ROL_2010-07-30_16k_Hr3-4.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:04.340]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[00:04.340 --> 00:09.800]  Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, has described the dumping of 77,000 military documents
[00:09.800 --> 00:14.960]  onto the Internet as a form of journalism that seeks to protect whistleblowers and enhance
[00:14.960 --> 00:20.120]  democracy by making public information that government officials would rather keep secret.
[00:20.120 --> 00:24.440]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[00:24.440 --> 00:29.840]  French President Nicolas Sarkozy has ordered the expulsion of thousands of gypsies or Roma
[00:29.840 --> 00:33.640]  in a move human rights groups have called racist and xenophobic.
[00:33.640 --> 00:41.520]  First to be deported mainly to Bulgaria and Romania will be those with criminal records.
[00:41.520 --> 00:45.400]  Congress rejected a bill Thursday that would have given billions of dollars in medical
[00:45.400 --> 00:51.080]  aid to rescue workers and residents who suffered the toxic effects of dust and debris at ground
[00:51.080 --> 00:52.080]  zero.
[00:52.080 --> 00:57.080]  There are currently 60,000 people enrolled in treatment programs with illnesses stemming
[00:57.080 --> 00:58.480]  from 9-11.
[00:58.480 --> 01:04.040]  Republican dissenters say they were concerned over the bill's costs.
[01:04.040 --> 01:09.360]  Phoenix erupted in mass protests Thursday as Arizona's anti-immigration law critics say
[01:09.360 --> 01:11.640]  it encourages racial profiling.
[01:11.640 --> 01:16.440]  Scores of activists and civil rights leaders were arrested, including Salvador Reza and
[01:16.440 --> 01:19.560]  former State Senate Majority Leader Alfredo Guterres.
[01:19.560 --> 01:23.920]  Journalists, clergy and legal observers were also among those detained.
[01:23.920 --> 01:28.640]  Solidarity protests were held in other U.S. cities, including New York and Los Angeles.
[01:28.640 --> 01:32.960]  The protest came despite the suspension of key sections of the bill by a federal judge
[01:32.960 --> 01:35.320]  the night before it was to take effect.
[01:35.320 --> 01:39.960]  Guterres says, quote, we're protesting the climate of hate in Arizona, adding the people
[01:39.960 --> 01:42.840]  who proposed this law are still governing us.
[01:42.840 --> 01:46.880]  At this very moment, they are concocting new ways to oppress our community.
[01:46.880 --> 01:51.360]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[01:51.360 --> 01:56.040]  WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who is in London, says he would be arrested if he went
[01:56.040 --> 01:57.440]  back to the U.S.
[01:57.440 --> 02:03.120]  Assange told Press TV Thursday, I've been advised by my lawyers and by senior U.S. security
[02:03.120 --> 02:08.960]  reporters not to enter the United States in relation with the previous leak we did.
[02:08.960 --> 02:13.840]  Assange criticized Western mainstream media for maintaining a close relationship with
[02:13.840 --> 02:15.120]  Western governments.
[02:15.120 --> 02:20.720]  Assange pointed out this close affinity prevented the media from revealing wrongdoings sanctioned
[02:20.720 --> 02:22.400]  by the authorities.
[02:22.400 --> 02:28.040]  In April, WikiLeaks posted a video of a U.S. helicopter attack on Baghdad in 2007 that
[02:28.040 --> 02:32.160]  left 12 people dead, including two Reuters employees.
[02:32.160 --> 02:37.080]  Assange said the U.K. Guardian, the New York Times, and Der Spiegel have only gone through
[02:37.080 --> 02:43.040]  in detail about 2% of the leaked reports, raising the prospect of further unwelcome
[02:43.040 --> 02:44.280]  revelations.
[02:44.280 --> 02:51.280]  Assange says we have a lot of supporters, including within the U.S. military.
[03:14.280 --> 03:41.280]  Well, I received my remedy today, it came in a box just like they say, I accepted it
[03:41.280 --> 03:51.080]  for value right away, it's not sooner, not later, we are originators, and the pathway
[03:51.080 --> 03:59.280]  seems to get straighter every day, and I could take anything that belongs to me and put it
[03:59.280 --> 04:02.280]  to good use.
[04:02.280 --> 04:07.280]  Alright, whatever's good for the gander is good for the goose.
[04:07.280 --> 04:17.040]  Alright folks, we are taking your call, Mike from New York, okay Mike, what is your question?
[04:17.040 --> 04:20.960]  My question is, I'm a little more familiar with law than my wife is, I'm studying to
[04:20.960 --> 04:27.960]  be a paralegal, and I want to be able to represent my wife in court.
[04:27.960 --> 04:32.000]  Now according to the vehicle and traffic law, I can do that, but I'm claiming that they
[04:32.000 --> 04:36.320]  don't have jurisdiction, and they don't have personum jurisdiction, so I'm in a little
[04:36.320 --> 04:37.440]  bit of a quandary.
[04:37.440 --> 04:42.520]  You're allowed to represent someone else in court if you're not carrying a bar card in
[04:42.520 --> 04:43.520]  your state?
[04:43.520 --> 04:48.480]  It's a representative, yes you can be a representative.
[04:48.480 --> 04:52.720]  Well remember Deborah, in a criminal case you can do the same thing in Texas, the only
[04:52.720 --> 04:57.360]  forbidden thing is if you do it as in a suit for damages.
[04:57.360 --> 04:58.360]  Okay.
[04:58.360 --> 05:05.920]  I just can't do it for money, there's no compensation involved, I can do it.
[05:05.920 --> 05:12.400]  But that's according to the New York State vehicle and traffic law, that's Title 17 New
[05:12.400 --> 05:21.920]  York State NYC, our court of rules and regulations, but that's all transportation.
[05:21.920 --> 05:25.560]  So in New York did they actually allow that?
[05:25.560 --> 05:26.560]  Yes.
[05:26.560 --> 05:33.760]  Oh that's very interesting, as a matter of fact I had that same question come up today
[05:33.760 --> 05:38.160]  about a woman, a man called me to say that his wife did not want to go to the bankruptcy
[05:38.160 --> 05:43.360]  court, she didn't want to file the adversary proceedings, and she's the one on title and
[05:43.360 --> 05:44.360]  on the loan.
[05:44.360 --> 05:50.000]  They are married, so in a community property state I don't know if he can be her advocate
[05:50.000 --> 05:52.520]  or her representative, but that's a really good question.
[05:52.520 --> 05:59.400]  I know I can do it according to the Bible, but according to the law here it's Title 17,
[05:59.400 --> 06:04.240]  I think it's 553.
[06:04.240 --> 06:07.560]  You have to look at each state statute.
[06:07.560 --> 06:10.240]  Is there a single soul doctrine in California?
[06:10.240 --> 06:11.240]  This is New York.
[06:11.240 --> 06:12.880]  I've never heard of that.
[06:12.880 --> 06:18.720]  That single soul doctrine where a man and wife are considered a single person.
[06:18.720 --> 06:22.360]  The two shall be as one, I've never heard of that.
[06:22.360 --> 06:30.260]  If she received the loan while they were married, then he should have equal standing because
[06:30.260 --> 06:32.880]  he would certainly have equal liability.
[06:32.880 --> 06:33.880]  That's true.
[06:33.880 --> 06:36.320]  It's a community property state.
[06:36.320 --> 06:41.800]  But New York is not a community property state, isn't it?
[06:41.800 --> 06:45.280]  It's a separate state.
[06:45.280 --> 06:47.400]  I don't believe so.
[06:47.400 --> 06:53.760]  My wife has a friend that or his wife died and they're going after him for the death.
[06:53.760 --> 07:00.400]  Well maybe he's the executor or I think they have modified their rules where sometimes
[07:00.400 --> 07:05.160]  the spouse would be responsible for a debt if it was incurred during the marriage, but
[07:05.160 --> 07:15.760]  I don't believe that it's the same as California's community property laws.
[07:15.760 --> 07:16.760]  Well that's interesting.
[07:16.760 --> 07:20.400]  Do you have any other questions, Mike?
[07:20.400 --> 07:21.400]  Yes.
[07:21.400 --> 07:27.800]  Basically, what do I have here?
[07:27.800 --> 07:31.760]  I want to be able to, I'm asking, I think you answered the question earlier, I can file
[07:31.760 --> 07:36.400]  a counterclaim in the court for the ticket?
[07:36.400 --> 07:40.440]  Yes, what's the nature of your counterclaim?
[07:40.440 --> 07:41.440]  It's a speeding ticket.
[07:41.440 --> 07:47.360]  Are you going to accuse the officer of speeding trying to catch you?
[07:47.360 --> 07:48.360]  No.
[07:48.360 --> 07:54.480]  Basically, I wanted to go against a telecourt that my wife had the right to travel and she
[07:54.480 --> 07:55.680]  was traveling at the time.
[07:55.680 --> 08:04.080]  I have a big placard on the back of my car, big white letters that say private automobile
[08:04.080 --> 08:08.480]  and in larger letters it says not in commerce.
[08:08.480 --> 08:11.440]  Did you make a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction?
[08:11.440 --> 08:17.080]  I did that, yes, subject matter jurisdiction and personum jurisdiction.
[08:17.080 --> 08:19.760]  And you made the argument of right to travel?
[08:19.760 --> 08:20.760]  Yes.
[08:20.760 --> 08:23.760]  And what happened?
[08:23.760 --> 08:28.960]  She moved it on to pre-trial, she says I can take it to the prosecutor.
[08:28.960 --> 08:32.600]  They offered us a parking ticket which we refused.
[08:32.600 --> 08:33.600]  Okay.
[08:33.600 --> 08:35.400]  They would take down the parking ticket.
[08:35.400 --> 08:39.040]  Maybe if you press that constitutional issue about the right to travel.
[08:39.040 --> 08:43.360]  So I can do a 42, 1983 or 85, whatever it is?
[08:43.360 --> 08:44.360]  Absolutely.
[08:44.360 --> 08:48.960]  If they have no subject matter jurisdiction, even the judge is without immunity.
[08:48.960 --> 08:54.400]  Well, you could do a separate suit and let them know that that's what you're doing.
[08:54.400 --> 08:55.400]  Okay.
[08:55.400 --> 08:57.200]  So we go to the fact that...
[08:57.200 --> 09:04.920]  Every time we filed a countersuit in the civil, I mean in the criminal, the judges have just
[09:04.920 --> 09:07.280]  thrown it out.
[09:07.280 --> 09:14.240]  And it's so costly to pursue it, we've had no one pursue the appeals and such.
[09:14.240 --> 09:23.520]  But it would seem that if a litigant initiates an action in a court and that court has subject
[09:23.520 --> 09:31.480]  matter jurisdiction and venue, but then the defendant comes back with a counterclaim that
[09:31.480 --> 09:35.360]  exceeds the limits of that court.
[09:35.360 --> 09:42.800]  I read some case law that if you do that in a justice court, file a suit, a countersuit
[09:42.800 --> 09:48.820]  that exceeds the amount that the justice court can handle, the justice is required to dismiss
[09:48.820 --> 09:54.120]  it rather than remove it to a court that would have jurisdiction.
[09:54.120 --> 10:00.320]  Can you think of a way to bring that out of the court that it's in into a higher court
[10:00.320 --> 10:01.800]  if you counterclaim?
[10:01.800 --> 10:02.800]  Yeah.
[10:02.800 --> 10:12.120]  I've never heard that because we were talking about quasi-judicial in the traffic, which
[10:12.120 --> 10:13.960]  is a speeding ticket.
[10:13.960 --> 10:16.800]  So what you're supposed to be doing is doing a defense.
[10:16.800 --> 10:22.800]  You're talking about like a civil lawsuit based on constitutional breach of constitutional
[10:22.800 --> 10:27.000]  and civil rights, and that's a complaint for money damages.
[10:27.000 --> 10:28.000]  It's quasi-civil.
[10:28.000 --> 10:35.360]  Well, but it's not really because if you're bringing a lawsuit because a police officer
[10:35.360 --> 10:41.520]  violated under color of state law, your constitutional and or civil rights, that's a full-blown
[10:41.520 --> 10:44.800]  lawsuit for damages.
[10:44.800 --> 10:50.480]  So shouldn't we be able to bring the counterclaim or we denied the counterclaim simply because
[10:50.480 --> 10:57.000]  the counterclaim is of a higher degree or a higher amount than the original claim against
[10:57.000 --> 10:59.040]  us?
[10:59.040 --> 11:00.040]  I can try it.
[11:00.040 --> 11:01.040]  I've never heard of it.
[11:01.040 --> 11:05.840]  In all honesty, I've just absolutely never heard of bringing a counterclaim in a criminal
[11:05.840 --> 11:09.000]  or quasi-criminal case, but it sure would be very interesting.
[11:09.000 --> 11:10.000]  Great.
[11:10.000 --> 11:17.360]  Well, what I look at, the way I look at this is I'm a citizen.
[11:17.360 --> 11:18.360]  Are you?
[11:18.360 --> 11:19.360]  Yes, I am.
[11:19.360 --> 11:20.360]  Oh.
[11:20.360 --> 11:21.360]  And as a citizen.
[11:21.360 --> 11:22.360]  14th Amendment citizen?
[11:22.360 --> 11:29.360]  I don't care what kind of, I essentially- All right, we won't go there.
[11:29.360 --> 11:30.360]  I am the sovereign.
[11:30.360 --> 11:31.360]  Okay.
[11:31.360 --> 11:33.080]  That's different than a citizen.
[11:33.080 --> 11:38.960]  And I can do anything I want to- You tell them, Diane.
[11:38.960 --> 11:44.520]  I can do anything I want to unless I am specifically prohibited.
[11:44.520 --> 11:50.600]  Is there anything that prohibits a counterclaim in a municipal court?
[11:50.600 --> 11:53.040]  No, not that I know of.
[11:53.040 --> 11:57.800]  Well, doesn't the law specifically state here in Texas, at least, that anything not covered
[11:57.800 --> 12:02.320]  by the rules there is held under the common law when it deals with the Code of Criminal
[12:02.320 --> 12:03.320]  Procedure?
[12:03.320 --> 12:07.600]  And under the common law, you would have a counterclaim?
[12:07.600 --> 12:14.840]  The way I read the hierarchy of law in the Rules of Appellate, it's in the Rules of Appellate
[12:14.840 --> 12:24.960]  Procedure, it's at the Code of Criminal Procedure, Rules of Civil Procedure, and if neither of
[12:24.960 --> 12:28.680]  those covers an issue, it goes to the common law.
[12:28.680 --> 12:31.600]  Yeah, but you're also talking about an appeal.
[12:31.600 --> 12:35.280]  Here we're talking about filing in the original case, so there is no appeal.
[12:35.280 --> 12:37.080]  The civil rules will not apply.
[12:37.080 --> 12:43.340]  No, the hierarchy of law just happens to be established in those rules.
[12:43.340 --> 12:48.880]  It speaks to all of the rules.
[12:48.880 --> 12:52.320]  It just happens to be, for some reason, I don't know why it's in that code.
[12:52.320 --> 12:56.600]  Well, since we happen to have an attorney on with us tonight, there's something I would
[12:56.600 --> 12:58.840]  like to pose in that regard.
[12:58.840 --> 13:04.800]  Considering, now we had a great argument slash debate over this on the air here a couple
[13:04.800 --> 13:11.640]  weeks ago, but it seems to me that since the Constitution themselves are founded upon the
[13:11.640 --> 13:16.440]  common law and the rights of the people being enumerated within the Constitution, though
[13:16.440 --> 13:24.200]  the Constitution did not grant them, it protects those rights on the same grounds as its foundation
[13:24.200 --> 13:26.920]  rest, which is the common law.
[13:26.920 --> 13:33.800]  Therefore, for the legislature to try to supplant the common law with statutory law through
[13:33.800 --> 13:40.520]  either the civil or Code of Criminal Procedure and to rewrite the rights of the people's
[13:40.520 --> 13:48.560]  ability to enforce their rights is a seditious act, because they are trying to alter the
[13:48.560 --> 13:54.480]  foundational law upon which the people's rights rest, and you can't remove that foundation
[13:54.480 --> 13:59.400]  without destroying the right and the Constitution itself for that matter.
[13:59.400 --> 14:02.560]  Now, would you agree or disagree with that?
[14:02.560 --> 14:08.600]  Well, I kind of disagree fundamentally, because to me the Constitution is more like a procedural
[14:08.600 --> 14:11.640]  law.
[14:11.640 --> 14:16.880]  Under Article 1, Section 8, it sets forth all the specific powers that were delegated to
[14:16.880 --> 14:17.880]  the federal government.
[14:17.880 --> 14:23.000]  Well, no, no, no, I'm talking the ones in the states as well, not just the federal,
[14:23.000 --> 14:24.000]  but the individual states.
[14:24.000 --> 14:25.000]  Right.
[14:25.000 --> 14:28.800]  Then we've got the 10th Amendment, and it says that anything that is not specifically
[14:28.800 --> 14:33.600]  delegated to the federal government under Article 1, Section 8, shall be retained to
[14:33.600 --> 14:35.880]  the states and or the people.
[14:35.880 --> 14:40.400]  So it's actually the states that should be dealing with health, education, welfare, as
[14:40.400 --> 14:43.000]  well as all the criminal law comes under the state.
[14:43.000 --> 14:45.920]  Now, the states did have common law.
[14:45.920 --> 14:52.080]  I don't think that the Constitution was necessarily based on common law, because it's a procedure.
[14:52.080 --> 14:54.960]  It was a way to have checks and balances.
[14:54.960 --> 14:59.880]  If you want to talk about the Bill of Rights, you know, that does talk about, you know,
[14:59.880 --> 15:04.200]  protections that the founding fathers in their wisdom wanted to put down because they had
[15:04.200 --> 15:09.080]  seen what happens when you've got a large federal government, et cetera.
[15:09.080 --> 15:13.440]  So they do, in the Fifth Amendment, say, and it's incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment,
[15:13.440 --> 15:19.400]  they do say that nor shall life, liberty or property be deprived without due process of
[15:19.400 --> 15:20.400]  law.
[15:20.400 --> 15:28.440]  So you're talking about, you know, in a criminal case, deprivation of life or liberty, you
[15:28.440 --> 15:32.200]  know, and so that's the question is like, is there due process of law?
[15:32.200 --> 15:37.760]  And then you've got certain constitutional rights that are based on Constitution, I'm
[15:37.760 --> 15:45.240]  sorry, on Supreme Court cases that I do believe were based on common law in that there is
[15:45.240 --> 15:49.240]  a constitutional right to travel.
[15:49.240 --> 15:55.040]  But what you need to do is to check the state law to find out the definitions inside the
[15:55.040 --> 16:01.360]  vehicle codes or the criminal codes in the state law to see that this is, you know, you're
[16:01.360 --> 16:09.080]  not included in their, you know, commerce because you're not driving a commercial vehicle,
[16:09.080 --> 16:11.520]  you're not, you know, doing it for hire with passengers.
