ROL_2012-09-21_16k_Hr1-2.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:06.760]  Imagine a website that recorded everything its users read while signed in, and then publish
[00:06.760 --> 00:09.000]  that data for the whole world to see.
[00:09.000 --> 00:13.880]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll tell you about a Q&A forum that's a privacy nightmare
[00:13.880 --> 00:16.160]  next.
[00:16.160 --> 00:17.880]  Privacy is under attack.
[00:17.880 --> 00:22.280]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again, and once your privacy
[00:22.280 --> 00:26.480]  is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[00:26.480 --> 00:31.600]  It'll protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[00:31.600 --> 00:34.240]  Privacy, it's worth hanging onto.
[00:34.240 --> 00:39.800]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google,
[00:39.800 --> 00:41.560]  Yahoo, and Bing.
[00:41.560 --> 00:43.560]  Start over with StartPage.
[00:43.560 --> 00:48.040]  What's the hottest new website you've probably never heard of?
[00:48.040 --> 00:51.400]  Okay, well that's a loaded question, so here's the answer.
[00:51.400 --> 00:56.120]  It's Quora, a high-tech question forum that's the rage of Silicon Valley insiders.
[00:56.120 --> 01:01.520]  Named as a potential multi-billion dollar startup by the New York Times, it's visited
[01:01.520 --> 01:04.120]  by nearly a quarter million people a month.
[01:04.120 --> 01:07.400]  But for all that, Quora has some serious flaws.
[01:07.400 --> 01:10.360]  For one, it requires you to register with your real name.
[01:10.360 --> 01:15.000]  Then it records everything you read, and it lists those topics in your profile.
[01:15.000 --> 01:20.000]  Finally, Quora shares your reading history with the world without any warning.
[01:20.000 --> 01:23.000]  In my book, that's privacy invasion without question.
[01:23.000 --> 01:33.480]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:33.480 --> 01:38.560]  YouTube is making users post their actual names claiming the transparency leads to better
[01:38.560 --> 01:39.560]  online behavior.
[01:39.560 --> 01:40.560]  But does it?
[01:40.560 --> 01:44.720]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll tell you about the push to end anonymity on the
[01:44.720 --> 01:47.160]  internet in a moment.
[01:47.160 --> 01:48.880]  Privacy is under attack.
[01:48.880 --> 01:52.480]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:52.480 --> 01:57.480]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish, too.
[01:57.480 --> 02:02.600]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[02:02.600 --> 02:05.240]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[02:05.240 --> 02:10.840]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google,
[02:10.840 --> 02:12.560]  Yahoo, and Bing.
[02:12.560 --> 02:16.560]  Start over with StartPage.
[02:16.560 --> 02:20.680]  YouTube has joined Facebook and Google in forcing people to use their real names.
[02:20.680 --> 02:25.400]  They claim this will make people nicer online, but in fact, there's hard evidence that real
[02:25.400 --> 02:28.240]  name policies don't improve online behavior.
[02:28.240 --> 02:35.400]  In 2007, South Korea mandated a real name web policy, then ditched it four years later.
[02:35.400 --> 02:40.960]  Malicious comments decreased by less than 1%, but hackers had a field day scooping up
[02:40.960 --> 02:43.240]  valuable real name data.
[02:43.240 --> 02:47.480]  All this talk about civility is just an excuse to kill anonymity on the web.
[02:47.480 --> 02:52.400]  That's because the big boys want real names to sell to real advertisers, and eventually
[02:52.400 --> 02:54.080]  to keep the rest of us in line.
[02:54.080 --> 03:23.920]  I'm Dr. Katherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[03:24.080 --> 03:45.440]  All right, folks, good evening, this is Rule of Law Radio.
[03:45.440 --> 03:48.640]  This is the Friday night four-hour info marathon show.
[03:48.640 --> 03:52.200]  This is Eddie Craig with Randy Kelton and Debra Stevens.
