not the fact that I really, really don't know this stuff.
[01:40:09.960 --> 01:40:13.960]  So I go back to the jurisdiction area.
[01:40:13.960 --> 01:40:14.960]  I got it.
[01:40:14.960 --> 01:40:17.960]  That really clarified a whole lot of things for me.
[01:40:17.960 --> 01:40:21.960]  You know, it kind of puts the building blocks in place to understand how this stuff works.
[01:40:21.960 --> 01:40:26.960]  Of course, it's civil law, but it still puts things out in front of me, you know,
[01:40:26.960 --> 01:40:34.960]  and it makes it kind of easier to understand that this dictionary definitely is a tool, for sure.
[01:40:34.960 --> 01:40:36.960]  Yeah, well, I'm more...
[01:40:36.960 --> 01:40:37.960]  Go ahead, Debra.
[01:40:37.960 --> 01:40:42.960]  I was just going to say, if this document has not been filed in the court record,
[01:40:42.960 --> 01:40:47.960]  then that certainly grounds for bar grievance against the attorney, your attorney.
[01:40:47.960 --> 01:40:48.960]  Right.
[01:40:48.960 --> 01:40:50.960]  But Randy's absolutely right.
[01:40:50.960 --> 01:40:57.960]  Go to your attorney, ask for a copy of the court file stamped copy that was filed,
[01:40:57.960 --> 01:41:04.960]  allegedly filed by your attorney, and then also go to the judge's coordinator, the clerk,
[01:41:04.960 --> 01:41:06.960]  who is actually basically the secretary of the judge,
[01:41:06.960 --> 01:41:12.960]  and try to hunt down the actual file to see if it's actually in the file.
[01:41:12.960 --> 01:41:17.960]  Now, I would also highly recommend that any time you go to speak to your attorney,
[01:41:17.960 --> 01:41:21.960]  you take your little digital pocket recorder with you.
[01:41:21.960 --> 01:41:22.960]  How about two?
[01:41:22.960 --> 01:41:24.960]  That works great.
[01:41:24.960 --> 01:41:29.960]  And then just the last word on attorneys, for everybody listening,
[01:41:29.960 --> 01:41:37.960]  if you absolutely trust your attorney, you better be married to her and keeping her happy.
[01:41:37.960 --> 01:41:40.960]  Otherwise, don't trust them at all.
[01:41:40.960 --> 01:41:41.960]  Yeah, for sure.
[01:41:41.960 --> 01:41:45.960]  And, you know, like you say, it's kind of a necessary evil for me
[01:41:45.960 --> 01:41:47.960]  because I haven't learned how to wade these waters yet.
[01:41:47.960 --> 01:41:51.960]  But, you know, listen, I want to start listening to the archives
[01:41:51.960 --> 01:41:53.960]  and start to get a good foundation.
[01:41:53.960 --> 01:41:58.960]  Well, remember what Randy says, and we discussed this at great length a few shows ago.
[01:41:58.960 --> 01:42:04.960]  It's much easier to keep a court-appointed attorney under control than one that you hired.
[01:42:04.960 --> 01:42:11.960]  We discussed that at great length when Bruno Bruyla was on as a guest from We Are Change LA.
[01:42:11.960 --> 01:42:15.960]  Right, and this is a friend of a friend, so hopefully it will all work out.
[01:42:15.960 --> 01:42:16.960]  Hopefully.
[01:42:16.960 --> 01:42:19.960]  I'm still not wearing blinders.
[01:42:19.960 --> 01:42:22.960]  I still see what's going on, so I have to keep an eye on them.
[01:42:22.960 --> 01:42:26.960]  But, you know, through all this whole process, they still kept my pistol.
[01:42:26.960 --> 01:42:28.960]  So, you know, I'll...
[01:42:28.960 --> 01:42:31.960]  Well, they're going to because for the time being,
[01:42:31.960 --> 01:42:34.960]  it's still considered evidence as long as the case is pending.
[01:42:34.960 --> 01:42:35.960]  Right, right.
[01:42:35.960 --> 01:42:39.960]  And so what I told him, because I finally got ahold of him
[01:42:39.960 --> 01:42:41.960]  after trying to call him for a couple of days,
[01:42:41.960 --> 01:42:45.960]  and he finally got back with me and was telling me that, you know, everything's all right.
