ROL_2011-02-03_16k.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:04.280]  This news brief brought to you by the International Newsnet.
[00:04.280 --> 00:07.520]  Haitian officials Thursday announced long-time opposition leader
[00:07.520 --> 00:13.400]  Mirland Manigar will face Michel Martelly, a carnival singer known as Sweet Mickey.
[00:13.400 --> 00:16.360]  In a run-off presidential election next month,
[00:16.360 --> 00:21.080]  the long-delayed decision pushed government-backed candidate Jude Celestin,
[00:21.080 --> 00:27.760]  the hand-picked successor of widely unpopular president René Prevall, out of the running.
[00:27.760 --> 00:35.360]  Oil rose above $103 a barrel Thursday, the highest price since September 2008.
[00:35.360 --> 00:38.720]  After violent clashes in Egypt raised concerns,
[00:38.720 --> 00:43.360]  supply would be disrupted by unrest across the Middle East and North Africa.
[00:43.360 --> 00:47.320]  So far, the crisis has not affected traffic on the Suez Canal
[00:47.320 --> 00:50.960]  or flows on the Suez Mediterranean oil pipeline.
[00:50.960 --> 00:52.880]  Egypt controls both routes,
[00:52.880 --> 00:59.360]  which together moved over 2 billion barrels per day in 2009.
[00:59.360 --> 01:03.400]  Britain's flying anywhere in Europe will have their phone numbers, addresses,
[01:03.400 --> 01:09.720]  credit card numbers, email and other details handed over to police in all 27 EU countries.
[01:09.720 --> 01:13.400]  Critics say these include countries such as Bulgaria and Romania,
[01:13.400 --> 01:16.160]  where police corruption is known to be widespread.
[01:16.160 --> 01:21.840]  Guy Herbert of the No2ID campaign group said the measure was about greed for surveillance,
[01:21.840 --> 01:24.800]  not fighting terrorism.
[01:24.800 --> 01:29.560]  WikiLeaks documents Thursday revealed the US and China both used missiles
[01:29.560 --> 01:33.960]  to blow up their own satellites in a mutual show of military strength.
[01:33.960 --> 01:39.160]  The White House was shocked in February 2007 when China demonstrated its ability
[01:39.160 --> 01:42.440]  to strike in space by blowing up a weather satellite.
[01:42.440 --> 01:46.560]  The US responded by blowing up its own malfunctioning satellite.
[01:46.560 --> 01:50.680]  The US insisted it did so to prevent the satellite returning to Earth
[01:50.680 --> 01:54.000]  with a toxic fuel tank that would pose a health hazard.
[01:54.000 --> 01:59.840]  However, a 2008 cable from Beijing quoted a Chinese military official saying the shoot
[01:59.840 --> 02:05.280]  down was unnecessary and simply an opportunity to test the US missile defense system,
[02:05.280 --> 02:10.520]  adding China viewed the US missile defense system as an offensive system.
[02:10.520 --> 02:15.600]  The US government is rapidly reassessing its tenuous relationship
[02:15.600 --> 02:20.640]  with Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, an opposition movement whose fundamentalist ideology has
[02:20.640 --> 02:23.240]  long been a source of distrust in Washington.
[02:23.240 --> 02:26.440]  Although the group has played a secondary role in the protests
[02:26.440 --> 02:31.240]  that threatened to topple President Hosni Mubarak, US officials have acknowledged the
[02:31.240 --> 02:35.120]  political reality that the Muslim Brotherhood is poised to assume
[02:35.120 --> 02:39.640]  at least a share of power should Egypt hold elections in the near future.
[02:39.640 --> 02:43.200]  Officially, the US government has long shunned the Muslim Brotherhood.
[02:43.200 --> 02:47.960]  However, US officials have for years engaged in backchannel talks with Egyptian members
[02:47.960 --> 02:51.680]  of the movement in recognition of its substantial popular support.
[03:17.960 --> 03:38.680]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna
[03:38.680 --> 03:39.680]  do?
[03:39.680 --> 03:54.880]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do, when they come for you?
[03:54.880 --> 04:00.280]  When you were eight and you had bad traits, you'd go to school and learn the golden rules,
[04:00.280 --> 04:03.280]  so why are you acting like a bloody fool?
[04:03.280 --> 04:09.600]  You models are cool!
[04:09.600 --> 04:12.760]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do, when they come for you?
[04:12.760 --> 04:17.040]  Alright folks this is the Rules of Law Radio, it is Thursday, February 3rd, 2011, this is
[04:17.040 --> 04:22.020]  Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens, Randy Kelton, we will have a guest in the second segment
[04:22.020 --> 04:27.080]  of the show, but right now I'm gonna go ahead and cover some stuff that I'm working on in
[04:27.080 --> 04:32.800]  a newution for filing in these cases regarding traffic and other, finally misdemeanor
[04:32.800 --> 04:41.280]  cases. I'm doing a rework of the improper notice and no complaint motion and what we're going to
[04:41.280 --> 04:46.720]  start doing at this point is we're going to build a case attacking jurisdiction based upon
[04:46.720 --> 04:52.720]  every violation of law through that point and we're going to start from the moment the officer
[04:52.720 --> 04:58.400]  initiates the stop for the purpose of issuing the citation and we're going to carry that through
[04:58.400 --> 05:04.560]  until we're standing in court attempting to get the case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and how
[05:04.560 --> 05:10.720]  the court continues to violate law of its own volition. So we're going to be dealing with that
[05:11.760 --> 05:19.040]  in this new motion specifically. Now the reason I'm wanting to do this is because I've spent this
[05:19.040 --> 05:26.560]  week researching everything these courts do regarding how they go about attempting to prosecute
[05:26.560 --> 05:33.360]  you upon complaint alone and it has become readily apparent that these people don't bother to read
[05:34.240 --> 05:40.800]  the statutes and or anything relating to what's happened with those statutes. They're not even
[05:40.800 --> 05:47.600]  reading case decisions relating to those statutes. What they're doing that they say allows them to
[05:47.600 --> 05:56.000]  proceed upon complaint alone is based entirely on a court decision from 1957 called Greenwood
[05:56.000 --> 06:02.480]  versus State or State versus Greenwood and in that case the court said very clearly that the
[06:03.120 --> 06:08.320]  specific section of the code that allows the municipal or justice court to proceed upon
[06:08.320 --> 06:15.280]  complaint alone is section 45.01 code of criminal procedure blah blah blah. Well there's a problem.
[06:16.640 --> 06:23.200]  The problem is is that that section of the code does not say that they can proceed upon complaint
[06:23.200 --> 06:30.160]  alone. It simply says that prosecutions in a municipal court shall commence by complaint.
[06:31.120 --> 06:38.640]  Now why is that important? Well it's important because it's the only way any court commences
[06:38.640 --> 06:49.120]  any prosecution in Texas. No court commences any action of any kind that there is not a valid
[06:49.120 --> 06:58.640]  complaint for. Now the presumption this leads us to is this. The reason that 45.01 was enacted
[06:58.640 --> 07:05.280]  and written the way it was was because the courts were attempting to prosecute based only upon a
[07:05.280 --> 07:13.360]  citation without a complaint and thus without a proper charging instrument because the charging
[07:13.360 --> 07:21.200]  instrument can't exist unless there's a valid complaint to base it upon. So for the court to
[07:21.200 --> 07:28.960]  interpret shall commence upon or by complaint as being the only thing required of the court to get
[07:28.960 --> 07:36.560]  jurisdiction is idiotic. It is idiotic because it completely goes against the language of article
[07:36.560 --> 07:43.520]  five section 12b which says there are only two things that invest the court with jurisdiction
[07:43.520 --> 07:50.080]  of the cause and that is an indictment or information. Now in the Greenwood case they also go
[07:50.080 --> 07:57.520]  as far as to say that the statute in question creates a third charging instrument in Texas
[07:57.520 --> 08:05.360]  which is the complaint. Well another problem that's not what the constitution says and the
[08:05.360 --> 08:12.160]  legislature nor the courts have any authority to create an additional type of charging instrument
[08:12.160 --> 08:19.200]  special statute or no. When the constitution says this is what does something without amendment to
[08:19.200 --> 08:24.880]  the constitution the people's will is that only those things shall be done or apply.
[08:26.480 --> 08:31.760]  We did not grant any authority to anyone else to alter that without our consent
[08:31.760 --> 08:40.480]  and our consent is what's listed in the constitution only and they must do what they do within those
[08:40.480 --> 08:47.440]  limits. Doesn't matter who they are we need to be getting this back in their heads and we need to
[08:47.440 --> 08:52.560]  make them to understand that. Now while we're talking about the complaint let's look at something
[08:52.560 --> 09:00.880]  else that's done. If and when they actually do create a complaint the complaint very rarely
[09:00.880 --> 09:09.760]  tells you what alleged law statute or ordinance was violated. Now it may name an offense but that
[09:09.760 --> 09:16.880]  does not tell you what law they're trying to use in support of that alleged offense. Now while I am
[09:16.880 --> 09:22.320]  not arguing that the complaint or information must contain all of the elements of the charge
[09:22.320 --> 09:30.960]  that's being made I am arguing that that instrument must tell you what law you allegedly violated
[09:31.760 --> 09:37.600]  and the reason for that is to do otherwise denies you proper due process and here's how.
[09:39.520 --> 09:48.400]  If the accused is not informed as to what statute or ordinance or law was actually violated then you
[09:48.400 --> 09:54.320]  have to guess. If you guess wrong then you're making an argument in defense of something you're
[09:54.320 --> 10:00.480]  not being charged with and you lose because you're not arguing anything that's before the court.
[10:02.080 --> 10:06.320]  The other problem is is that it gives an unfair advantage to the prosecution.
[10:06.880 --> 10:12.080]  They know what you're being charged with. They know what the specific elements they're required
[10:12.080 --> 10:19.760]  to prove are but you the accused has no clue what the elements you have to defend against are and
[10:19.760 --> 10:26.800]  what you have to ensure they prove at trial. You have no way of knowing that. If they don't
[10:26.800 --> 10:33.440]  specifically tell you what statute they've left you in the dark and that is a violation of due
[10:33.440 --> 10:39.680]  process pursuant the constitution which says you have the right to know the nature and cause
[10:39.680 --> 10:46.240]  against you and you cannot argue that the elements are not proven if you don't know what the elements
[10:46.240 --> 10:54.880]  are and failure to specifically designate the law leaves you guessing. That's not proper due process
[10:55.600 --> 11:03.440]  yet that is what they are doing. Now if you doubt that take a look at a complaint that's been made
[11:03.440 --> 11:09.760]  against you for a traffic ticket and see if it gives you a specific section of statute. Sometimes
[11:09.760 --> 11:18.000]  it will. The majority of the time it does not and when it does not there's no way that you can
[11:18.000 --> 11:25.520]  positively create a proper defense because you don't know for certain where they're coming at
[11:25.520 --> 11:32.480]  you from in the code. I'd like to ask Randy if he's listening in on this what he thinks about this
[11:32.480 --> 11:41.200]  argument up to this point. So far I like it. It's perfect. Okay because what they're doing there is
[11:41.200 --> 11:47.520]  no question that it does not jive with the elements of due process. Okay it just doesn't.
[11:48.400 --> 11:55.920]  So let's go a little further what we're looking at here on this motion. Now when the officer
[11:55.920 --> 12:03.360]  initiates the process of issuing the citation all of us are very aware that we are under custodial
[12:03.360 --> 12:11.360]  arrest. Texas statute makes that very clear. Yet the officer, the prosecution and the court are
[12:11.360 --> 12:18.960]  sitting there telling the accused that they were never arrested. That's malarkey. The legislature
[12:18.960 --> 12:25.200]  said you were arrested and they wrote the law. These people need to understand that. So when they
[12:25.200 --> 12:31.520]  tell us that we're not entitled to an examining trial here is why that's a denial of due process.
[12:32.800 --> 12:41.040]  If the court says or finally admits that yes you were arrested well then the arrest was made without
[12:41.040 --> 12:49.040]  a warrant and therefore that arrest must be presumed to be unlawful until probable cause for it and
[12:49.040 --> 12:56.160]  proper evidence for it has been entered upon the record. And there is not but one way to do that
[12:56.160 --> 13:02.720]  and that is through the process of an examining trial. You can't take me to trial or to an
[13:02.720 --> 13:08.960]  arraignment until it's been properly established that the arrest itself was lawful and that it was
[13:08.960 --> 13:17.200]  conducted in accordance with law. To do otherwise once again is to completely deny us in our right
[13:17.200 --> 13:26.240]  of due process. Yet that is exactly what they're doing time and time again. Now they're acting on
[13:26.240 --> 13:32.480]  a repealed statute. They're acting on case law that is based upon a repealed statute.
[13:33.120 --> 13:38.800]  They are acting as if one sentence in the code of criminal procedure negates the right to an
[13:38.800 --> 13:45.440]  examining trial for those that were arrested without a warrant. And that is 2601 where it says
[13:45.440 --> 13:53.040]  that someone accused or charged with a felony has the right to an examining trial before an indictment
[13:53.040 --> 14:00.960]  can be made. Well that language does not negate the right of anyone else to have one when an
[14:00.960 --> 14:08.000]  improper unlawful arrest is made or for that matter simply because it's a fine only offense.
[14:08.000 --> 14:16.560]  It simply clarifies that for felony charges that individual has an absolute right to that.
[14:18.720 --> 14:22.960]  Now in the case of those that are arrested without warrant because they're put into witness
[14:22.960 --> 14:28.960]  protection or things of that nature, an examining trial would not be proper because there's nothing
[14:28.960 --> 14:36.960]  to look into. But when someone is actually being charged and they are being arrested with
[14:36.960 --> 14:42.000]  without a warrant, then they're most assuredly is something that needs to be looked into.
[14:43.520 --> 14:51.040]  And the courts and the prosecution is refusing to do it. This motion is going to attempt to deal
[14:51.040 --> 14:57.040]  with these things and the plethora of others that they go through. I want to try to keep it
[14:57.040 --> 15:01.440]  relatively short and sweet on each of these points, though y'all know I have a hard time doing that
[15:01.440 --> 15:08.400]  because I like to close all avenues of escape for them. But what I'm going to do is lay it out very
[15:08.400 --> 15:14.640]  short and sweet and then I will attempt to do a brief and support later to go with it. But for the
[15:14.640 --> 15:22.960]  moment, again Randy, any thoughts on what we've got to this point? So far so good. I'm sitting here
[15:24.320 --> 15:31.120]  thinking about how I can use this and adjudicate it because this is where I want to go. We never
[15:31.120 --> 15:39.040]  get to merits. We never get to the police officer. We never get to anything. I want to stay after the
[15:39.040 --> 15:45.280]  court itself. I was thinking as you were saying that, one of the first things I want to ask the
[15:45.280 --> 15:52.080]  judge, have you read the Code of Criminal Procedure? I bet he's going to say no.
[15:53.920 --> 15:57.520]  Oh, I bet they'll say yes and then you got to ask them which part.
[15:57.520 --> 16:00.320]  Yeah, that's a good point.
[16:01.680 --> 16:06.080]  Okay, because it's obvious you haven't read the part that says you cannot proceed upon
[16:06.080 --> 16:11.120]  complaint alone because you're not acting as if you're even aware that statute was repealed in
[16:11.120 --> 16:21.600]  1999. So for the past 12 years, you've been doing it wrong and yet you're not prepared to admit that.
[16:21.600 --> 16:26.160]  So yeah, we've got a ton of stuff we can go after them on. We just have to get it in such a way that
[16:26.160 --> 16:33.520]  we can actually use the motion itself for the evidence we need in the countersuit against them.
[16:35.120 --> 16:39.920]  And that's the endeavor that I'm getting into with this. All right, folks, we're about to go to break.
[16:39.920 --> 16:44.240]  We'll pick up with our guests on the other side. This is Rule of Law Radio, Randy Kelton, Debra
[16:44.240 --> 16:52.160]  Stevens, Eddie Craig. Just hang in there, folks. We will be right back after the break.
[17:01.760 --> 17:05.360]  Capital Coin and Bullion is your local source for rare coins,
[17:05.360 --> 17:10.080]  precious metals and coin supplies in the Austin metro area. We also ship
[17:10.080 --> 17:15.040]  worldwide. We are a family owned and operated business that offers competitive prices on your
[17:15.040 --> 17:20.880]  coin and metals purchases. We buy, sell, trade and consign rare coins, gold and silver coin
[17:20.880 --> 17:26.640]  collections, precious metals and scrap gold. We will purchase and sell gold and jewelry items
[17:26.640 --> 17:33.520]  as well. We offer daily specials on coins and bullion. We're located at 5448 Barnett Road Suite
[17:33.520 --> 17:40.160]  3 and we're open Monday through Friday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturdays, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. You are
[17:40.160 --> 17:48.480]  welcome to stop in our shop during regular business hours or call 512-646-6440 with any questions.
[17:48.480 --> 17:54.240]  Ask for Chad and say you heard about us on Rule of Law Radio or 90.1 FM. That's Capital Coin and
[17:54.240 --> 18:04.320]  Bullion 512-646-6440. Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters or even
[18:04.320 --> 18:10.640]  lawsuits? Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method. Michael Mears has won six
[18:10.640 --> 18:15.840]  cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win too. You'll get step-by-step
[18:15.840 --> 18:21.040]  instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes. What
[18:21.040 --> 18:26.560]  to do when contacted by phones, mail or court summons. How to answer letters and phone calls.