[03:52.200 --> 03:56.160]  It is September 21, 2012.
[03:56.160 --> 04:01.320]  We are live tonight, and what we're trying to get set up here to do if the internet will
[04:01.320 --> 04:08.040]  cooperate with us is, last Monday, I presented some material over the new subtitle A-1 or
[04:08.040 --> 04:14.800]  sub-chapter A-1 added to chapter 29 of the government code dealing with the disqualification
[04:14.800 --> 04:17.720]  or recusal of municipal judges.
[04:17.720 --> 04:21.960]  So what I wanted to do tonight was carry on a discussion with Randy when he's had a minute
[04:21.960 --> 04:28.400]  to look over this, and let's talk about how we can use this effectively when these judges
[04:28.400 --> 04:32.080]  refuse to abide by the statutes.
[04:32.080 --> 04:36.120]  Now those of you that have been listening to the show and coming to the classes, the
[04:36.120 --> 04:41.680]  thing that we've gone into is the fact that we're making the argument that this is not
[04:41.680 --> 04:46.840]  a criminal case dealing with these traffic citations here in Texas.
[04:46.840 --> 04:51.760]  The reason we're making this argument is based upon the fact that if this was an actual
[04:51.760 --> 05:00.840]  criminal case, then the courts and the prosecution would be bound by the mandatory duties prescribed
[05:00.840 --> 05:05.000]  to them by the code of criminal procedure.
[05:05.000 --> 05:10.240]  But they're not doing any of those things prescribed by the code of criminal procedure.
[05:10.240 --> 05:16.360]  So if they're not following the criminal rules, then logic dictates this cannot be a criminal
[05:16.360 --> 05:18.640]  case.
[05:18.640 --> 05:25.120]  So when we look at this, we even realize that they're also not following any of the rules
[05:25.120 --> 05:29.960]  associated with civil procedure either.
[05:29.960 --> 05:35.280]  But technically, if it can't be a criminal case and they haven't provided the notice
[05:35.280 --> 05:40.960]  required in a criminal case, then this is what's known as a non-case.
[05:40.960 --> 05:48.680]  And all non-cases are, by their definition, civil, which means that just the municipal
[05:48.680 --> 05:52.840]  courts have zero jurisdiction over them.
[05:52.840 --> 05:56.480]  They are a criminal case only venue.
[05:56.480 --> 06:01.040]  So if they're not following the code of criminal procedure, then our argument simply is this
[06:01.040 --> 06:05.760]  is not a criminal case or you would be bound by those rules.
[06:05.760 --> 06:11.320]  But Randy, what I wanted to go over with you is just some discussion on how we can make
[06:11.320 --> 06:17.720]  that sub-chapter A-1 they added help us out here to go after these people and get them
[06:17.720 --> 06:18.720]  off the bench.
[06:18.720 --> 06:24.240]  We can file motions to recuse or disqualify, but I am leaning towards disqualification
[06:24.240 --> 06:33.360]  because I've got case law on hand that says that when a court is acting with bias or prejudice,
[06:33.360 --> 06:37.840]  then that constitutes a disqualification, not a recusal.
[06:37.840 --> 06:40.400]  Now used to that was not so.
[06:40.400 --> 06:47.240]  But the Texas Courts of Appeals actually overturned the cases that said that and established one
[06:47.240 --> 06:58.560]  particular case that made that the norm, that bias or prejudice by the judge does constitute
[06:58.560 --> 07:02.240]  a proper cause for disqualification.
[07:02.240 --> 07:11.040]  So given that, it also looks like in sub-chapter A-1 that the judge no longer has discretion
[07:11.040 --> 07:16.200]  to determine whether or not they are recused or disqualified.
[07:16.200 --> 07:22.200]  Because in each case it would appear that this sub-chapter requires that motion doing
[07:22.200 --> 07:29.120]  the recusal or disqualification to be forwarded to the presiding judge, which in this case
[07:29.120 --> 07:37.120]  is a district judge, and then up to the head administrative judge if necessary.