[16:11.520 --> 16:18.200]  So you're just, you know, a person, an individual within the state who wants to, you know, claim
[16:18.200 --> 16:22.800]  that you have a constitutional right to a free, you know, freedom to travel.
[16:22.800 --> 16:31.120]  It's not subjected to the state statutory laws that restrict certain activities when
[16:31.120 --> 16:32.600]  you're in commerce.
[16:32.600 --> 16:35.800]  You're talking to the right guy here about the definitions.
[16:35.800 --> 16:38.760]  Eddie is the definition guy.
[16:38.760 --> 16:39.760]  Okay, well I...
[16:39.760 --> 16:40.760]  Okay, listen folks...
[16:40.760 --> 16:46.720]  Yeah, Texas traffic law is my specialty, but I'm talking about the statutory use of laws
[16:46.720 --> 16:47.720]  in general.
[16:47.720 --> 16:49.920]  Okay, listen folks, we have to go to break now.
[16:49.920 --> 16:51.400]  Mike, thanks for calling in.
[16:51.400 --> 16:54.320]  We are going to go to Russell in Texas when we get back on the other side.
[16:54.320 --> 17:03.320]  We'll be right back.
[17:03.320 --> 17:08.360]  Capital Coin and Bullion is your local source for rare coins, precious metals and coin supplies
[17:08.360 --> 17:10.360]  in the Austin metro area.
[17:10.360 --> 17:12.400]  We also ship worldwide.
[17:12.400 --> 17:16.440]  We are a family owned and operated business that offers competitive prices on your coin
[17:16.440 --> 17:17.440]  and metals purchases.
[17:17.440 --> 17:23.440]  We buy, sell, trade and consign rare coins, gold and silver coin collections, precious
[17:23.440 --> 17:25.000]  metals and scrap gold.
[17:25.000 --> 17:28.600]  We will purchase and sell gold and jewelry items as well.
[17:28.600 --> 17:31.200]  We offer daily specials on coins and bullion.
[17:31.200 --> 17:37.320]  We're located at 5448 Barnett Road, Suite 3 and we're open Monday through Friday, 10
[17:37.320 --> 17:41.160]  AM to 6 PM, Saturdays 10 AM to 5 PM.
[17:41.160 --> 17:48.560]  You are welcome to stop in our shop during regular business hours or call 512-646-6440
[17:48.560 --> 17:49.560]  with any questions.
[17:49.560 --> 17:55.360]  As for Chad, say you heard about us on Rule of Law Radio or 90.1 FM, that's Capital Coin
[17:55.360 --> 17:56.360]  and Bullion, 512-646-6440.
[17:56.360 --> 17:57.360]  Well, don't let nothing get to you.
[17:57.360 --> 17:58.360]  Only the father can't do it by you.
[17:58.360 --> 17:59.360]  Don't let bad mind people hurt you until they can get behind you.
[17:59.360 --> 18:00.360]  Know what I mean?
[18:00.360 --> 18:01.360]  My friend, Nala Jackson.
[18:01.360 --> 18:02.360]  Come on.
[18:02.360 --> 18:03.360]  Come on.
[18:03.360 --> 18:04.360]  Come on.
[18:04.360 --> 18:05.360]  Come on.
[18:05.360 --> 18:06.360]  Come on.
[18:06.360 --> 18:07.360]  Come on.
[18:07.360 --> 18:08.360]  Come on.
[18:08.360 --> 18:09.360]  Come on.
[18:09.360 --> 18:10.360]  Come on.
[18:10.360 --> 18:11.360]  Come on.
[18:11.360 --> 18:12.360]  Come on.
[18:12.360 --> 18:13.360]  Come on.
[18:13.360 --> 18:14.360]  Come on.
[18:14.360 --> 18:15.360]  Come on.
[18:15.360 --> 18:19.660]  Come on.
[18:19.660 --> 18:25.080]  Come on.
[18:25.080 --> 18:29.160]  Come on.
[18:29.160 --> 18:30.160]  All right.
[18:30.160 --> 18:31.860]  Trust in God, my friends.
[18:31.860 --> 18:35.160]  Call on His name again.
[18:35.160 --> 18:37.800]  Tell Him your problems.
[18:37.800 --> 18:39.180]  Call on His name once again.
[18:39.180 --> 18:41.320]  Miracles you know, He works.
[18:41.320 --> 18:42.520]  All right.
[18:42.520 --> 18:44.120]  We are taking your calls.
[18:44.120 --> 18:46.120]  We've got Russell in Texas.
[18:46.120 --> 18:47.120]  Russell, thanks for calling in.
[18:47.120 --> 18:49.120]  What's on your mind tonight?
[18:49.120 --> 18:50.120]  Hey, what's going on?
[18:50.120 --> 18:51.120]  Not how long.
[18:51.120 --> 18:52.120]  We hadn't heard from you for a while.
[18:52.120 --> 18:53.120]  Russell, how have you been?
[18:53.120 --> 18:54.120]  Oh, very decent.
[18:54.120 --> 18:55.120]  Good.
[18:55.120 --> 18:57.120]  Still some medical problems, but I'm over them.
[18:57.120 --> 18:58.120]  Well, good.
[18:58.120 --> 18:59.120]  It's good to hear from you.
[18:59.120 --> 19:01.120]  What do you have for us tonight?
[19:01.120 --> 19:04.120]  The lady attorney, I forgot her name, but...
[19:04.120 --> 19:05.120]  Diane.
[19:05.120 --> 19:08.120]  Diane, do you practice in bankruptcy court?
[19:08.120 --> 19:10.120]  I have, yes.
[19:10.120 --> 19:18.120]  Have you ever thought about using the strong arm statute on the trustee to make him settle the mortgage issue?
[19:18.120 --> 19:21.120]  I have not had that experience, but I'd like to.
[19:21.120 --> 19:32.120]  And then when you do that, you can file a separate issue after that is settled in a federal court and get your triple damages.
[19:32.120 --> 19:37.120]  And that trustee cannot touch that because he's only got jurisdiction for one year.
[19:37.120 --> 19:43.120]  And you know, they're going to get well once you file the other action that's going to take a while before you get any kind of settlement.
[19:43.120 --> 19:46.120]  So the trustee's jurisdiction is gone.
[19:46.120 --> 19:51.120]  That's true in a 7, and I guess it's maybe not even relevant in a 13.
[19:51.120 --> 19:58.120]  I'm not sure because if you got an award of major damages, I guess you could just pay off your debts
[19:58.120 --> 20:01.120]  and you wouldn't even have to complete your 13 plan.
[20:01.120 --> 20:06.120]  The 13 plan is the wage earners plan as opposed to the 7, which is to discharge debts.
[20:06.120 --> 20:07.120]  Right.
[20:07.120 --> 20:13.120]  So there's different ways that you can do that, and a lot of people haven't thought about these,
[20:13.120 --> 20:20.120]  but I have a very, very good bankruptcy mind because I've been there five times over the years.
[20:20.120 --> 20:22.120]  I thought you could only do that.
[20:22.120 --> 20:26.120]  I thought you could only, you know, the bankruptcies are based on the Bible.
[20:26.120 --> 20:28.120]  Oh, really?
[20:28.120 --> 20:29.120]  Did you know that?
[20:29.120 --> 20:36.120]  In the Bible, every seven years, people were forgiven of their debt, so to speak,
[20:36.120 --> 20:43.120]  and then the year of Jubilee, which is the 50th year, all the land was restored to the original holder.
[20:43.120 --> 20:45.120]  That's where we got our bankruptcy laws.
[20:45.120 --> 20:50.120]  I've been there five times, you know, divorce, job loss, medical bills, whatever.
[20:50.120 --> 20:53.120]  But I thought you could only file every seven years.
[20:53.120 --> 20:58.120]  Well, no, you can file a 13 every, what, two years or whatever, but most of them have been a 7,
[20:58.120 --> 21:02.120]  so they've been every seven years, but now it's, what, up to eight years or whatever.
[21:02.120 --> 21:06.120]  But we're talking about all the way back from 78 to the present, so.
[21:06.120 --> 21:07.120]  Okay.
[21:07.120 --> 21:14.120]  But, you know, there's back, you know, when bankruptcy court, when I first went into bankruptcy court,
[21:14.120 --> 21:17.120]  you had to actually come to court and go before a judge and the whole now.
[21:17.120 --> 21:23.120]  Most of the stuff nowadays is the only ones that goes before the court is when you have your adversarial proceedings.
[21:23.120 --> 21:28.120]  Well, you always have to do the 341 hearings, which is the meeting for creditors.
[21:28.120 --> 21:32.120]  Well, that's true, but the way they do it here in Texas now, you go meet at some motel somewhere
[21:32.120 --> 21:37.120]  and they have all the people gather up for the meeting and one at a time go before the trustee.
[21:37.120 --> 21:38.120]  That's it.
[21:38.120 --> 21:40.120]  You don't even see the court and stuff most of the time.
[21:40.120 --> 21:42.120]  Yes, true.
[21:42.120 --> 21:45.120]  You know, the problem with this stuff is every state's different.
[21:45.120 --> 21:49.120]  I mean, the exemptions are different in every state, all that.
[21:49.120 --> 21:50.120]  Texas is a lot better.
[21:50.120 --> 21:51.120]  It's one of the better ones.
[21:51.120 --> 21:56.120]  So, you know, you can get by with a lot more stuff than things here,
[21:56.120 --> 22:00.120]  where I've heard a lot of horror stories in a lot of other states and stuff.
[22:00.120 --> 22:06.120]  And, of course, I'm originally from Illinois, so it's not that very good in Illinois either.
[22:06.120 --> 22:14.120]  But there's all sorts of different – my dilemma is I have a double-wide mobile home,
[22:14.120 --> 22:17.120]  so I don't have a deed of trust and things like that.
[22:17.120 --> 22:23.120]  But the last time I was in Chapter 13 in 2005, we successfully got to mortgage people
[22:23.120 --> 22:26.120]  because we devalued the mobile home.
[22:26.120 --> 22:31.120]  And I had an appraiser come in and appraise it, and then we fought the mortgage company
[22:31.120 --> 22:36.120]  and I successfully reduced my mortgage in half doing that.
[22:36.120 --> 22:42.120]  My payment went from $7.50 a month down to $4.20, and half the debt was wiped out
[22:42.120 --> 22:49.120]  just because based on the present value of the mobile home versus what I still owed on it.
[22:49.120 --> 22:50.120]  Right.
[22:50.120 --> 22:53.120]  Now, the mobile home is considered personal property versus real property.
[22:53.120 --> 22:54.120]  Right.
[22:54.120 --> 22:58.120]  I always consider it, and I put it on my deed as real property because it is attached
[22:58.120 --> 23:01.120]  and everything else, but they argued in the bankruptcy court that it was nothing
[23:01.120 --> 23:05.120]  but personal property, and that's what we ended up agreeing to.
[23:05.120 --> 23:06.120]  Okay.
[23:06.120 --> 23:07.120]  But there's difference.
[23:07.120 --> 23:12.120]  I'm thinking about possibly going because I have some IRS issues still,
[23:12.120 --> 23:15.120]  even though I settled part of them back in 2005,
[23:15.120 --> 23:18.120]  they still want to seem to come after me for old debts.
[23:18.120 --> 23:23.120]  So I may end up filing another Chapter 13 and challenge them that way again,
[23:23.120 --> 23:28.120]  because I've already filed a federal tort claim over the tax claim they put against me,
[23:28.120 --> 23:36.120]  and I have a bankruptcy court order reducing the IRS debts to unsecured.
[23:36.120 --> 23:39.120]  So if they're unsecured debts, how can they turn around and file a notice
[23:39.120 --> 23:43.120]  of federal patch lien and start collection proceedings and stuff,
[23:43.120 --> 23:46.120]  which they can't do when I'm unsecured debt.
[23:46.120 --> 23:49.120]  Well, that's another thing that you might want to raise.
[23:49.120 --> 23:53.120]  You better check that when you talk about an IRS lien,
[23:53.120 --> 23:59.120]  they don't have the right to file those because a lien is actually something,
[23:59.120 --> 24:01.120]  an enforcement remedy after a judgment.
[24:01.120 --> 24:02.120]  Right.
[24:02.120 --> 24:04.120]  And generally the IRS just files notices of liens,
[24:04.120 --> 24:09.120]  so I know there's people right now who are exploring filing lawsuits
[24:09.120 --> 24:15.120]  against county recorders who are allowing the IRS to file these notices of liens.
[24:15.120 --> 24:19.120]  They don't have any legitimate basis for filing the notice of liens.
[24:19.120 --> 24:21.120]  They can be set aside.
[24:21.120 --> 24:22.120]  Well, wait a minute.
[24:22.120 --> 24:26.120]  I want to make a comment on this because Randy and I did some research on this,
[24:26.120 --> 24:33.120]  and it turns out that there are additional laws that pretty much every state has adopted.
[24:33.120 --> 24:38.120]  I looked it up in statute when we were in Pennsylvania a few years back,
[24:38.120 --> 24:40.120]  and it turns out that pretty much every state has adopted it,
[24:40.120 --> 24:45.120]  that when it comes to liens from the federal government,
[24:45.120 --> 24:47.120]  from any federal government agency,
[24:47.120 --> 24:53.120]  they are not required to follow the same procedures that pretty much everyone
[24:53.120 --> 24:57.120]  else is required to follow when they're filing liens with a county recorder.
[24:57.120 --> 25:02.120]  And so a lot of these people that are going down this path of trying to hold
[25:02.120 --> 25:07.120]  these county recorders responsible, they're barking up the wrong tree.
[25:07.120 --> 25:11.120]  They're head for a dead end road because I've already looked up the statute on that.
[25:11.120 --> 25:14.120]  Okay, what I'm suggesting is that not, you know,
[25:14.120 --> 25:19.120]  I'm suggesting that there's a difference between a lien and a notice of lien.
[25:19.120 --> 25:20.120]  Right.
[25:20.120 --> 25:23.120]  And in general, what they do is they file a notice of lien,
[25:23.120 --> 25:27.120]  but they've not had any kind of administrative or judicial proceeding giving them
[25:27.120 --> 25:30.120]  any kind of a judgment to even get a lien.
[25:30.120 --> 25:32.120]  But that's where the tort claim comes in.
[25:32.120 --> 25:35.120]  You file a U.S.F. 95 form.
[25:35.120 --> 25:38.120]  You've got to give them six months to make a ruling.
[25:38.120 --> 25:44.120]  Anything you do with the IRS, you send it to the office of counsel for the IRS.
[25:44.120 --> 25:50.120]  I put in a federal tort claim for $2.8 million because they filed a notice of
[25:50.120 --> 25:54.120]  federal tax lien against us in March of 2009.
[25:54.120 --> 26:03.120]  A notice of federal tax lien when the actual federal tax lien never came into existence.
[26:03.120 --> 26:04.120]  Right.
[26:04.120 --> 26:06.120]  So now they've got to make up their mind.
[26:06.120 --> 26:07.120]  What are they going to do?
[26:07.120 --> 26:09.120]  If they've got six months to make up their mind,
[26:09.120 --> 26:12.120]  then you can take them into federal court and challenge them because they never
[26:12.120 --> 26:17.120]  followed the IR manual out there that says a proper procedure of filing notice
[26:17.120 --> 26:19.120]  of tax liens, and they never follow it.
[26:19.120 --> 26:22.120]  They just all of a sudden do it, and that's it.
[26:22.120 --> 26:27.120]  Well, they also on that notice of tax lien, they tend to omit the paragraph A,
[26:27.120 --> 26:32.120]  which specifically tells who that notice of tax lien may be filed upon,
[26:32.120 --> 26:35.120]  which is not anyone but a federal employee.
[26:35.120 --> 26:37.120]  Right.
[26:37.120 --> 26:45.120]  But then again, if in your master file, in your employment code,
[26:45.120 --> 26:50.120]  if there's an employment code that would render you a federal employee
[26:50.120 --> 26:53.120]  or subject to the tax code,
[26:53.120 --> 26:59.120]  then the IRS has cause to believe that you are a taxpayer.
[26:59.120 --> 27:05.120]  My issue is who put that number in there?
[27:05.120 --> 27:09.120]  We have a guy I was working with in Austin,
[27:09.120 --> 27:15.120]  thought he was a state farm real estate agent in Austin,
[27:15.120 --> 27:21.120]  but when you looked at the federal tax code, employment number in the master
[27:21.120 --> 27:28.120]  file, he discovered that he was a narcotics salesman in the Virgin Islands.
[27:28.120 --> 27:32.120]  Now, I want to know who put that code in there.
[27:32.120 --> 27:36.120]  If I can't find the person who put the code in there,
[27:36.120 --> 27:42.120]  I want to know who the director of the agency is that has that code in there
[27:42.120 --> 27:48.120]  because I'll go after him with Spondeep Superior for fraud,
[27:48.120 --> 27:50.120]  tampering with a government document.
[27:50.120 --> 27:53.120]  Get that number out of there.
[27:53.120 --> 27:57.120]  Now you're not a taxpayer.
[27:57.120 --> 27:59.120]  Yeah, and the point I was trying to make earlier,
[27:59.120 --> 28:03.120]  and I'm trying to look up on the statute online because we looked at that in a book
[28:03.120 --> 28:06.120]  at the law library when we were in Philadelphia,
[28:06.120 --> 28:11.120]  but the point I was trying to make is that regardless of whether or not the lien
[28:11.120 --> 28:14.120]  exists or whether it has any foundation whatsoever,
[28:14.120 --> 28:16.120]  when it comes to the county tax recorder,
[28:16.120 --> 28:20.120]  all the IRS has to do is give them a notice of the lien.
[28:20.120 --> 28:25.120]  We can't go after the county tax recorder for that because there are statutes
[28:25.120 --> 28:30.120]  that exempt the federal government and federal government agencies from having
[28:30.120 --> 28:34.120]  to go through the same process and procedures that everyone else has to as far
[28:34.120 --> 28:37.120]  as filing the notice of lien with the county recorder,
[28:37.120 --> 28:43.120]  and so we have to go after the agency and federal court for not doing what they
[28:43.120 --> 28:47.120]  need to do to actually establish that the lien is valid in the first place.
[28:47.120 --> 28:50.120]  Here in Texas all you have to do is file a motion for judicial review,
[28:50.120 --> 28:55.120]  which I've already did on ours, and down in Hays County on the 2nd of December,
[28:55.120 --> 29:00.120]  2nd of June, but so far the judge, it's a motion with an order.
[29:00.120 --> 29:03.120]  The judge looks at the federal tax lien,
[29:03.120 --> 29:07.120]  and he's supposed to look at it and see that it doesn't have any backing to it,
[29:07.120 --> 29:12.120]  and he's supposed to order it dismissed and removed from the county record,
[29:12.120 --> 29:14.120]  but he hasn't approved on it yet.