[18:26.560 --> 18:31.120]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit reports. How to turn the financial tables on them
[18:31.120 --> 18:37.280]  and make them pay you to go away. The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to
[18:37.280 --> 18:42.240]  stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well. For more information,
[18:42.240 --> 18:48.320]  please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner or email michaelmears
[18:48.320 --> 18:57.360]  at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com
[18:57.360 --> 19:22.160]  to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[20:27.360 --> 20:43.520]  All right folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio. Okay, we have Randy's guest on the
[20:43.520 --> 20:50.480]  line. I'm going to turn it over to Randy and let him get him introduced. Okay, we have CJ from
[20:50.480 --> 21:02.000]  Tennessee and I'm going to ask for your indulgence. I mean he is a hillbilly after all. Okay, CJ
[21:02.000 --> 21:10.800]  contacted me last week and talking about affidavits in a way that I haven't heard anybody talk about
[21:10.800 --> 21:18.560]  affidavits before and I implored him to come on the show and give you all the benefit of his
[21:18.560 --> 21:30.880]  knowledge of affidavits and how to address them. CJ, can you fill us in? Sure, Randy. Let's start
[21:30.880 --> 21:36.800]  with the definition. I just looked up in blacks just to give people a point of orientation.
[21:36.800 --> 21:42.720]  The affidavits are written or printed declaration or statement of facts made voluntarily and
[21:42.720 --> 21:48.880]  confirmed by oath or affirmation of the party making it. It's taken before a person having authority,
[21:48.880 --> 21:54.880]  like a notary, to administer such oath or affirmation. So we're looking at a statement of facts
[21:56.160 --> 22:02.960]  voluntarily made and they have to be under oath before a person is authorized to administer the
[22:02.960 --> 22:11.040]  oath. So with that definition, maybe I can just make a few comments, observations of things that
[22:11.040 --> 22:18.720]  I've researched in working with people in a couple different states. I found that the affidavit is
[22:18.720 --> 22:28.320]  very important. I think we all know that. When an attorney comes into court to press for a default
[22:28.320 --> 22:36.720]  judgment, summary judgment, a variety of things, the affidavit is the plaintiff's witness statements
[22:36.720 --> 22:46.080]  in writing. And it's very important to understand, first of all, how the affidavit, the weight that
[22:46.080 --> 22:55.600]  it has in a case. The test of perjury is extremely important. The test of sufficiency of whether the
[22:55.600 --> 23:02.160]  plaintiff's affidavit and of any other affidavits that may be mentioned or produced to the court
[23:02.160 --> 23:10.640]  is whether or not the affidavit can support a conviction for perjury based upon whether or not
[23:10.640 --> 23:18.880]  the facts are shown later on to be false. So if an affidavit has facts alleged and later proved
[23:18.880 --> 23:28.160]  be false, then that person could be charged with perjury. But what we find is that these sufficiency
[23:28.160 --> 23:35.360]  affidavits rarely come under scrutiny. So many times an affidavit is put forth and it's read
[23:35.360 --> 23:40.480]  through rapidly. You look down at the bottom, there's a notary's signature and so forth, and
[23:40.480 --> 23:47.360]  that's kind of the end of it. But it's amazing how much ambiguous language is put into these
[23:47.360 --> 23:57.280]  affidavits. And the identity of the witness with the plaintiff is rarely made clear by the
[23:57.280 --> 24:06.400]  court and the relationship and so forth. So if you have any particular situations that you're
[24:06.400 --> 24:15.520]  dealing with, we can address that. Otherwise, I can just go through some scenarios of how this may
[24:15.520 --> 24:25.680]  work. Well, I'd kind of like you to talk about these affidavits that lenders are filing with the
[24:25.680 --> 24:37.200]  courts that have gotten so much press lately. Okay. Well, the affidavit usually states a person
[24:38.000 --> 24:43.680]  and whether or not that person is clearly identified is one of the things you want to look
[24:43.680 --> 24:53.440]  for. If it's a John Doe, the states that they work for ABC mortgage company or bank or whatever,
[24:53.440 --> 24:59.680]  does that person have personal knowledge? That's the most important thing here. So many people
[24:59.680 --> 25:05.200]  will say that they work for a certain bank and they'll say they work in a certain department.
[25:05.200 --> 25:11.360]  And because they're there, they say that a person alleged, they allege a person has a certain debt
[25:11.360 --> 25:16.480]  obligation and so forth. Well, there's no foundation here. First of all, is that person
[25:16.480 --> 25:22.480]  authorized by the plaintiff to even make an affidavit? Is that in there? Rarely.
[25:22.480 --> 25:28.240]  They may just say, I work for the company. I'm in a certain department and off they go.
[25:29.840 --> 25:37.760]  Do they have any authority? Wait, wait. What would constitute evidence of authorization to make the
[25:38.480 --> 25:46.240]  affidavit? Well, even just a statement to say that they have been authorized by, you know,
[25:46.240 --> 25:53.200]  a CEO or a department head, give them their name or something, or even make the a vermin
[25:53.760 --> 26:02.560]  that I am authorized by ABC Bank to make this affidavit and speak in its behalf. Are they an
[26:02.560 --> 26:10.320]  employee? Are they an officer? Are they an attorney? Are they an in-house attorney? Are they an
[26:10.320 --> 26:18.240]  out-sourced attorney? I mean, there has to be some way in which they have made an allegation
[26:18.800 --> 26:26.720]  that they are authorized to make the affidavit. The person could be just completely fictitious.
[26:27.600 --> 26:35.520]  So there needs to be some statement. If a person really wanted to confirm this fact, they could
[26:35.520 --> 26:41.360]  have an attachment stating that there is a letter to whom it may concern and, you know, signed off
[26:41.360 --> 26:48.880]  by some officer of the corporation delegating authority to this person to speak on their behalf.
[26:50.080 --> 26:55.040]  So identifying the person who is making the affidavit would be one of the first things.
[26:55.040 --> 27:01.360]  Do they have any personal knowledge of the facts which they allege? Many people will say,
[27:01.360 --> 27:07.280]  the ones I've seen, I work for this company, I'm in this department, and then they immediately say
[27:07.280 --> 27:15.520]  that so-and-so has a debt obligation and so on. Well, do they have access to the records? Do they
[27:15.520 --> 27:23.920]  supervise people who have the records? What is their relationship with them? All this information
[27:23.920 --> 27:34.000]  is usually missing. And so it's very important. As I recall in the case law, the case law on an
[27:34.000 --> 27:41.040]  affidavit, this was specifically on a suit on account, and that's essentially what we're talking
[27:41.040 --> 27:52.240]  about, is the individual signing the affidavit has to produce a full accounting
[27:52.240 --> 28:00.240]  and have full personal knowledge of all of the issues of the account.
[28:00.240 --> 28:10.480]  You can't just be somebody who knows about it. Correct. And also, was that person, did they have
[28:10.480 --> 28:15.520]  access to the information, did they have personal knowledge, and were they working for the company
[28:15.520 --> 28:21.600]  during the time period that's in question? Were they working in this department with personal
[28:21.600 --> 28:32.000]  knowledge at the time that the foreclosure action was instituted? Were they hired just two days
[28:32.000 --> 28:41.440]  before the hearing or before the paperwork was filed? There's just a whole list of things that
[28:41.440 --> 28:47.440]  needs to be looked at as far as that person's relationship with the plaintiff and whether or
[28:47.440 --> 28:53.440]  not they have personal knowledge of the facts alleged.
[28:53.440 --> 29:03.440]  Okay, we've got personal knowledge. We've got agency. And as you were talking, I was thinking
[29:03.440 --> 29:11.440]  about something else. Even if they have agency and personal knowledge, how do we know that
[29:11.440 --> 29:21.440]  they're qualified to understand what they have knowledge of? You're saying to give their
[29:21.440 --> 29:27.440]  credentials, their training, their level of expertise, is that what you're referring to?
[29:27.440 --> 29:35.440]  Well, yes. How do we know that they have the knowledge and the background to make the
[29:35.440 --> 29:41.440]  statements? Apparently, they're coming essentially as an expert witness. They're an expert in this
[29:41.440 --> 29:51.440]  particular area. I would want to see their background and their qualifications to make to
[29:51.440 --> 29:59.440]  prepare the evidence. Okay, here's the background music. We're about to go to break.
[29:59.440 --> 30:05.440]  I lost my son. My nephew. My uncle. My son. On September 11th, 2001. Most people don't know
[30:05.440 --> 30:11.440]  that a third tower fell on September 11th. World Trade Center 7, a 47-story skyscraper,
[30:11.440 --> 30:15.440]  was not hit by a plane. Although the official explanation is that fire brought down Building 7,
[30:15.440 --> 30:21.440]  over 1,200 architects and engineers have looked into the evidence and believe there is more to
[30:21.440 --> 30:27.440]  the story. Bring justice to my son, my uncle, my nephew, my son. Go to buildingwatt.org. Why it
[30:27.440 --> 30:38.440]  fell, why it matters, and what you can do. Forget the tanning booths, hours in the sun, and
[30:38.440 --> 30:42.440]  instant tan lotions. There's a much better way to boost your skin color, and it's really good
[30:42.440 --> 30:48.440]  for you. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be back in just a moment with a skin-sational tip.
[30:48.440 --> 30:53.440]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[30:53.440 --> 30:59.440]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. So protect your
[30:59.440 --> 31:05.440]  rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy, it's worth
[31:05.440 --> 31:10.440]  hanging on to. This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private
[31:10.440 --> 31:18.440]  search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with StartPage. Humans prefer a
[31:18.440 --> 31:23.440]  healthy glow, but not the kind from a beach or a bottle. This kind of glow comes from carotenoids.
[31:23.440 --> 31:28.440]  Carotenoids are red and yellow antioxidants found in foods like carrots, spinach, and pumpkins.
[31:28.440 --> 31:33.440]  Researchers say that people who eat lots of fruits and veggies have higher levels of carotenoids in
[31:33.440 --> 31:38.440]  their skin and a more yellow hue to their face, and people like it. Study participants were shown
[31:38.440 --> 31:43.440]  images of a face. The original one mimicked a suntan, and one mimicked carotenoid coloring.
[31:43.440 --> 31:48.440]  The carotenoid look was judged most healthy. So instead of basking in the sun, hit the salad bar.
[31:48.440 --> 31:53.440]  It's better for you, and you'll look healthier for it. I'm Dr. Katherine Albrecht. More news and
[31:53.440 --> 32:08.440]  information at KatherineAlbrecht.com.
[32:23.440 --> 32:50.440]  All right, folks. We are back. We're speaking with our special guest, CJ from Tennessee.
[32:50.440 --> 32:56.440]  We're talking about affidavits and the power of affidavits. Now, CJ, I wanted you to address the
[32:56.440 --> 33:04.440]  issue concerning the power of affidavits. Is it true that when an affidavit is submitted to the
[33:04.440 --> 33:12.440]  court in a case, that what is stated in the affidavit, the facts or alleged facts that are
[33:12.440 --> 33:18.440]  stated in the affidavit, stand as a matter of fact in law unless the affidavit is rebutted by
[33:18.440 --> 33:24.440]  either another affidavit or other evidence to show that what is stated in the affidavit is untrue?
[33:24.440 --> 33:32.440]  And if that is the case, give us some examples just in a general sense of what would be needed to
[33:32.440 --> 33:35.440]  overturn an affidavit.
[33:35.440 --> 33:43.440]  Well, my understanding is that unless it's challenged, that it stands. Cases that I've worked
[33:43.440 --> 33:51.440]  with closely with people, they've filed motions to strike, motions to strike a particular affidavit
[33:51.440 --> 34:00.440]  because it had so many glaring ambiguities or unclear things or facts which even on their face
[34:00.440 --> 34:07.440]  looked absolutely ludicrous. So that's one method that could be used is a motion to strike. And
[34:07.440 --> 34:12.440]  without the affidavit, if it is stricken because of various things that would come up maybe in the
[34:12.440 --> 34:19.440]  hearing, then what basis or what standing then does the attorney have for his client? If there's no
[34:19.440 --> 34:25.440]  competent fact witness, there's no affidavit that's valid, it's insufficient.
[34:25.440 --> 34:31.440]  You see, there has to be, as we said earlier, the affidavit would fail the test of sufficiency if
[34:31.440 --> 34:38.440]  it does not allege facts that can hold the affiant as a bona fide employee, officer, agent,
[34:38.440 --> 34:45.440]  whatever, guilty of perjury. Should the facts be shown to be false, if the affidavit does not have
[34:45.440 --> 34:53.440]  in their certain language, then it fails the test. It's insufficient. It's an invalid affidavit.
[34:53.440 --> 34:59.440]  And most affidavits that I've seen, I've seen just dozens and dozens of them, they all fail.
[34:59.440 --> 35:06.440]  But no one ever challenges them. They just let it slide by and they just take it for face value.
[35:06.440 --> 35:14.440]  When you look closely, there's scores of questions that can be raised and issues brought up which
[35:14.440 --> 35:21.440]  usually just shoot them down without any question. And there are many cases which say, court cases,
[35:21.440 --> 35:31.440]  which say that the burden of proof is on the affiant. And here's one case. This is a Nebraska case.
[35:31.440 --> 35:37.440]  It says, in affidavits drawn by counsel for party litigants, language which is ambiguous in its nature
[35:37.440 --> 35:45.440]  will be construed most strongly against the party in whose behalf such affidavits were prepared.
[35:45.440 --> 35:53.440]  And I've just got a long list of cases where it says that the presumption is against the affiant
[35:53.440 --> 36:00.440]  if there's weasel language in there, weasel words, if it's ambiguous or generalized and so forth.
[36:00.440 --> 36:11.440]  So this has to be brought up and you can point to case law to show that the presumption is against them
[36:11.440 --> 36:17.440]  and in favor of the defendant.
[36:17.440 --> 36:22.440]  Okay. A thought I had while you were talking about that.
[36:22.440 --> 36:24.440]  Say pardon?
[36:24.440 --> 36:30.440]  A thought I had while you were talking about that. We have people paying their mortgages
[36:30.440 --> 36:42.440]  and they will get a notice from someone that says, I have been assigned as the servicer for your note.
[36:42.440 --> 36:49.440]  Don't send your money to this other guy over here. Send your money to me now.
[36:49.440 --> 36:57.440]  Can that notice of assignment be treated as an affidavit or should it be treated as an affidavit?
[36:57.440 --> 37:01.440]  Well, it doesn't meet the definition of an affidavit.
[37:01.440 --> 37:08.440]  An affidavit again is alleging facts that are under oath
[37:08.440 --> 37:13.440]  and it's given before a person who has the authority to administer the oath.
[37:13.440 --> 37:19.440]  So a person who's merely saying, you know, I'm now the administrator, that's not under oath
[37:19.440 --> 37:22.440]  and there's no foundation for the facts.
[37:22.440 --> 37:38.440]  So I should be able to make the request of the servicer that he provide notice of agency for the principal by affidavit.
[37:38.440 --> 37:45.440]  Well, you want a certified statement, it's the same thing. You want a certified statement to whom it may concern
[37:45.440 --> 37:51.440]  and then you can basically put in the language there or have them or you can prepare it and send it back to them.
[37:51.440 --> 37:53.440]  Let them fill in the blanks.
[37:53.440 --> 38:04.440]  Could I essentially hold the notice to the requirements of an affidavit?
[38:04.440 --> 38:06.440]  Can you hold a notice?
[38:06.440 --> 38:15.440]  If I ask for a certified notice, can I hold that to the standards of an affidavit?
[38:15.440 --> 38:21.440]  Well, essentially, yes, it's a statement that's under oath.
[38:21.440 --> 38:22.440]  Wonderful.
[38:22.440 --> 38:35.440]  I don't think there's a single servicer out there who would risk perjury claiming that they have agency for the principal.
[38:35.440 --> 38:37.440]  Because they don't know who the principal is.
[38:37.440 --> 38:39.440]  Correct.
[38:39.440 --> 38:41.440]  I have a question.
[38:41.440 --> 38:46.440]  Can we go over the legal definition of weasel words?
[38:46.440 --> 38:55.440]  I mean, so to speak, basically, are you saying that in an affidavit there has to be specificity?
[38:55.440 --> 39:07.440]  Are you saying that basically whoever's writing the affidavit is writing things or attesting to things that are overly vague, that that's just not going to fly?
[39:07.440 --> 39:09.440]  Is that what that means?
[39:09.440 --> 39:10.440]  Yes.
[39:10.440 --> 39:19.440]  Anything that's very ambiguous that could have multiple meanings, I would consider that like weasel words.
[39:19.440 --> 39:21.440]  And most all of them are.
[39:21.440 --> 39:26.440]  I've seen affidavits from legal departments from some of the largest banks in the country.
[39:26.440 --> 39:28.440]  And it would be interesting.
[39:28.440 --> 39:30.440]  I'd like to put them up sometime for people to see.
[39:30.440 --> 39:35.440]  And I could just take word for word and phrase for phrase and sentence for sentence and just show it's just absolutely ridiculous.
[39:35.440 --> 39:36.440]  I have a place.
[39:36.440 --> 39:38.440]  I will be glad to do that.
[39:38.440 --> 39:44.440]  Are they doing that to try to perhaps get out of being accused of perjury?
[39:44.440 --> 39:51.440]  Oh, of course. They're engaged in swindling people in our country.
[39:51.440 --> 39:54.440]  So, of course, they don't want to be nailed.
[39:54.440 --> 39:56.440]  And they know what the penalties are.
[39:56.440 --> 40:03.440]  I mean, there are some states that have some very severe penalties for perjury.
[40:03.440 --> 40:10.440]  And that's where you are in a formal proceeding and something is introduced and the person under oath makes a statement.
[40:10.440 --> 40:17.440]  And they know it's not true, but they're trying to evade the truth and to make it sound like the truth when it's not.