[01:42:45.960 --> 01:42:46.960]  Don't worry about it.
[01:42:46.960 --> 01:42:47.960]  It's all going to be taken care of.
[01:42:47.960 --> 01:42:51.960]  And I asked him, I said, well, do I need to file a return of property or, you know,
[01:42:51.960 --> 01:42:53.960]  a motion for a return of property?
[01:42:53.960 --> 01:42:54.960]  He said, no, don't worry about it.
[01:42:54.960 --> 01:42:56.960]  We'll get it all taken care of.
[01:42:56.960 --> 01:42:58.960]  So we'll have to see how all that turns out.
[01:42:58.960 --> 01:42:59.960]  But I'm still not done.
[01:42:59.960 --> 01:43:05.960]  I still want to, you know, you say you got to know the outcome of what you're trying to get here,
[01:43:05.960 --> 01:43:11.960]  you know, and I don't think I can get the police on anything as far as what they did,
[01:43:11.960 --> 01:43:15.960]  as far as searching the vehicle because the 911 call gives them, you know,
[01:43:15.960 --> 01:43:17.960]  reasonable cause and all that.
[01:43:17.960 --> 01:43:22.960]  Unless they can show that their reasonable cause accurately matched the description
[01:43:22.960 --> 01:43:26.960]  they were given to the van they intercepted and searched.
[01:43:26.960 --> 01:43:28.960]  Well, that's the question because there was three things.
[01:43:28.960 --> 01:43:32.960]  I have the transcripts from the 911 call.
[01:43:32.960 --> 01:43:38.960]  And if what they gave out was not in any way capable of being matched to the automobile
[01:43:38.960 --> 01:43:42.960]  that you were traveling in, they don't have a leg to stand on for probable cause.
[01:43:42.960 --> 01:43:44.960]  For search, absolutely.
[01:43:44.960 --> 01:43:46.960]  All right, Jason, listen, if you could call back in Monday,
[01:43:46.960 --> 01:43:48.960]  we can talk about this some more.
[01:43:48.960 --> 01:43:51.960]  We need to go to our next caller because I had already made prior arrangements
[01:43:51.960 --> 01:43:54.960]  for Mike from Texas to call in.
[01:43:54.960 --> 01:43:55.960]  Thank you, guys.
[01:43:55.960 --> 01:43:56.960]  Okay, thank you.
[01:43:56.960 --> 01:43:59.960]  We'll be right back.
[01:43:59.960 --> 01:44:04.960]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[01:44:04.960 --> 01:44:08.960]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method.
[01:44:08.960 --> 01:44:12.960]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors,
[01:44:12.960 --> 01:44:14.960]  and now you can win too.
[01:44:14.960 --> 01:44:18.960]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court
[01:44:18.960 --> 01:44:22.960]  using federal civil rights statutes, what to do when contacted by phone,
[01:44:22.960 --> 01:44:25.960]  mail, or court summons, how to answer letters and phone calls,
[01:44:25.960 --> 01:44:28.960]  how to get debt collectors out of your credit report,
[01:44:28.960 --> 01:44:33.960]  how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[01:44:33.960 --> 01:44:38.960]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[01:44:38.960 --> 01:44:40.960]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[01:44:40.960 --> 01:44:43.960]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com
[01:44:43.960 --> 01:44:48.960]  and click on the blue Michael Mears banner or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[01:44:48.960 --> 01:44:56.960]  That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com.
[01:44:56.960 --> 01:44:59.960]  To learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[01:44:59.960 --> 01:45:06.960]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:45:06.960 --> 01:45:29.960]  Live free speech talk radio at its best.
[01:45:29.960 --> 01:45:35.960]  Okay, we are back coming into the homestretch here on Rule of Law Radio.
[01:45:35.960 --> 01:45:38.960]  I'm calling now to Mike in Texas.
[01:45:38.960 --> 01:45:40.960]  Okay, Mike, thanks for calling in.
[01:45:40.960 --> 01:45:41.960]  What's on your mind tonight?
[01:45:41.960 --> 01:45:44.960]  I know you wanted to discuss traffic ticket issue with us
[01:45:44.960 --> 01:45:49.960]  and technicalities regarding what documents need to be filed next,
[01:45:49.960 --> 01:45:52.960]  so give us a rundown here.