[29:14.120 --> 29:19.120]  I filed two of them because the IRS has come down and completely shut down my
[29:19.120 --> 29:23.120]  wife from being an heir to her father's property next door because the IRS came
[29:23.120 --> 29:29.120]  in and produced a $1.3 million tax lien because he hadn't paid taxes in years
[29:29.120 --> 29:30.120]  and stuff.
[29:30.120 --> 29:33.120]  Well, now that they're going to put the property up for sale,
[29:33.120 --> 29:36.120]  all the money that they give to the property is going to go to the IRS,
[29:36.120 --> 29:39.120]  so I filed a tort claim on that one.
[29:39.120 --> 29:41.120]  All right, Russell, do you want to stay to the other side?
[29:41.120 --> 29:43.120]  Do you have anything else for us?
[29:43.120 --> 29:44.120]  No, that's about it.
[29:44.120 --> 29:45.120]  All right, thanks for calling in, Russell.
[29:45.120 --> 29:46.120]  Bye.
[29:46.120 --> 29:47.120]  All right, good to hear from you again.
[29:47.120 --> 29:49.120]  All right, when we get back on the other side,
[29:49.120 --> 29:51.120]  we're going to go to Ramon in Texas.
[29:51.120 --> 29:54.120]  We've got more callers on the line, so callers just stay right there,
[29:54.120 --> 29:57.120]  and we will get to you on the other side of the break.
[29:57.120 --> 30:00.120]  This is the rule of law.
[30:27.120 --> 30:29.120]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit report.
[30:29.120 --> 30:34.120]  How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[30:34.120 --> 30:39.120]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[30:39.120 --> 30:41.120]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[30:41.120 --> 30:44.120]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com
[30:44.120 --> 30:49.120]  and click on the blue Michael Mears banner or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[30:49.120 --> 30:57.120]  That's ruleoflawradio.com or email michaelmears at yahoo.com
[30:57.120 --> 31:22.120]  to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[31:22.120 --> 31:49.120]  Thank you.
[31:49.120 --> 32:04.120]  Thank you.
[32:04.120 --> 32:32.120]  Thank you.
[32:32.120 --> 32:54.120]  Thank you.
[32:54.120 --> 33:10.120]  Thank you.
[33:10.120 --> 33:11.120]  Okay, folks, we are back.
[33:11.120 --> 33:12.120]  We're taking your calls.
[33:12.120 --> 33:15.120]  We're going now to Ramon in Texas.
[33:15.120 --> 33:17.120]  Ramon, thanks for calling in.
[33:17.120 --> 33:20.120]  What is on your mind tonight?
[33:20.120 --> 33:24.120]  Hi, there, guys.
[33:24.120 --> 33:27.120]  I have like two or three questions that I'd like to ask you.
[33:27.120 --> 33:29.120]  You guys might be familiar.
[33:29.120 --> 33:40.120]  In the past, I actually was advised to make a request in regards to being proactive
[33:40.120 --> 33:44.120]  on the forefront of a foreclosure process possibly.
[33:44.120 --> 33:52.120]  Basically, I was advised to make a request on the bank to make the original note
[33:52.120 --> 33:54.120]  available for inspection.
[33:54.120 --> 33:59.120]  And I did get a copy from them, but what I got is just a copy.
[33:59.120 --> 34:03.120]  It's not an original, but it's a copy.
[34:03.120 --> 34:09.120]  And the other thing is this bank that I work with now has gone through several changes.
[34:09.120 --> 34:16.120]  And there's a name as to who the note is promising to pay to that is not the bank,
[34:16.120 --> 34:18.120]  but I know the bank is not necessarily the note holder.
[34:18.120 --> 34:22.120]  But I'm just wondering what you guys could give, you know,
[34:22.120 --> 34:24.120]  what kind of feedback you would have on that as well.
[34:24.120 --> 34:29.120]  I would really appreciate any kind of direction that you could point me to for a good resource
[34:29.120 --> 34:39.120]  on which I can, you know, pick up and, you know, just, you know, follow through with understanding how to follow step by step
[34:39.120 --> 34:45.120]  and, you know, initiating a lawsuit, yes, or legal steps.
[34:45.120 --> 34:46.120]  Okay.
[34:46.120 --> 34:47.120]  Of course.
[34:47.120 --> 34:52.120]  Funny you should mention something like that because I know somebody who can help you with that.
[34:52.120 --> 34:54.120]  Okay. Very good.
[34:54.120 --> 34:57.120]  I need help.
[34:57.120 --> 35:00.120]  Essentially, that's what I'm doing right now.
[35:00.120 --> 35:13.120]  On that subject today, someone sent me a document, an article about a guy in somewhere in California
[35:13.120 --> 35:16.120]  that got sued for foreclosure.
[35:16.120 --> 35:18.120]  The bank took his place.
[35:18.120 --> 35:25.120]  And then a few months later, another bank came and tried to make a claim against the property,
[35:25.120 --> 35:30.120]  a claim against him for the property.
[35:30.120 --> 35:36.120]  So when we go before the court and demand that the lenders show standing
[35:36.120 --> 35:43.120]  and prove up that it is the true party in interest,
[35:43.120 --> 35:54.120]  it is a real serious consideration because you can in fact have your property foreclosed on by someone who has no standing
[35:54.120 --> 35:59.120]  and then later have the real party come along and make their claim.
[35:59.120 --> 36:04.120]  It was probably a big mistake on the bank, but it certainly gave us precedence.
[36:04.120 --> 36:15.120]  And as to them bringing a copy, UCC 3-501 is very clear on this point.
[36:15.120 --> 36:20.120]  When the creditor petitions the debtor for collection,
[36:20.120 --> 36:29.120]  if the debtor requests access to or production of the original security instrument,
[36:29.120 --> 36:36.120]  the creditor must make the original security instrument available for inspection.
[36:36.120 --> 36:41.120]  He doesn't have to give it to him, but he has to show him that he has it.
[36:41.120 --> 36:44.120]  If he fails to do that, it's a little convoluted.
[36:44.120 --> 36:53.120]  I'm paraphrasing, the lender may cease all payment until the creditor complies with all law.
[36:53.120 --> 36:58.120]  Okay, ma'am, let me stop interjecting there if I could, Randy. Thanks so much.
[36:58.120 --> 37:07.120]  So you're saying that section 3-501 is talking about presentation of the node and of the instrument basically.
[37:07.120 --> 37:13.120]  And so you're saying that I should have received an original copy and just for me to understand
[37:13.120 --> 37:16.120]  that I was supposed to mail it back?
[37:16.120 --> 37:19.120]  No, no, no, no, no, no. That's not what it says.
[37:19.120 --> 37:24.120]  They have to make it available for inspection. They can do that in their offices.
[37:24.120 --> 37:28.120]  They don't have to give it to you because it's the original.
[37:28.120 --> 37:29.120]  Okay.
[37:29.120 --> 37:35.120]  If I write you a check, then you go to the bank with a photocopy of the check.
[37:35.120 --> 37:37.120]  It's a photocopy.
[37:37.120 --> 37:42.120]  Yeah, they're going to say, wonderful, no problem. We'll give you a photocopy of the money.
[37:42.120 --> 37:44.120]  Exactly.
[37:44.120 --> 37:47.120]  Yeah, bring me exhibit the real instrument.
[37:47.120 --> 37:48.120]  There you go.
[37:48.120 --> 37:53.120]  And that's what UCC 3-501 does. It goes to statutory estoppel.
[37:53.120 --> 37:54.120]  Yes, sir.
[37:54.120 --> 37:59.120]  The lender is stopped from further collection if he doesn't produce it.
[37:59.120 --> 38:05.120]  So at this point then, do I have grounds to then go down to the courthouse
[38:05.120 --> 38:11.120]  and file documents and a suit basically or complain or do I wait?
[38:11.120 --> 38:15.120]  You absolutely have grounds to file a suit. What's the condition of your mortgage?
[38:15.120 --> 38:20.120]  Are you in foreclosure, approaching foreclosure, up to date?
[38:20.120 --> 38:22.120]  Yes.
[38:22.120 --> 38:23.120]  Yes, up to date?
[38:23.120 --> 38:25.120]  Up to date, sir.
[38:25.120 --> 38:32.120]  Then you need to look at how much fraud is in the suit. You sue the lender.
[38:32.120 --> 38:37.120]  They're going to come back and play let's make a deal.
[38:37.120 --> 38:42.120]  This is what I'm doing is preparing suits that make claims against the lender.
[38:42.120 --> 38:48.120]  An affirmative defense from them or something or will they not even go that far?
[38:48.120 --> 38:52.120]  They don't have an affirmative defense. That's their problem.
[38:52.120 --> 39:00.120]  The allegations we're making are based on the fraud that they've committed and they have no defense.
[39:00.120 --> 39:02.120]  Okay.
[39:02.120 --> 39:10.120]  I think what you're talking about perhaps is when the debtor, the borrower so to speak,
[39:10.120 --> 39:16.120]  homeowner sends out statutory letters including the qualified written request which is known as the QWR
[39:16.120 --> 39:22.120]  or a letter for debt validation or a request for the promissory note.
[39:22.120 --> 39:24.120]  I think that's what he's talking about.
[39:24.120 --> 39:32.120]  Under the best evidence rule, they're supposed to provide the original for inspection.
[39:32.120 --> 39:36.120]  But in many of the cases, most of the cases I think like with MERS, et cetera,
[39:36.120 --> 39:39.120]  these banks have destroyed the original notes. They don't have them.
[39:39.120 --> 39:43.120]  So theoretically what they're supposed to do under the best evidence rule,
[39:43.120 --> 39:47.120]  if they do a declaration saying that they lost the original,
[39:47.120 --> 39:53.120]  then they're supposed to actually verify that under penalty of perjury that they had it and they lost it.
[39:53.120 --> 39:58.120]  But I'm not sure if any of these pretender lenders that are foreclosing really ever even had it
[39:58.120 --> 40:05.120]  because I think that the evidence I've seen is that they were initially sold.
[40:05.120 --> 40:11.120]  Well, there's a lot of evidence to indicate that they filed a note with MERS.
[40:11.120 --> 40:16.120]  They sent the note to MERS. MERS scanned it into their system and then shredded it.
[40:16.120 --> 40:19.120]  And this comes from the FBI investigations.
[40:19.120 --> 40:24.120]  And even if they didn't get it to MERS, they moved the note around so much,
[40:24.120 --> 40:30.120]  once they move it into a special purpose vehicle, you've got thousands of notes in this special purpose vehicle.
[40:30.120 --> 40:31.120]  Exactly.
[40:31.120 --> 40:36.120]  And the individuals doing the investments don't care about those individual notes.
[40:36.120 --> 40:42.120]  And they moved the special purpose vehicle into a RIMIC, and then the RIMIC is sold off into investments,
[40:42.120 --> 40:44.120]  and these people don't care about the individual notes.
[40:44.120 --> 40:45.120]  Right.
[40:45.120 --> 40:55.120]  And during the glut of the housing boom, they just didn't take care of the notes and they can't find them.
[40:55.120 --> 41:01.120]  They don't really, in a lot of cases, know who is the real party in interest.
[41:01.120 --> 41:02.120]  Exactly.
[41:02.120 --> 41:04.120]  And a lot of times there is no real party in interest.
[41:04.120 --> 41:14.120]  There's a number of entities that have investments in the pool that supposedly hold a note, but nobody can tell where it is.
[41:14.120 --> 41:19.120]  So this is a really big problem and it's a very valid issue.
[41:19.120 --> 41:24.120]  And the point I'm making about 3-501, even if the court says,
[41:24.120 --> 41:33.120]  okay, we'll accept that copy as prima facie evidence of the existence of a note, you're still a stop from collections
[41:33.120 --> 41:37.120]  because 3-501 does not make that stipulation.
[41:37.120 --> 41:42.120]  It very clearly requires the original.
[41:42.120 --> 41:50.120]  So being able to get in court doesn't help the lender because he's a stop from further collection no matter what.
[41:50.120 --> 41:51.120]  Right.
[41:51.120 --> 41:52.120]  Got you, Bubba.
[41:52.120 --> 41:54.120]  And I understand that.
[41:54.120 --> 41:58.120]  I understand that so far on a very high level only.
[41:58.120 --> 42:02.120]  But what kind of resources can I utilize?
[42:02.120 --> 42:07.120]  Where can you guys possibly point me to where I can, you know...
[42:07.120 --> 42:10.120]  Remediesinrealestate.com.
[42:10.120 --> 42:12.120]  Which one?
[42:12.120 --> 42:14.120]  Remediesinrealestate.com.
[42:14.120 --> 42:16.120]  That's my Web site.
[42:16.120 --> 42:20.120]  I'm going there now.
[42:20.120 --> 42:21.120]  Okay.
[42:21.120 --> 42:28.120]  And if you fill out the data input page, we'll send you back a number of fraud that we find.
[42:28.120 --> 42:30.120]  Okay.
[42:30.120 --> 42:31.120]  All right.
[42:31.120 --> 42:39.120]  And if you fill it out in the email section, put rule of law so we know where it came from.
[42:39.120 --> 42:40.120]  Yes, sir.
[42:40.120 --> 42:41.120]  Okay.
[42:41.120 --> 42:42.120]  Thank you.
[42:42.120 --> 42:55.120]  So from there I can inquire as to what I'm trying to do is basically get whatever resource I can use to just on my own take this on my, you know,
[42:55.120 --> 43:02.120]  pick up the ball and run with it with resources that I can put to paper.
[43:02.120 --> 43:06.120]  So now this kind of so far from what I've described.
[43:06.120 --> 43:07.120]  Okay.
[43:07.120 --> 43:08.120]  Wait, wait, wait.
[43:08.120 --> 43:11.120]  You want to do this on your own with what you can put to paper.
[43:11.120 --> 43:20.120]  First thing you need to do is read the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Truth in Lending Act twice.
[43:20.120 --> 43:22.120]  Read it through first.
[43:22.120 --> 43:23.120]  Just read it through.
[43:23.120 --> 43:25.120]  Don't try to understand everything.
[43:25.120 --> 43:27.120]  Just read the whole thing through.
[43:27.120 --> 43:30.120]  Go back and read through it again.
[43:30.120 --> 43:32.120]  It shouldn't take you three or four hours.
[43:32.120 --> 43:33.120]  All right.
[43:33.120 --> 43:35.120]  Then you'll understand it.
[43:35.120 --> 43:39.120]  And then you'll pretty well understand a lot of what your position is.
[43:39.120 --> 43:47.120]  But if you try to do this by yourself, unless you spend a year or two researching, you're going to get clobbered.
[43:47.120 --> 43:48.120]  Okay.
[43:48.120 --> 43:50.120]  We're going to go to break.
[43:50.120 --> 43:52.120]  Do you have any other questions?
[43:52.120 --> 43:53.120]  Can I make a comment?
[43:53.120 --> 43:54.120]  You can.
[43:54.120 --> 43:55.120]  We're about to go to break.
[43:55.120 --> 43:56.120]  Yeah, we need to go to break.
[43:56.120 --> 44:01.120]  We'll be right back on the other side.
[44:01.120 --> 44:09.120]  Attention, an important product from hempusa.org, microplant powder, will change your life by removing all types of positive toxins,
[44:09.120 --> 44:17.120]  such as heavy metals, parasites, bacteria, viruses, and fungus from the digestive tract and stomach wall so you can absorb nutrients.
[44:17.120 --> 44:26.120]  Microplant powder is 89% silica and packed with a negative charge that attracts positive toxins from the blood, organ, spine, and brain.
[44:26.120 --> 44:32.120]  This product has the ability to rebuild cartilage and bone, which allows synovial fluid to return to the joints.
[44:32.120 --> 44:38.120]  Silica is a precursor to calcium, meaning the body turns silica into calcium and is great for the heart.
[44:38.120 --> 44:44.120]  There is no better time than now to have microplant powder on your shelf or in your storage shelter.
[44:44.120 --> 44:47.120]  And with an unlimited shelf life, you can store it anywhere.
[44:47.120 --> 44:52.120]  Call 908-691-2608 or visit hempusa.org.
[44:52.120 --> 44:54.120]  It's a great way to change your life.
[44:54.120 --> 45:01.120]  So call 908-691-2608 or visit us at hempusa.org today.
[45:24.120 --> 45:30.120]  Always, I must be careful what I'm wishing for.
[45:30.120 --> 45:35.120]  When I'm hungry, I like to know just what I'm fishing for.
[45:35.120 --> 45:41.120]  I ain't asking for much, I ain't trying to be no glutton.
[45:41.120 --> 45:47.120]  I'm just here making my living pushing buttons.
[45:47.120 --> 45:58.120]  I give my message out to anyone in shout and distance, both for bravery and against slavery, showing resistance.
[45:58.120 --> 46:03.120]  First I'm crawling, then I'm walking, then I start strutting.
[46:03.120 --> 46:10.120]  I'm just so glad to make my living pushing buttons.
[46:10.120 --> 46:26.120]  Okay, we are back. And Diane, you had a comment that you'd like to make for Ramon concerning his real estate situation?
[46:26.120 --> 46:32.120]  Yeah, what I was going to say is that it is good to read the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act and TILA.
[46:32.120 --> 46:39.120]  But one of the things that Randy does, see, understanding what the law says is one thing, and that's good start.
[46:39.120 --> 46:46.120]  But what Randy does, he's able to take the law and take the facts of your particular case
[46:46.120 --> 46:54.120]  and show how your particular lender, pretender lender, has actually violated the law.
[46:54.120 --> 46:59.120]  So that's why I'm so excited about Randy's program is because he's able to take the figures
[46:59.120 --> 47:04.120]  and do the number crunching to show that in fact there has been a TILA violation.
[47:04.120 --> 47:11.120]  That doesn't mean that you can't do it in proper. You can. You can do this by yourself without a lawyer.
[47:11.120 --> 47:16.120]  You don't need a lawyer. But I think you do need something like Randy's program.
[47:16.120 --> 47:24.120]  Before I met Randy, I used three different auditors, one for the forensic audit to find out if it was a bad loan,
[47:24.120 --> 47:33.120]  and then secondly a securitization audit to try and show that the pretender lender is not the real party in interest
[47:33.120 --> 47:38.120]  so that I can challenge standing. And then the third way to challenge it is actually the foreclosure audit
[47:38.120 --> 47:46.120]  where they look at the notice of default and notice of sale documents and show that they didn't follow procedure.
[47:46.120 --> 47:54.120]  So there's three different audits that can be done. But with Randy's situation, which is software
[47:54.120 --> 48:01.120]  and information that he has, he actually takes the numbers that are on your loan,
[48:01.120 --> 48:09.120]  compares them with what the bank did under your truth in lending statement, the TILA and the HUD one,
[48:09.120 --> 48:14.120]  and he compares them and shows that they actually violated the law.