[40:17.440 --> 40:18.440]  Well, that's perjury.
[40:18.440 --> 40:31.440]  And it can be from a few years up to 15 years I've seen in one case where a class one or first degree perjury can have a penalty of up to 15 years.
[40:31.440 --> 40:39.440]  So, yeah, they want it to be very vague.
[40:39.440 --> 40:43.440]  I'm thinking how I could attack the vagueness.
[40:43.440 --> 40:46.440]  Well, okay, just give me one example.
[40:46.440 --> 40:51.440]  Besides, you know, the person having personal knowledge, you can usually shoot down everyone right there.
[40:51.440 --> 40:58.440]  It's never clear that they have the authority to make this affidavit or that they have personal knowledge.
[40:58.440 --> 41:05.440]  But many of them will get to the end and they never make a statement that the facts alleged are true.
[41:05.440 --> 41:07.440]  I mean, I couldn't tell you.
[41:07.440 --> 41:19.440]  I'd say – this is just a guess – I'd say 80 to 85 percent of all the affidavits I've seen never state in there that the facts alleged herein are true and correct or more true.
[41:19.440 --> 41:27.440]  They'll just make a statement and they'll list a whole lot of things and then the notary comes in and witnesses their signature and signs off.
[41:27.440 --> 41:29.440]  Nothing about the truth.
[41:29.440 --> 41:32.440]  Well, right there it's a completely invalid affidavit.
[41:32.440 --> 41:36.440]  Does the affidavit not contain a jurat?
[41:36.440 --> 41:39.440]  Yeah, but all jurats don't necessarily state that they're true.
[41:39.440 --> 41:51.440]  If I had access to my files here, I could show you a pile of them that the jurat just merely says John Doe appeared before me on this day such and such and I witnessed his signature and they sign off.
[41:51.440 --> 41:54.440]  Nothing about the facts alleged are true.
[41:54.440 --> 41:58.440]  I think that would not sufficiently qualify as a jurat.
[41:58.440 --> 42:02.440]  Of course not because it fails the test of perjury.
[42:02.440 --> 42:08.440]  If you couldn't nail a person for perjury, it's an invalid affidavit.
[42:08.440 --> 42:10.440]  That's the test.
[42:10.440 --> 42:12.440]  And that's a simple enough test.
[42:12.440 --> 42:13.440]  Sure.
[42:13.440 --> 42:26.440]  When it goes to personal knowledge, when it goes to foundation for making the statements, an agency.
[42:26.440 --> 42:30.440]  I'm going to have a lot of fun with this.
[42:30.440 --> 42:36.440]  Okay, this has really been enlightening and you sent me some information on it.
[42:36.440 --> 42:39.440]  I will be studying that intently.
[42:39.440 --> 42:52.440]  Well, you probably have about 20, 30 pages of a breakdown of things specifically point by point on what can be used for analyzing affidavits.
[42:52.440 --> 42:55.440]  Can you go through a few of those points?
[42:55.440 --> 42:56.440]  Okay.
[42:56.440 --> 43:00.440]  Just a moment, let me click over here.
[43:00.440 --> 43:05.440]  I jotted down a few while I was waiting.
[43:05.440 --> 43:09.440]  While you're looking that up, could I give an example here?
[43:09.440 --> 43:15.440]  You're saying that there has to be something attesting to the validity in the affidavit.
[43:15.440 --> 43:33.440]  Could that be like, say for example, the language from 28 U.S.C. Section 1746 where it says, I we declare or certify, verify or state under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that these facts are true and correct?
[43:33.440 --> 43:35.440]  Well, that can be used even without a jurat.
[43:35.440 --> 43:36.440]  Right.
[43:36.440 --> 43:48.440]  Okay, so they can use that, but as long as they are putting themselves under the possible penalty of perjury, if the facts are shown to be false, then it has weight.
[43:48.440 --> 43:51.440]  All right, excellent.
[43:51.440 --> 43:57.440]  And yeah, I wanted to get to that too, that if you cite that 28 U.S.C. 1746, you don't even need a notary.
[43:57.440 --> 44:01.440]  We'll be right back.
[44:01.440 --> 44:02.440]  More energy.
[44:02.440 --> 44:04.440]  Stronger immune power.
[44:04.440 --> 44:07.440]  Improved sense of well-being.
[44:07.440 --> 44:11.440]  How many supplements have you heard boast of these benefits?
[44:11.440 --> 44:20.440]  The team behind Shentrition believes that supplements should over-deliver on their promises, and Shentrition does just that.
[44:20.440 --> 44:24.440]  Shentrition utilizes the ancient healing wisdom of Chinese medicine.
[44:24.440 --> 44:37.440]  In conjunction with the science of modern nutrition, adaptogenic herbs serve as the healing component, and organic hemp protein in greens and superfoods act as a balanced nutrient base.
[44:37.440 --> 44:41.440]  Plus, Shentrition tastes great in just water.
[44:41.440 --> 44:47.440]  This powder supplement is everything you'd want in a product, and it's all natural.
[44:47.440 --> 44:55.440]  Visit Shentrition.com to order yours, or call 1-866-497-7436.
[44:55.440 --> 45:06.440]  After you use Shentrition, you'll believe in supplements again.
[45:06.440 --> 45:18.440]  Aerial spraying, chemtrails, the modified atmosphere, heavy metals and pesticides, carcinogens and chemical fibers all falling from the sky.
[45:18.440 --> 45:21.440]  You have a choice to keep your body clean.
[45:21.440 --> 45:31.440]  Detoxify with micro-plant powder from hempusa.org, or call 908-691-2608.
[45:31.440 --> 45:36.440]  It's odorless and tasteless and used in any liquid or food.
[45:36.440 --> 45:40.440]  Protect your family now with micro-plant powder.
[45:40.440 --> 45:49.440]  Cleaning out heavy metals, parasites and toxins, order it now for daily intake and stock it now for long-term storage.
[45:49.440 --> 46:14.440]  Visit hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608 today.
[46:14.440 --> 46:16.440]  Okay, folks, we are back.
[46:16.440 --> 46:24.440]  All right, CJ, you're about to give us some examples of what could be considered deficiencies or weaknesses in an affidavit.
[46:24.440 --> 46:25.440]  Okay.
[46:25.440 --> 46:33.440]  What I will share with you I'm taking from a particular case that I was working with, with a friend.
[46:33.440 --> 46:39.440]  And the first one was here was there was no proof of relevance to the complaint.
[46:39.440 --> 46:48.440]  This means that the affidavit did not state specifically that it was done in support of a complaint against this particular person.
[46:48.440 --> 46:52.440]  It was just boilerplate language.
[46:52.440 --> 47:01.440]  And if it's not specific as to how it's to be applied, it's vague, and the presumption is against them.
[47:01.440 --> 47:07.440]  And the courts say that if it's ambiguous language or it's vague, that it was done intentionally.
[47:07.440 --> 47:17.440]  It's the presumption of the courts that it was done intentionally to veil the truth or to avoid stating the truth.
[47:17.440 --> 47:26.440]  So that was one thing there is that it's specific as to the affidavit being relevant to the complaint.
[47:26.440 --> 47:34.440]  The other was that there was no date of execution of this particular claim that was made.
[47:34.440 --> 47:37.440]  Another thing might be the affidavit's address.
[47:37.440 --> 47:39.440]  Where does this person live?
[47:39.440 --> 47:41.440]  Where do they come from?
[47:41.440 --> 47:43.440]  That they say, I'm John Doe.
[47:43.440 --> 47:45.440]  I work for ABC Bank.
[47:45.440 --> 47:46.440]  Where?
[47:46.440 --> 47:49.440]  The bank has 10 branches or maybe 50 branches.
[47:49.440 --> 47:50.440]  Which one are they?
[47:50.440 --> 47:51.440]  Where do they live?
[47:51.440 --> 47:52.440]  Do they live in that area?
[47:52.440 --> 47:55.440]  I'm going to want to depose this guy.
[47:55.440 --> 47:56.440]  How do I do that?
[47:56.440 --> 47:57.440]  Exactly.
[47:57.440 --> 48:02.440]  They need to have some specifics there of where the guy lives, where he can be contacted.
[48:02.440 --> 48:07.440]  The other is that there's no notarization or authentication.
[48:07.440 --> 48:12.440]  I've seen many banks that would have something with no notary on it.
[48:12.440 --> 48:14.440]  And it would just say affidavit at the top.
[48:14.440 --> 48:17.440]  And it was just like, whoops, we forgot to do it.
[48:17.440 --> 48:20.440]  The other is no venue.
[48:20.440 --> 48:26.440]  The alleged affidavit of claim would have no jurat as mentioned above.
[48:26.440 --> 48:31.440]  It would show no venue of where it allegedly was signed by the affiant.
[48:31.440 --> 48:35.440]  It may not have a proper oath or affirmation like we talked earlier.
[48:35.440 --> 48:39.440]  The language doesn't say anything about it being truthful.
[48:39.440 --> 48:44.440]  False testimony is very often given, stating, for instance, like an arbitration.
[48:44.440 --> 48:48.440]  This is a specific example.
[48:48.440 --> 48:53.440]  There's a person, I'll just say his name is John Doe, too.
[48:53.440 --> 48:59.440]  He falsely testified that he had personal knowledge that certain supporting documents were produced
[48:59.440 --> 49:03.440]  at an arbitration award and that they were true and correct.
[49:03.440 --> 49:09.440]  Well, upon investigation, we learned that the arbitration hearing was merely a document hearing.
[49:09.440 --> 49:11.440]  He never appeared.
[49:11.440 --> 49:12.440]  Nobody appeared.
[49:12.440 --> 49:14.440]  It was all done administratively.
[49:14.440 --> 49:16.440]  But he said he had personal knowledge.
[49:16.440 --> 49:17.440]  He was never there.
[49:17.440 --> 49:24.440]  Most of these so-called hearings, arbitration hearings, are, well, they're bogus.
[49:24.440 --> 49:27.440]  And so he wasn't present at the hearing.
[49:27.440 --> 49:32.440]  That discredited him from having any personal knowledge of any of the facts at the hearing.
[49:32.440 --> 49:33.440]  So that's a false statement.
[49:33.440 --> 49:34.440]  It's hearsay evidence.
[49:34.440 --> 49:37.440]  It's inadmissible.
[49:37.440 --> 49:41.440]  Sometimes there's missing documents that they refer to.
[49:41.440 --> 49:45.440]  They may claim that there's a certain document that says such-and-such, an interest worksheet.
[49:45.440 --> 49:52.440]  They may say, well, according to our interest worksheet, the defendant owes $400 in interest payments or something.
[49:52.440 --> 49:55.440]  Well, all these documents referred to are not part of the record.
[49:55.440 --> 49:56.440]  They're missing.
[49:56.440 --> 50:04.440]  And if they were attached, were those records made contemporaneously with the acts that are stated therein?
[50:04.440 --> 50:05.440]  That has to be shown.
[50:05.440 --> 50:07.440]  No foundation.
[50:07.440 --> 50:12.440]  Then they also have to have proof of the plaintiff's identity, which we talked about.
[50:12.440 --> 50:15.440]  No proof of the date of employment.
[50:15.440 --> 50:16.440]  This is a big one.
[50:16.440 --> 50:24.440]  The alleged affidavit of claim in this particular case lacked admissible proof of the affidant's employer
[50:24.440 --> 50:28.440]  and his employment dates relative to the personal knowledge.
[50:28.440 --> 50:33.440]  How could they have had personal knowledge if they have only been employed 30 days ago
[50:33.440 --> 50:36.440]  and the issue involved here was several years before?
[50:36.440 --> 50:39.440]  They can't.
[50:39.440 --> 50:47.440]  And then there's rules of evidence that various courts have as dates.
[50:47.440 --> 50:52.440]  It's supposed to be, it says affidavit should be accompanied by supporting documents or statements
[50:52.440 --> 50:57.440]  containing sufficient detail as to liability and damages.
[50:57.440 --> 51:02.440]  Well, did these people buy something, three cents on a dollar?
[51:02.440 --> 51:04.440]  What are their damages?
[51:04.440 --> 51:11.440]  How can they claim damages when they paid three cents on a dollar for something,
[51:11.440 --> 51:14.440]  if indeed they even were the assignee?
[51:14.440 --> 51:20.440]  So you must have a precise amount of the claim, an interest claim.
[51:20.440 --> 51:22.440]  There's a whole lot of things there.
[51:22.440 --> 51:26.440]  None of them would be no proof of the contractual foundation of the claim.
[51:26.440 --> 51:31.440]  They must state in the affidavit that there is a contractual obligation
[51:31.440 --> 51:34.440]  and they have to give a foundation.
[51:34.440 --> 51:40.440]  Not that the defendant owes so much money to a certain bank based on a note.
[51:40.440 --> 51:42.440]  Well, what's the foundation for that?
[51:42.440 --> 51:44.440]  How many times has it been assigned?
[51:44.440 --> 51:47.440]  Did they get it from the FDIC?
[51:47.440 --> 51:51.440]  Did they do a favor and FDIC give them this thing
[51:51.440 --> 51:54.440]  and that there's no notice of assignment filed anywhere?
[51:54.440 --> 51:57.440]  There's no bill of sale anywhere?
[51:57.440 --> 51:59.440]  I mean, there's no foundation for the claim.
[51:59.440 --> 52:02.440]  That has to be in the affidavit.
[52:02.440 --> 52:06.440]  It has to be incorporated by reference, any verified documents and so forth,
[52:06.440 --> 52:08.440]  or exhibits attached.
[52:08.440 --> 52:13.440]  Then they also make bold assertion of facts.
[52:13.440 --> 52:20.440]  And let's see here, it says here that an affidavit is devoid of verified facts
[52:20.440 --> 52:25.440]  in sufficient detail as to the liability and the damages,
[52:25.440 --> 52:29.440]  including the precise amount of the claim and any interest claimed,
[52:29.440 --> 52:32.440]  which would substantiate any indebtedness by the defendant.
[52:32.440 --> 52:34.440]  Without that, it's void.
[52:34.440 --> 52:39.440]  Furthermore, it says that it contained no proof whatsoever.
[52:39.440 --> 52:44.440]  It was merely a conclusion without any facts in support.
[52:44.440 --> 52:46.440]  And that's another thing.
[52:46.440 --> 52:51.440]  The affidavit must state clearly facts, not conclusions.
[52:51.440 --> 52:57.440]  And many of them are nothing but one list of conclusions.
[52:57.440 --> 53:00.440]  And in the case of an arbitration, they may say,
[53:00.440 --> 53:03.440]  well, according to an arbitration, we were awarded such and such.
[53:03.440 --> 53:07.440]  Well, where is the proof that there was a valid arbitration award?
[53:07.440 --> 53:09.440]  Very rarely do they ever put it in.
[53:09.440 --> 53:15.440]  So if there's no valid affidavit, there's no admissible evidence.
[53:15.440 --> 53:19.440]  Without admissible evidence, no competent fact witness,
[53:19.440 --> 53:23.440]  what does that do to the subject matter jurisdiction of the court?
[53:23.440 --> 53:25.440]  What subject matter jurisdiction?
[53:25.440 --> 53:26.440]  It's lost.
[53:26.440 --> 53:32.440]  The court cannot make a decision upon no facts or no admissible facts.
[53:32.440 --> 53:34.440]  They have to apply the law to the facts.
[53:34.440 --> 53:40.440]  We had a credit card case here in Texas I helped a friend with.
[53:40.440 --> 53:49.440]  And in Texas, the only time a pleading has to be verified is when it's a suit on account.
[53:49.440 --> 53:54.440]  And there must be a complete verification and a validation of the account,
[53:54.440 --> 53:56.440]  and it must be verified.
[53:56.440 --> 53:58.440]  Well, it wasn't.
[53:58.440 --> 54:02.440]  So we sued the judge.
[54:02.440 --> 54:06.440]  That was our challenge to subject matter jurisdiction.
[54:06.440 --> 54:08.440]  What level of court was that in?
[54:08.440 --> 54:10.440]  It was a justice court.
[54:10.440 --> 54:13.440]  Okay, that was a court of limited jurisdiction, right?
[54:13.440 --> 54:14.440]  Yes.
[54:14.440 --> 54:19.440]  Okay, I've learned from some cases that I've been rather close to
[54:19.440 --> 54:25.440]  that courts of limited jurisdiction have a very narrow threshold
[54:25.440 --> 54:29.440]  or tight threshold, if you will, for the jurisdiction.
[54:29.440 --> 54:36.440]  And they're not given a lot of leeway as you are in a court of general jurisdiction.
[54:36.440 --> 54:40.440]  And if they do anything outside of their jurisdiction,
[54:40.440 --> 54:44.440]  such as in your case there, all immunity is stripped away from them.
[54:44.440 --> 54:47.440]  They're all personally liable.
[54:47.440 --> 54:49.440]  That was the claim we made.
[54:49.440 --> 54:52.440]  The client didn't want to pursue the suit against the judge,
[54:52.440 --> 54:55.440]  but it really got his attention.
[54:55.440 --> 54:57.440]  He said in court he hadn't seen it.
[54:57.440 --> 55:00.440]  And the client said, Your Honor, what are you doing here?
[55:00.440 --> 55:01.440]  I sued you.
[55:01.440 --> 55:02.440]  What?
[55:02.440 --> 55:03.440]  What?
[55:03.440 --> 55:04.440]  And he got the pleading out.
[55:04.440 --> 55:07.440]  Well, he said, I'm not the one to determine jurisdiction.
[55:07.440 --> 55:09.440]  You have to do that.