[07:37.120 --> 07:40.600]  That appears to be what that sub-chapter is requiring.
[07:40.600 --> 07:46.120]  So if you've had a moment to look over it and can talk about it, I would like to discuss
[07:46.120 --> 07:49.520]  with you how we can use it to our advantage.
[07:49.520 --> 07:58.040]  I'm looking at the time a motion for recusal disqualification must be filed at the earliest
[07:58.040 --> 08:06.640]  practicable time before the beginning of the trial or after or other hearing if a judge
[08:06.640 --> 08:13.000]  is assigned to a case ten or fewer days before the date set for trial or hearing.
[08:13.000 --> 08:23.160]  Well, duh, does that mean if a judge has not been assigned, then we can file one anytime
[08:23.160 --> 08:25.160]  we want to?
[08:25.160 --> 08:30.400]  Yeah, well, again, it depends upon at what proceeding you're attempting to disqualify
[08:30.400 --> 08:31.400]  them.
[08:31.400 --> 08:37.680]  Oh, here it is, a motion for recusal disqualification must be filed at least ten days before the
[08:37.680 --> 08:44.840]  date of the hearing or trial, except it is provided by subsection C. And the problem
[08:44.840 --> 08:55.840]  they have here is this will conflict with the Supreme Court rules.
[08:55.840 --> 09:03.360]  The Supreme Court rules says that disqualification can be filed at any time.
[09:03.360 --> 09:13.680]  Yeah, well, the thing about it is, is if they attempt to do like what they did in my case,
[09:13.680 --> 09:18.000]  only once we file our original motions, our special appearance, like for instance in the
[09:18.000 --> 09:27.280]  case in Rockdale that I'm helping my girlfriend out with, they actually held an ex parte hearing
[09:27.280 --> 09:28.280]  on the motions.
[09:28.280 --> 09:33.440]  The judge admitted that outright that he had already denied those motions once, but we'd
[09:33.440 --> 09:41.360]  never received any notice from the court that they'd even heard them, much less denied them.
[09:41.360 --> 09:46.480]  And so right there, when we pointed out in those motions that they were acting without
[09:46.480 --> 09:52.200]  jurisdiction because there was still no complaint filed and it had never been served, he decided
[09:52.200 --> 09:54.880]  he was going to move forward anyway.
[09:54.880 --> 10:03.280]  That right there violates 45.018B right off the bat, plus 1.05 and 1.14, the code of criminal
[10:03.280 --> 10:05.640]  procedure.
[10:05.640 --> 10:11.720]  So what I'm thinking of is I'm thinking of stating that the due process violations the
[10:11.720 --> 10:18.760]  judges invoking constitutes a constitutional disqualification because of the now.
[10:18.760 --> 10:25.960]  You mentioned the case law that made bias grounds for disqualification.
[10:25.960 --> 10:26.960]  Correct.
[10:26.960 --> 10:29.680]  What case was that?
[10:29.680 --> 10:34.680]  The cases, I have an individual who has the case, he has not forwarded to me yet, but
[10:34.680 --> 10:37.880]  he said he had just finished reading and he would get it to me as soon as possible.
[10:37.880 --> 10:40.800]  I don't know what the case site is yet.
[10:40.800 --> 10:41.800]  Okay.
[10:41.800 --> 10:47.440]  That will be a very profound ruling.
[10:47.440 --> 10:55.960]  Well, I would think so because that ruling allegedly specifically overturns all the previous
[10:55.960 --> 10:58.040]  cases on the subject.
[10:58.040 --> 11:03.880]  The petitioner in that case actually requested that they review the prior cases and overturn
[11:03.880 --> 11:12.120]  them and the appellate judges agreed that the other cases were not looking at the violations
[11:12.120 --> 11:20.800]  incurred by bias or prejudice when they should have been.