[48:14.120 --> 48:23.120]  If you try to do this by yourself, before I put this suit together, I researched almost day and night,
[48:23.120 --> 48:31.120]  and Deborah will attest to that, 12, 14 hours a day for almost a year to come up with this.
[48:31.120 --> 48:40.120]  So if your house is at risk and you're thinking that you can just go out and do a little research
[48:40.120 --> 48:47.120]  and beat these guys, you're taking a tremendous risk.
[48:47.120 --> 48:55.120]  And I just read an article today about, well, funny enough this research was done by the American Bar Association,
[48:55.120 --> 49:00.120]  but this article was basically warning pro se litigants because a lot of people,
[49:00.120 --> 49:05.120]  and it had specifically to do with the mortgage industry because people are losing their houses
[49:05.120 --> 49:09.120]  when they try to file lawsuits against these banks because they haven't done the proper research
[49:09.120 --> 49:15.120]  and they don't have the suits prepared correctly and all these kinds of things where it was really sad
[49:15.120 --> 49:19.120]  because if people had done the proper research or done the right things or, you know,
[49:19.120 --> 49:24.120]  just gotten jurisdictionary, for example, so that they know how to file proper pleadings
[49:24.120 --> 49:28.120]  and know the civil rules of procedure and all these kinds of things, they may not have lost their homes.
[49:28.120 --> 49:36.120]  But, yeah, Randy did research 12, 14 hours a day, it's no joke, for pretty much over a year
[49:36.120 --> 49:40.120]  in order to put this program together and to build this lawsuit.
[49:40.120 --> 49:45.120]  And so, and even Gary from Georgia called in last night and said that other people
[49:45.120 --> 49:52.120]  who are doing a similar program to Randy are charging like double what Randy charges.
[49:52.120 --> 49:55.120]  So I just wanted to put that out there.
[49:55.120 --> 49:57.120]  Yeah, can you hear me?
[49:57.120 --> 50:00.120]  They don't call me old chump change Randy for nothing.
[50:00.120 --> 50:02.120]  Oh, hello?
[50:02.120 --> 50:08.120]  But don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to get you to use my product.
[50:08.120 --> 50:10.120]  I'm doing real well with it.
[50:10.120 --> 50:14.120]  I am trying to warn you to be real careful because you have a lot at risk.
[50:14.120 --> 50:18.120]  And there are a number of people out there who can help you other than me.
[50:18.120 --> 50:22.120]  And there are attorneys out there who can help you.
[50:22.120 --> 50:26.120]  Learn this kind of thing with a traffic ticket.
[50:26.120 --> 50:28.120]  Don't learn this thing with your house.
[50:28.120 --> 50:30.120]  Okay, Ramon, you had another question?
[50:30.120 --> 50:35.120]  No, I was just going to say I don't want to do this by myself.
[50:35.120 --> 50:38.120]  I was just under the impression from other shows that I heard that, you know,
[50:38.120 --> 50:41.120]  there was lawyers out there that would be willing to help us,
[50:41.120 --> 50:44.120]  help us ordinary guys do this in court.
[50:44.120 --> 50:48.120]  So I was under the impression that we were faced with having to do this on our own.
[50:48.120 --> 50:54.120]  So I would rather seek help from someone like Randy sounds like a great guy to turn to.
[50:54.120 --> 50:57.120]  So I'm on your page now, the data input page.
[50:57.120 --> 50:58.120]  I'm going to go ahead and just fill that out.
[50:58.120 --> 50:59.120]  All right.
[50:59.120 --> 51:00.120]  Thank you, Ramon.
[51:00.120 --> 51:01.120]  Thanks.
[51:01.120 --> 51:02.120]  Okay, you have a good night.
[51:02.120 --> 51:05.120]  All right, we're going now to Gene in Wisconsin.
[51:05.120 --> 51:06.120]  Gene, thanks for calling in.
[51:06.120 --> 51:08.120]  What's your question for us tonight?
[51:08.120 --> 51:09.120]  Good evening, everybody.
[51:09.120 --> 51:11.120]  One real simple one.
[51:11.120 --> 51:17.120]  Is there such a thing as an element book that a person could get a hold of that?
[51:17.120 --> 51:20.120]  It's called Causes of Action.
[51:20.120 --> 51:24.120]  And if you're in Wisconsin, here's what I suggest.
[51:24.120 --> 51:25.120]  O'Connor's?
[51:25.120 --> 51:26.120]  Call around a...
[51:26.120 --> 51:27.120]  Pardon?
[51:27.120 --> 51:28.120]  O'Connor's?
[51:28.120 --> 51:29.120]  No, not O'Connor's.
[51:29.120 --> 51:31.120]  O'Connor's is Texas.
[51:31.120 --> 51:35.120]  If you're in Wisconsin, call around a few lawyers' offices and tell them that you're
[51:35.120 --> 51:40.120]  homeschooling your kids and you want to give them kind of an overview of law.
[51:40.120 --> 51:47.120]  And ask them what kind of litigation guides do we have available in Wisconsin.
[51:47.120 --> 51:48.120]  And they'll be glad to tell you.
[51:48.120 --> 51:52.120]  And then ask them, do you have any Owens laying around?
[51:52.120 --> 51:58.120]  I had someone do this in Amarillo, and she really was homeschooling her kids.
[51:58.120 --> 52:06.120]  She said the third law firm she called said, do you have a pickup or a station wagon?
[52:06.120 --> 52:09.120]  Because they replace their litigation guides every year.
[52:09.120 --> 52:13.120]  The attorneys need to quote the latest law.
[52:13.120 --> 52:16.120]  Well, we're not attorneys, and we're not held to quite so high a standard.
[52:16.120 --> 52:19.120]  And we don't have quite as much money to invest.
[52:19.120 --> 52:23.120]  So I'm real happy to get one that's a couple years old.
[52:23.120 --> 52:27.120]  So in Texas, we have O'Connor's Causes of Action.
[52:27.120 --> 52:35.120]  It's probably good for most any state, but the one in Texas, it has the cause of action.
[52:35.120 --> 52:39.120]  It lists each of the elements of the cause of action.
[52:39.120 --> 52:43.120]  It tells you when to file the cause of action, how to file the cause of action,
[52:43.120 --> 52:48.120]  how to defend against the cause of action, and gives you all the case law you need.
[52:48.120 --> 52:51.120]  We also have, O'Connor said, well, trials.
[52:51.120 --> 52:54.120]  You want to know how to file a, how or when to file a writ of mandamus?
[52:54.120 --> 52:56.120]  Just go in the front and look up mandamus.
[52:56.120 --> 53:00.120]  It tells you when to file it, how to file it, how to defend against it,
[53:00.120 --> 53:03.120]  everything you need to know about it.
[53:03.120 --> 53:09.120]  This will save you untold grief.
[53:09.120 --> 53:11.120]  Just another comment.
[53:11.120 --> 53:15.120]  If you just go to your law library, they have all those resources there,
[53:15.120 --> 53:19.120]  and you can just ask the librarian, and they have been very helpful to me.
[53:19.120 --> 53:25.120]  There's Nexus Lexis, which is a computer program that many lawyers subscribe to.
[53:25.120 --> 53:29.120]  And the other thing I just want to mention is that a couple people have mentioned
[53:29.120 --> 53:30.120]  Jurisdictionary.
[53:30.120 --> 53:34.120]  I believe you can find that on Bill Thornton's website, which is www.
[53:34.120 --> 53:37.120]  We actually sell it on our website, so we want people to buy it through us.
[53:37.120 --> 53:38.120]  Oh, sorry.
[53:38.120 --> 53:39.120]  That's okay.
[53:39.120 --> 53:40.120]  Oh, sorry.
[53:40.120 --> 53:41.120]  And actually Frederick Graves is a host.
[53:41.120 --> 53:42.120]  Wait a minute.
[53:42.120 --> 53:43.120]  Wait a minute.
[53:43.120 --> 53:44.120]  Wait a minute.
[53:44.120 --> 53:45.120]  Wait a minute.
[53:45.120 --> 53:47.120]  Frederick Graves is a host on my network, too.
[53:47.120 --> 53:52.120]  So you can listen to Dr. Frederick Graves teach his Jurisdictionary methods
[53:52.120 --> 53:57.120]  every Monday night from 6 to 8 p.m. Central Time here on this network,
[53:57.120 --> 53:58.120]  on Rule of Law Radio Network.
[53:58.120 --> 54:00.120]  And you can buy Jurisdictionary through this website also,
[54:00.120 --> 54:02.120]  ruleoflawradio.com.
[54:02.120 --> 54:03.120]  Okay.
[54:03.120 --> 54:08.120]  Bill Thornton, an evil rival network.
[54:08.120 --> 54:09.120]  Okay.
[54:09.120 --> 54:14.120]  I have no idea who that is, but definitely you can listen to Dr. Frederick Graves
[54:14.120 --> 54:19.120]  of Jurisdictionary here on Rule of Law Radio Network every Monday evening
[54:19.120 --> 54:21.120]  from 6 to 8 p.m. Central Time.
[54:21.120 --> 54:22.120]  And you can get his archives.
[54:22.120 --> 54:26.120]  He does a fantastic show.
[54:26.120 --> 54:27.120]  Wonderful.
[54:27.120 --> 54:28.120]  Thank you for sharing that.
[54:28.120 --> 54:29.120]  I'll listen to that.
[54:29.120 --> 54:31.120]  Are you on in California?
[54:31.120 --> 54:32.120]  Well, it's an Internet stream.
[54:32.120 --> 54:37.120]  So if you go to ruleoflawradio.com, you can pull the stream from anywhere in the world.
[54:37.120 --> 54:38.120]  Got it.
[54:38.120 --> 54:42.120]  As long as you have Internet connection, you can listen to Rule of Law Radio Network.
[54:42.120 --> 54:44.120]  Wonderful.
[54:44.120 --> 54:45.120]  Okay, Gene.
[54:45.120 --> 54:46.120]  Okay.
[54:46.120 --> 54:54.120]  So in other words, what these books will have, it will tell you the necessary elements of writing
[54:54.120 --> 55:01.120]  and abatement or an averment or, for instance, an affidavit.
[55:01.120 --> 55:02.120]  Okay.
[55:02.120 --> 55:07.120]  It will tell you all the elements required to make a legitimate affidavit, as an example.
[55:07.120 --> 55:09.120]  Is that the same connection?
[55:09.120 --> 55:11.120]  Precisely.
[55:11.120 --> 55:16.120]  In Texas, we really have good resources.
[55:16.120 --> 55:19.120]  We have a really great body of law in Texas.
[55:19.120 --> 55:23.120]  We also have great resources.
[55:23.120 --> 55:28.120]  O'Connor's Civil Trials is just – you just got to have it if you're going to try to –
[55:28.120 --> 55:32.120]  Now, Randy, O'Connor's doesn't make guides for other states?
[55:32.120 --> 55:33.120]  No.
[55:33.120 --> 55:39.120]  Well, they make guides for federal, because I've got the O'Connor's federal sitting on my desk.
[55:39.120 --> 55:41.120]  Every state –
[55:41.120 --> 55:43.120]  She was a retired appellate judge here in Texas.
[55:43.120 --> 55:45.120]  That's why she writes for Texas.
[55:45.120 --> 55:46.120]  Okay.
[55:46.120 --> 55:48.120]  She was a Supreme Court judge here.
[55:48.120 --> 55:50.120]  Appellate court, Randy.
[55:50.120 --> 55:51.120]  No, she was supreme.
[55:51.120 --> 55:53.120]  She was Supreme Court of the United States.
[55:53.120 --> 55:54.120]  No, no, no.
[55:54.120 --> 55:57.120]  If it's the same O'Connor.
[55:57.120 --> 56:04.120]  Anyway, she only does Texas, and different states have different kinds of litigation guides.
[56:04.120 --> 56:08.120]  I know here in California, they've got one that's in a ringed booklet.
[56:08.120 --> 56:13.120]  It's a whole set of them, and they don't really change the whole thing out.
[56:13.120 --> 56:15.120]  They just get supplements to it.
[56:15.120 --> 56:22.120]  So it may be a little more difficult, but there's undoubtedly more than one litigation guide.
[56:22.120 --> 56:24.120]  And Diane's right.
[56:24.120 --> 56:30.120]  You can go to the law library, and instead of just looking for the –
[56:30.120 --> 56:36.120]  looking in the statutes for case law, ask the librarian about litigation guides,
[56:36.120 --> 56:40.120]  and they will tell you how to write the motions and how to structure them.
[56:40.120 --> 56:44.120]  We have O'Connor's forms.
[56:44.120 --> 56:49.120]  I prepared a motion for Ken.
[56:49.120 --> 56:51.120]  He had started the motion.
[56:51.120 --> 56:55.120]  It was a motion for a restraining order, and he sent it to me, and he said –
[56:55.120 --> 56:58.120]  he asked me what I thought, and I said, it's a piece of junk, Ken.
[56:58.120 --> 57:05.120]  And I pulled out O'Connor's forms and walked right down the form, made it up,
[57:05.120 --> 57:06.120]  sent it to him.
[57:06.120 --> 57:11.120]  He went to court with it, and he won the restraining order in court and came out,
[57:11.120 --> 57:14.120]  and the attorney on the other side said, did you do this?
[57:14.120 --> 57:16.120]  And he said, well, I had some help.
[57:16.120 --> 57:19.120]  He said, this is really a nice motion.
[57:19.120 --> 57:20.120]  Yeah, and O'Connor's –
[57:20.120 --> 57:22.120]  And then there's both, Ken, where I got it.
[57:22.120 --> 57:24.120]  Now he thinks I'm a legal guru.
[57:24.120 --> 57:28.120]  And also in O'Connor's forms, it even has case law, too,
[57:28.120 --> 57:32.120]  so that you can look up the case law and then you can find other related cases as well.
[57:32.120 --> 57:34.120]  It's very, very helpful.
[57:34.120 --> 57:40.120]  And when you buy O'Connor's forms, then you get the forms in a Word doc format
[57:40.120 --> 57:46.120]  so that you can just make the changes that you need to suit your particular case,
[57:46.120 --> 57:49.120]  you know, like your name and whatever.
[57:49.120 --> 57:51.120]  Okay.
[57:51.120 --> 57:52.120]  But again, you're in Wisconsin,
[57:52.120 --> 57:56.120]  so you would need to get the litigation guides for Wisconsin.
[57:56.120 --> 57:57.120]  Right.
[57:57.120 --> 57:59.120]  Do I have one more question?
[57:59.120 --> 58:00.120]  Okay, go ahead.
[58:00.120 --> 58:01.120]  What's the question?
[58:01.120 --> 58:02.120]  Oh, I hear the music.
[58:02.120 --> 58:04.120]  Well, go ahead. What's the question?
[58:04.120 --> 58:06.120]  We've got 60 seconds.
[58:06.120 --> 58:08.120]  Well, it's going to take a minute for me to –
[58:08.120 --> 58:09.120]  Okay, all right.
[58:09.120 --> 58:11.120]  Well, then hang on to the other side.
[58:11.120 --> 58:15.120]  We've got Stephen and Dan up after Gene.
[58:15.120 --> 58:17.120]  So we will be right back on the other side.
[58:17.120 --> 58:22.120]  By the way, I did find that state statute that has been adopted by every –
[58:22.120 --> 58:24.120]  pretty much every state in the union.
[58:24.120 --> 58:28.120]  It's called the Uniform Federal Lien Registration Act,
[58:28.120 --> 58:35.120]  where it directs all notices of federal liens to be filed with the county recorder.
[58:35.120 --> 58:36.120]  Place the filing.
[58:36.120 --> 58:39.120]  It must be filed with the county clerk.
[58:39.120 --> 58:44.120]  And it says very clearly that only the notice of lien is necessary
[58:44.120 --> 58:46.120]  to be presented to the county clerk.
[58:46.120 --> 58:48.120]  Nothing else is necessary.
[58:48.120 --> 58:52.120]  And it directs that the county recorder must file the notice of lien,
[58:52.120 --> 58:54.120]  no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
[58:54.120 --> 58:57.120]  This is a state statute that's been adopted by every state.
[58:57.120 --> 58:58.120]  So that's the way it is.
[58:58.120 --> 59:27.120]  We'll be right back.
[59:28.120 --> 59:30.120]  We'll be right back.
[59:58.120 --> 01:00:04.120]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[01:00:04.120 --> 01:00:08.120]  Nearly one-third of House Republicans have introduced a resolution
[01:00:08.120 --> 01:00:11.120]  supporting Israel's right to use military force
[01:00:11.120 --> 01:00:14.120]  to eliminate nuclear threats posed by Iran.
[01:00:14.120 --> 01:00:19.120]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[01:00:19.120 --> 01:00:23.120]  July has become the deadliest month for U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
[01:00:23.120 --> 01:00:28.120]  The tally reached 63 Thursday after three U.S. troops died in explosions.
[01:00:28.120 --> 01:00:32.120]  Neither the U.S. nor NATO officially tallied civilian deaths,
[01:00:32.120 --> 01:00:36.120]  but some estimates put that civilian deaths as high as 50,000.
[01:00:36.120 --> 01:00:40.120]  Casualties are expected to rise as coalition forces launch
[01:00:40.120 --> 01:00:46.120]  long-awaited offensives against the Taliban later this summer.
[01:00:46.120 --> 01:00:49.120]  The FBI is hunting those responsible for leaking
[01:00:49.120 --> 01:00:53.120]  77,000 secret documents about the Afghanistan war.
[01:00:53.120 --> 01:00:57.120]  U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned that sources identified
[01:00:57.120 --> 01:01:02.120]  in the documents now risk being targeted for retribution.
[01:01:02.120 --> 01:01:07.120]  Researchers say microscopic algae, which form the basis of the ocean food chain,
[01:01:07.120 --> 01:01:09.120]  are dying at a terrifying rate.
[01:01:09.120 --> 01:01:14.120]  Phytoplankton, described as a fuel on which marine ecosystems run,
[01:01:14.120 --> 01:01:17.120]  are experiencing declines of about 1% per year,
[01:01:17.120 --> 01:01:20.120]  a 40% drop since 1950.
[01:01:20.120 --> 01:01:25.120]  A separate report Friday showed the world has been warming for the past 30 years.
[01:01:25.120 --> 01:01:31.120]  Much of life on Earth depends on marine diatom cells now in massive decline.
[01:01:31.120 --> 01:01:36.120]  The reduction in the amount of algae could have an impact on a wide range of species,
[01:01:36.120 --> 01:01:41.120]  from tiny zooplankton to marine mammals, seabirds, fish and humans.