[55:09.440 --> 55:14.440]  And he said, Your Honor, before you order me to come to court,
[55:14.440 --> 55:18.440]  you have to be sure that the pleading is sufficient
[55:18.440 --> 55:22.440]  to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.
[55:22.440 --> 55:31.440]  He was saying, oh my, oh my, so they got the prosecuting attorney to answer the suit.
[55:31.440 --> 55:36.440]  And we sued the prosecuting attorney for misappropriation of public funds.
[55:36.440 --> 55:37.440]  Oh, that was a hoot.
[55:37.440 --> 55:39.440]  Yes.
[55:39.440 --> 55:44.440]  Well, this whole thing of immunity, they love to say they hide behind this immunity.
[55:44.440 --> 55:48.440]  Well, they don't have it as far as courts of limited jurisdiction.
[55:48.440 --> 55:54.440]  And by the way, U.S. district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.
[55:54.440 --> 55:59.440]  I think most all courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.
[55:59.440 --> 56:03.440]  Is there any court that's not a court of limited jurisdiction?
[56:03.440 --> 56:07.440]  Well, I think you're dealing more with the aspects of it being limited,
[56:07.440 --> 56:11.440]  as in it's got one specific subject it can deal with,
[56:11.440 --> 56:17.440]  versus general where it can operate in a range of subjects within its limited jurisdiction.
[56:17.440 --> 56:18.440]  Okay.
[56:18.440 --> 56:29.440]  Well, in that context, generally a district court would have general jurisdiction over state issues.
[56:29.440 --> 56:31.440]  But if there's still limited jurisdiction,
[56:31.440 --> 56:35.440]  well, actually every court has limited jurisdiction there.
[56:35.440 --> 56:43.440]  They only have jurisdiction over what is statutorily assigned to them or constitutionally granted them.
[56:43.440 --> 56:53.440]  And if the pleading fails to abide by the code in the law,
[56:53.440 --> 56:57.440]  then it's insufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.
[56:57.440 --> 57:07.440]  And the court has zero.
[57:07.440 --> 57:08.440]  Okay.
[57:08.440 --> 57:10.440]  That was wonderful.
[57:10.440 --> 57:15.440]  It's going to take a lot of study on my part to come up to speed.
[57:15.440 --> 57:18.440]  I sure thank you for the time you spent with us.
[57:18.440 --> 57:19.440]  Well, you're welcome.
[57:19.440 --> 57:21.440]  Let me just make one other statement here.
[57:21.440 --> 57:24.440]  If you study some of the maxims of law,
[57:24.440 --> 57:34.440]  there are just some tremendous little maxims that have been handed down through the years on this issue of sworn statements,
[57:34.440 --> 57:38.440]  affidavits, and terrific applications,
[57:38.440 --> 57:43.440]  I think that apply, that can be used in cases like you're working with.
[57:43.440 --> 57:48.440]  There's principles of law and fact and principles of credibility and so forth.
[57:48.440 --> 57:50.440]  And they hold a lot of weight.
[57:50.440 --> 57:55.440]  Even if the courts kind of ignore these principles, the maxims of law,
[57:55.440 --> 58:01.440]  you can use the language in these maxims and weave them in with some of your pleadings.
[58:01.440 --> 58:03.440]  It makes them very strong.
[58:03.440 --> 58:04.440]  Wonderful.
[58:04.440 --> 58:05.440]  Thank you very much.
[58:05.440 --> 58:06.440]  Oh, you're certainly welcome.
[58:06.440 --> 58:07.440]  I hope it's been helpful.
[58:07.440 --> 58:08.440]  It certainly has.
[58:08.440 --> 58:09.440]  We appreciate your time.
[58:09.440 --> 58:12.440]  And when we come back, we're going to go to Larry from New York.
[58:12.440 --> 58:18.440]  He has an interesting story about a battle he's been in for quite some time.
[58:18.440 --> 58:20.440]  Larry, thank you for holding on.
[58:20.440 --> 58:22.440]  We will pick you up on the other side.
[58:22.440 --> 58:27.440]  This is Randy Kelton, Debra Stevens, Eddie Craig, Rule of the Law Radio.
[58:27.440 --> 58:29.440]  We'll be on for another hour.
[58:29.440 --> 58:35.440]  So pick up your phones, call in 512-646-1984.
[58:35.440 --> 58:39.440]  We'll take your questions and comments when we come back on the other side.
[58:39.440 --> 58:59.440]  As soon as we finish, we have Larry from New York.
[58:59.440 --> 59:05.440]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated
[59:05.440 --> 59:07.440]  because they struggle to understand it.
[59:07.440 --> 59:11.440]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text,
[59:11.440 --> 59:16.440]  but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the Scripture.
[59:16.440 --> 59:18.440]  Enter the recovery version.
[59:18.440 --> 59:22.440]  First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate,
[59:22.440 --> 59:27.440]  but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes.
[59:27.440 --> 59:31.440]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way,
[59:31.440 --> 01:00:00.440]  providing an entrance into the riches of the Word beyond which you've ever experienced before.
[01:00:00.440 --> 01:00:04.440]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[01:00:04.440 --> 01:00:07.440]  Dozens of Fatah supporters demonstrated in the West Bank Wednesday
[01:00:07.440 --> 01:00:10.440]  in support of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
[01:00:10.440 --> 01:00:14.440]  The demonstration coincided with the attack launched by Mubarak supporters
[01:00:14.440 --> 01:00:16.440]  against peaceful protesters in Cairo.
[01:00:16.440 --> 01:00:23.440]  The demonstrators condemned Egyptian opposition figure Mohammed al-Baradeh as a CIA agent.
[01:00:23.440 --> 01:00:27.440]  Former UK Foreign Minister Jack Straw recommended Tony Blair read a paper
[01:00:27.440 --> 01:00:33.440]  by Britain's MI6 spy service, setting out a route map for regime change in Iraq.
[01:00:33.440 --> 01:00:38.440]  At the Iraq War Inquiry Tuesday, Straw was asked why he promoted this document,
[01:00:38.440 --> 01:00:43.440]  despite frequently stating that regime change in Baghdad was not UK policy
[01:00:43.440 --> 01:00:48.440]  and could not be a legal justification for attacking Iraq.
[01:00:48.440 --> 01:00:53.440]  Former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has no regrets about invading Iraq
[01:00:53.440 --> 01:00:55.440]  or using torture in the war on terror.
[01:00:55.440 --> 01:00:58.440]  In leaked portions of his memoir to be released this week,
[01:00:58.440 --> 01:01:02.440]  George Bush is depicted as presiding over a national security process
[01:01:02.440 --> 01:01:11.440]  marked by incoherent decision-making and policy drift that especially impacted the war in Iraq.
[01:01:11.440 --> 01:01:15.440]  The Middle East Monitor reported Tuesday Israel has offered to place all its capabilities
[01:01:15.440 --> 01:01:20.440]  at the disposal of General Omar Suleiman, Egypt's new Vice President.
[01:01:20.440 --> 01:01:23.440]  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office confirmed
[01:01:23.440 --> 01:01:28.440]  Netanyahu called Suleiman, who is also Director of Egypt's General Intelligence Service,
[01:01:28.440 --> 01:01:32.440]  suggesting Israeli intelligence engage in specialist operations
[01:01:32.440 --> 01:01:34.440]  to stop pro-democracy demonstrations.
[01:01:34.440 --> 01:01:38.440]  The International Network for Rights and Development reports three Israeli planes
[01:01:38.440 --> 01:01:42.440]  landed at Cairo International Airport carrying hazardous equipment
[01:01:42.440 --> 01:01:45.440]  for use in dispersing large crowds.
[01:01:45.440 --> 01:01:50.440]  Israeli officials are concerned a three-decade peace treaty with Egypt could be undone
[01:01:50.440 --> 01:01:55.440]  if millions of Egyptian protesters succeed in toppling Mubarak.
[01:01:55.440 --> 01:02:00.440]  Pro-democracy advocates held their ground in Cairo's Tahrir Square Wednesday
[01:02:00.440 --> 01:02:05.440]  against police in civilian dress and thugs paid by the Mubarak government.
[01:02:05.440 --> 01:02:10.440]  The New York Times reported the future of the Arab world perched between revolt
[01:02:10.440 --> 01:02:16.440]  and the contempt of a crumbling order was fought for in the streets of downtown Cairo.
[01:02:16.440 --> 01:02:21.440]  Recent Wiki leaked documents have revealed that for years U.S. foreign policy
[01:02:21.440 --> 01:02:25.440]  was based on the premise that without a U.S.-backed pro-Western dictator
[01:02:25.440 --> 01:02:29.440]  the Middle East would be besieged by Islamic fundamentalists.
[01:02:29.440 --> 01:02:33.440]  Critics say the Egyptian uprising led by young people demanding democracy
[01:02:33.440 --> 01:02:37.440]  has revealed how misguided U.S. foreign policy really was.
[01:02:37.440 --> 01:02:41.440]  The UK independence Middle East expert Robert Fisk wrote Thursday
[01:02:41.440 --> 01:02:46.440]  of the violent clashes, quote, it was a final vindication of all Mubarak's critics
[01:02:46.440 --> 01:02:51.440]  and a shameful indictment of the Obamas and Clintons who failed to denounce
[01:02:51.440 --> 01:03:14.440]  his faithful ally of America and Israel.
[01:03:22.440 --> 01:03:27.440]  They want to chop down Babylon and burn down the whole nation.
[01:03:27.440 --> 01:03:30.440]  Both of them are operating like rats.
[01:03:30.440 --> 01:03:33.440]  I'm going to sell republicans and demonstrates, man.
[01:03:33.440 --> 01:03:35.440]  Tell them I'm a libertarian.
[01:03:35.440 --> 01:03:37.440]  They'll sell me by truce, but I'll do it.
[01:03:37.440 --> 01:03:38.440]  I'm a Mubarak.
[01:03:38.440 --> 01:04:03.440]  I'm a Mubarak.
[01:04:03.440 --> 01:04:18.440]  OK, folks, we are back.
[01:04:18.440 --> 01:04:20.440]  We're going into hour two.
[01:04:20.440 --> 01:04:22.440]  Rule of law radio.
[01:04:22.440 --> 01:04:25.440]  Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens.
[01:04:25.440 --> 01:04:27.440]  We're taking your calls.
[01:04:27.440 --> 01:04:31.440]  You can call in 512-646-1984.
[01:04:31.440 --> 01:04:34.440]  We've got Larry from New York on the line right now.
[01:04:34.440 --> 01:04:35.440]  Larry, thanks for calling in.
[01:04:35.440 --> 01:04:37.440]  What's on your mind tonight?
[01:04:37.440 --> 01:04:38.440]  Hi.
[01:04:38.440 --> 01:04:45.440]  I actually was talking with Randy about a situation I have here in upstate New York.
[01:04:45.440 --> 01:04:50.440]  I am in a major battle with a, I guess I would call it a criminal enterprise
[01:04:50.440 --> 01:04:53.440]  operating in our federal courts.
[01:04:53.440 --> 01:04:59.440]  And it's been going on since about April of, April of 09 it's been going on.
[01:04:59.440 --> 01:05:05.440]  And prior to that in state court this group of people have been pursuing me,
[01:05:05.440 --> 01:05:09.440]  trying to take over my projects, and they're getting pretty,
[01:05:09.440 --> 01:05:14.440]  they're achieving that because of their strong influence
[01:05:14.440 --> 01:05:19.440]  and the actual corruption in the federal courts here.
[01:05:19.440 --> 01:05:22.440]  Can you kind of go back to the beginning and give us a synopsis
[01:05:22.440 --> 01:05:26.440]  of what's going on up to this point, kind of a shortened synopsis
[01:05:26.440 --> 01:05:28.440]  so we can kind of bring us up to speed?
[01:05:28.440 --> 01:05:30.440]  Yeah, I'll try to, Randy.
[01:05:30.440 --> 01:05:35.440]  So let me quickly get started.
[01:05:35.440 --> 01:05:39.440]  In the fall of 2008 with one of the major banks I used,
[01:05:39.440 --> 01:05:42.440]  they pulled out of New York because of the TARP money.
[01:05:42.440 --> 01:05:46.440]  They were bought by another bank and such and such.
[01:05:46.440 --> 01:05:52.440]  That caused me to go into file a Chapter 11 so that I could reorganize
[01:05:52.440 --> 01:05:54.440]  and get time to reorganize.
[01:05:54.440 --> 01:05:58.440]  I was able to do that, I filed the Chapter 11.
[01:05:58.440 --> 01:06:02.440]  I actually filed a plan, but unbeknownst to me the people,
[01:06:02.440 --> 01:06:06.440]  I guess I'll call them a loan shark for lack of any other word right now,
[01:06:06.440 --> 01:06:11.440]  he has quite a bit of influence in the courts, especially in the bankruptcy court.
[01:06:11.440 --> 01:06:15.440]  He's been causing a lot of trouble and it's really gone into criminal actions
[01:06:15.440 --> 01:06:22.440]  where I've exposed them, particular action as they try to take over
[01:06:22.440 --> 01:06:24.440]  and disrupt the bankruptcy process.
[01:06:24.440 --> 01:06:35.440]  One of the actions happened in November of 2009 where I tried to use a bankruptcy procedure
[01:06:35.440 --> 01:06:40.440]  to save my property from being actually stolen from them, you know, take it over.
[01:06:40.440 --> 01:06:45.440]  So there's this whole dilemma about this November incident
[01:06:45.440 --> 01:06:50.440]  and what's happening now is they've tried to accuse me,
[01:06:50.440 --> 01:06:53.440]  this is the third time now they've tried to file charges against me
[01:06:53.440 --> 01:06:57.440]  for doing criminal actions in November of 2009
[01:06:57.440 --> 01:07:02.440]  in which these charges are really just them covering up their criminal actions.
[01:07:02.440 --> 01:07:05.440]  Wait a minute, Larry. You haven't told us what this is about.
[01:07:05.440 --> 01:07:06.440]  You had some...
[01:07:06.440 --> 01:07:09.440]  Oh, it's an apartment complex.
[01:07:09.440 --> 01:07:12.440]  And what were you doing with the apartment complex?
[01:07:12.440 --> 01:07:14.440]  Were you purchasing, building?
[01:07:14.440 --> 01:07:15.440]  Yeah, yeah, I'm sorry.
[01:07:15.440 --> 01:07:19.440]  So this is a major apartment complex in upstate New York
[01:07:19.440 --> 01:07:23.440]  and I was going through, it was being built out in three phases
[01:07:23.440 --> 01:07:27.440]  and I was about halfway through the process of building it out,
[01:07:27.440 --> 01:07:31.440]  constructing it and renting it out and things.
[01:07:31.440 --> 01:07:39.440]  And then it occurred 2008 when the bank pulled out in 2008.
[01:07:39.440 --> 01:07:42.440]  So this wasn't something that you did,
[01:07:42.440 --> 01:07:48.440]  this was the result of strictly the market conditions and actions by the bank?
[01:07:48.440 --> 01:07:49.440]  Yeah, that's right.
[01:07:49.440 --> 01:07:53.440]  It wasn't even something local to this market here.
[01:07:53.440 --> 01:07:55.440]  The project's very successful.
[01:07:55.440 --> 01:08:00.440]  It was basically the national activity of the banks buying other banks
[01:08:00.440 --> 01:08:04.440]  based on the money that the government put out at that time.
[01:08:04.440 --> 01:08:07.440]  And this appears to be a situation where someone's trying to come in
[01:08:07.440 --> 01:08:11.440]  and take advantage of this situation and swallow your project?
[01:08:11.440 --> 01:08:12.440]  Is that what's going on?
[01:08:12.440 --> 01:08:15.440]  Yeah, exactly, Randy. I'm sorry. Yes, you got it, exactly.
[01:08:15.440 --> 01:08:18.440]  I'm trying to use this as an opportunity to swallow,
[01:08:18.440 --> 01:08:22.440]  to take over all the equity of the project.
[01:08:22.440 --> 01:08:25.440]  And you've been fighting them since 2009?
[01:08:25.440 --> 01:08:27.440]  Yes.
[01:08:27.440 --> 01:08:30.440]  And now they're making criminal accusations against you?
[01:08:30.440 --> 01:08:33.440]  Well, yes, they've been making criminal accusations.
[01:08:33.440 --> 01:08:36.440]  This is the third time they've done that.
[01:08:36.440 --> 01:08:38.440]  Just last week they did it again.
[01:08:38.440 --> 01:08:40.440]  Have you filed any against them?
[01:08:40.440 --> 01:08:44.440]  No, in fact, the problem is I've learned that where you have a problem
[01:08:44.440 --> 01:08:49.440]  with these type of people, they have quite a bit of influence.
[01:08:49.440 --> 01:08:51.440]  And the U.S. attorney's not interested.
[01:08:51.440 --> 01:08:53.440]  The FBI's not interested.
[01:08:53.440 --> 01:08:56.440]  And so I was wondering how I could file myself.
[01:08:56.440 --> 01:09:01.440]  Okay, you can be sure the U.S. attorney and the FBI are never going to be interested.
[01:09:01.440 --> 01:09:02.440]  They're not. It's amazing.
[01:09:02.440 --> 01:09:06.440]  Right. The FBI, we think the FBI is a law enforcement agency.
[01:09:06.440 --> 01:09:08.440]  It's no such thing.
[01:09:08.440 --> 01:09:14.440]  The FBI is a private police force belonging to the president.
[01:09:14.440 --> 01:09:18.440]  They are nothing more than political operatives.
[01:09:18.440 --> 01:09:25.440]  They have absolutely no interest in you or your problems or law.
[01:09:25.440 --> 01:09:28.440]  They are political entities.