[11:20.800 --> 11:24.720]  But what I would like to talk about is what kind of ideas do you have on how all we can
[11:24.720 --> 11:28.160]  use this and site it up in the paperwork?
[11:28.160 --> 11:34.640]  Because what I'm only moving for is the disqualification of the judge for deprivation of rights under
[11:34.640 --> 11:42.920]  color of law, exhibiting extreme bias and prejudice against the accused or the respondent
[11:42.920 --> 11:47.720]  in this case in favor of the prosecution.
[11:47.720 --> 11:52.800]  There is one piece of law that has to be there.
[11:52.800 --> 12:05.000]  I haven't seen it yet, but there has to be a law that says that if a judge violates a
[12:05.000 --> 12:12.600]  law relating to his office, he would have to be, it would have to be recused.
[12:12.600 --> 12:17.720]  Well, I have yet to see that specific statute.
[12:17.720 --> 12:25.440]  In fact, I'm pretty sure the only place that exists is in other case law.
[12:25.440 --> 12:32.120]  Because once the court violates the rights of the accused, the court loses personal jurisdiction
[12:32.120 --> 12:33.120]  of that accused.
[12:33.120 --> 12:36.000]  I need some case law to that effect.
[12:36.000 --> 12:40.000]  Yeah, the individual also has that case law and he's fording it with the other case I'm
[12:40.000 --> 12:41.000]  talking about.
[12:41.000 --> 12:42.000]  Oh good, good.
[12:42.000 --> 12:49.240]  So with that, these guys, we can get them for big time and I'm really looking for grand
[12:49.240 --> 12:50.240]  jurors.
[12:50.240 --> 12:59.120]  I just had a rather long discussion with my county attorney and you made a pretty good
[12:59.120 --> 13:00.120]  point.
[13:00.120 --> 13:05.240]  I have a friend who's in jail up here in Wise County for driving without a license.
[13:05.240 --> 13:12.160]  He just got out of jail in Parker County for driving without a license.
[13:12.160 --> 13:21.680]  And I went and made some inquiries and as soon as I started making inquiries, the way
[13:21.680 --> 13:25.920]  they treated him changed pretty quickly.
[13:25.920 --> 13:32.600]  And then day before yesterday, I went and talked to the county attorney and he kept
[13:32.600 --> 13:38.560]  asking me what my interest in this guy was and I said, I'm not interested in it.
[13:38.560 --> 13:45.040]  And that I had an issue that I wanted to fight, which is the traffic issue.
[13:45.040 --> 13:50.160]  And I believe this may be the best place to fight it.
[13:50.160 --> 13:53.960]  You've got a guy being held for a misdemeanor.
[13:53.960 --> 14:01.840]  He's being imprisoned for violating the law that he didn't violate and there's no evidence
[14:01.840 --> 14:06.320]  for the court that he was violating that law.
[14:06.320 --> 14:11.400]  The only evidence is that he was operating a conveyance.
[14:11.400 --> 14:17.520]  There's no evidence that he was operating that conveyance in Congress.
[14:17.520 --> 14:21.520]  So a ticket is not near a sheriff.
[14:21.520 --> 14:26.360]  You've got a guy that's being held in jail and restricted at his liberty.
[14:26.360 --> 14:31.320]  When there is no authority for it, that'd be a good place to fight it.
[14:31.320 --> 14:37.600]  But he kind of convinced me that it would probably be a bad idea to do it in Wise County and
[14:37.600 --> 14:39.600]  I think he's right.
[14:39.600 --> 14:50.040]  I've got a good rapport there and I'm probably better off doing it where they'll ask stupid
[14:50.040 --> 14:54.240]  because I've got two prosecutors here who really know me well and they're going to be
[14:54.240 --> 14:59.880]  really, really, really careful.