[01:01:41.120 --> 01:01:45.120]  Scientists said if confirmed, the decline of phytoplankton
[01:01:45.120 --> 01:01:48.120]  would be a more dramatic change to nature's delicate balance
[01:01:48.120 --> 01:01:51.120]  than the loss of the tropical rainforests.
[01:01:51.120 --> 01:01:55.120]  The research, published in the journal Nature, said the declines were linked
[01:01:55.120 --> 01:01:59.120]  to rising sea surface temperatures and changes in the conditions of the ocean,
[01:01:59.120 --> 01:02:01.120]  particularly near the equator.
[01:02:01.120 --> 01:02:05.120]  This news brief brought to you by the International Newsnet.
[01:02:05.120 --> 01:02:09.120]  The federal court decision blocking key provisions of Arizona's immigration law
[01:02:09.120 --> 01:02:13.120]  from taking effect could light a fighter under lawmakers
[01:02:13.120 --> 01:02:17.120]  considering a radical approach to illegal immigration.
[01:02:17.120 --> 01:02:21.120]  Lawmakers are proposing to bar U.S. born children of illegal immigrants
[01:02:21.120 --> 01:02:23.120]  from becoming U.S. citizens.
[01:02:23.120 --> 01:02:26.120]  Such a move, which has been ridiculed by legal scholars,
[01:02:26.120 --> 01:02:30.120]  would be a drastic reinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.
[01:02:30.120 --> 01:02:33.120]  But those supporting the move say it removes a key incentive
[01:02:33.120 --> 01:02:36.120]  luring illegal immigrants over the border.
[01:02:36.120 --> 01:02:41.120]  And with Arizona lawmakers now prohibited from requiring police to check immigration status,
[01:02:41.120 --> 01:02:44.120]  the option might be back on the table.
[01:02:44.120 --> 01:02:48.120]  Senator Lindsey Graham says he might introduce a constitutional amendment.
[01:02:48.120 --> 01:02:52.120]  Michael Wilde, an immigration lawyer and former federal prosecutor,
[01:02:52.120 --> 01:02:57.120]  said any law altering the 14th Amendment would never survive a court challenge.
[01:02:57.120 --> 01:03:19.120]  This news brief brought to you by the International Newsnet.
[01:03:19.120 --> 01:03:27.120]  The story of every mother's year,
[01:03:27.120 --> 01:03:32.120]  Like how we're not gonna live in fear anymore.
[01:03:32.120 --> 01:03:36.120]  Yeah, the story of every mother's year,
[01:03:36.120 --> 01:03:41.120]  Like how we're not gonna live in fear anymore.
[01:03:41.120 --> 01:03:45.120]  I will lie and cry my blood out,
[01:03:45.120 --> 01:03:51.120]  Until he returns.
[01:03:51.120 --> 01:03:55.120]  Crazy as I be with this faith and with dark,
[01:03:55.120 --> 01:04:02.120]  I will hate my concerns.
[01:04:02.120 --> 01:04:06.120]  Yeah, I will lie and cry my blood out,
[01:04:06.120 --> 01:04:13.120]  Until I need space.
[01:04:13.120 --> 01:04:20.120]  Avogadro, this world's expected, they come to take its place.
[01:04:20.120 --> 01:04:24.120]  I do like to talk my own truth.
[01:04:24.120 --> 01:04:27.120]  Like a chicken at the night, I saw the father enter.
[01:04:27.120 --> 01:04:30.120]  Chased all the parasites from around here.
[01:04:30.120 --> 01:04:33.120]  He was a liar and he was a murderer.
[01:04:33.120 --> 01:04:35.120]  He saw nothing else because they cannot enter.
[01:04:35.120 --> 01:04:38.120]  Pure and martyred, clean sands only.
[01:04:38.120 --> 01:04:41.120]  Only them could enter in that house you see.
[01:04:41.120 --> 01:04:44.120]  See a few sources of effect we could find.
[01:04:44.120 --> 01:04:46.120]  That's what we are doing now, we hide the house you see.
[01:04:46.120 --> 01:04:50.120]  I will occupy my father's house.
[01:04:50.120 --> 01:04:53.120]  I won't allow the wicked.
[01:04:53.120 --> 01:04:57.120]  I will occupy my father's house.
[01:04:57.120 --> 01:05:01.120]  Just come and keep me sleeping, still and true.
[01:05:01.120 --> 01:05:03.120]  I will lie so long and wait.
[01:05:03.120 --> 01:05:05.120]  Okay folks, we are back.
[01:05:05.120 --> 01:05:10.120]  We will occupy our father's house until he returns.
[01:05:10.120 --> 01:05:15.120]  Talking about our good Lord Jesus coming back to the earth.
[01:05:15.120 --> 01:05:17.120]  Something we are greatly looking forward to.
[01:05:17.120 --> 01:05:20.120]  Alright, we are speaking with Gene in Wisconsin.
[01:05:20.120 --> 01:05:23.120]  Gene, thank you for holding on the line.
[01:05:23.120 --> 01:05:25.120]  What is your other question for us?
[01:05:25.120 --> 01:05:28.120]  Okay, the Seventh Amendment, you know,
[01:05:28.120 --> 01:05:30.120]  mentioning what Diane mentioned earlier about the common law.
[01:05:30.120 --> 01:05:32.120]  The Seventh Amendment instructs the common law
[01:05:32.120 --> 01:05:35.120]  where the value and controversy shall exceed $20.
[01:05:35.120 --> 01:05:38.120]  The right trial by jury shall be preserved in no sack.
[01:05:38.120 --> 01:05:45.120]  Tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined
[01:05:45.120 --> 01:05:48.120]  in any court of the United States
[01:05:48.120 --> 01:05:52.120]  then according to the rules of the common law.
[01:05:52.120 --> 01:05:59.120]  Now my understanding of the common law is that it does not include statutory law.
[01:05:59.120 --> 01:06:04.120]  So it appears to me that basically what they are saying is that
[01:06:04.120 --> 01:06:07.120]  we have a body of law at our disposal
[01:06:07.120 --> 01:06:11.120]  that is outside the United States jurisdiction,
[01:06:11.120 --> 01:06:14.120]  which would include, in my understanding of the court,
[01:06:14.120 --> 01:06:19.120]  that they are all under the Administrative Procedures Act
[01:06:19.120 --> 01:06:23.120]  and basically that they are all administrative.
[01:06:23.120 --> 01:06:28.120]  I don't know if we actually have true Article III courts anymore.
[01:06:28.120 --> 01:06:32.120]  That we have a body of law that basically was unwritten law,
[01:06:32.120 --> 01:06:36.120]  which is common law, a lot of it was unwritten.
[01:06:36.120 --> 01:06:41.120]  That we have at our avail to use, if we want,
[01:06:41.120 --> 01:06:46.120]  outside of the jurisdiction of both the federal and state courts.
[01:06:46.120 --> 01:06:51.120]  Is there any truth to this comment?
[01:06:51.120 --> 01:06:53.120]  Randy, are you guys there?
[01:06:53.120 --> 01:06:56.120]  There's a lot of background noise on your channel, Randy.
[01:06:56.120 --> 01:06:57.120]  Sorry, I'm here.
[01:06:57.120 --> 01:06:59.120]  Okay, good.
[01:06:59.120 --> 01:07:03.120]  I guess my comment would be that you're right that common law
[01:07:03.120 --> 01:07:09.120]  was based on judicial decisions, not on any kind of statutes.
[01:07:09.120 --> 01:07:13.120]  And I'm not sure where the statutes,
[01:07:13.120 --> 01:07:20.120]  the authority of the state legislatures came to change it from common law to statutes.
[01:07:20.120 --> 01:07:23.120]  But I think that's a really excellent question.
[01:07:23.120 --> 01:07:30.120]  And are you suggesting that somehow we'd be able to set aside all the legislative law?
[01:07:30.120 --> 01:07:33.120]  All the statutory law, I should say?
[01:07:33.120 --> 01:07:35.120]  Well, that would be the implication.
[01:07:35.120 --> 01:07:42.120]  I mean, we can nullify laws by a jury,
[01:07:42.120 --> 01:07:49.120]  and the Constitution states that no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise.
[01:07:49.120 --> 01:07:54.120]  And that covers pretty much everything in my mind.
[01:07:54.120 --> 01:08:01.120]  For me, that raises another question about the whole jury nullification.
[01:08:01.120 --> 01:08:05.120]  Like if you're in a trial, there's jury instructions,
[01:08:05.120 --> 01:08:11.120]  and the judge will indicate that the jury is the triers of fact,
[01:08:11.120 --> 01:08:14.120]  but it's the judge that tells them what the law is.
[01:08:14.120 --> 01:08:16.120]  Whereas under the common law,
[01:08:16.120 --> 01:08:20.120]  the jury was able to determine whether or not it was a just law,
[01:08:20.120 --> 01:08:25.120]  as well as what the facts of that particular case are.
[01:08:25.120 --> 01:08:27.120]  And they can still do that.
[01:08:27.120 --> 01:08:30.120]  That's what the Fully Informed Jury Association is all about.
[01:08:30.120 --> 01:08:31.120]  Exactly.
[01:08:31.120 --> 01:08:36.120]  Yeah, the problem right now is that since that Supreme Court ruling
[01:08:36.120 --> 01:08:43.120]  that said the judges have no obligation to inform the jury as to their power in that regard,
[01:08:43.120 --> 01:08:45.120]  they just simply do not.
[01:08:45.120 --> 01:08:50.120]  In fact, they've gone as far as to blatantly lie in the jury's face and tell them
[01:08:50.120 --> 01:08:54.120]  that they don't have the power when they actually do.
[01:08:54.120 --> 01:08:55.120]  That's exactly right.
[01:08:55.120 --> 01:08:58.120]  As a matter of fact, we had a meeting today,
[01:08:58.120 --> 01:09:01.120]  Randy was there with this lady who I'm representing in court right now,
[01:09:01.120 --> 01:09:07.120]  and she did her own unlawful detainer jury trial and won it,
[01:09:07.120 --> 01:09:11.120]  even though the judge tried to get her to like, you know,
[01:09:11.120 --> 01:09:15.120]  exclude every bit of evidence that she tried to put in,
[01:09:15.120 --> 01:09:18.120]  but she got to the hearts of the people,
[01:09:18.120 --> 01:09:20.120]  and she made an opening statement, closing statement,
[01:09:20.120 --> 01:09:25.120]  and the jury ruled in her favor and, you know,
[01:09:25.120 --> 01:09:28.120]  stopped the bank's unlawful detainer action,
[01:09:28.120 --> 01:09:34.120]  despite all the judge's instructions about how she couldn't introduce this evidence,
[01:09:34.120 --> 01:09:37.120]  and she had to, you know, follow the...
[01:09:37.120 --> 01:09:44.120]  It was like, in an unlawful detainer case, the elements are that someone else is the property
[01:09:44.120 --> 01:09:47.120]  and you're unlawfully detaining, et cetera.
[01:09:47.120 --> 01:09:51.120]  The jury just ignored the law, so to speak,
[01:09:51.120 --> 01:09:54.120]  because they just, they understood the facts,
[01:09:54.120 --> 01:10:00.120]  and they felt that it was just an unjust application of the law in her case.
[01:10:00.120 --> 01:10:03.120]  Which is correct, in my opinion.
[01:10:03.120 --> 01:10:07.120]  There was a problem in there in that it says,
[01:10:07.120 --> 01:10:11.120]  no fact found by a jury shall be otherwise tried.
[01:10:11.120 --> 01:10:17.120]  It doesn't say a determination by a jury or a judgment by a jury.
[01:10:17.120 --> 01:10:21.120]  It says the facts, and that's essentially what the judges say,
[01:10:21.120 --> 01:10:25.120]  is that the juries can determine the facts,
[01:10:25.120 --> 01:10:29.120]  and then the judge determines the law.
[01:10:29.120 --> 01:10:33.120]  I just didn't see anything that authorizes,
[01:10:33.120 --> 01:10:40.120]  while the judges weren't required to advise the jury of their rights,
[01:10:40.120 --> 01:10:49.120]  there's nothing that I can find that tells the judge that he can dictate the law to the jury.
[01:10:49.120 --> 01:10:52.120]  They just decided they were the ones to do that.
[01:10:52.120 --> 01:10:57.120]  Yeah, and you're right, it starts off, it says, in suits of common law.
[01:10:57.120 --> 01:11:01.120]  Again, that person who I mentioned, Bill Thornton,
[01:11:01.120 --> 01:11:08.120]  that's what he teaches people is how to go in and take over the court doing common law cases.
[01:11:08.120 --> 01:11:11.120]  I'm a big fan of his, actually.
[01:11:11.120 --> 01:11:13.120]  Okay, me too.
[01:11:13.120 --> 01:11:15.120]  He's a friend of mine, actually.
[01:11:15.120 --> 01:11:20.120]  Another thing that I wanted to bring up, if you look in, I believe it's black sports,
[01:11:20.120 --> 01:11:24.120]  I think where we're running into problems
[01:11:24.120 --> 01:11:28.120]  and why they've basically done away with common law is because,
[01:11:28.120 --> 01:11:32.120]  back to our good old fashioned capital name argument,
[01:11:32.120 --> 01:11:36.120]  where if you look in black's law, it's a fictitious plaintiff,
[01:11:36.120 --> 01:11:41.120]  a person appearing in a writ or record as a plaintiff in a suit,
[01:11:41.120 --> 01:11:45.120]  but who in reality does not exist.
[01:11:45.120 --> 01:11:49.120]  The state of Wisconsin in reality does not exist.
[01:11:49.120 --> 01:11:54.120]  Okay, it's a fictitious name, it's an enthelegious, or legis,
[01:11:54.120 --> 01:11:58.120]  or who is ignorant of the suit.
[01:11:58.120 --> 01:12:05.120]  How can the state of Wisconsin be aware of a suit when it's just an abstract name
[01:12:05.120 --> 01:12:08.120]  and of the use of his name in it.
[01:12:08.120 --> 01:12:14.120]  It is a contempt of court to sue in the name of a fictitious party.
[01:12:14.120 --> 01:12:21.120]  That sounds like English, but I thought that that was rather interesting,
[01:12:21.120 --> 01:12:27.120]  and I just kind of added two and two together in my inexperienced mind
[01:12:27.120 --> 01:12:30.120]  and said that's why they had to do away with the common law
[01:12:30.120 --> 01:12:35.120]  because of the way we have the commercial structure.
[01:12:35.120 --> 01:12:43.120]  Do you believe that, for example, the state of California is just a corporation,
[01:12:43.120 --> 01:12:48.120]  whereas the Republic of California is the actual de jure government
[01:12:48.120 --> 01:12:55.120]  as opposed to the de facto corporation?
[01:12:55.120 --> 01:12:59.120]  Do you separate the two of them out?
[01:12:59.120 --> 01:13:02.120]  With all my heart and soul, I believe that, yeah.
[01:13:02.120 --> 01:13:04.120]  Okay.
[01:13:04.120 --> 01:13:09.120]  I mean, it may be a quasi-trust corporation, you know,
[01:13:09.120 --> 01:13:14.120]  where they act as a trust, like when you register your vehicle, you know,
[01:13:14.120 --> 01:13:17.120]  the state, you know, you split title with the state,
[01:13:17.120 --> 01:13:22.120]  and you give them basically legal title so they control, and you get equitable title,
[01:13:22.120 --> 01:13:25.120]  so you get, you know, I mean, that's my impression of it.
[01:13:25.120 --> 01:13:29.120]  I don't know if I'm right or not, but that's what I've concluded.
[01:13:29.120 --> 01:13:31.120]  That's what I've heard, too.
[01:13:31.120 --> 01:13:33.120]  Well, see, I'd like to make a comment about this, too,
[01:13:33.120 --> 01:13:38.120]  and this is pretty much Randy's and my position on the issue.
[01:13:38.120 --> 01:13:41.120]  Let's take the courts, for example, or let's just take, you know,
[01:13:41.120 --> 01:13:44.120]  the Supreme Court of Texas, for example, all right?
[01:13:44.120 --> 01:13:47.120]  That is set up under the Texas Constitution.
[01:13:47.120 --> 01:13:49.120]  It's a constitutional court.
[01:13:49.120 --> 01:13:55.120]  And if the judges on the bench have acquired their office
[01:13:55.120 --> 01:13:58.120]  and are in that position properly according to statute
[01:13:58.120 --> 01:14:01.120]  and according to the Constitution and have taken oaths of office
[01:14:01.120 --> 01:14:04.120]  and they're on record and have proper oaths of office,
[01:14:04.120 --> 01:14:08.120]  then that judge is still a constitutional judge in that constitutional court.
[01:14:08.120 --> 01:14:13.120]  Even if the court itself has incorporated into a trust or a corporation
[01:14:13.120 --> 01:14:19.120]  or whatever else, there's still also a valid constitutional court.
[01:14:19.120 --> 01:14:21.120]  That's Randy's and my position.
[01:14:21.120 --> 01:14:22.120]  Yeah.
[01:14:22.120 --> 01:14:29.120]  What I maintain here is, is while the court may incorporate itself,
[01:14:29.120 --> 01:14:31.120]  it's essentially a business.
[01:14:31.120 --> 01:14:37.120]  It hires people, it buys products, it rents and takes care of a building.
[01:14:37.120 --> 01:14:40.120]  But when that judge steps up behind the bench,
[01:14:40.120 --> 01:14:44.120]  he's not stepping up behind the bench as a corporate officer.
[01:14:44.120 --> 01:14:46.120]  Yeah, not as the CEO of the corporation.
[01:14:46.120 --> 01:14:50.120]  He is the constitutional judge under statute with his oath
[01:14:50.120 --> 01:14:51.120]  and all that kind of stuff.
[01:14:51.120 --> 01:14:52.120]  Okay.
[01:14:52.120 --> 01:14:56.120]  If I could interject on that, however, when he steps on that bench
[01:14:56.120 --> 01:14:59.120]  in the capacity of operating for profit,
[01:14:59.120 --> 01:15:02.120]  he is not operating as a constitutional judge.
[01:15:02.120 --> 01:15:07.120]  Yeah, unsupported presupposition.
[01:15:07.120 --> 01:15:14.120]  He does not step up behind the bench purportedly to operate a for-profit business.
[01:15:14.120 --> 01:15:16.120]  When he steps off the bench,
[01:15:16.120 --> 01:15:21.120]  he operates the for-profit business to maintain the business of the court.
[01:15:21.120 --> 01:15:23.120]  But when he steps up behind the bench,
[01:15:23.120 --> 01:15:28.120]  he doesn't do that in the operation of a for-profit business.
[01:15:28.120 --> 01:15:35.120]  He does that in his constitutional capacity as a constitutional judge.
[01:15:35.120 --> 01:15:37.120]  How can you make that distinction?
[01:15:37.120 --> 01:15:40.120]  I mean, he's working for the corporation that pays him.
[01:15:40.120 --> 01:15:43.120]  The cop is working for the same corporation that pays him.