[01:09:28.440 --> 01:09:33.440]  And they're not going to do anything that would interfere
[01:09:33.440 --> 01:09:37.440]  with any campaign donations to their president.
[01:09:37.440 --> 01:09:38.440]  Exactly.
[01:09:38.440 --> 01:09:45.440]  In this case, they won't accuse a judge or somebody like that at all.
[01:09:45.440 --> 01:09:47.440]  Okay, there is a way to do this.
[01:09:47.440 --> 01:09:48.440]  Tell me.
[01:09:48.440 --> 01:09:55.440]  And you know what, Randy, it affects me and about 30, 40 other creditors of mine
[01:09:55.440 --> 01:09:57.440]  that worked hard on these projects.
[01:09:57.440 --> 01:10:00.440]  And so we're all getting wiped out here.
[01:10:00.440 --> 01:10:03.440]  If you can show criminal actions, have you filed any bar grievances
[01:10:03.440 --> 01:10:05.440]  against these attorneys?
[01:10:05.440 --> 01:10:08.440]  Yes, I did. You mean grievous?
[01:10:08.440 --> 01:10:09.440]  Yes.
[01:10:09.440 --> 01:10:11.440]  Yes, it was a joke.
[01:10:11.440 --> 01:10:12.440]  No, no, no, it's not a joke.
[01:10:12.440 --> 01:10:14.440]  I assure you it's not a joke.
[01:10:14.440 --> 01:10:19.440]  Well, the answer, the end of it was, yeah, I've done everything.
[01:10:19.440 --> 01:10:20.440]  Okay, listen, listen.
[01:10:20.440 --> 01:10:22.440]  They want you to think it's a joke.
[01:10:22.440 --> 01:10:23.440]  I know.
[01:10:23.440 --> 01:10:26.440]  Because when you file a bar grievance against an attorney,
[01:10:26.440 --> 01:10:29.440]  you file it with the state bar.
[01:10:29.440 --> 01:10:30.440]  They're all attorneys.
[01:10:30.440 --> 01:10:34.440]  You don't really expect attorneys to beat up other attorneys.
[01:10:34.440 --> 01:10:37.440]  That's not where the power of the bar grievance is.
[01:10:37.440 --> 01:10:38.440]  Yes, I know.
[01:10:38.440 --> 01:10:40.440]  It's in their insurance companies.
[01:10:40.440 --> 01:10:43.440]  That's where the power of the bar grievance is.
[01:10:43.440 --> 01:10:44.440]  Yes.
[01:10:44.440 --> 01:10:47.440]  That's where you will hammer them big time.
[01:10:47.440 --> 01:10:51.440]  How about they won't give me the insurance company?
[01:10:51.440 --> 01:10:52.440]  Who cares?
[01:10:52.440 --> 01:10:53.440]  No, wait a minute, wait a minute.
[01:10:53.440 --> 01:10:54.440]  You're seeing what they won't do.
[01:10:54.440 --> 01:10:58.440]  We hope they don't do anything they're supposed to.
[01:10:58.440 --> 01:10:59.440]  That don't hurt us.
[01:10:59.440 --> 01:11:00.440]  That helps us.
[01:11:00.440 --> 01:11:01.440]  Okay.
[01:11:01.440 --> 01:11:06.440]  If they get the bar grievance, they have to report it.
[01:11:06.440 --> 01:11:09.440]  If they don't report it to their insurance company and they get sued,
[01:11:09.440 --> 01:11:15.440]  and the insurance company finds out about it, they have no insurance.
[01:11:15.440 --> 01:11:18.440]  There'll be no point to pay for the malpractice insurance
[01:11:18.440 --> 01:11:20.440]  if you're going to lie to the lender.
[01:11:20.440 --> 01:11:21.440]  Exactly.
[01:11:21.440 --> 01:11:24.440]  I mean to the insurer because you're going to have no insurance.
[01:11:24.440 --> 01:11:28.440]  So they have to tell on themselves.
[01:11:28.440 --> 01:11:30.440]  Yeah, but I don't think they did, Randy.
[01:11:30.440 --> 01:11:31.440]  I really don't think they did.
[01:11:31.440 --> 01:11:33.440]  Listen, how do you know?
[01:11:33.440 --> 01:11:35.440]  Did they come to you and say,
[01:11:35.440 --> 01:11:37.440]  we didn't do what we were supposed to?
[01:11:37.440 --> 01:11:39.440]  No, but by the fact that I've asked them.
[01:11:39.440 --> 01:11:40.440]  Listen, listen.
[01:11:40.440 --> 01:11:41.440]  Okay, go ahead.
[01:11:41.440 --> 01:11:47.440]  They will say absolutely nothing to you about that bar grievance.
[01:11:47.440 --> 01:11:50.440]  They better not.
[01:11:50.440 --> 01:11:51.440]  I filed a bar grievance against an attorney.
[01:11:51.440 --> 01:11:52.440]  He says one word about it.
[01:11:52.440 --> 01:11:55.440]  He'll get a bar grievance for that.
[01:11:55.440 --> 01:11:57.440]  He needs to keep his mouth shut.
[01:11:57.440 --> 01:11:59.440]  He can't reason with me.
[01:11:59.440 --> 01:12:01.440]  He can't argue with me.
[01:12:01.440 --> 01:12:02.440]  He can't do anything about it.
[01:12:02.440 --> 01:12:05.440]  He's going to stand there and take it and keep his mouth shut.
[01:12:05.440 --> 01:12:07.440]  So you're not going to get any feedback.
[01:12:07.440 --> 01:12:08.440]  Okay.
[01:12:08.440 --> 01:12:10.440]  Don't expect any.
[01:12:10.440 --> 01:12:11.440]  You don't need any.
[01:12:11.440 --> 01:12:12.440]  Okay.
[01:12:12.440 --> 01:12:14.440]  It's going to hurt it.
[01:12:14.440 --> 01:12:17.440]  File as many as is appropriate.
[01:12:17.440 --> 01:12:18.440]  Okay.
[01:12:18.440 --> 01:12:19.440]  Every time they do something inappropriate,
[01:12:19.440 --> 01:12:21.440]  hit them with another bar grievance.
[01:12:21.440 --> 01:12:22.440]  Okay.
[01:12:22.440 --> 01:12:23.440]  That'll hammer them big time.
[01:12:23.440 --> 01:12:25.440]  Judge, same way.
[01:12:25.440 --> 01:12:27.440]  Judicial conduct complaints against the judge.
[01:12:27.440 --> 01:12:30.440]  The judge is going to rule against you at every turn.
[01:12:30.440 --> 01:12:31.440]  Yep.
[01:12:31.440 --> 01:12:32.440]  You got nothing to lose.
[01:12:32.440 --> 01:12:33.440]  Hammer him good.
[01:12:33.440 --> 01:12:39.440]  I did the judicial conduct thing up to the court of appeals in the second district,
[01:12:39.440 --> 01:12:40.440]  and that is another group.
[01:12:40.440 --> 01:12:41.440]  Oh, yeah.
[01:12:41.440 --> 01:12:42.440]  Of course it is.
[01:12:42.440 --> 01:12:43.440]  Judges are going to protect judges.
[01:12:43.440 --> 01:12:44.440]  They pick up the phone.
[01:12:44.440 --> 01:12:45.440]  They pick up the phone.
[01:12:45.440 --> 01:12:46.440]  The chief judge or whatever.
[01:12:46.440 --> 01:12:47.440]  No, look.
[01:12:47.440 --> 01:12:48.440]  Wait.
[01:12:48.440 --> 01:12:49.440]  What's going on down there?
[01:12:49.440 --> 01:12:50.440]  Stop.
[01:12:50.440 --> 01:12:51.440]  You're thinking about this wrong.
[01:12:51.440 --> 01:12:52.440]  Uh-huh.
[01:12:52.440 --> 01:12:55.440]  Do you really expect judges to beat up other judges?
[01:12:55.440 --> 01:12:56.440]  No.
[01:12:56.440 --> 01:12:57.440]  Of course not.
[01:12:57.440 --> 01:13:00.440]  They're all scumbag criminals.
[01:13:00.440 --> 01:13:01.440]  Right.
[01:13:01.440 --> 01:13:02.440]  They're going to protect each other.
[01:13:02.440 --> 01:13:03.440]  Amazing.
[01:13:03.440 --> 01:13:06.440]  Their problem is they don't own the bonding agency.
[01:13:06.440 --> 01:13:11.440]  The only way I've ever heard of getting a federal judge off the bench
[01:13:11.440 --> 01:13:14.440]  is costing him his bond rating.
[01:13:14.440 --> 01:13:15.440]  I see.
[01:13:15.440 --> 01:13:18.440]  And that's what a judicial conduct complaint will do.
[01:13:18.440 --> 01:13:19.440]  Okay.
[01:13:19.440 --> 01:13:21.440]  The insurance company knows what you know.
[01:13:21.440 --> 01:13:22.440]  I see.
[01:13:22.440 --> 01:13:25.440]  They're going to toss it no matter what it is.
[01:13:25.440 --> 01:13:29.440]  So they cannot gauge their level of risk on valid grievances.
[01:13:29.440 --> 01:13:30.440]  Oh, I see.
[01:13:30.440 --> 01:13:31.440]  They do that great.
[01:13:31.440 --> 01:13:32.440]  Yeah.
[01:13:32.440 --> 01:13:33.440]  Okay.
[01:13:33.440 --> 01:13:34.440]  You get a new car.
[01:13:34.440 --> 01:13:36.440]  You get full coverage on it.
[01:13:36.440 --> 01:13:38.440]  You go down to Wal-Mart.
[01:13:38.440 --> 01:13:39.440]  You go in, get something coming out.
[01:13:39.440 --> 01:13:42.440]  Somebody's bashed a fender in in a parking lot.
[01:13:42.440 --> 01:13:45.440]  Well, the insurance company, they're going to come out and fix it.
[01:13:45.440 --> 01:13:47.440]  Bump your rates a little.
[01:13:47.440 --> 01:13:50.440]  Next month, somebody bashes into another one.
[01:13:50.440 --> 01:13:52.440]  They're going to come out and fix it.
[01:13:52.440 --> 01:13:53.440]  They're going to cancel.
[01:13:53.440 --> 01:13:57.440]  Your fault, their fault, nobody's fault, they don't care.
[01:13:57.440 --> 01:14:05.440]  In the bonding agencies, the malpractice insurance companies,
[01:14:05.440 --> 01:14:06.440]  there's nine of them in the country.
[01:14:06.440 --> 01:14:10.440]  They are all underwritten by Lloyds of London.
[01:14:10.440 --> 01:14:13.440]  They all have the same requirements.
[01:14:13.440 --> 01:14:17.440]  One bar grievance, first year of practice, they cancel immediately.
[01:14:17.440 --> 01:14:20.440]  Two bar grievances, any one year of practice,
[01:14:20.440 --> 01:14:23.440]  if you've been practicing for 20 years, they'll cancel your malpractice insurance.
[01:14:23.440 --> 01:14:26.440]  Three, they'll cancel your law firms.
[01:14:26.440 --> 01:14:28.440]  They don't care what the grievance is.
[01:14:28.440 --> 01:14:29.440]  I see.
[01:14:29.440 --> 01:14:32.440]  Because the scumbags are going to toss them off.
[01:14:32.440 --> 01:14:33.440]  Yeah, you're right.
[01:14:33.440 --> 01:14:35.440]  Very good insight.
[01:14:35.440 --> 01:14:37.440]  Oh, that hurts them.
[01:14:37.440 --> 01:14:39.440]  Bar grievances really hurt them.
[01:14:39.440 --> 01:14:44.440]  So we need to be the proceeds from hell.
[01:14:44.440 --> 01:14:49.440]  We get to tell the attorney, I know where you live, Bubba.
[01:14:49.440 --> 01:14:53.440]  In fact, I tend to write these extensive grievances.
[01:14:53.440 --> 01:14:58.440]  Instead of one extensive one covering many issues, I should have many grievances.
[01:14:58.440 --> 01:14:59.440]  Exactly.
[01:14:59.440 --> 01:15:04.440]  Never cover more than one issue in a grievance.
[01:15:04.440 --> 01:15:09.440]  Do a separate one for each separate action.
[01:15:09.440 --> 01:15:14.440]  And the judge, the same way, when the judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts,
[01:15:14.440 --> 01:15:16.440]  file a judicial complaint against him.
[01:15:16.440 --> 01:15:27.440]  If he says one word about it, even an inference, ask him to stand down from the bench.
[01:15:27.440 --> 01:15:31.440]  I've asked this judge to recuse four times already.
[01:15:31.440 --> 01:15:33.440]  So keep hammering it.
[01:15:33.440 --> 01:15:37.440]  You're not going to win your case by law.
[01:15:37.440 --> 01:15:39.440]  The law is helpful.
[01:15:39.440 --> 01:15:41.440]  It gives them something to rule with.
[01:15:41.440 --> 01:15:46.440]  But just having law on your side is not going to win you the case.
[01:15:46.440 --> 01:15:47.440]  Okay.
[01:15:47.440 --> 01:15:50.440]  You're going to win your case by politics.
[01:15:50.440 --> 01:15:53.440]  Everything is political.
[01:15:53.440 --> 01:15:57.440]  So we have to create political pressure.
[01:15:57.440 --> 01:15:59.440]  And this is how we do it.
[01:15:59.440 --> 01:16:00.440]  One is bar grievances.
[01:16:00.440 --> 01:16:03.440]  Judicial conduct complaints is another.
[01:16:03.440 --> 01:16:06.440]  Here's another one I did.
[01:16:06.440 --> 01:16:08.440]  Chapter 7 trustees are involved there.
[01:16:08.440 --> 01:16:13.440]  They're covered under a blanket that's required by law under the bankruptcy code.
[01:16:13.440 --> 01:16:14.440]  Yes.
[01:16:14.440 --> 01:16:16.440]  And Liberty Mutual is the one that's covering them.
[01:16:16.440 --> 01:16:18.440]  I filed a complaint with Liberty Mutual.
[01:16:18.440 --> 01:16:20.440]  Naturally, I got nowhere, right?
[01:16:20.440 --> 01:16:21.440]  Very good complaint.
[01:16:21.440 --> 01:16:23.440]  Oh, yes, you did get somewhere.
[01:16:23.440 --> 01:16:24.440]  Yeah.
[01:16:24.440 --> 01:16:30.440]  And what I also did is I filed with New York State for the insurance oversight agency.
[01:16:30.440 --> 01:16:32.440]  That's getting somewhere right now.
[01:16:32.440 --> 01:16:33.440]  Wonderful.
[01:16:33.440 --> 01:16:35.440]  This is how you heard it.
[01:16:35.440 --> 01:16:36.440]  Okay, hold on, hold on.
[01:16:36.440 --> 01:16:37.440]  We're about to go to break.
[01:16:37.440 --> 01:16:39.440]  When you hear that music, we got about 30 seconds.
[01:16:39.440 --> 01:16:40.440]  Okay, I'm sorry.
[01:16:40.440 --> 01:16:45.440]  Okay, this is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Eddie Craig, Wheel of Law Radio.
[01:16:45.440 --> 01:16:47.440]  Our phone lines are open.
[01:16:47.440 --> 01:16:49.440]  We've got three more segments.
[01:16:49.440 --> 01:16:52.440]  But we'll be back on the other side.
[01:16:52.440 --> 01:16:54.440]  We're talking to Larry from New York.
[01:16:54.440 --> 01:16:57.440]  And we're going to talk about how to use the grand jury.
[01:16:57.440 --> 01:17:07.440]  We'll be right back.
[01:17:27.440 --> 01:17:37.440]  We'll be right back.
[01:17:57.440 --> 01:18:00.440]  Hello.
[01:18:00.440 --> 01:18:03.440]  It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM.
[01:18:03.440 --> 01:18:06.440]  But finding things on the Internet isn't so easy.
[01:18:06.440 --> 01:18:09.440]  And neither is finding like-minded people to share it with.
[01:18:09.440 --> 01:18:12.440]  Oh, well, I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books, then.
[01:18:12.440 --> 01:18:13.440]  Brave New Books?
[01:18:13.440 --> 01:18:14.440]  Yes.
[01:18:14.440 --> 01:18:20.440]  Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for by authors like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, and Gilbert Griffin.
[01:18:20.440 --> 01:18:24.440]  They even stock inner food, Berkey products, and Calvin Soaps.
[01:18:24.440 --> 01:18:26.440]  There's no way a place like that exists.
[01:18:26.440 --> 01:18:27.440]  Go check it out for yourself.
[01:18:27.440 --> 01:18:31.440]  It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street just south of UT.
[01:18:31.440 --> 01:18:35.440]  By UT, there's never anywhere to park down there.
[01:18:35.440 --> 01:18:43.440]  Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking facility just behind the bookstore.
[01:18:43.440 --> 01:18:45.440]  It does exist.
[01:18:45.440 --> 01:18:46.440]  But when are they open?
[01:18:46.440 --> 01:18:51.440]  Monday through Saturday, 11 AM to 9 PM, and 1 to 6 PM on Sundays.
[01:18:51.440 --> 01:18:58.440]  So give them a call at 512-480-2503 or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:18:58.440 --> 01:19:18.440]  Okay, this is...
[01:19:18.440 --> 01:19:21.440]  I'm going to like that music.
[01:19:21.440 --> 01:19:24.440]  I miss my music.
[01:19:24.440 --> 01:19:30.440]  This is Randy Kelton, Debra Stevens, Eddie Craig, Rule of Law Radio.
[01:19:30.440 --> 01:19:40.440]  We're talking to Larry from New York, and we're talking about how you're not going to win your case based on law.