[14:59.880 --> 15:05.760]  I actually got one judge that doesn't hate me, that's what I found out, but this looks
[15:05.760 --> 15:13.960]  like a good place to take it on because driving without a law license in ballot, I think that's
[15:13.960 --> 15:16.160]  what he got.
[15:16.160 --> 15:24.800]  But when we go to the fact that they're violating every law they get close to, it should be relatively
[15:24.800 --> 15:29.920]  easy to get them to a grand jury.
[15:29.920 --> 15:32.280]  That should be.
[15:32.280 --> 15:38.560]  Now one of the other things that I was thinking about was in conjunction with this, we filed
[15:38.560 --> 15:43.120]  judicial conduct complaints along with the motion and we will attach copies of that to
[15:43.120 --> 15:45.720]  the motion when we file it in court.
[15:45.720 --> 15:51.640]  We will also prepare criminal statements, verified criminal statements against the judge
[15:51.640 --> 15:57.040]  for the violation of those particular laws associated with the duties of his office and
[15:57.040 --> 16:03.160]  attach copies of those, verified copies of those to the motion.
[16:03.160 --> 16:09.640]  If you will get me the judicial conduct complaints you make up, I will take them and turn them
[16:09.640 --> 16:14.360]  into fiddling the blank PDFs.
[16:14.360 --> 16:19.280]  We didn't pick them up on the website and people could just download the PDF, fiddling
[16:19.280 --> 16:22.520]  the blanks, print and send.
[16:22.520 --> 16:28.080]  Okay, well yeah, once I get them drawn up the way we want them, which will be specifically,
[16:28.080 --> 16:33.640]  we'll have a separate judicial conduct complaint and criminal complaint for each statutory
[16:33.640 --> 16:38.520]  violation that they do, that way they can't deny them and lump some if they're all in
[16:38.520 --> 16:39.520]  one.
[16:39.520 --> 16:42.960]  Oh, I have a great idea when we come back.
[16:42.960 --> 16:49.960]  This is Randy Caldwell, Deb. Steve and Daddy Craig, we have our radio, our call-in number
[16:49.960 --> 16:50.960]  512-646-1984.
[16:50.960 --> 16:51.960]  Chris, we see you there.
[16:51.960 --> 17:20.960]  We'll finish this up on the other side and Dodie, we'll be right back.
[18:51.960 --> 19:21.200]  Okay, we'll finish this up on the other side and we'll be right back.
[19:21.200 --> 19:32.200]  It's standing like it's out of control On the edge of a hole inside a deep and dark
[19:32.200 --> 19:37.200]  dome I'm always on the lookout for something that suits my soul
[19:37.200 --> 19:50.200]  So I sit back and I watch the evidence unfold And I see justice as a dog
[19:50.200 --> 19:57.200]  Yeah, justice is a dog
[19:57.200 --> 20:01.200]  Alright folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio
[20:01.200 --> 20:05.200]  Alright, Randy, you were saying something on the way out about you had an idea. What was it?