[01:15:43.120 --> 01:15:49.120]  The attorneys are basically working for the court.
[01:15:49.120 --> 01:15:51.120]  The British Accreditation Registry.
[01:15:51.120 --> 01:16:00.120]  Because there are specific statutory provisions for collecting taxes from the people
[01:16:00.120 --> 01:16:06.120]  for the sole purpose of paying for the judge and paying for the courts
[01:16:06.120 --> 01:16:07.120]  and funding the courts.
[01:16:07.120 --> 01:16:10.120]  And the comptroller's office keeps track of all that.
[01:16:10.120 --> 01:16:14.120]  And if somebody is going to make the allegation
[01:16:14.120 --> 01:16:20.120]  that the judge's salary is coming from some other financial means,
[01:16:20.120 --> 01:16:22.120]  well, then somebody's going to have to prove that.
[01:16:22.120 --> 01:16:26.120]  But as long as the records are open and traceable
[01:16:26.120 --> 01:16:30.120]  and it can show that it's coming out of the general fund from the taxpayers,
[01:16:30.120 --> 01:16:33.120]  then I don't think we can make that allegation
[01:16:33.120 --> 01:16:36.120]  that they're being paid for out of the corporate funds.
[01:16:36.120 --> 01:16:41.120]  And we're still going to an unsupported supposition
[01:16:41.120 --> 01:16:46.120]  that the fact that the court is a corporation makes any difference.
[01:16:46.120 --> 01:16:49.120]  I can't find anything in law that says it does.
[01:16:49.120 --> 01:16:53.120]  Not many of them abide by the Constitution, however.
[01:16:53.120 --> 01:16:54.120]  Well, yeah, that's a different story.
[01:16:54.120 --> 01:16:56.120]  Okay, listen, we've got to go to break.
[01:16:56.120 --> 01:16:57.120]  We will be right back.
[01:16:57.120 --> 01:17:01.120]  And we're going to go to Stephen in Montana.
[01:17:01.120 --> 01:17:07.120]  Capital Coin and Bullion is your local source for rare coins, precious metals,
[01:17:07.120 --> 01:17:10.120]  and coin supplies in the Austin metro area.
[01:17:10.120 --> 01:17:12.120]  We also ship worldwide.
[01:17:12.120 --> 01:17:14.120]  We are a family-owned and operated business
[01:17:14.120 --> 01:17:17.120]  that offers competitive prices on your coin and metals purchases.
[01:17:17.120 --> 01:17:22.120]  We buy, sell, trade, and consign rare coins, gold and silver coin collections,
[01:17:22.120 --> 01:17:24.120]  precious metals, and scrap gold.
[01:17:24.120 --> 01:17:28.120]  We will purchase and sell gold and jewelry items as well.
[01:17:28.120 --> 01:17:30.120]  We offer daily specials on coins and bullions.
[01:17:30.120 --> 01:17:34.120]  We're located at 5448 Burnett Road, Suite 3,
[01:17:34.120 --> 01:17:40.120]  and we're open Monday through Friday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., Saturdays, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
[01:17:40.120 --> 01:17:43.120]  You are welcome to stop in our shop during regular business hours
[01:17:43.120 --> 01:17:49.120]  or call 512-646-6440 with any questions.
[01:17:49.120 --> 01:17:54.120]  Ask for Chad and say you heard about us on Rule of Law Radio or 90.1 FM.
[01:17:54.120 --> 01:18:03.120]  That's Capital Coin and Bullion, 512-646-6440.
[01:18:03.120 --> 01:18:26.120]  Oh, come on
[01:18:26.120 --> 01:18:31.120]  If I can't get everything I want
[01:18:31.120 --> 01:18:37.120]  Maybe I'll get a range, yeah
[01:18:37.120 --> 01:18:42.120]  If I can't get everything I need
[01:18:42.120 --> 01:18:48.120]  Maybe I'll get a range, yeah
[01:18:48.120 --> 01:18:53.120]  If the people of the world can't get happiness and peace
[01:18:53.120 --> 01:19:00.120]  Maybe I'll get a range, yeah
[01:19:00.120 --> 01:19:04.120]  If the people of the world can't get all these crazy walls to see
[01:19:04.120 --> 01:19:06.120]  Okay, we are back.
[01:19:06.120 --> 01:19:10.120]  And Diane, you had a comment to make before we moved on to the rest of the calls?
[01:19:10.120 --> 01:19:13.120]  Right. At one point, I brought a lawsuit.
[01:19:13.120 --> 01:19:16.120]  I was trying to get on the ballot in the state of California.
[01:19:16.120 --> 01:19:22.120]  And I went into court and raised the Constitution as my argument.
[01:19:22.120 --> 01:19:25.120]  And I actually had a female judge say to me,
[01:19:25.120 --> 01:19:30.120]  Don't mention the Constitution in my court.
[01:19:30.120 --> 01:19:35.120]  And I had lawyers come out afterwards saying that they were just, they couldn't even believe it.
[01:19:35.120 --> 01:19:40.120]  It's like they said, you know, we feel so bad that you were so chastised by this judge.
[01:19:40.120 --> 01:19:41.120]  And we couldn't believe it.
[01:19:41.120 --> 01:19:45.120]  She was saying that you can't raise the Constitution in the court.
[01:19:45.120 --> 01:19:48.120]  You know, when this is supposed to be the supreme law of the land,
[01:19:48.120 --> 01:19:52.120]  they take their oaths to defend and protect the Constitution.
[01:19:52.120 --> 01:19:56.120]  I was just appalled. I didn't even know what to do with it at that point.
[01:19:56.120 --> 01:20:01.120]  That right there is the issue for my argument when they're not operating as a judge,
[01:20:01.120 --> 01:20:03.120]  they're operating as a commercial entity.
[01:20:03.120 --> 01:20:07.120]  That certainly would be some evidence leaning strongly in that direction.
[01:20:07.120 --> 01:20:13.120]  Yeah. And in the case of that, when that judge does that, they've done one of two things.
[01:20:13.120 --> 01:20:17.120]  They've either confessed in open court to an act of treason,
[01:20:17.120 --> 01:20:23.120]  or they have just blatantly committed treason and gone unchallenged.
[01:20:23.120 --> 01:20:25.120]  That's my position.
[01:20:25.120 --> 01:20:28.120]  It's not that they're a corporation, they're just a criminal.
[01:20:28.120 --> 01:20:35.120]  They're violating their sworn oath of office, and that should go to a motion to disqualify.
[01:20:35.120 --> 01:20:40.120]  Yeah. And what if they don't have an oath, which a lot of these rogues don't?
[01:20:40.120 --> 01:20:41.120]  Then they're occupied.
[01:20:41.120 --> 01:20:43.120]  Then that should go to the grand jury for impersonating.
[01:20:43.120 --> 01:20:48.120]  Absolutely.
[01:20:48.120 --> 01:20:52.120]  Okay. Gene, do you have any more quick comments, because we need to move on?
[01:20:52.120 --> 01:20:54.120]  No, that's great. Thank you much, everybody.
[01:20:54.120 --> 01:20:56.120]  Okay. Thank you, Gene.
[01:20:56.120 --> 01:20:59.120]  Okay. We are going now to Stephen in Montana.
[01:20:59.120 --> 01:21:00.120]  Stephen, thank you for calling in.
[01:21:00.120 --> 01:21:03.120]  What is your question or comment for us tonight?
[01:21:03.120 --> 01:21:05.120]  Hi, guys.
[01:21:05.120 --> 01:21:08.120]  I'm right on with Randy at that point, whether he's criminal,
[01:21:08.120 --> 01:21:16.120]  because up here in Montana, I actually had a different question, but since we're on common law here.
[01:21:16.120 --> 01:21:20.120]  Well, you can comment on this, and then you can also ask whatever other question you have.
[01:21:20.120 --> 01:21:23.120]  Okay. In Montana, it's actually really great.
[01:21:23.120 --> 01:21:28.120]  In the last, well, 15 or 20 years, they've totally redesigned their statute,
[01:21:28.120 --> 01:21:36.120]  and they put the Constitution first, and then they put Title I, which is general laws and definitions,
[01:21:36.120 --> 01:21:43.120]  and then Part I is the meaning of law, and here they have codified common law, but listen to this.
[01:21:43.120 --> 01:21:44.120]  It's a little different.
[01:21:44.120 --> 01:21:45.120]  There's two different statutes.
[01:21:45.120 --> 01:21:47.120]  Here's one. I'll read them real quick.
[01:21:47.120 --> 01:21:54.120]  Common law, applicability of, it says, in this state, there is no common law in any case
[01:21:54.120 --> 01:21:59.120]  where the law is declared by statute, emphasis statute, but where not so declared,
[01:21:59.120 --> 01:22:04.120]  if the same is applicable and of a general nature, not in conflict with the statute,
[01:22:04.120 --> 01:22:10.120]  the common law shall be the rule and shall be the law and rule of decision,
[01:22:10.120 --> 01:22:17.120]  and then the next title, Title I, 11109, says common law of England, one rule of decision,
[01:22:17.120 --> 01:22:22.120]  says the common law of England so far that it is not repugnant to or inconsistent
[01:22:22.120 --> 01:22:27.120]  with the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the laws of this state.
[01:22:27.120 --> 01:22:30.120]  Wait, can you hold on one second? Hold on one second, Stephen.
[01:22:30.120 --> 01:22:34.120]  Randy, there's a lot of background noise on your end. I've been trying to Skype chat you.
[01:22:34.120 --> 01:22:41.120]  Maybe there's something going on. I don't know. We can't hear Stephen very well.
[01:22:41.120 --> 01:22:44.120]  Okay. All right. Go ahead, Stephen.
[01:22:44.120 --> 01:22:48.120]  Okay. The first one is the common law, just the common law,
[01:22:48.120 --> 01:22:52.120]  and it says as long as it was not in conflict with statute,
[01:22:52.120 --> 01:22:56.120]  and then here we got common law of England, which says the common law of England so far
[01:22:56.120 --> 01:23:01.120]  that it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States
[01:23:01.120 --> 01:23:05.120]  or the Constitution or laws of this state.
[01:23:05.120 --> 01:23:08.120]  So they're clearly making a distinction between the two,
[01:23:08.120 --> 01:23:13.120]  because the first one on a common law only with a statute that common law of England is
[01:23:13.120 --> 01:23:20.120]  or the laws of this state is the rule of decision in all courts of this state.
[01:23:20.120 --> 01:23:27.120]  So I'm wondering if, I mean, that set up Title I-I right after the Constitution,
[01:23:27.120 --> 01:23:31.120]  so everything should be under common law, I think, in my state anyways.
[01:23:31.120 --> 01:23:35.120]  And what Randy is saying is that when they start acting corporate,
[01:23:35.120 --> 01:23:39.120]  because you go into Eddie's thinking on his traffic seminar stuff,
[01:23:39.120 --> 01:23:44.120]  everything else after these first two titles in Montana, you've got the Constitution,
[01:23:44.120 --> 01:23:48.120]  you've got laws and definitions and common law and all that stuff,
[01:23:48.120 --> 01:23:52.120]  and everything after that is, like, person, individual, corporations,
[01:23:52.120 --> 01:23:56.120]  and it's all, and I think when they start applying it to us,
[01:23:56.120 --> 01:23:59.120]  they're just acting completely outside of their jurisdiction.
[01:23:59.120 --> 01:24:03.120]  Yeah, it goes to something I said one night Randy didn't actually like,
[01:24:03.120 --> 01:24:07.120]  and that was that statutes are for governing persons.
[01:24:07.120 --> 01:24:10.120]  The Bible is for governing men.
[01:24:10.120 --> 01:24:12.120]  Right.
[01:24:12.120 --> 01:24:15.120]  And then here we have the, we have one also that says right after this
[01:24:15.120 --> 01:24:19.120]  that the people of this state do not abrogate their sovereignty
[01:24:19.120 --> 01:24:21.120]  to the agencies which serve them.
[01:24:21.120 --> 01:24:25.120]  And it clearly just thinks there's two cases,
[01:24:25.120 --> 01:24:29.120]  but when you relate to people and statute here,
[01:24:29.120 --> 01:24:34.120]  there's sovereignty and they totally use the word people,
[01:24:34.120 --> 01:24:38.120]  and person obviously isn't that.
[01:24:38.120 --> 01:24:44.120]  But, okay, if I could get to my next question, my real reason why I am called,
[01:24:44.120 --> 01:24:50.120]  do you guys have a bail schedule down in Texas?
[01:24:50.120 --> 01:24:52.120]  A what schedule?
[01:24:52.120 --> 01:24:55.120]  A bail schedule where an officer can,
[01:24:55.120 --> 01:25:00.120]  or a judge sets a general bail for everybody and then the officer just tells you,
[01:25:00.120 --> 01:25:05.120]  you know, your bail is this and he'll let you go or whatever or release you
[01:25:05.120 --> 01:25:09.120]  without a judicial determination of bail and all that stuff?
[01:25:09.120 --> 01:25:12.120]  Yes, they can do that.
[01:25:12.120 --> 01:25:18.120]  It authorizes under 1720, 21, 22, under certain circumstances,
[01:25:18.120 --> 01:25:23.120]  they can release you on a preset bail.
[01:25:23.120 --> 01:25:24.120]  Okay.
[01:25:24.120 --> 01:25:26.120]  And then up here, well, I was wondering,
[01:25:26.120 --> 01:25:32.120]  because when you guys talk about being arrested, taken to court and magistrate
[01:25:32.120 --> 01:25:39.120]  right away, but here we have that too, because once you establish an arrest,
[01:25:39.120 --> 01:25:42.120]  and then you've got to go to a judge for initial appearance, it's called here,
[01:25:42.120 --> 01:25:46.120]  and then there's a requisite for setting a bail,
[01:25:46.120 --> 01:25:50.120]  and there's a whole thing of setting bail by a judge,
[01:25:50.120 --> 01:25:54.120]  the evidence weighed against you, your ties and family ties within the community,
[01:25:54.120 --> 01:25:56.120]  this and that, this and that.
[01:25:56.120 --> 01:26:02.120]  How can that be, how can you be arrested, go to jail,
[01:26:02.120 --> 01:26:07.120]  and then a cop take you to or then release you on a bail schedule
[01:26:07.120 --> 01:26:14.120]  without all those other things by a court or judicial?
[01:26:14.120 --> 01:26:19.120]  I would have to look close at your law.
[01:26:19.120 --> 01:26:21.120]  Well, go ahead, Rainey.
[01:26:21.120 --> 01:26:25.120]  The police officer is required to take you directly to the nearest magistrate
[01:26:25.120 --> 01:26:28.120]  or without unnecessary delay.
[01:26:28.120 --> 01:26:33.120]  If there is a circumstance that will cause a lengthy delay,
[01:26:33.120 --> 01:26:37.120]  he can release you under certain circumstances,
[01:26:37.120 --> 01:26:41.120]  but none of this relieves his duty to take you before a magistrate
[01:26:41.120 --> 01:26:43.120]  if he's going to hold you.
[01:26:43.120 --> 01:26:49.120]  Now, he can release you on bail, but if you want to go before a magistrate,
[01:26:49.120 --> 01:26:53.120]  you don't have to elect that option.
[01:26:53.120 --> 01:26:57.120]  You can still demand to go before the magistrate.
[01:26:57.120 --> 01:27:05.120]  This is just an option to make it more convenient for you, and it is your option.
[01:27:05.120 --> 01:27:07.120]  Okay.
[01:27:07.120 --> 01:27:10.120]  So I can, okay.
[01:27:10.120 --> 01:27:12.120]  Because I brought up some criminal complaints
[01:27:12.120 --> 01:27:18.120]  that the officer was acting as a judicial officer by setting bail,
[01:27:18.120 --> 01:27:26.120]  and the judge came back and said that it was because of the bail schedule.
[01:27:26.120 --> 01:27:27.120]  Right, right.
[01:27:27.120 --> 01:27:33.120]  He didn't set the bail the legislature did or whoever set the schedule,
[01:27:33.120 --> 01:27:41.120]  and he just offered you an option as opposed to sitting and waiting for a magistrate.
[01:27:41.120 --> 01:27:43.120]  Okay.
[01:27:43.120 --> 01:27:44.120]  Gotcha.
[01:27:44.120 --> 01:27:47.120]  So that's not an unconscious, okay.
[01:27:47.120 --> 01:27:48.120]  No, no.
[01:27:48.120 --> 01:27:51.120]  Yeah, I wouldn't raise much, I wouldn't complain too much about that
[01:27:51.120 --> 01:27:53.120]  unless they're abusing it,
[01:27:53.120 --> 01:27:57.120]  using it as an excuse to hold you for three or four days
[01:27:57.120 --> 01:28:02.120]  and then let you go whenever they feel like it, you know, set bail themselves.
[01:28:02.120 --> 01:28:06.120]  The delay in bringing before a magistrate exists
[01:28:06.120 --> 01:28:13.120]  whether they release you on bail schedule or bringing before a magistrate late.
[01:28:13.120 --> 01:28:17.120]  It's still the same thing.
[01:28:17.120 --> 01:28:19.120]  Gotcha.
[01:28:19.120 --> 01:28:24.120]  Well, I had something else but forgot about it.
[01:28:24.120 --> 01:28:29.120]  That's not going to get better as you get older, trust me.
[01:28:29.120 --> 01:28:31.120]  All right, bye-bye.
[01:28:31.120 --> 01:28:33.120]  Okay, thank you, Stephen.
[01:28:33.120 --> 01:28:35.120]  All right, we're going to go now to Dan in Connecticut.
[01:28:35.120 --> 01:28:37.120]  After that, we have open phones.
[01:28:37.120 --> 01:28:40.120]  So folks, if you'd like to call in and speak on the air with us,
[01:28:40.120 --> 01:28:43.120]  512-646-1984.
[01:28:43.120 --> 01:28:47.120]  If you just want to listen, 512-485-9010.
[01:28:47.120 --> 01:28:52.120]  But we prefer that folks listen online so we can get our stream numbers up on Shoutcast.
[01:28:52.120 --> 01:28:54.120]  Dan, thanks for calling in.
[01:28:54.120 --> 01:28:56.120]  What's on your mind?
[01:28:56.120 --> 01:29:01.120]  You know, those classic dirty rotten public official type complaints that Randy likes so much
[01:29:01.120 --> 01:29:06.120]  and I have come to appreciate in my own right.
[01:29:06.120 --> 01:29:08.120]  Okay, go ahead.
[01:29:08.120 --> 01:29:10.120]  I'm going to have to deal with this hypothetically,
[01:29:10.120 --> 01:29:14.120]  considering the nature of what I'm doing here in my state.
[01:29:14.120 --> 01:29:18.120]  And I know this is going on everywhere and this could help everybody else.