[01:19:40.440 --> 01:19:46.440]  In the real world we live in, everything is political.
[01:19:46.440 --> 01:19:52.440]  So what we need to be able to do is create a little politics.
[01:19:52.440 --> 01:20:00.440]  So what we do is we file the bar grievances and the judicial conduct complaints at every opportunity.
[01:20:00.440 --> 01:20:09.440]  And then if you can find evidence of a crime, since this is a federal court,
[01:20:09.440 --> 01:20:17.440]  if you have knowledge that a crime has been committed and you don't report that crime, you can be prosecuted for that.
[01:20:17.440 --> 01:20:23.440]  It's called Miss Prison Felony, 18 U.S. Code 4.
[01:20:23.440 --> 01:20:28.440]  It's not somewhere way down there in the bottom, 18 U.S. Code 3692 or something.
[01:20:28.440 --> 01:20:33.440]  It's 18 U.S. Code 4, right up in there in the front.
[01:20:33.440 --> 01:20:35.440]  I think 3 has been repealed.
[01:20:35.440 --> 01:20:37.440]  So there's only a couple in front of it.
[01:20:37.440 --> 01:20:40.440]  They didn't want you to miss this one.
[01:20:40.440 --> 01:20:47.440]  If you have knowledge that a felony has been committed, you have a statutory duty to report that crime.
[01:20:47.440 --> 01:20:58.440]  So when you do report that crime, you have precisely the same immunity that judges have, cannot be sued, period.
[01:20:58.440 --> 01:21:02.440]  Now if you lie or commit perjury, you can be prosecuted for that.
[01:21:02.440 --> 01:21:08.440]  But if you tell the truth, you can choose any crime you want to.
[01:21:08.440 --> 01:21:16.440]  If you state the facts clearly and succinctly without exaggeration or equivocation,
[01:21:16.440 --> 01:21:25.440]  then you can come to any fact based on that law you want to and make your allegation and you're absolutely protected.
[01:21:25.440 --> 01:21:30.440]  Well, if you go down and file a complaint with the FBI,
[01:21:30.440 --> 01:21:37.440]  they're going to do absolutely nothing with it because that's not filing a complaint that's complaining.
[01:21:37.440 --> 01:21:40.440]  They may even give you a voluntary statement to fill out,
[01:21:40.440 --> 01:21:45.440]  and once you've filled it out and leave, they'll throw it in the trash
[01:21:45.440 --> 01:21:53.440]  because it's not politically feasible for them to go after judges.
[01:21:53.440 --> 01:21:55.440]  They're terrified of judges.
[01:21:55.440 --> 01:21:57.440]  Nobody wants to go after judges.
[01:21:57.440 --> 01:21:59.440]  Everybody's terrified of judges.
[01:21:59.440 --> 01:22:03.440]  The only ones who aren't terrified of judges are the proceeds.
[01:22:03.440 --> 01:22:08.440]  That's why judges hate proceeds because we're not terrified of them.
[01:22:08.440 --> 01:22:13.440]  We're the only ones who can kick their behinds.
[01:22:13.440 --> 01:22:19.440]  And the way we do that is we use a little art.
[01:22:19.440 --> 01:22:24.440]  Don't go to the U.S. attorney and ask him to take a complaint.
[01:22:24.440 --> 01:22:29.440]  Prepare a criminal affidavit.
[01:22:29.440 --> 01:22:38.440]  In the federal, a criminal affidavit is to be written in the language of the statute
[01:22:38.440 --> 01:22:42.440]  you're accusing the person of violating.
[01:22:42.440 --> 01:22:47.440]  They have a special form for a criminal affidavit.
[01:22:47.440 --> 01:22:52.440]  If you prepare a criminal complaint, swear to it before a notary.
[01:22:52.440 --> 01:22:55.440]  That's not complaining.
[01:22:55.440 --> 01:22:59.440]  That is a complaint and it invokes a duty.
[01:22:59.440 --> 01:23:03.440]  You prepare a criminal complaint and a statement of probable cause
[01:23:03.440 --> 01:23:09.440]  or an affidavit in support and have them both, have your,
[01:23:09.440 --> 01:23:13.440]  affirm them before a notary and have them verified by the notary.
[01:23:13.440 --> 01:23:17.440]  Affirmation in law means signature.
[01:23:17.440 --> 01:23:21.440]  And mail that to the U.S. attorney.
[01:23:21.440 --> 01:23:27.440]  And ask the U.S. attorney to present your complaints to a grand jury.
[01:23:27.440 --> 01:23:28.440]  And he's going to refuse.
[01:23:28.440 --> 01:23:33.440]  And you might even suggest to put a letter in there in a stamped self-addressed envelope
[01:23:33.440 --> 01:23:40.440]  and ask the U.S. attorney to notify you of the time and place he intends to present this,
[01:23:40.440 --> 01:23:46.440]  these complaints to a grand jury and let him know that you're available as a witness.
[01:23:46.440 --> 01:23:51.440]  That will prompt him to send you back a response telling you that he examined
[01:23:51.440 --> 01:23:56.440]  into your allegations and decided to take no action.
[01:23:56.440 --> 01:23:57.440]  Wonderful.
[01:23:57.440 --> 01:24:01.440]  That's exactly what we want him to do.
[01:24:01.440 --> 01:24:07.440]  Because when we get that, then we make up a criminal complaint against the U.S. attorney.
[01:24:07.440 --> 01:24:14.440]  And we accuse the U.S. attorney not of exercising prosecutorial discretion,
[01:24:14.440 --> 01:24:20.440]  which he does not have statutorily, but has been granted by the courts.
[01:24:20.440 --> 01:24:25.440]  Extra legislative.
[01:24:25.440 --> 01:24:34.440]  The courts allow the prosecuting attorney to determine if there is sufficient cause to warrant prosecution.
[01:24:34.440 --> 01:24:40.440]  Well, what we do is maintain that he did not exercise prosecutorial discretion.
[01:24:40.440 --> 01:24:47.440]  What he did was exercise caprice in that he did not decide if there was sufficient cause
[01:24:47.440 --> 01:24:49.440]  to believe that crime's been committed.
[01:24:49.440 --> 01:24:57.440]  He decided who he wanted to prosecute and who he did not, and that is not an authority that he has.
[01:24:57.440 --> 01:25:03.440]  So you accuse the U.S. attorney of obstruction of justice and shielding prosecution,
[01:25:03.440 --> 01:25:14.440]  and you send that to a federal district judge in the form of a verified criminal affidavit.
[01:25:14.440 --> 01:25:20.440]  Now, you want to tell the judge that you're invoking his duty as a magistrate
[01:25:20.440 --> 01:25:23.440]  and he has to perform an examining trial and blah, blah, blah.
[01:25:23.440 --> 01:25:24.440]  Don't do that.
[01:25:24.440 --> 01:25:26.440]  Just send it to him.
[01:25:26.440 --> 01:25:32.440]  The judge has the duty whether you advise him of it or not.
[01:25:32.440 --> 01:25:36.440]  All federal judges are also magistrates.
[01:25:36.440 --> 01:25:40.440]  Well, the federal judge will refuse to act on it.
[01:25:40.440 --> 01:25:43.440]  At least we hope he does.
[01:25:43.440 --> 01:25:48.440]  Then you prepare a criminal complaint against the district judge for shielding the U.S. attorney
[01:25:48.440 --> 01:25:53.440]  from prosecution and obstruction of justice.
[01:25:53.440 --> 01:26:05.440]  And if anybody calls you to talk to you about this complaint and they give you free unsolicited sage advice
[01:26:05.440 --> 01:26:13.440]  about how much trouble you can get in filing these kind of complaints,
[01:26:13.440 --> 01:26:19.440]  then you prepare another complaint against the judge for tampering with a witness
[01:26:19.440 --> 01:26:28.440]  and accuse the judge of sending that person to retaliate against you.
[01:26:28.440 --> 01:26:32.440]  The judge will go ballistic.
[01:26:32.440 --> 01:26:40.440]  Well, when you prepare these complaints against the judge, you send those to the grand jury.
[01:26:40.440 --> 01:26:45.440]  You address the document to the foreman of the grand jury
[01:26:45.440 --> 01:26:53.440]  and the address you use is the U.S. attorney's office address because that's the only address you have for the grand jury.
[01:26:53.440 --> 01:26:59.440]  You send it certified, restrict it.
[01:26:59.440 --> 01:27:04.440]  That means only the person named can sign for it.
[01:27:04.440 --> 01:27:06.440]  Well, it'll just go to the mail room.
[01:27:06.440 --> 01:27:09.440]  The mail room will send it to the district attorney's office.
[01:27:09.440 --> 01:27:17.440]  The attorney will open it and look in there and he'll say, that son of a gun set me up.
[01:27:17.440 --> 01:27:21.440]  Yeah, that's exactly what we did.
[01:27:21.440 --> 01:27:26.440]  So he will have a complaint against him, against the district judge,
[01:27:26.440 --> 01:27:33.440]  accusing the district judge of shielding the district attorney from prosecution
[01:27:33.440 --> 01:27:41.440]  because the district attorney committed misfeasance in office and failed to perform a duty he's required to perform.
[01:27:41.440 --> 01:27:50.440]  And inside the document, we put a letter to the foreman asking the foreman to initial this document.
[01:27:50.440 --> 01:27:57.440]  Do not sign it as the U.S. attorney has a stamp with your signature on it
[01:27:57.440 --> 01:28:02.440]  and we want to make sure the U.S. attorney doesn't rubber stamp it.
[01:28:02.440 --> 01:28:07.440]  Well, there's no way the U.S. attorney is going to give that to the foreman.
[01:28:07.440 --> 01:28:15.440]  And when in a week you don't get that letter back, then you call the postal inspectors
[01:28:15.440 --> 01:28:26.440]  and give them your return receipt from your registered restricted mailing
[01:28:26.440 --> 01:28:31.440]  and inform them that you have reason to believe that someone else intercepted this mail
[01:28:31.440 --> 01:28:35.440]  and it did not get to the foreman of the grand jury.
[01:28:35.440 --> 01:28:40.440]  And that's going to get everybody excited when you have the postal inspectors calling down there
[01:28:40.440 --> 01:28:44.440]  saying, what are you guys doing with my mail?
[01:28:44.440 --> 01:28:54.440]  And when the district judge finds out that you're filing criminal complaints against him with the grand jury,
[01:28:54.440 --> 01:28:59.440]  he is not going to be a happy camper.
[01:28:59.440 --> 01:29:04.440]  He's going to get real excited and he's going to go talk to the U.S. attorney
[01:29:04.440 --> 01:29:08.440]  wanting to know what the heck is going on.
[01:29:08.440 --> 01:29:13.440]  I wouldn't prosecute you now they're trying to get me prosecuted?
[01:29:13.440 --> 01:29:18.440]  See, the problem with a grand jury is you never know what they're going to do.
[01:29:18.440 --> 01:29:20.440]  The local district attorney told me that once.
[01:29:20.440 --> 01:29:22.440]  It was great to hear, you never know.
[01:29:22.440 --> 01:29:27.440]  They are the loose cannon in the legal system.
[01:29:27.440 --> 01:29:37.440]  So most likely this judge would not get indicted, but you just never know.
[01:29:37.440 --> 01:29:39.440]  He's going to be unhappy.
[01:29:39.440 --> 01:29:42.440]  He's going to relay his unhappiness to the U.S. attorney.
[01:29:42.440 --> 01:29:46.440]  And what do you think the U.S. attorney is going to tell the lender?
[01:29:46.440 --> 01:29:49.440]  You better make this go away, Bubba, or you're going to get in trouble.
[01:29:49.440 --> 01:29:54.440]  This is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Eddie Craig, Wheel of Law Radio.
[01:29:54.440 --> 01:29:57.440]  We have two more segments and we'll be taking your calls.
[01:29:57.440 --> 01:29:59.440]  We'll be right back.
[01:29:59.440 --> 01:30:00.440]  I lost my son.
[01:30:00.440 --> 01:30:01.440]  My nephew.
[01:30:01.440 --> 01:30:02.440]  My uncle.
[01:30:02.440 --> 01:30:03.440]  My son.
[01:30:03.440 --> 01:30:04.440]  On September 11, 2001.
[01:30:04.440 --> 01:30:07.440]  Most people don't know that a third tower fell on September 11.
[01:30:07.440 --> 01:30:11.440]  World Trade Center 7, a 47-story skyscraper was not hit by a plane.
[01:30:11.440 --> 01:30:15.440]  Although the official explanation is that fire brought down Building 7.
[01:30:15.440 --> 01:30:19.440]  Over 1,200 architects and engineers have looked into the evidence.
[01:30:19.440 --> 01:30:21.440]  And believe there is more to the story.
[01:30:21.440 --> 01:30:22.440]  Bring justice to my son.
[01:30:22.440 --> 01:30:23.440]  My uncle.
[01:30:23.440 --> 01:30:24.440]  My nephew.
[01:30:24.440 --> 01:30:25.440]  My son.
[01:30:25.440 --> 01:30:26.440]  Go to buildingwhat.org.
[01:30:26.440 --> 01:30:29.440]  Why it fell, why it matters, and what you can do.
[01:30:29.440 --> 01:30:38.440]  Since 9-11, our government has used invasive measures like warrantless phone taps to keep us safe from terrorists.
[01:30:38.440 --> 01:30:42.440]  But too much government surveillance could actually put us at greater risk.
[01:30:42.440 --> 01:30:47.440]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be back with the unsettling truth in just a moment.
[01:30:47.440 --> 01:30:49.440]  Privacy is under attack.
[01:30:49.440 --> 01:30:53.440]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:30:53.440 --> 01:30:58.440]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish, too.
[01:30:58.440 --> 01:30:59.440]  So protect your rights.
[01:30:59.440 --> 01:31:03.440]  Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:31:03.440 --> 01:31:04.440]  Privacy.
[01:31:04.440 --> 01:31:05.440]  It's worth hanging on to.
[01:31:05.440 --> 01:31:13.440]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[01:31:13.440 --> 01:31:16.440]  Start over with StartPage.
[01:31:16.440 --> 01:31:19.440]  Our greatest threat isn't terrorists, it's government.
[01:31:19.440 --> 01:31:26.440]  According to political science professor R.J. Rommel, 20th century governments murdered nearly 300 million of their own citizens,
[01:31:26.440 --> 01:31:29.440]  six times more than all the century's wars combined.
[01:31:29.440 --> 01:31:33.440]  And governments that kill have one thing in common, too much power.
[01:31:33.440 --> 01:31:39.440]  Surveillance is government power, and historically, governments have used surveillance to protect themselves rather than citizens.
[01:31:39.440 --> 01:31:43.440]  If you think such abuse couldn't happen in the U.S., just look back to Watergate.
[01:31:43.440 --> 01:31:47.440]  Join me in opposing the Patriot Act, and let's return to the best protection,
[01:31:47.440 --> 01:31:52.440]  a federal government with limited powers in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.
[01:31:52.440 --> 01:32:01.440]  I'm Dr. Katherine Albrecht. More news and information at KatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:32:01.440 --> 01:32:13.440]  Yeah, who you want to check? Who you think we're for? Free to leave? Who you want to check? We're not free to leave. You can't check me. Oh, I'm sorry.
[01:32:13.440 --> 01:32:42.440]  Okay. This is Randy Kelton. You're on Steve Day Craig, Radio World Radio.
[01:32:42.440 --> 01:32:53.440]  We're back, and we're talking about politics and how to invoke politics in your case.
[01:32:53.440 --> 01:33:03.440]  If we follow this prescription, we are using a set of tools that were crafted into the legal system
[01:33:03.440 --> 01:33:10.440]  to protect us from exactly the kind of crapola that we're having to deal with.
[01:33:10.440 --> 01:33:20.440]  Grand juries were not put in place because they felt like we needed grand juries to indict people.
[01:33:20.440 --> 01:33:31.440]  They were put in place to protect us from the very governmental instruments we have created and put into place to protect us.
[01:33:31.440 --> 01:33:42.440]  And it was a great idea because it really works, yet don't have to get in front of the grand jury.
[01:33:42.440 --> 01:33:54.440]  The U.S. attorney, I had a U.S. attorney threaten to me with tampering with the jury, with jury tampering if I tried to talk to the grand jury.
[01:33:54.440 --> 01:34:02.440]  I told him, take your best shot, Bubba. I'd be glad to argue that when in court.
[01:34:02.440 --> 01:34:08.440]  Well, he didn't take his best shot because that was huffing and puffing and he knew it.
[01:34:08.440 --> 01:34:17.440]  What the U.S. attorneys have claimed is, is that only an attorney, U.S. and state attorneys also make this claim,
[01:34:17.440 --> 01:34:26.440]  that only the prosecuting attorney may present criminal accusations to the grand jury as a matter of right.
[01:34:26.440 --> 01:34:33.440]  Now, they say that only the U.S. attorney may present criminal accusations to grand jury.
[01:34:33.440 --> 01:34:43.440]  That's not true, but they are the only ones who can as a matter of statutory right.
[01:34:43.440 --> 01:34:52.440]  You and I can present to the grand jury if the grand jury asks us to, but I don't want to present a complaint to the grand jury.
[01:34:52.440 --> 01:34:59.440]  I just want to notify the grand jury that I have reason to believe and do believe that a crime has been committed,
[01:34:59.440 --> 01:35:12.440]  and I want to ask the grand jury to examine into my accusation and ask the U.S. attorney to prepare a presentment and present it to them officially.
[01:35:12.440 --> 01:35:15.440]  And I can do that.
[01:35:15.440 --> 01:35:21.440]  The U.S. attorneys are playing with what C.J. was calling weasel words.