[01:45:52.960 --> 01:45:53.960]  Okay.
[01:45:53.960 --> 01:46:03.960]  What it was, it started off with a seat belt ticket, took it to municipal court.
[01:46:03.960 --> 01:46:08.960]  The city prosecutor had no anti-bribery statement or oath of office,
[01:46:08.960 --> 01:46:13.960]  plus he was also the affiant on the complaint and the prosecutor,
[01:46:13.960 --> 01:46:18.960]  all against the law in Texas.
[01:46:18.960 --> 01:46:25.960]  Judge ignored everything, found me guilty, took it to county court.
[01:46:25.960 --> 01:46:34.960]  The judge there didn't have an oath of office at the first meeting, which I brought up to him.
[01:46:34.960 --> 01:46:39.960]  He immediately forged and backdated one and got that on file,
[01:46:39.960 --> 01:46:50.960]  then proceeded through everything and finally at the end said he didn't have the authority to rule on this
[01:46:50.960 --> 01:47:00.960]  so found guilty again, appealed it to court of appeals, filed a brief on that
[01:47:00.960 --> 01:47:10.960]  and just got the opinion a couple days ago that court of appeals basically punted it
[01:47:10.960 --> 01:47:20.960]  because they say they don't have jurisdiction to rule on it because it's a fine under $100
[01:47:20.960 --> 01:47:28.960]  and or it doesn't address the constitutionality of the statute by which I was charged.
[01:47:28.960 --> 01:47:35.960]  So I'm trying to figure out, okay, what's the next step?
[01:47:35.960 --> 01:47:42.960]  As I understand it, jurisdiction, questioning jurisdiction can be brought at any time, at any stage
[01:47:42.960 --> 01:47:51.960]  and that's what the issue is, but they're saying that they don't have jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction.
[01:47:51.960 --> 01:47:57.960]  So I'm looking for suggestions.
[01:47:57.960 --> 01:48:02.960]  A truck.
[01:48:02.960 --> 01:48:07.960]  Okay. First off, go back over that first part again.
[01:48:07.960 --> 01:48:13.960]  Who you were saying didn't have an oath of office and did something with documents and so on and so forth?
[01:48:13.960 --> 01:48:22.960]  The city prosecutor for city of McKinney had no anti-bribery statement or oath of office.
[01:48:22.960 --> 01:48:23.960]  Makes no difference.
[01:48:23.960 --> 01:48:26.960]  They don't have the capacity to prosecute in the name of the state anyway,
[01:48:26.960 --> 01:48:31.960]  therefore they lack jurisdiction because there is no prosecutor.
[01:48:31.960 --> 01:48:37.960]  Okay. That I've heard before, but I thought that was patriot myth.
[01:48:37.960 --> 01:48:39.960]  How do I back that up?
[01:48:39.960 --> 01:48:42.960]  I've got a legal brief on exactly that issue.
[01:48:42.960 --> 01:48:45.960]  It's right out of the laws here in Texas and the state constitution.
[01:48:45.960 --> 01:48:54.960]  Only a county attorney or a district attorney may act as an attorney for the state pursuant Article 5, Section 21, Texas Constitution.
[01:48:54.960 --> 01:48:58.960]  Texas statutory law under the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically states
[01:48:58.960 --> 01:49:06.960]  that an information can only be signed by a district attorney or a county attorney, not a city attorney.
[01:49:06.960 --> 01:49:07.960]  Right.
[01:49:07.960 --> 01:49:21.960]  Code of Criminal Procedure says in 2.05 that an information is absolutely required in any county that has a criminal district or a criminal district court.
[01:49:21.960 --> 01:49:32.960]  Right. Yeah. If it has one or more criminal district courts, an information is absolutely mandatory or the court has no jurisdiction to proceed.
[01:49:32.960 --> 01:49:40.960]  Therefore, not only does the court lack jurisdiction, but the city attorney may not prosecute and they lack jurisdiction.
[01:49:40.960 --> 01:49:52.960]  Okay. Are there any cases where that is one?
[01:49:52.960 --> 01:49:55.960]  It has never been argued. This is a first blush issue.