[01:29:18.120 --> 01:29:22.120]  So I figured if anybody is listening and they're involved in third-party politics,
[01:29:22.120 --> 01:29:26.120]  which I believe your guest is, and I think she could appreciate this too,
[01:29:26.120 --> 01:29:29.120]  I'm going to lay out a hypothetical scenario.
[01:29:29.120 --> 01:29:35.120]  Let's hypothetically say that your particular secretary of state decides,
[01:29:35.120 --> 01:29:39.120]  using the assistance of state employees,
[01:29:39.120 --> 01:29:45.120]  to go ahead and actually enlist their help in writing up a press release using web hosting
[01:29:45.120 --> 01:29:47.120]  and I hear the music. Is that right?
[01:29:47.120 --> 01:29:49.120]  Yes, just hang on the line, Dan.
[01:29:49.120 --> 01:29:53.120]  And we will be right back on the other side.
[01:29:53.120 --> 01:29:56.120]  Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens, our special guest Diane.
[01:29:56.120 --> 01:30:01.120]  We'll be right back.
[01:30:01.120 --> 01:30:04.120]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:30:04.120 --> 01:30:07.120]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary.
[01:30:07.120 --> 01:30:15.120]  The affordable, easy-to-understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[01:30:15.120 --> 01:30:19.120]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:30:19.120 --> 01:30:23.120]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:30:23.120 --> 01:30:28.120]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course and now you can too.
[01:30:28.120 --> 01:30:34.120]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:30:34.120 --> 01:30:40.120]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles
[01:30:40.120 --> 01:30:43.120]  and practices that control our American courts.
[01:30:43.120 --> 01:30:49.120]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[01:30:49.120 --> 01:30:52.120]  pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:30:52.120 --> 01:31:05.120]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:31:05.120 --> 01:31:23.120]  I see it too, I see it too. I see tools of ingenuity, used against the workers of iniquity.
[01:31:23.120 --> 01:31:29.120]  Tools of master capability, available for all eternity. They come from natural divinity,
[01:31:29.120 --> 01:31:38.120]  such roots in authenticity. Tools of regal dignity, rebuilt for crime and obesity.
[01:31:38.120 --> 01:31:51.120]  And I say, truth in nature must be justice, I believe. Truth in nature must be justice.
[01:31:51.120 --> 01:32:00.120]  Love is a daunting task, at least I got the key to see. I said more than just take off the silly mind.
[01:32:00.120 --> 01:32:09.120]  And in the light of day we all will fight. Tools of ingenuity, used against the workers of iniquity.
[01:32:09.120 --> 01:32:37.120]  Tools of ingenuity, used against the workers of iniquity.
[01:32:37.120 --> 01:32:53.120]  Tools of master capability, available for all eternity. They come from natural divinity,
[01:32:53.120 --> 01:33:07.120]  such roots in authenticity. Tools of regal dignity, rebuilt for crime and obesity.
[01:33:07.120 --> 01:33:25.120]  Love is a daunting task, at least I got the key to see. I said more than just take off the silly mind.
[01:33:25.120 --> 01:33:41.120]  And in the light of day we all will fight. Tools of ingenuity, used against the workers of iniquity.
[01:33:41.120 --> 01:34:00.120]  Okay folks, we're back. We're speaking with Dan in Connecticut. Okay, Dan, please continue.
[01:34:00.120 --> 01:34:06.120]  Yeah, so my hypothetical question goes to this. Let's just say your Secretary of State in your state,
[01:34:06.120 --> 01:34:14.120]  using state resources, goes out and encourages people to affiliate as Democrats or Republicans.
[01:34:14.120 --> 01:34:20.120]  What would your approach be? And I was eager to pick your guest's brain on this.
[01:34:20.120 --> 01:34:23.120]  Quiet, Tam.
[01:34:23.120 --> 01:34:32.120]  Well, I'm running for Attorney General. I would say that that's illegal and action should be taken against that.
[01:34:32.120 --> 01:34:41.120]  I kind of thought so, too. And of course, I'm just keeping this hypothetical for, let's just put it like this.
[01:34:41.120 --> 01:34:46.120]  It's a bunch of sticky legal wickets, and that's why I'm saying that for now,
[01:34:46.120 --> 01:34:51.120]  but it looks like we're getting the ball rolling and some good things will probably come on it,
[01:34:51.120 --> 01:34:54.120]  and it looks like we got a dead bang.
[01:34:54.120 --> 01:34:55.120]  What about it?
[01:34:55.120 --> 01:35:04.120]  It reminds me of like the First Amendment, which says that we're supposed to have freedom of press, right?
[01:35:04.120 --> 01:35:10.120]  And if you look at the media and how that's controlled, it's the same kind of thing.
[01:35:10.120 --> 01:35:17.120]  It's like the powers that be control what we're allowed to hear and what's dictated to us.
[01:35:17.120 --> 01:35:29.120]  And if the Secretary of State is misusing public funds, that sounds like it's a good case for a quiet Tam action.
[01:35:29.120 --> 01:35:34.120]  Oh, but it gets better than that. Depending on the state you look at, they'll throw,
[01:35:34.120 --> 01:35:40.120]  and I've looked at a lot of states for this, by the way, so I'm not being specific yet anyhow.
[01:35:40.120 --> 01:35:49.120]  But if you look at a lot of the press releases, they're also using a likeness of the state's feel on a lot of them.
[01:35:49.120 --> 01:35:51.120]  Wait a minute, a likeness?
[01:35:51.120 --> 01:35:56.120]  Yeah, a likeness or an imitation or a replica of the same thing.
[01:35:56.120 --> 01:36:04.120]  That would go to how close the likeness is. I mean, like a copy?
[01:36:04.120 --> 01:36:09.120]  Yes.
[01:36:09.120 --> 01:36:20.120]  That's interesting. Now, they've come up with this before, and always it's come up absolutely forbidden.
[01:36:20.120 --> 01:36:27.120]  So this would be a good one to go to the grand jury with allegations against the Secretary of State.
[01:36:27.120 --> 01:36:31.120]  That should get interesting.
[01:36:31.120 --> 01:36:34.120]  And then start hammering anybody who interferes with you.
[01:36:34.120 --> 01:36:40.120]  You make just a general nuisance of yourself, start this big stink,
[01:36:40.120 --> 01:36:46.120]  and get the local prosecutor and local district judge shielding the Secretary of State from prosecution,
[01:36:46.120 --> 01:36:50.120]  tampering with the grand jury. I'm going to have a lot of fun with that.
[01:36:50.120 --> 01:36:57.120]  I was trying to think on the civil level, what that's called, whether you can do like a writ of prohibition
[01:36:57.120 --> 01:37:02.120]  or how you do a writ of mandate to make them do something.
[01:37:02.120 --> 01:37:07.120]  I'm wondering if you can do a writ of prohibition to stop them from doing something.
[01:37:07.120 --> 01:37:11.120]  This is legal. This is criminal.
[01:37:11.120 --> 01:37:15.120]  Yeah, and the thing that I've been looking around at in many states,
[01:37:15.120 --> 01:37:19.120]  and again, I'm not being specific here or anything for very good reason,
[01:37:19.120 --> 01:37:24.120]  which I will eventually be able to probably say something about.
[01:37:24.120 --> 01:37:30.120]  There is also a lot of laws concerning diversion of the labor of state employees
[01:37:30.120 --> 01:37:39.120]  from state benefit, which in some hypothetical states, that is a hypothetical classe misdemeanor,
[01:37:39.120 --> 01:37:47.120]  but there are also hypothetical statutes as far as impersonating hypothetical public officials,
[01:37:47.120 --> 01:37:55.120]  which I would think that would go to that if they're not acting in their hypothetical official capacity.
[01:37:55.120 --> 01:37:58.120]  And make them a hypothetical felon.
[01:37:58.120 --> 01:38:01.120]  Exactly.
[01:38:01.120 --> 01:38:04.120]  There you go.
[01:38:04.120 --> 01:38:07.120]  That's another one of those quasi-criminal acts.
[01:38:07.120 --> 01:38:14.120]  Yeah, hypothetically. It's all hypothetical crime.
[01:38:14.120 --> 01:38:16.120]  Okay, Dan, do you have anything else?
[01:38:16.120 --> 01:38:20.120]  No, I just want to know what your guys' thoughts were on that, really.
[01:38:20.120 --> 01:38:21.120]  Okay.
[01:38:21.120 --> 01:38:25.120]  You don't have to think on this show. It's too strenuous.
[01:38:25.120 --> 01:38:29.120]  I'm thinking you take a criminal accusation.
[01:38:29.120 --> 01:38:40.120]  Since filing a criminal accusation is kind of a free shot, they can't come back after you for it,
[01:38:40.120 --> 01:38:45.120]  because that would be retaliation, interfering with the witness.
[01:38:45.120 --> 01:38:50.120]  So you take a criminal complaint and take it to the district attorney,
[01:38:50.120 --> 01:38:54.120]  and he's going to say, I wouldn't touch that with a 10-foot pole.
[01:38:54.120 --> 01:38:57.120]  And then you take the criminal complaint against the district attorney,
[01:38:57.120 --> 01:39:04.120]  and you take it to the district judge and bushwhack the district judge, and he's not going to take it.
[01:39:04.120 --> 01:39:07.120]  And then you take the criminal charges against both of them to the grand jury.
[01:39:07.120 --> 01:39:10.120]  Now there's nobody to interfere with you.
[01:39:10.120 --> 01:39:12.120]  I mean, I just want to throw something into the mix.
[01:39:12.120 --> 01:39:19.120]  I mean, hypothetically, maybe going through other channels, giving them additional chances to screw up.
[01:39:19.120 --> 01:39:23.120]  Oh.
[01:39:23.120 --> 01:39:26.120]  You may have seen this.
[01:39:26.120 --> 01:39:28.120]  That's what I was saying.
[01:39:28.120 --> 01:39:34.120]  You're giving a public official an additional opportunity to screw up?
[01:39:34.120 --> 01:39:36.120]  Why, do you think they've used up every one they've had?
[01:39:36.120 --> 01:39:40.120]  Hypothetical. Remember that. This is just hypothetical.
[01:39:40.120 --> 01:39:45.120]  Oh, okay. Different than hypothetical?
[01:39:45.120 --> 01:39:46.120]  Yep, hypothetical.
[01:39:46.120 --> 01:39:54.120]  Oh, okay. Well, I'm not sure what you're asking.
[01:39:54.120 --> 01:39:59.120]  What do you want to give them opportunity to do?
[01:39:59.120 --> 01:40:03.120]  I'm thinking hypothetically maybe somebody might want to go through a different agency
[01:40:03.120 --> 01:40:11.120]  and give them a hypothetical additional opportunity to screw up or interfere in some way.
[01:40:11.120 --> 01:40:16.120]  So you have even more things that could hypothetically be done.
[01:40:16.120 --> 01:40:20.120]  Did you have a hypothetical agency in mind?
[01:40:20.120 --> 01:40:22.120]  Several hypothetical agencies.
[01:40:22.120 --> 01:40:25.120]  I think a hypothetical person could go through.
[01:40:25.120 --> 01:40:30.120]  And again, I have to word this hypothetically because it's all hypothetical.
[01:40:30.120 --> 01:40:42.120]  Are you talking about maybe a hypothetical public official like a congressman or hypothetical senator?
[01:40:42.120 --> 01:40:50.120]  Hypothetical other agencies that are state-based.
[01:40:50.120 --> 01:40:53.120]  Well, hypothetically, why don't you give that a try?
[01:40:53.120 --> 01:40:57.120]  Dan is not usually this hypothetically cryptic.
[01:40:57.120 --> 01:41:02.120]  Yes, I am hypothetically cryptic for a good reason.
[01:41:02.120 --> 01:41:05.120]  Well, anyway, I'll let you go and get to other callers,
[01:41:05.120 --> 01:41:09.120]  but I figured I wanted to pick your brand from that considering the situation.
[01:41:09.120 --> 01:41:17.120]  It's a hypothetical situation for hypothetical reasons.
[01:41:17.120 --> 01:41:23.120]  Okay, okay. I'm hypothetically glad you hypothetically called.
[01:41:23.120 --> 01:41:29.120]  And I'm sure any hypothetical person would be happy to hear from you.
[01:41:29.120 --> 01:41:30.120]  Wonderful.
[01:41:30.120 --> 01:41:32.120]  Okay, Dan, thanks.
[01:41:32.120 --> 01:41:33.120]  Hypothetically.
[01:41:33.120 --> 01:41:35.120]  Okay, you have a good night.
[01:41:35.120 --> 01:41:37.120]  Dan's not usually this cryptic.
[01:41:37.120 --> 01:41:40.120]  Okay, folks, we have Carlos on the line.
[01:41:40.120 --> 01:41:42.120]  We're going to get to Carlos in just a moment.
[01:41:42.120 --> 01:41:44.120]  After that, we've got open phone lines.
[01:41:44.120 --> 01:41:47.120]  We've got about another 20 minutes left.
[01:41:47.120 --> 01:41:50.120]  So folks, if you'd like to call in, 512-646-1984.
[01:41:50.120 --> 01:41:58.120]  Before we go back to Carlos, however, I wanted to read a little bit from this statute.
[01:41:58.120 --> 01:42:01.120]  It's the Uniform Federal Lien Registration Act.
[01:42:01.120 --> 01:42:03.120]  It's a state law here in Texas.
[01:42:03.120 --> 01:42:06.120]  It's Title III, Chapter 14.
[01:42:06.120 --> 01:42:12.120]  And pretty much every state has adopted this statute in their property code
[01:42:12.120 --> 01:42:15.120]  or in some aspect of one of their titles.
[01:42:15.120 --> 01:42:22.120]  And it has to do with the filing of federal liens, specifically federal tax liens.
[01:42:22.120 --> 01:42:26.120]  And I'm going to read a little bit from the statute.
[01:42:26.120 --> 01:42:29.120]  We're about to go to break in a minute or so, but I'm going to start in on this.
[01:42:29.120 --> 01:42:33.120]  The scope, it says this chapter applies only to federal tax liens
[01:42:33.120 --> 01:42:40.120]  and to other federal liens notices of which under any act of Congress
[01:42:40.120 --> 01:42:43.120]  or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto are required
[01:42:43.120 --> 01:42:48.120]  or permitted to be filed in the same manner as notices of federal tax liens.
[01:42:48.120 --> 01:42:52.120]  So this statute specifically applies to federal tax liens
[01:42:52.120 --> 01:42:58.120]  and other federal liens which are allowed or required to be filed
[01:42:58.120 --> 01:43:01.120]  in the same manner as a federal tax lien.
[01:43:01.120 --> 01:43:07.120]  And it says specifically, I'm reading down the statute here, that was Section 14.001.
[01:43:07.120 --> 01:43:11.120]  This is Title III, Chapter 14, again in Texas statute.
[01:43:11.120 --> 01:43:14.120]  Section 14.002, place of filing.
[01:43:14.120 --> 01:43:18.120]  Notices of liens, certificates, and other notices affecting federal tax liens
[01:43:18.120 --> 01:43:21.120]  that's affecting with an A or other federal liens
[01:43:21.120 --> 01:43:24.120]  must be filed in accordance with this chapter.
[01:43:24.120 --> 01:43:28.120]  Notices of liens upon real property for obligations payable to the United States
[01:43:28.120 --> 01:43:31.120]  and certificates and notices affecting the lien shall be filed
[01:43:31.120 --> 01:43:34.120]  in the office of the county clerk in the county
[01:43:34.120 --> 01:43:38.120]  in which real property subject to these liens is situated.
[01:43:38.120 --> 01:43:41.120]  And when we get back, I'm going to continue to read.
[01:43:41.120 --> 01:43:45.120]  Basically, the statute says that the notice of the tax lien
[01:43:45.120 --> 01:43:50.120]  is all that is necessary in order for the notice to be filed
[01:43:50.120 --> 01:43:54.120]  and that the county clerk is required to file it.
[01:43:54.120 --> 01:43:56.120]  We're going to discuss this more when we get on the other side.
[01:43:56.120 --> 01:44:00.120]  This is the rule of law.
[01:44:00.120 --> 01:44:05.120]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[01:44:05.120 --> 01:44:09.120]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears Proven Method.
[01:44:09.120 --> 01:44:13.120]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors,
[01:44:13.120 --> 01:44:15.120]  and now you can win two.
[01:44:15.120 --> 01:44:18.120]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English
[01:44:18.120 --> 01:44:21.120]  on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes,
[01:44:21.120 --> 01:44:25.120]  what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons,
[01:44:25.120 --> 01:44:27.120]  how to answer letters and phone calls,
[01:44:27.120 --> 01:44:29.120]  how to get debt collectors out of your credit report,
[01:44:29.120 --> 01:44:34.120]  how to turn your financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[01:44:34.120 --> 01:44:39.120]  The Michael Mears Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[01:44:39.120 --> 01:44:41.120]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[01:44:41.120 --> 01:44:45.120]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com
[01:44:45.120 --> 01:44:50.120]  and click on the blue Michael Mears banner, or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[01:44:50.120 --> 01:44:58.120]  That's ruleoflawradio.com, or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com
[01:44:58.120 --> 01:45:02.120]  to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[01:45:02.120 --> 01:45:08.120]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at ruleoflawradio.com,
[01:45:08.120 --> 01:45:35.120]  live free speech talk radio at its best.
[01:45:38.120 --> 01:46:06.120]  The people come down from the hills
[01:46:06.120 --> 01:46:09.120]  Okay, we are back, folks.
[01:46:09.120 --> 01:46:15.120]  I'm going to finish reading this section from Title III of the Property Code here in Texas.
[01:46:15.120 --> 01:46:20.120]  Again, this is a state statute, and if you look up in your own state,
[01:46:20.120 --> 01:46:25.120]  I believe every state has adopted this except like two or three states,
[01:46:25.120 --> 01:46:29.120]  and I forgot which ones they were when we were at the law library in Philadelphia.
[01:46:29.120 --> 01:46:30.120]  We looked this up.
[01:46:30.120 --> 01:46:34.120]  I found it in the law book, and I'm looking at it online right now in Texas.
[01:46:34.120 --> 01:46:41.120]  So we're going to move along, Section 14.003, Execution of Notices and Certificates.
[01:46:41.120 --> 01:46:44.120]  Certification of notices of liens, certificates,
[01:46:44.120 --> 01:46:50.120]  or other notices affecting federal liens by the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States
[01:46:50.120 --> 01:46:55.120]  or his delegate or by any official or entity of the United States responsible for filing
[01:46:55.120 --> 01:47:00.120]  or certifying of notice of any other lien entitles them to be filed
[01:47:00.120 --> 01:47:07.120]  and no other attestation, certification, or acknowledgement is necessary.