[01:35:21.440 --> 01:35:34.440]  They're trying to take the meaning of a term that has a legal meaning and apply the ordinary dictionary meaning to it and mislead us as a result.
[01:35:34.440 --> 01:35:36.440]  But we never need to get to the grand jury.
[01:35:36.440 --> 01:35:38.440]  You're not going to need to get to the grand jury.
[01:35:38.440 --> 01:35:47.440]  You start filing these complaints this way, and it's like playing Russian roulette with the judge's career.
[01:35:47.440 --> 01:35:52.440]  What if one of these grand juries happens to have been foreclosed on?
[01:35:52.440 --> 01:35:57.440]  In my court a couple of months ago, he's P.O.ed at me.
[01:35:57.440 --> 01:36:02.440]  He just might convince the grand jury to indict me.
[01:36:02.440 --> 01:36:03.440]  I get an indictment.
[01:36:03.440 --> 01:36:05.440]  I'm history.
[01:36:05.440 --> 01:36:08.440]  It doesn't matter if I get convicted or not.
[01:36:08.440 --> 01:36:10.440]  The indictment ends my career.
[01:36:10.440 --> 01:36:13.440]  It's over.
[01:36:13.440 --> 01:36:16.440]  That's why I say it's like playing Russian roulette with their career.
[01:36:16.440 --> 01:36:19.440]  And you want the district judge who's innocent.
[01:36:19.440 --> 01:36:22.440]  You don't have anything to do with what's going on.
[01:36:22.440 --> 01:36:23.440]  You want the innocent party.
[01:36:23.440 --> 01:36:26.440]  He's going to scream the loudest.
[01:36:26.440 --> 01:36:28.440]  He is not going to be happy with the prosecutor.
[01:36:28.440 --> 01:36:31.440]  He's not going to be happy with you.
[01:36:31.440 --> 01:36:33.440]  But he can't say a word to you.
[01:36:33.440 --> 01:36:40.440]  And if anybody says a word to you, you accuse the district judge of sending him to do that.
[01:36:40.440 --> 01:36:47.440]  I once accused a police officer of coming down and interfering with me,
[01:36:47.440 --> 01:36:53.440]  that he was just harassing me because I had filed one crummy little criminal complaint against the district judge
[01:36:53.440 --> 01:36:55.440]  with the attorney general.
[01:36:55.440 --> 01:37:00.440]  And this police officer turned white, took a step back, said,
[01:37:00.440 --> 01:37:05.440]  one moment, Mr. Keltham took out his cell phone, called the chief of police.
[01:37:05.440 --> 01:37:09.440]  Chief of police come out and said, I live right next to City Hall.
[01:37:09.440 --> 01:37:12.440]  Randy, what are you doing to my new officer?
[01:37:12.440 --> 01:37:15.440]  Oh, Tom, I was just jerking him around.
[01:37:15.440 --> 01:37:21.440]  And the officer said, oh, God, I saw my whole career pass before my eyes.
[01:37:21.440 --> 01:37:23.440]  They're terrified of the judges.
[01:37:23.440 --> 01:37:28.440]  They should be judging their career on a heartbeat.
[01:37:28.440 --> 01:37:34.440]  So you don't have to worry about anybody messing with you, especially U.S. Marshals.
[01:37:34.440 --> 01:37:37.440]  U.S. Marshals say one word you don't like or anybody call you on the phone
[01:37:37.440 --> 01:37:42.440]  to talk about this complaint like an FBI agent.
[01:37:42.440 --> 01:37:44.440]  It says one word you don't like.
[01:37:44.440 --> 01:37:48.440]  You prepare a criminal complaint against the judge and accuse the judge
[01:37:48.440 --> 01:37:54.440]  of sending this person out to harass you, and the judge will go ballistic,
[01:37:54.440 --> 01:37:59.440]  not on you, on everybody else.
[01:37:59.440 --> 01:38:04.440]  This is how we get political pressure.
[01:38:04.440 --> 01:38:07.440]  And when we have the U.S. attorney telling the lender,
[01:38:07.440 --> 01:38:13.440]  you better do something to get these guys off of me because the judge is on my case.
[01:38:13.440 --> 01:38:16.440]  And before I go down, you're going down.
[01:38:16.440 --> 01:38:17.440]  This is how we build pressure.
[01:38:17.440 --> 01:38:20.440]  Okay, the calls are building up.
[01:38:20.440 --> 01:38:22.440]  Larry, we really don't have any more time.
[01:38:22.440 --> 01:38:24.440]  We've only got one and a half segments left.
[01:38:24.440 --> 01:38:26.440]  I'm going to have to move on.
[01:38:26.440 --> 01:38:30.440]  Thank you very much for calling, and give me a call tomorrow.
[01:38:30.440 --> 01:38:32.440]  We'll talk.
[01:38:32.440 --> 01:38:38.440]  Okay, we're going to go to David from West Virginia.
[01:38:38.440 --> 01:38:40.440]  David, are you there?
[01:38:40.440 --> 01:38:43.440]  Yes, Randy, this is David.
[01:38:43.440 --> 01:38:44.440]  Can you hear me?
[01:38:44.440 --> 01:38:49.440]  Okay, have you got a real hard question to stomp the chumps with?
[01:38:49.440 --> 01:38:51.440]  I can try.
[01:38:51.440 --> 01:38:57.440]  I was speaking of Eddie, not me.
[01:38:57.440 --> 01:38:59.440]  I'm current on my mortgage right now,
[01:38:59.440 --> 01:39:03.440]  but financially I'm in a position where I can't pay it anymore,
[01:39:03.440 --> 01:39:07.440]  and I'm going to try to go through your real estate remedies.
[01:39:07.440 --> 01:39:13.440]  And my first question would be, if you wanted to be passive at first,
[01:39:13.440 --> 01:39:17.440]  would the best way to go is wait for them to make a move first?
[01:39:17.440 --> 01:39:20.440]  Bad move, bad move.
[01:39:20.440 --> 01:39:22.440]  You are in the best position now.
[01:39:22.440 --> 01:39:25.440]  Get them before you get behind.
[01:39:25.440 --> 01:39:28.440]  Well, I'll be behind by the middle of this month.
[01:39:28.440 --> 01:39:30.440]  Get your suit in before that.
[01:39:30.440 --> 01:39:33.440]  You come in with absolutely clean hands.
[01:39:33.440 --> 01:39:36.440]  You say, I don't know who these scumbags are.
[01:39:36.440 --> 01:39:39.440]  This guy claims to be the servicer of my note,
[01:39:39.440 --> 01:39:43.440]  and this is the question earlier that I asked CJ about that.
[01:39:43.440 --> 01:39:47.440]  They sent you this notice that they are the servicer of the note,
[01:39:47.440 --> 01:39:53.440]  but I doubt that they will do that in an affidavit or in a certified document,
[01:39:53.440 --> 01:39:58.440]  that they are the agent for the holder because they don't know who the holder is.
[01:39:58.440 --> 01:40:02.440]  And your position is, Your Honor,
[01:40:02.440 --> 01:40:04.440]  look what they've done with the notes.
[01:40:04.440 --> 01:40:06.440]  They've sold them all over the place.
[01:40:06.440 --> 01:40:10.440]  How do I know that if I pay this guy off completely,
[01:40:10.440 --> 01:40:16.440]  that I'm not going to have 10 other people coming to me with a claim against my property?
[01:40:16.440 --> 01:40:19.440]  I can't pay this guy any money.
[01:40:19.440 --> 01:40:20.440]  I pay him.
[01:40:20.440 --> 01:40:23.440]  I might as well flush it down the toilet.
[01:40:23.440 --> 01:40:30.440]  Might as well anyway because the real estate values are dropping so fast.
[01:40:30.440 --> 01:40:34.440]  But now you have a good claim,
[01:40:34.440 --> 01:40:42.440]  and the other side can't use foreclosure pressure against you.
[01:40:42.440 --> 01:40:50.440]  And I would suggest that when you do file, we'd ask you to file a request for a modification.
[01:40:50.440 --> 01:40:52.440]  These dirty rotten scoundrels,
[01:40:52.440 --> 01:40:59.440]  they're using modification as a way to force people into a foreclosure position.
[01:40:59.440 --> 01:41:04.440]  And if you've asked for a modification, they're going to say you don't qualify.
[01:41:04.440 --> 01:41:07.440]  And you're going to say, Sure, I do.
[01:41:07.440 --> 01:41:10.440]  I'm suing the crapola out of you.
[01:41:10.440 --> 01:41:17.440]  This is telling the attorney on the other side that you can negotiate with me.
[01:41:17.440 --> 01:41:20.440]  This is opening the door for him.
[01:41:20.440 --> 01:41:24.440]  And it's also turning the tables back on the lender
[01:41:24.440 --> 01:41:29.440]  because they use the modification process as a way to force people into foreclosure.
[01:41:29.440 --> 01:41:32.440]  So we use it against them.
[01:41:32.440 --> 01:41:36.440]  We file a request for modification and then go to the judge and say,
[01:41:36.440 --> 01:41:41.440]  Your Honor, we've asked for a modification and we filed a civil litigation.
[01:41:41.440 --> 01:41:44.440]  If we get the modification, the litigation will go away.
[01:41:44.440 --> 01:41:46.440]  You won't have to adjudicate the suit.
[01:41:46.440 --> 01:41:52.440]  But the banks are notorious for not negotiating in good faith.
[01:41:52.440 --> 01:41:56.440]  So we're going to ask you to grant us a preliminary injunction
[01:41:56.440 --> 01:42:01.440]  that prevents the banks from sneaking around behind us
[01:42:01.440 --> 01:42:07.440]  under the guise of doing a modification and trying to foreclose on me
[01:42:07.440 --> 01:42:11.440]  until either the modification negotiations are complete
[01:42:11.440 --> 01:42:15.440]  or until the culmination of this litigation.
[01:42:15.440 --> 01:42:22.440]  That is far more likely to get you a preliminary injunction that stops them from foreclosing.
[01:42:22.440 --> 01:42:25.440]  Now you've got them.
[01:42:25.440 --> 01:42:31.440]  So you're telling me that in the next 10 days I can be proactive and that's the right move to make then?
[01:42:31.440 --> 01:42:33.440]  Absolutely.
[01:42:33.440 --> 01:42:35.440]  You are in the best position.
[01:42:35.440 --> 01:42:43.440]  We get a few people who are not behind and they don't like the fraud and they want to sue the lender.
[01:42:43.440 --> 01:42:47.440]  The first one we did that way was in Colorado.
[01:42:47.440 --> 01:42:48.440]  He files.
[01:42:48.440 --> 01:42:53.440]  Seven days later he gets an offer to modify.
[01:42:53.440 --> 01:42:56.440]  That was odd because I thought you were supposed to be two or three payments behind.
[01:42:56.440 --> 01:42:58.440]  You don't have to be such a thing.
[01:42:58.440 --> 01:43:00.440]  They offered a modification.
[01:43:00.440 --> 01:43:09.440]  They offered him to change his interest from 6.5% to 2%.
[01:43:09.440 --> 01:43:12.440]  They would have cut his payment in half.
[01:43:12.440 --> 01:43:14.440]  He said, what should I do?
[01:43:14.440 --> 01:43:16.440]  Wait till they answer.
[01:43:16.440 --> 01:43:18.440]  They didn't answer the suit.
[01:43:18.440 --> 01:43:23.440]  So he's moving for no answers on your judgment.
[01:43:23.440 --> 01:43:29.440]  When you go in and you're not in foreclosure, now you're in control.
[01:43:29.440 --> 01:43:35.440]  So my advice is absolutely be proactive.
[01:43:35.440 --> 01:43:39.440]  Go for their throats.
[01:43:39.440 --> 01:43:40.440]  Okay.
[01:43:40.440 --> 01:43:42.440]  We're going to break.
[01:43:42.440 --> 01:43:44.440]  We've got one more caller.
[01:43:44.440 --> 01:43:50.440]  David, if you have anything else for us on the other side quickly.
[01:43:50.440 --> 01:43:51.440]  Okay.
[01:43:51.440 --> 01:43:52.440]  We'll be back on the other side.
[01:43:52.440 --> 01:43:55.440]  Randy Kalten, Debra Stevens, Eddie Craig, Real Law Radio.
[01:43:55.440 --> 01:44:00.440]  We'll take Chad when we come back.
[01:44:00.440 --> 01:44:07.440]  More energy, stronger immune power, improved sense of well-being.
[01:44:07.440 --> 01:44:11.440]  How many supplements have you heard boast of these benefits?
[01:44:11.440 --> 01:44:15.440]  The team behind Shentrition believes that supplements should over-deliver
[01:44:15.440 --> 01:44:20.440]  on their promises, and Shentrition does just that.
[01:44:20.440 --> 01:44:24.440]  Shentrition utilizes the ancient healing wisdom of Chinese medicine
[01:44:24.440 --> 01:44:27.440]  in conjunction with the science of modern nutrition.
[01:44:27.440 --> 01:44:30.440]  Adaptogenic herbs serve as the healing component,
[01:44:30.440 --> 01:44:37.440]  and organic hemp protein in greens and superfoods act as a balanced nutrient base.
[01:44:37.440 --> 01:44:41.440]  Plus, Shentrition tastes great in just water.
[01:44:41.440 --> 01:44:47.440]  This powder supplement is everything you'd want in a product, and it's all natural.
[01:44:47.440 --> 01:44:55.440]  Visit Shentrition.com to order yours or call 1-866-497-7436.
[01:44:55.440 --> 01:45:00.440]  After you use Shentrition, you'll believe in supplements again.
[01:45:00.440 --> 01:45:03.440]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:03.440 --> 01:45:07.440]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary,
[01:45:07.440 --> 01:45:15.440]  the affordable, easy-to-understand 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[01:45:15.440 --> 01:45:18.440]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:45:18.440 --> 01:45:22.440]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:22.440 --> 01:45:27.440]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:45:27.440 --> 01:45:33.440]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:45:33.440 --> 01:45:38.440]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[01:45:38.440 --> 01:45:42.440]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:42.440 --> 01:45:48.440]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[01:45:48.440 --> 01:45:51.440]  pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:45:51.440 --> 01:46:00.440]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:22.440 --> 01:46:26.440]  Some things in this world I will never understand
[01:46:26.440 --> 01:46:30.440]  Some things I realize foolish
[01:46:30.440 --> 01:46:35.440]  Somebody's on a police, a policeman
[01:46:35.440 --> 01:46:39.440]  Somebody's on a police, a bully
[01:46:39.440 --> 01:46:43.440]  There's always room at the top of the hill
[01:46:43.440 --> 01:46:48.440]  I hear through the grapevine and it's lonely left too
[01:46:48.440 --> 01:46:52.440]  They're wishing it was more than opposition to bill
[01:46:52.440 --> 01:46:56.440]  They know that if they don't do it, somebody will
[01:46:56.440 --> 01:47:00.440]  Some things in this world I will never understand
[01:47:00.440 --> 01:47:04.440]  Some things I realize foolish
[01:47:04.440 --> 01:47:09.440]  Somebody's on a police, a policeman
[01:47:09.440 --> 01:47:12.440]  Somebody's on a police, a bully
[01:47:12.440 --> 01:47:15.440]  I know they will
[01:47:15.440 --> 01:47:18.440]  Yeah, they're gonna put the bill
[01:47:18.440 --> 01:47:21.440]  Cause I see so much in God's hand
[01:47:21.440 --> 01:47:23.440]  I know they will
[01:47:23.440 --> 01:47:26.440]  Never fail to tip back that scale
[01:47:26.440 --> 01:47:28.440]  I know they will
[01:47:28.440 --> 01:47:30.440]  Never fail to tip back that scale
[01:47:30.440 --> 01:47:32.440]  I know they will
[01:47:34.440 --> 01:47:36.440]  I know they will
[01:47:36.440 --> 01:47:38.440]  I never know
[01:47:38.440 --> 01:47:40.440]  I know they will
[01:47:40.440 --> 01:47:42.440]  Station hours, huh?
[01:47:42.440 --> 01:47:44.440]  I know they will
[01:47:44.440 --> 01:47:46.440]  Okay, this is Randy Pelton,
[01:47:46.440 --> 01:47:48.440]  Deborah Stevens, Eddie Craig,
[01:47:48.440 --> 01:47:50.440]  Riverlaw Radio.
[01:47:50.440 --> 01:47:52.440]  David, did you have any other issues?
[01:47:52.440 --> 01:47:54.440]  We need to move quickly.
[01:47:54.440 --> 01:47:56.440]  We've got a couple more callers in one second.
[01:47:56.440 --> 01:47:59.440]  On the 117.11 show,
[01:47:59.440 --> 01:48:04.440]  Eddie talked about filing nine bar grievances
[01:48:04.440 --> 01:48:06.440]  and judicial complaints,
[01:48:06.440 --> 01:48:08.440]  and he was helping a lady.
[01:48:08.440 --> 01:48:11.440]  And then I heard both of you talk about
[01:48:11.440 --> 01:48:14.440]  abuse of process, official oppression,
[01:48:14.440 --> 01:48:16.440]  and abuse of official capacity.
[01:48:16.440 --> 01:48:18.440]  I was wondering if there was maybe
[01:48:18.440 --> 01:48:21.440]  some kind of paperwork
[01:48:21.440 --> 01:48:23.440]  or somehow you could work up a way
[01:48:23.440 --> 01:48:26.440]  where you show all the judicial
[01:48:26.440 --> 01:48:29.440]  and bar grievance complaints you could file,
[01:48:29.440 --> 01:48:32.440]  the statutes based on Texas and other states
[01:48:32.440 --> 01:48:36.440]  could use those statutes
[01:48:36.440 --> 01:48:38.440]  to be able to reference across
[01:48:38.440 --> 01:48:42.440]  where you could actually file multiple...