[01:49:55.960 --> 01:49:57.960]  I had Randy dig into that.
[01:49:57.960 --> 01:50:03.960]  That was one of the first things we came up with when I was going through all this and I started doing the show with these guys.
[01:50:03.960 --> 01:50:09.960]  I sat down with Randy and I went through this and I said, Randy, I can't find any case law on this.
[01:50:09.960 --> 01:50:16.960]  And he looked and he looked through Lexus and everywhere else that he's got access to and he said he can't find a single reference to it anywhere.
[01:50:16.960 --> 01:50:18.960]  It is a first blush issue.
[01:50:18.960 --> 01:50:25.960]  The courts in Texas have absolutely ignored the legal issue and have never adjudicated it.
[01:50:25.960 --> 01:50:30.960]  Right. Because I know people that have brought this up before and they basically blew it off.
[01:50:30.960 --> 01:50:33.960]  Well, the problem is how they brought it up before.
[01:50:33.960 --> 01:50:39.960]  I've got a 40-some-odd page brief that's going to be dang hard to ignore.
[01:50:39.960 --> 01:50:46.960]  Okay. What would be the next step at this point?
[01:50:46.960 --> 01:50:53.960]  The Court of Appeals is saying that they don't have jurisdiction to even consider it.
[01:50:53.960 --> 01:50:58.960]  The Court of Criminal Appeals or just the appeals court?
[01:50:58.960 --> 01:51:02.960]  Okay. That's what I was thinking was Court of Criminal Appeals.
[01:51:02.960 --> 01:51:05.960]  Go for writ of certiorari?
[01:51:05.960 --> 01:51:06.960]  Yeah.
[01:51:06.960 --> 01:51:07.960]  Of what?
[01:51:07.960 --> 01:51:08.960]  Okay.
[01:51:08.960 --> 01:51:15.960]  Now the question is going to become what issues of jurisdiction did you bring up?
[01:51:15.960 --> 01:51:17.960]  Or Randy, will it matter at this point?
[01:51:17.960 --> 01:51:22.960]  Lack of jurisdiction is lack of jurisdiction regardless.
[01:51:22.960 --> 01:51:34.960]  Well, what I brought up was no oath, no statement, and also prosecutor was also complainant.
[01:51:34.960 --> 01:51:36.960]  Well, the prosecutor cannot be the complainant.
[01:51:36.960 --> 01:51:40.960]  That's absolutely forbidden in Texas law, and they know it.
[01:51:40.960 --> 01:51:47.960]  Well, I know they know it, but they ignored it anyway in both courts.
[01:51:47.960 --> 01:51:52.960]  Well, according to what you said, the second court didn't bother to read it, to even ignore it.
[01:51:52.960 --> 01:51:54.960]  They just didn't want to deal with it.
[01:51:54.960 --> 01:51:55.960]  That's right.
[01:51:55.960 --> 01:51:56.960]  Yes.
[01:51:56.960 --> 01:51:57.960]  The court did.
[01:51:57.960 --> 01:52:00.960]  I chased the judge off the bench three times.
[01:52:00.960 --> 01:52:04.960]  We recessed three times for him to go look up the law.
[01:52:04.960 --> 01:52:08.960]  And in the end, he punted because he didn't want to deal with it.
[01:52:08.960 --> 01:52:11.960]  I want to interject something here regarding writ of certiorari.
[01:52:11.960 --> 01:52:24.960]  It's my understanding that a writ of certiorari is a document that you file asking the current court to re-review or review its own decision.
[01:52:24.960 --> 01:52:32.960]  When you are petitioning a higher court, you would file something like an appeal or a petition for writ of mandamus.
[01:52:32.960 --> 01:52:36.960]  Well, no, you can use a writ of certiorari to go to a higher court.
[01:52:36.960 --> 01:52:40.960]  That's how they get into the United States Supreme Court all the time.
[01:52:40.960 --> 01:52:46.960]  Yes.
[01:52:46.960 --> 01:52:49.960]  So go with that.
[01:52:49.960 --> 01:52:56.960]  And then like you were just asking, Brandy, would we still – I mean, these are valid.
[01:52:56.960 --> 01:52:57.960]  Okay.