[01:47:07.120 --> 01:47:12.120]  And then under duties of filing officer, it's kind of a long paragraph,
[01:47:12.120 --> 01:47:19.120]  but it basically says that in certain cases, if you're a corporation or a partnership
[01:47:19.120 --> 01:47:24.120]  or some other kind of commercial entity, the notice of lien shall be filed with the Secretary of State.
[01:47:24.120 --> 01:47:31.120]  Any other case, the notice of lien shall be filed with the county recorder,
[01:47:31.120 --> 01:47:36.120]  and it requires the filing officer to file it.
[01:47:36.120 --> 01:47:39.120]  So the county recorder is required to file it,
[01:47:39.120 --> 01:47:46.120]  and it's very clear that nothing else is necessary other than the notice of lien, period.
[01:47:46.120 --> 01:47:49.120]  And I think that that is pretty bad.
[01:47:49.120 --> 01:47:52.120]  I do not agree with this statute, but that's the way it is.
[01:47:52.120 --> 01:47:59.120]  And so we can't really go after the county recorder because the county recorder is required to file
[01:47:59.120 --> 01:48:04.120]  these notices of liens under this statute, and that's just all there is to it.
[01:48:04.120 --> 01:48:09.120]  So it's unfortunate, but people who are trying to go after the county recorder
[01:48:09.120 --> 01:48:15.120]  for filing these notices of federal tax liens without other backup showing the, you know,
[01:48:15.120 --> 01:48:18.120]  verifying or validating the lien, they're not going to get anywhere.
[01:48:18.120 --> 01:48:22.120]  We have to challenge the validity of the lien in federal court.
[01:48:22.120 --> 01:48:27.120]  So Diane, you had some comments about this?
[01:48:27.120 --> 01:48:30.120]  Diane?
[01:48:30.120 --> 01:48:35.120]  I had just heard, I think originally from Irwin Schiff about 15 years ago,
[01:48:35.120 --> 01:48:40.120]  that he was suggesting that you could bring an action against the county recorder.
[01:48:40.120 --> 01:48:43.120]  So I stand corrected. I appreciate your research.
[01:48:43.120 --> 01:48:46.120]  You are diligent, and I really appreciate that. Thank you.
[01:48:46.120 --> 01:48:48.120]  I stand corrected.
[01:48:48.120 --> 01:48:52.120]  Well, no, I mean, I wasn't trying to shoot you down or anything, but I mean, we were,
[01:48:52.120 --> 01:48:56.120]  Randy and I were dealing with a client, and, you know,
[01:48:56.120 --> 01:49:00.120]  there were some activists who wanted to come on our show and discuss this issue,
[01:49:00.120 --> 01:49:05.120]  and so we wanted to do the research ourselves before we just jumped feet first into something
[01:49:05.120 --> 01:49:08.120]  because it's better to get shot down in the law library
[01:49:08.120 --> 01:49:12.120]  than to get shot down in court in front of a judge, in front of your enemy.
[01:49:12.120 --> 01:49:18.120]  And I've seen that one of the biggest mistakes that legal activists make
[01:49:18.120 --> 01:49:24.120]  is that they just look for what they want to find to support their position,
[01:49:24.120 --> 01:49:30.120]  but they don't do diligent research to try to find case law or statute
[01:49:30.120 --> 01:49:33.120]  that might shoot down their position.
[01:49:33.120 --> 01:49:38.120]  And so you want to thoroughly vet out what the enemy is going to be researching
[01:49:38.120 --> 01:49:42.120]  so that you'll be prepared when it comes time for court.
[01:49:42.120 --> 01:49:44.120]  I totally agree.
[01:49:44.120 --> 01:49:48.120]  I've gone to several of the seminars on predatory loan litigation, for example,
[01:49:48.120 --> 01:49:53.120]  and one of the things that I got an opportunity to present was something that you can find online.
[01:49:53.120 --> 01:49:57.120]  It's put out by the Mortgage Bankers Association,
[01:49:57.120 --> 01:50:03.120]  which is a seminar done for the bank's attorneys as to what case law
[01:50:03.120 --> 01:50:06.120]  and what arguments they're going to rely upon.
[01:50:06.120 --> 01:50:08.120]  Indeed.
[01:50:08.120 --> 01:50:12.120]  And Diane, you brought something up on the break a few breaks ago
[01:50:12.120 --> 01:50:16.120]  that this law is unconstitutional and should be challenged, and I agree,
[01:50:16.120 --> 01:50:21.120]  but unfortunately only someone who has standing would be able to challenge the law.
[01:50:21.120 --> 01:50:24.120]  So you would, of course, have to be in trouble with the IRS
[01:50:24.120 --> 01:50:27.120]  and have a notice of lien filed against your property
[01:50:27.120 --> 01:50:33.120]  in order to be able to challenge and try to get this law overturned.
[01:50:33.120 --> 01:50:36.120]  And I think somebody, even in that case, is going to be very hard pressed
[01:50:36.120 --> 01:50:40.120]  because, again, this is the Uniform Federal Lien Registration Act,
[01:50:40.120 --> 01:50:45.120]  and the reason it's called uniform is because every state in the union,
[01:50:45.120 --> 01:50:48.120]  except like two or three, have adopted this law.
[01:50:48.120 --> 01:50:53.120]  I'm sure at much pressure, under much pressure from the IRS
[01:50:53.120 --> 01:50:56.120]  and the banksters and the federal government.
[01:50:56.120 --> 01:50:57.120]  Yeah.
[01:50:57.120 --> 01:50:59.120]  So, okay, we are going to move on now.
[01:50:59.120 --> 01:51:05.120]  And let's, Randy, Eddie, do you have any comments about this statute?
[01:51:05.120 --> 01:51:06.120]  I'll die at the moment.
[01:51:06.120 --> 01:51:07.120]  Okay.
[01:51:07.120 --> 01:51:08.120]  No, let's move along.
[01:51:08.120 --> 01:51:11.120]  Okay, we're going to, let's see, we've got Stephen from Montana,
[01:51:11.120 --> 01:51:12.120]  and Carlos have called back in.
[01:51:12.120 --> 01:51:15.120]  We're going to go to Carlos first because he called in first.
[01:51:15.120 --> 01:51:17.120]  Carlos, what's on your mind?
[01:51:17.120 --> 01:51:18.120]  You've called back again.
[01:51:18.120 --> 01:51:20.120]  We'd love to hear from you.
[01:51:20.120 --> 01:51:21.120]  Thank you.
[01:51:21.120 --> 01:51:26.120]  The way I look at it, no judgment, no lien.
[01:51:26.120 --> 01:51:27.120]  That's the way I look at it.
[01:51:27.120 --> 01:51:31.120]  Well, that's true, but we were specifically discussing the filing
[01:51:31.120 --> 01:51:35.120]  of the notice of lien with the county recorder.
[01:51:35.120 --> 01:51:36.120]  Yeah, but it's okay.
[01:51:36.120 --> 01:51:37.120]  It's just a notice.
[01:51:37.120 --> 01:51:41.120]  Go ahead and file it, but go ahead and fight it because there's no judgment.
[01:51:41.120 --> 01:51:45.120]  There are guys out there winning in there, and they're fighting.
[01:51:45.120 --> 01:51:46.120]  No judgment, no lien.
[01:51:46.120 --> 01:51:48.120]  That's what they're fighting.
[01:51:48.120 --> 01:51:50.120]  Yeah, you're right in that instance.
[01:51:50.120 --> 01:51:54.120]  The question here was about whether we should go after the clerk
[01:51:54.120 --> 01:52:00.120]  for accepting the lien, and absolutely, that's the wrong place to go.
[01:52:00.120 --> 01:52:02.120]  The place to go is where you're going.
[01:52:02.120 --> 01:52:03.120]  Right.
[01:52:03.120 --> 01:52:07.120]  It's saying they're filing a notice of a non-existent lien.
[01:52:07.120 --> 01:52:08.120]  Right.
[01:52:08.120 --> 01:52:12.120]  So we go back after the agent himself who filed it
[01:52:12.120 --> 01:52:15.120]  and charge him of the tampering with the government document.
[01:52:15.120 --> 01:52:16.120]  Yes.
[01:52:16.120 --> 01:52:20.120]  See, the agent is still committing a crime by filing the notice of the lien.
[01:52:20.120 --> 01:52:26.120]  It's just that the recorder is not committing a crime by accepting that notice
[01:52:26.120 --> 01:52:28.120]  and filing it and recording it.
[01:52:28.120 --> 01:52:29.120]  That's all.
[01:52:29.120 --> 01:52:32.120]  But yeah, if it's a bogus lien, if the lien doesn't exist,
[01:52:32.120 --> 01:52:34.120]  then yes, the agent's committing a crime,
[01:52:34.120 --> 01:52:38.120]  and so we must go after the agent and validate it that way.
[01:52:38.120 --> 01:52:40.120]  Now I'm after Randall.
[01:52:40.120 --> 01:52:43.120]  Okay.
[01:52:43.120 --> 01:52:51.120]  Now my home, I didn't ask this question when I called previously.
[01:52:51.120 --> 01:52:53.120]  Now let's talk about my home.
[01:52:53.120 --> 01:52:56.120]  It went up to the trustee sale on Tuesday.
[01:52:56.120 --> 01:52:58.120]  I'm sorry, on the 28th.
[01:52:58.120 --> 01:53:01.120]  Now what's the next step on their side?
[01:53:01.120 --> 01:53:04.120]  They're going to file a UD against me, right?
[01:53:04.120 --> 01:53:08.120]  Maybe this question is for Diane.
[01:53:08.120 --> 01:53:10.120]  And what should I do?
[01:53:10.120 --> 01:53:12.120]  Yes, that's normally the procedure.
[01:53:12.120 --> 01:53:14.120]  They file a notice of default.
[01:53:14.120 --> 01:53:17.120]  They've got 90 days to cure the default.
[01:53:17.120 --> 01:53:19.120]  Then they send you a notice of sale,
[01:53:19.120 --> 01:53:23.120]  and I think they give you 21 days before they schedule the sale.
[01:53:23.120 --> 01:53:27.120]  And if it goes to sale, generally you're not finding many legitimate
[01:53:27.120 --> 01:53:30.120]  bona fide purchasers for value.
[01:53:30.120 --> 01:53:37.120]  Most often they're doing a credit bid where the property goes back to the bank.
[01:53:37.120 --> 01:53:42.120]  And then the bank will start with, well, in California,
[01:53:42.120 --> 01:53:46.120]  it says three-day notice to quit.
[01:53:46.120 --> 01:53:50.120]  And they do what they call a prejudgment claim to right of possession
[01:53:50.120 --> 01:53:54.120]  that they'll also serve you with to notify you that, well, I'm sorry,
[01:53:54.120 --> 01:53:56.120]  they do the three-day notice to quit.
[01:53:56.120 --> 01:54:02.120]  And then if you don't quit, if you don't leave the property within three days,
[01:54:02.120 --> 01:54:05.120]  then they will serve you with a summons and a complaint.
[01:54:05.120 --> 01:54:08.120]  With the summons and complaint, they'll serve you a prejudgment claim
[01:54:08.120 --> 01:54:10.120]  to right of possession.
[01:54:10.120 --> 01:54:14.120]  And that is to notify any potential tenants or those,
[01:54:14.120 --> 01:54:16.120]  one through 20 or whoever they've named,
[01:54:16.120 --> 01:54:20.120]  that they are doing an unlawful detainer and, like,
[01:54:20.120 --> 01:54:22.120]  speak now or forever hold your peace.
[01:54:22.120 --> 01:54:26.120]  It gives a third party the right to intervene in the lawsuit
[01:54:26.120 --> 01:54:31.120]  and say I am a tenant here, I've got a lease, I don't want to be evicted.
[01:54:31.120 --> 01:54:37.120]  And under the present law in California, the tenant has 90 days.
[01:54:37.120 --> 01:54:43.120]  The homeowner only has three days, but the tenant has 90 days.
[01:54:43.120 --> 01:54:49.120]  So then what the homeowner, whether it's a homeowner or a tenant,
[01:54:49.120 --> 01:54:52.120]  they then can do, once you get a summons and complaint,
[01:54:52.120 --> 01:54:56.120]  you can either do a demur or an answer.
[01:54:56.120 --> 01:54:59.120]  If you demur and you have a hearing and you lose the demur,
[01:54:59.120 --> 01:55:02.120]  then you can have another five days to answer.
[01:55:02.120 --> 01:55:06.120]  We had a situation that we were talking with counseling a man today,
[01:55:06.120 --> 01:55:11.120]  and he did a demur, and the courts are pretty busy.
[01:55:11.120 --> 01:55:15.120]  So the demur was scheduled out about 30 days,
[01:55:15.120 --> 01:55:20.120]  and the bank went in and did a motion for an expedited hearing on the demur,
[01:55:20.120 --> 01:55:25.120]  and he didn't even get notice of that hearing until a day after the hearing.
[01:55:25.120 --> 01:55:30.120]  So they went ahead and they just, once he defaulted on the demur
[01:55:30.120 --> 01:55:34.120]  because he didn't have notice, they just went ahead and evicted him,
[01:55:34.120 --> 01:55:40.120]  showed up with the sheriff and locked his wife and two little girls out of the house.
[01:55:40.120 --> 01:55:42.120]  They gave him five minutes to pack and get out.
[01:55:42.120 --> 01:55:47.120]  So we're going back into court on Monday on an ex parte hearing
[01:55:47.120 --> 01:55:52.120]  to do a motion to vacate that judgment and at least ask the judge to reconsider
[01:55:52.120 --> 01:55:56.120]  and grounds that it was a wrongful trustee sale,
[01:55:56.120 --> 01:56:02.120]  but more importantly in this point it was a wrongful unlawful detainer judgment
[01:56:02.120 --> 01:56:07.120]  which was based on an expedited hearing that he did not get notice of.
[01:56:07.120 --> 01:56:09.120]  Randy, I think we're in trouble.
[01:56:09.120 --> 01:56:12.120]  What should I do, Randy, at this minute?
[01:56:12.120 --> 01:56:16.120]  What would you do in my case?
[01:56:16.120 --> 01:56:17.120]  Cry?
[01:56:17.120 --> 01:56:18.120]  What is your situation?
[01:56:18.120 --> 01:56:20.120]  Where are you at in your proceeding?
[01:56:20.120 --> 01:56:26.120]  My home went to a trustee sale on 28th.
[01:56:26.120 --> 01:56:27.120]  Okay.
[01:56:27.120 --> 01:56:28.120]  Did the bank buy it back?
[01:56:28.120 --> 01:56:29.120]  Yes.
[01:56:29.120 --> 01:56:31.120]  So the bank?
[01:56:31.120 --> 01:56:36.120]  Well, what I would suggest, yes, assuming the bank's a good idea,
[01:56:36.120 --> 01:56:41.120]  but right now you want to prevent being kicked out.
[01:56:41.120 --> 01:56:45.120]  It's a writ of possession pursuant to an unlawful detainer judgment.
[01:56:45.120 --> 01:56:50.120]  So the fastest thing to do is to file a bankruptcy.
[01:56:50.120 --> 01:56:56.120]  You can do what they call an emergency bankruptcy, either Chapter 7 or Chapter 13.
[01:56:56.120 --> 01:57:02.120]  If your 13 is for wagerers, if you have any possible capabilities of like paying off the debt,
[01:57:02.120 --> 01:57:11.120]  if you don't have a lot of other debt, then you have more of an ability to stay in the house longer
[01:57:11.120 --> 01:57:17.120]  if you don't do a lawsuit, if you've got a bankruptcy case and then do your litigation inside the bankruptcy.
[01:57:17.120 --> 01:57:23.120]  I know, and I can do that myself, but I don't want to use bankruptcy at this minute
[01:57:23.120 --> 01:57:27.120]  because I have two homes in escrow.
[01:57:27.120 --> 01:57:28.120]  Okay.
[01:57:28.120 --> 01:57:34.120]  Then what you need to do is to file a lawsuit and get a temporary restraining order,
[01:57:34.120 --> 01:57:39.120]  which will give you a couple weeks until they have a hearing for preliminary injunction.
[01:57:39.120 --> 01:57:40.120]  Okay.
[01:57:40.120 --> 01:57:44.120]  Well, injunction means that they will, court will enjoin the bank from moving forward
[01:57:44.120 --> 01:57:49.120]  until such time as you have the trial on the merits of the case.
[01:57:49.120 --> 01:57:54.120]  Did the bank get, is there an unlawful detainer in place?
[01:57:54.120 --> 01:57:55.120]  Not yet.
[01:57:55.120 --> 01:57:57.120]  I mean, today's the 30th.
[01:57:57.120 --> 01:57:59.120]  It's two days ago.
[01:57:59.120 --> 01:58:00.120]  Okay.
[01:58:00.120 --> 01:58:08.120]  When they file for an unlawful detainer, challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the court
[01:58:08.120 --> 01:58:13.120]  claiming, making claims of criminal fraud against the lender.
[01:58:13.120 --> 01:58:14.120]  Okay.
[01:58:14.120 --> 01:58:17.120]  That should take it out of that court's subject matter jurisdiction.
[01:58:17.120 --> 01:58:18.120]  Okay.
[01:58:18.120 --> 01:58:20.120]  Do you have a tenant in the house?
[01:58:20.120 --> 01:58:24.120]  No, it's my personal one, but I can claim a tenant.
[01:58:24.120 --> 01:58:26.120]  That's no problem.
[01:58:26.120 --> 01:58:30.120]  Well, I'm not allowed to advise you to do that, but I can tell you what the law is,
[01:58:30.120 --> 01:58:34.120]  and that is that if you did have a tenant there, you'd get an extra 90 days.
[01:58:34.120 --> 01:58:35.120]  I know, ma'am.
[01:58:35.120 --> 01:58:37.120]  Okay, can I stay until the other side?
[01:58:37.120 --> 01:58:38.120]  We're at the end of the show.
[01:58:38.120 --> 01:58:39.120]  All right.
[01:58:39.120 --> 01:58:40.120]  Okay.
[01:58:40.120 --> 01:58:41.120]  Don't forget about me, please.
[01:58:41.120 --> 01:58:42.120]  Okay.
[01:58:42.120 --> 01:58:44.120]  Yeah, just hang on until Monday.
[01:58:44.120 --> 01:58:45.120]  Yeah, call back in Monday night.
[01:58:45.120 --> 01:58:47.120]  All right, this is the rule of law.
[01:58:47.120 --> 01:58:52.120]  Diane, plug your website quickly.
[01:58:52.120 --> 01:58:58.120]  Templin for attorney general at blogspot.com is one.
[01:58:58.120 --> 01:58:59.120]  I've got another one.
[01:58:59.120 --> 01:59:00.120]  All right, we'll be right.
[01:59:00.120 --> 01:59:10.120]  Thank you.
[01:59:30.120 --> 01:59:40.120]  Thank you.
[02:00:00.120 --> 02:00:10.120]  Thank you.