[01:48:42.440 --> 01:48:46.440]  We have been trying to find a cross-reference.
[01:48:46.440 --> 01:48:49.440]  I understand there is a statutory cross-reference.
[01:48:49.440 --> 01:48:51.440]  I haven't found it.
[01:48:51.440 --> 01:48:54.440]  But as to bar grievances and judicial conduct complaints,
[01:48:54.440 --> 01:48:57.440]  almost every state has adopted
[01:48:57.440 --> 01:49:01.440]  the American Bar Association standards.
[01:49:01.440 --> 01:49:05.440]  They've made changes on their own,
[01:49:05.440 --> 01:49:08.440]  but 90% of all of the standards are the same
[01:49:08.440 --> 01:49:10.440]  across the country.
[01:49:10.440 --> 01:49:14.440]  And judicial conduct canons are essentially the same.
[01:49:14.440 --> 01:49:16.440]  What is wrong in one state
[01:49:16.440 --> 01:49:18.440]  is almost certainly wrong in another.
[01:49:18.440 --> 01:49:21.440]  And in order to write the complaint,
[01:49:21.440 --> 01:49:25.440]  you just pull up the canons or the standards.
[01:49:25.440 --> 01:49:26.440]  There aren't that many.
[01:49:26.440 --> 01:49:28.440]  It's not just a few pages.
[01:49:28.440 --> 01:49:30.440]  And when you go through them,
[01:49:30.440 --> 01:49:32.440]  you think about what they did
[01:49:32.440 --> 01:49:33.440]  and then go through the canons,
[01:49:33.440 --> 01:49:36.440]  and you'll find one that lands square on it.
[01:49:36.440 --> 01:49:40.440]  And frankly, you'll find it like reading a comic book.
[01:49:40.440 --> 01:49:42.440]  You'll get tickled reading it
[01:49:42.440 --> 01:49:45.440]  of all the stuff you get to do to these scoundrels.
[01:49:45.440 --> 01:49:47.440]  Okay, then I have a question.
[01:49:47.440 --> 01:49:49.440]  Can somebody from another state
[01:49:49.440 --> 01:49:53.440]  file a judicial complaint or bar grievance
[01:49:53.440 --> 01:49:58.440]  if they are very intimately understanding of the case
[01:49:58.440 --> 01:50:01.440]  if they are not a resident of that state?
[01:50:01.440 --> 01:50:03.440]  Absolutely.
[01:50:03.440 --> 01:50:06.440]  So I could have my sister in another state,
[01:50:06.440 --> 01:50:08.440]  if I was going through this process,
[01:50:08.440 --> 01:50:13.440]  actually file a bar grievance on my behalf or to me.
[01:50:13.440 --> 01:50:14.440]  Yeah, we don't care what they say.
[01:50:14.440 --> 01:50:17.440]  See, this is the problem they created for themselves.
[01:50:17.440 --> 01:50:18.440]  They're going to say,
[01:50:18.440 --> 01:50:20.440]  well, this is not valid.
[01:50:20.440 --> 01:50:22.440]  You don't even have standing to file this.
[01:50:22.440 --> 01:50:23.440]  They'll say, well, what kind of crap are we?
[01:50:23.440 --> 01:50:25.440]  We don't care.
[01:50:25.440 --> 01:50:27.440]  It doesn't matter if you say,
[01:50:27.440 --> 01:50:30.440]  this attorney killed 13 people yesterday.
[01:50:30.440 --> 01:50:31.440]  Oh, they're going to say,
[01:50:31.440 --> 01:50:34.440]  well, your complaint does not rise to the level of misconduct.
[01:50:34.440 --> 01:50:35.440]  They don't care what you file.
[01:50:35.440 --> 01:50:37.440]  They're going to trash it.
[01:50:37.440 --> 01:50:38.440]  So who cares?
[01:50:38.440 --> 01:50:42.440]  It's going to go against them anyway.
[01:50:42.440 --> 01:50:44.440]  Okay, well, that's very good to know
[01:50:44.440 --> 01:50:46.440]  because I have a lot of friends in other states
[01:50:46.440 --> 01:50:49.440]  that are familiar with my situation.
[01:50:49.440 --> 01:50:50.440]  Good.
[01:50:50.440 --> 01:50:51.440]  Have all the sovereigns.
[01:50:51.440 --> 01:50:54.440]  I could have 50 bar grievances.
[01:50:54.440 --> 01:50:55.440]  I'm just using an example.
[01:50:55.440 --> 01:50:57.440]  I could have 50 bar grievances
[01:50:57.440 --> 01:51:00.440]  and judicial complaints just from one filing
[01:51:00.440 --> 01:51:02.440]  with five or six or seven people involved.
[01:51:02.440 --> 01:51:03.440]  Good, good.
[01:51:03.440 --> 01:51:04.440]  Okay, now we have to move along.
[01:51:04.440 --> 01:51:06.440]  We've got two more calls out of time.
[01:51:06.440 --> 01:51:07.440]  Thank you so much.
[01:51:07.440 --> 01:51:08.440]  Thank you, Chad.
[01:51:08.440 --> 01:51:09.440]  Yeah.
[01:51:09.440 --> 01:51:10.440]  Tell me, David.
[01:51:10.440 --> 01:51:14.440]  Okay, now we're going to go to Chad in Texas.
[01:51:14.440 --> 01:51:25.440]  Chad, are you there?
[01:51:25.440 --> 01:51:27.440]  I don't like you there.
[01:51:27.440 --> 01:51:28.440]  Are you there, Chad?
[01:51:28.440 --> 01:51:29.440]  Yeah, can you hear me?
[01:51:29.440 --> 01:51:31.440]  Yes, I can hear you now.
[01:51:31.440 --> 01:51:38.440]  Okay, well, I guess I'm kind of grabbing at straws here.
[01:51:38.440 --> 01:51:42.440]  I messed up, I was busy and didn't check back in
[01:51:42.440 --> 01:51:49.440]  on the motion for new trial after the judgment against me.
[01:51:49.440 --> 01:51:55.440]  It was like nine days after it was denied,
[01:51:55.440 --> 01:51:58.440]  the day after I filed it, and that was a Thursday
[01:51:58.440 --> 01:52:04.440]  and wasn't postmarked until the next Tuesday to me.
[01:52:04.440 --> 01:52:07.440]  It was Friday and they were closed by the time I realized it
[01:52:07.440 --> 01:52:10.440]  and they don't take it on Saturday or Sunday,
[01:52:10.440 --> 01:52:13.440]  the notice of appeal and the bond.
[01:52:13.440 --> 01:52:19.440]  Is there any exception if it's a jurisdictional challenge
[01:52:19.440 --> 01:52:22.440]  through that 10-day period?
[01:52:22.440 --> 01:52:25.440]  No, not if it's jurisdictional.
[01:52:25.440 --> 01:52:28.440]  Jurisdiction can be raised at any time, before, during,
[01:52:28.440 --> 01:52:33.440]  or after any legal proceeding has been done
[01:52:33.440 --> 01:52:35.440]  or concluded for that matter.
[01:52:35.440 --> 01:52:38.440]  That is subject matter jurisdiction.
[01:52:38.440 --> 01:52:39.440]  Yes.
[01:52:39.440 --> 01:52:43.440]  I continue personal jurisdiction in personam, however,
[01:52:43.440 --> 01:52:48.440]  if you have appeared and not objected in personam jurisdiction,
[01:52:48.440 --> 01:52:49.440]  that you can waive,
[01:52:49.440 --> 01:52:52.440]  but primarily what we go after is subject matter.
[01:52:52.440 --> 01:52:56.440]  I continually objected to in personam jurisdiction.
[01:52:56.440 --> 01:53:01.440]  Okay, one other question, you were too late to do what?
[01:53:01.440 --> 01:53:08.440]  To file a notice of appeal and post the appeal bond.
[01:53:08.440 --> 01:53:14.440]  Within 10 days after the motion for new trial is overruled.
[01:53:14.440 --> 01:53:18.440]  Okay, ask for an extension of time.
[01:53:18.440 --> 01:53:22.440]  Are there certain grounds that are acceptable for that?
[01:53:22.440 --> 01:53:25.440]  Yeah, you have to give them a reasonable mistake,
[01:53:25.440 --> 01:53:30.440]  that the order was signed and you were not notified,
[01:53:30.440 --> 01:53:33.440]  you had no way of knowing that the order was signed,
[01:53:33.440 --> 01:53:35.440]  that it was filed late,
[01:53:35.440 --> 01:53:42.440]  and you had to give your cat a bath, and you had a hangnail,
[01:53:42.440 --> 01:53:45.440]  and you're ignorant pro se, and you're just downright stupid,
[01:53:45.440 --> 01:53:48.440]  and you didn't know any better, and you made a mistake.
[01:53:48.440 --> 01:53:53.440]  Grant me, cut me some slack so I can kick your behind.
[01:53:53.440 --> 01:53:57.440]  Okay, and I'll follow that with the trial court.
[01:53:57.440 --> 01:53:59.440]  Yes.
[01:53:59.440 --> 01:54:03.440]  Okay, do they even have to look at it,
[01:54:03.440 --> 01:54:06.440]  or can they just let it sit there and not rule on it at all?
[01:54:06.440 --> 01:54:09.440]  They can pretty well do anything they want to.
[01:54:09.440 --> 01:54:12.440]  But if you file it and they don't rule on it,
[01:54:12.440 --> 01:54:16.440]  then you can petition for writ of mandamus to order them to rule on it.
[01:54:16.440 --> 01:54:18.440]  Okay.
[01:54:18.440 --> 01:54:22.440]  Okay, is that it?
[01:54:22.440 --> 01:54:23.440]  I think, yeah, that's it.
[01:54:23.440 --> 01:54:24.440]  Okay.
[01:54:24.440 --> 01:54:25.440]  Thank you.
[01:54:25.440 --> 01:54:26.440]  Thank you very much.
[01:54:26.440 --> 01:54:28.440]  We have one more caller.
[01:54:28.440 --> 01:54:31.440]  We're going to go to Tony in Illinois.
[01:54:31.440 --> 01:54:34.440]  Tony, what do you have for us today?
[01:54:34.440 --> 01:54:41.440]  Well, I was wondering if it might give the judges a little more problem if you
[01:54:41.440 --> 01:54:46.440]  send a copy of the criminal complaint to something like the judicial ethics
[01:54:46.440 --> 01:54:53.440]  panel or some other entity with oversight of judges.
[01:54:53.440 --> 01:55:00.440]  Yes, and I would suggest you send it to every agency you can to his wife
[01:55:00.440 --> 01:55:02.440]  and his mother-in-law.
[01:55:02.440 --> 01:55:06.440]  You could also send it to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
[01:55:06.440 --> 01:55:07.440]  Yes.
[01:55:07.440 --> 01:55:11.440]  Now, they'll tell you that they are at the wrong place,
[01:55:11.440 --> 01:55:15.440]  but you can be sure that the judge is going to get a call from the...
[01:55:15.440 --> 01:55:16.440]  Exactly.
[01:55:16.440 --> 01:55:19.440]  I mean, they'll probably trash it too, but it'll probably still cause a problem.
[01:55:19.440 --> 01:55:22.440]  Yeah, this is what I'm saying about politics.
[01:55:22.440 --> 01:55:27.440]  People get frustrated when public officials don't do what they're supposed to,
[01:55:27.440 --> 01:55:31.440]  and they think they've lost something.
[01:55:31.440 --> 01:55:33.440]  Absolutely, they have not.
[01:55:33.440 --> 01:55:40.440]  One thing I know, when I walk out of a courthouse, the phones are buzzing,
[01:55:40.440 --> 01:55:42.440]  and that's my intent.
[01:55:42.440 --> 01:55:48.440]  I don't always want to back a bulldog up in a corner.
[01:55:48.440 --> 01:55:52.440]  I just want to kind of annoy him a little bit.
[01:55:52.440 --> 01:55:58.440]  Not enough that he wants to bite me because he's afraid I'll hit him back,
[01:55:58.440 --> 01:56:02.440]  just enough so he bites somebody else.
[01:56:02.440 --> 01:56:08.440]  So, yeah, I always like it when I take an action against an official
[01:56:08.440 --> 01:56:12.440]  that they don't find out from me.
[01:56:12.440 --> 01:56:14.440]  I like to bushwhack.
[01:56:14.440 --> 01:56:16.440]  I send a complaint to somebody...
[01:56:16.440 --> 01:56:18.440]  The media may not be a bad idea either.
[01:56:18.440 --> 01:56:20.440]  The media generally sucks.
[01:56:20.440 --> 01:56:24.440]  Yeah, and then there's also the Judicial Conference of the U.S.,
[01:56:24.440 --> 01:56:26.440]  which is composed of judges,
[01:56:26.440 --> 01:56:34.440]  and I believe when Rehnquist was the Chief Justice, he was the head of that.
[01:56:34.440 --> 01:56:37.440]  That might be a good place if it's a federal judge,
[01:56:37.440 --> 01:56:39.440]  but if it's a state judge, it won't matter.
[01:56:39.440 --> 01:56:40.440]  Yeah, I'll just bring that up.
[01:56:40.440 --> 01:56:43.440]  That's what you were talking about.
[01:56:43.440 --> 01:56:47.440]  Any place you can get political pressure to come back,
[01:56:47.440 --> 01:56:51.440]  and one of these agencies calling him, asking him questions,
[01:56:51.440 --> 01:56:55.440]  is big-time political pressure.
[01:56:55.440 --> 01:56:59.440]  And especially if he doesn't know you're even upset at him,
[01:56:59.440 --> 01:57:01.440]  and he gets this complaint, it tells him,
[01:57:01.440 --> 01:57:05.440]  this is somebody that's a bushwhacker.
[01:57:05.440 --> 01:57:09.440]  He's not going to let me know when he's coming after me.
[01:57:09.440 --> 01:57:13.440]  That makes him a whole lot more careful with you.
[01:57:13.440 --> 01:57:15.440]  Okay, you had another point?
[01:57:15.440 --> 01:57:18.440]  Yeah, on another subject.
[01:57:18.440 --> 01:57:23.440]  If the lender comes back and says they don't have to know,
[01:57:23.440 --> 01:57:27.440]  is the very next step the petition for quiet title?
[01:57:27.440 --> 01:57:32.440]  No, the motion to, okay, it depends on what your position is.
[01:57:32.440 --> 01:57:36.440]  This is if you're not behind, if you're up to date.
[01:57:36.440 --> 01:57:41.440]  Okay, quiet title, that's not a reason to ask for quiet title.
[01:57:41.440 --> 01:57:46.440]  You have to have cause to negate the contract
[01:57:46.440 --> 01:57:51.440]  and negate the contract with tender by set off.
[01:57:51.440 --> 01:57:53.440]  So you have to have a claim against them
[01:57:53.440 --> 01:57:57.440]  greater than the amount of any potential lien
[01:57:57.440 --> 01:58:01.440]  and a claim of fraud or breach of producer duty,
[01:58:01.440 --> 01:58:05.440]  some claim against them that would set off any value,
[01:58:05.440 --> 01:58:09.440]  any amount you might owe them, then you ask for quiet title.
[01:58:09.440 --> 01:58:14.440]  If the note doesn't exist, that's not necessarily a...
[01:58:14.440 --> 01:58:19.440]  Well, you can't say it doesn't exist just because this guy can't produce it.
[01:58:19.440 --> 01:58:21.440]  You say he can't.
[01:58:21.440 --> 01:58:23.440]  He has no standing to express the note.
[01:58:23.440 --> 01:58:25.440]  Somebody else could talk him to do it.
[01:58:25.440 --> 01:58:27.440]  Okay, we're out of time.
[01:58:27.440 --> 01:58:29.440]  Thank you, Tony, for calling.
[01:58:29.440 --> 01:58:33.440]  This is Randy Kelton, Debra Stevens, Eddie Craig,
[01:58:33.440 --> 01:58:35.440]  Rule of Law Radio.
[01:58:35.440 --> 01:58:40.440]  We'll be back tomorrow night with our four-hour info marathon,
[01:58:40.440 --> 01:58:45.440]  and we'll look forward to your questions and comments
[01:58:45.440 --> 01:58:49.440]  and call in tomorrow night and play Chomp the Stomps.
[01:58:49.440 --> 01:58:52.440]  Stomps, Chomp, Stomp the Chomps.
[01:58:52.440 --> 01:58:54.440]  We'll get it in a minute.
[01:58:54.440 --> 01:58:56.440]  Call us, ask us the hard questions we love.
[01:58:56.440 --> 01:58:58.440]  Good night.
[01:58:58.440 --> 01:59:06.440]  I'm like a stepping craze, I don't watch my size, I'm dangerous, dangerous.
[01:59:06.440 --> 01:59:13.440]  I'm like a stepping craze, I don't watch my size, I'm dangerous, dangerous.
[01:59:13.440 --> 01:59:21.440]  If you are a Chucky, somebody Chucky bump me.
[01:59:21.440 --> 01:59:29.440]  If you are a Chucky, Chucky, somebody Chucky bump me.
[01:59:29.440 --> 01:59:36.440]  I'm like a stepping craze, I don't watch my size, I'm dangerous, dangerous.
[01:59:36.440 --> 01:59:43.440]  I'm like a stepping craze, I don't watch my size, I'm dangerous, dangerous.
[01:59:43.440 --> 01:59:51.440]  If you eat out of the box, take a drink and eat good.
[01:59:51.440 --> 02:00:19.440]  If you eat out of the box, take a drink and eat good.