[01:52:57.960 --> 01:53:01.960]  If you will call in Monday night, I can go over this a little bit more with you.
[01:53:01.960 --> 01:53:06.960]  But if you will send me an email from our email address there on the show to Eddie,
[01:53:06.960 --> 01:53:16.960]  I will get with you in detail over what this motion is regarding jurisdiction of a city attorney to prosecute in the name of the state.
[01:53:16.960 --> 01:53:17.960]  Okay.
[01:53:17.960 --> 01:53:18.960]  Eddie at Rule of Law Radio?
[01:53:18.960 --> 01:53:19.960]  Yes.
[01:53:19.960 --> 01:53:20.960]  Okay.
[01:53:20.960 --> 01:53:28.960]  And in that same vein, I've also got one regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the court without an information.
[01:53:28.960 --> 01:53:30.960]  Okay.
[01:53:30.960 --> 01:53:32.960]  Great.
[01:53:32.960 --> 01:53:41.960]  Well, I will go ahead and send this to you later this evening and then I'll give you a call Monday
[01:53:41.960 --> 01:53:51.960]  and you'll probably send me some stuff by then and I'll have a chance to go over it and you see mine and we can go on from there.
[01:53:51.960 --> 01:53:52.960]  All right.
[01:53:52.960 --> 01:53:56.960]  Well, you've only got seven minutes for the rest of this evening.
[01:53:56.960 --> 01:53:58.960]  Okay.
[01:53:58.960 --> 01:53:59.960]  All right.
[01:53:59.960 --> 01:54:00.960]  All right.
[01:54:00.960 --> 01:54:04.960]  But is there any other part of this you had a question on or anything, anything else?
[01:54:04.960 --> 01:54:05.960]  That's pretty much it.
[01:54:05.960 --> 01:54:10.960]  That's what I was thinking of would be the next step would be, you know,
[01:54:10.960 --> 01:54:18.960]  a writ to Court of Criminal Appeals because they can take an appeal from any court.
[01:54:18.960 --> 01:54:25.960]  And then since Court of Appeals has basically said we're not going to touch it,
[01:54:25.960 --> 01:54:35.960]  then which by the way I almost got thrown in jail whenever I was attempting to attend the court,
[01:54:35.960 --> 01:54:39.960]  which they informed me was private and secret and closed to the public.
[01:54:39.960 --> 01:54:42.960]  And I informed them that-
[01:54:42.960 --> 01:54:44.960]  Who did that?
[01:54:44.960 --> 01:54:47.960]  That was the court clerk.
[01:54:47.960 --> 01:54:48.960]  Okay.
[01:54:48.960 --> 01:54:51.960]  And you did make a criminal complaint against the court clerk, right?
[01:54:51.960 --> 01:55:00.960]  I haven't yet, but I've got everybody's names and IDs, the clerk, the assistant clerk,
[01:55:00.960 --> 01:55:11.960]  the court attorney and also the nice deputy that told me I'd better leave the building.
[01:55:11.960 --> 01:55:15.960]  Yeah, they have a tendency to do that when you start ruffling their skirts with,
[01:55:15.960 --> 01:55:18.960]  you know, petty anything such as facts and law.
[01:55:18.960 --> 01:55:22.960]  Right.
[01:55:22.960 --> 01:55:26.960]  So yeah, they didn't like the fact that all courts,
[01:55:26.960 --> 01:55:30.960]  all trials and proceedings are open to the public.
[01:55:30.960 --> 01:55:34.960]  And they said, well, not in this case.
[01:55:34.960 --> 01:55:40.960]  Well, in this case, that's a direct violation of law.
[01:55:40.960 --> 01:55:45.960]  Yeah, including the fact that the state did not file any brief at all.
[01:55:45.960 --> 01:55:49.960]  They failed to appear and I said, well, then I need to be in present
[01:55:49.960 --> 01:55:53.960]  so I can move to the courts for lack of prosecution.
[01:55:53.960 --> 01:56:00.960]  Well, no, we'll decide it on whatever the merits of your brief are.
[01:56:00.960 --> 01:56:03.960]  I said, oh, so then the judges will be practicing law from the bench
[01:56:03.960 --> 01:56:05.960]  and prosecuting from the bench.
[01:56:05.960 --> 01:56:07.960]  No, we don't do it that way.
[01:56:07.960 --> 01:56:09.960]  It's well, then I need them to be in there
[01:56:09.960 --> 01:56:13.960]  because I believe there may be irregularities arising in these proceedings
[01:56:13.960 --> 01:56:18.960]  and I don't know.
[01:56:18.960 --> 01:56:20.960]  Randy, are we got you all up there or what?
[01:56:20.960 --> 01:56:22.960]  Yeah, Randy, you're...
[01:56:22.960 --> 01:56:26.960]  Yeah, I had to move my mic up.
[01:56:26.960 --> 01:56:30.960]  This is a good test case.
[01:56:30.960 --> 01:56:38.960]  This is a good opportunity to take on that issue of the appeals court being private.
[01:56:38.960 --> 01:56:41.960]  Okay, I'll be your guinea pig.
[01:56:41.960 --> 01:56:46.960]  Yeah, go down and get security, tell them, come with me.
[01:56:46.960 --> 01:56:48.960]  I'm going to need you.
[01:56:48.960 --> 01:56:54.960]  And go down and demand to attend one of the court of appeals hearings
[01:56:54.960 --> 01:56:56.960]  and let them deny it.
[01:56:56.960 --> 01:57:02.960]  Let the clerk tell you you can't and ask the security to arrest the clerk.
[01:57:02.960 --> 01:57:07.960]  And then after you wake up from being beat into unconsciousness,
[01:57:07.960 --> 01:57:10.960]  then you can sue them.
[01:57:10.960 --> 01:57:15.960]  Or he uses his, mistakenly uses his gun instead of his taser.
[01:57:15.960 --> 01:57:18.960]  Yeah, that too.
[01:57:18.960 --> 01:57:24.960]  At least you could get the clerk on audio recording and denying...
[01:57:24.960 --> 01:57:27.960]  I did get all of this on audio recording.
[01:57:27.960 --> 01:57:28.960]  Good for you.
[01:57:28.960 --> 01:57:35.960]  Then accuse her of violating 124 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1.24.
[01:57:35.960 --> 01:57:37.960]  Right, I did.
[01:57:37.960 --> 01:57:40.960]  I accused her of that numerous times.
[01:57:40.960 --> 01:57:42.960]  Good.
[01:57:42.960 --> 01:57:47.960]  So, I mean, accuse her with a criminal complaint to the district attorney.
[01:57:47.960 --> 01:57:48.960]  Okay.
[01:57:48.960 --> 01:57:50.960]  When he refuses to take it,
[01:57:50.960 --> 01:57:54.960]  you go to the grand jury with criminal charges against the district attorney.
[01:57:54.960 --> 01:57:56.960]  Okay.
[01:57:56.960 --> 01:57:59.960]  And we kind of run it up the flagpole that way.
[01:57:59.960 --> 01:58:02.960]  That gets pretty interesting.
[01:58:02.960 --> 01:58:03.960]  All right.
[01:58:03.960 --> 01:58:05.960]  Well, that will work.
[01:58:05.960 --> 01:58:10.960]  Now we've used up the remaining seven minutes.
[01:58:10.960 --> 01:58:14.960]  Okay, Mike, why don't you send us some e-mails and call back in on Monday night.
[01:58:14.960 --> 01:58:15.960]  You got it.
[01:58:15.960 --> 01:58:16.960]  Thanks so much.
[01:58:16.960 --> 01:58:17.960]  Thank you, Mike.
[01:58:17.960 --> 01:58:19.960]  And Jackie, sorry we didn't get to you.
[01:58:19.960 --> 01:58:22.960]  Call back in on Monday.
[01:58:22.960 --> 01:58:27.960]  This has been a four-hour info marathon, July 9, 2010,
[01:58:27.960 --> 01:58:32.960]  of Rule of Law Radio, Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Debra Stevens.
[01:58:32.960 --> 01:58:35.960]  We will be back Monday night.
[01:58:35.960 --> 01:58:39.960]  You all have a very blessed weekend.
[01:58:39.960 --> 01:59:03.960]  Thank you.
[01:59:09.960 --> 01:59:36.960]  Thank you.
[01:59:36.960 --> 01:59:57.960]  Thank you.