[20:05.200 --> 20:23.200]  Yeah, we take a judicial conduct complaint with a select what the judge did
[20:23.200 --> 20:34.200]  And when they get the complaint, it'll be clear that this was a form that somebody pulled off the internet and just selected the ones that fit and sent it in
[20:34.200 --> 20:42.200]  That'll tell the judge that we're making these available to everybody just for filling in the blanks
[20:42.200 --> 20:47.200]  People don't have to figure out how to file them. They don't have to go through a lot of rigmarole
[20:47.200 --> 20:57.200]  One of the things that really give the lawyers a fit with the cases that we've been filing in foreclosure
[20:57.200 --> 21:06.200]  Is that they all think that these documents were pulled off the internet
[21:06.200 --> 21:16.200]  And I have read some criticism by courts about or complaining about the number of pros and litigants
[21:16.200 --> 21:23.200]  And one of the complaints I thought when I read it sounded like it was directed exactly at what we're doing
[21:23.200 --> 21:33.200]  It said there are people out there providing these lawsuits on the internet as fill-in-the-blank documents
[21:33.200 --> 21:40.200]  And you know, this is an issue that no low press won that said you can do that
[21:40.200 --> 21:48.200]  And now instead of just a fill-in-the-blank motion, we have a fill-in-the-blank original petition
[21:48.200 --> 21:54.200]  You know, this thing has one document that you send me the information that I asked for
[21:54.200 --> 22:02.200]  And I plug it in there and it spins out about 20 documents. That's the everything it needs in there
[22:02.200 --> 22:14.200]  So if we do this with a judicial conduct complaint, then it'll make these judges nuts
[22:14.200 --> 22:18.200]  They're going to think they're going to get these coming out of a forever direction
[22:18.200 --> 22:29.200]  And municipal judges, they think that the Judicial Conduct Commission uses them as scapegoats
[22:29.200 --> 22:36.200]  So that the commission doesn't have to go after the elected judges, what they call here active judges
[22:36.200 --> 22:39.200]  District and county court judges
[22:39.200 --> 22:46.200]  And we have looked over the sanctions that have been handed down by the commission
[22:46.200 --> 22:51.200]  And these judges are white. That's exactly what they do
[22:51.200 --> 22:59.200]  I have a friend Ken Magnuson, his brother, it was a municipal judge
[22:59.200 --> 23:07.200]  And he was absolutely terrified of judicial conduct complaints
[23:07.200 --> 23:12.200]  Because he was sure that they would use him as a scapegoat
[23:12.200 --> 23:18.200]  And throw him out of office or disbar him at the drop of a hat
[23:18.200 --> 23:22.200]  So my position, play to their fears
[23:22.200 --> 23:30.200]  So let's make up one that they can just, you know, all these issues we run into
[23:30.200 --> 23:32.200]  We just have them select them
[23:32.200 --> 23:40.200]  I have the judicial canons, I think I have taxes in a questionnaire format
[23:40.200 --> 23:47.200]  I know I have the American Bar Association model standards in questionnaire format
[23:47.200 --> 23:57.200]  And if you go down through the canons, you will be surprised at what we can claim against them
[23:57.200 --> 24:03.200]  legitimate claims
[24:03.200 --> 24:04.200]  Is there it?
[24:04.200 --> 24:05.200]  I'm here
[24:05.200 --> 24:07.200]  And I would agree with you
[24:07.200 --> 24:10.200]  But we just need to
[24:10.200 --> 24:12.200]  That would be something
[24:12.200 --> 24:17.200]  Yeah, we just need the best way to figure out how to get that into the paperwork
[24:17.200 --> 24:22.200]  Yeah, that would be, you know, converting them to fill in the blank document
[24:22.200 --> 24:25.200]  That's a piece of cake
[24:25.200 --> 24:28.200]  Technology is great
[24:28.200 --> 24:33.200]  And that would make it easy for everybody that wouldn't have to know everything
[24:33.200 --> 24:37.200]  And since everything's political
[24:37.200 --> 24:42.200]  Let's make this in a political statement
[24:42.200 --> 24:50.200]  I mean, not use the document to espouse a political position
[24:50.200 --> 25:01.200]  But construct the document in a way that will have the effect of giving the judge the most grief
[25:01.200 --> 25:05.200]  Or frightening the judge the most
[25:05.200 --> 25:12.200]  Because they're already sure that the powers that be are out to get them
[25:12.200 --> 25:17.200]  So we'll have milk that for all it's worth
[25:17.200 --> 25:25.200]  I mean, we only have so much we can work with, so let's put it to good use and have some fun with it
[25:25.200 --> 25:28.200]  I agree
[25:28.200 --> 25:33.200]  But I'll see what I can do by getting those drawn up and ready to go
[25:33.200 --> 25:41.200]  Yeah, you get them to me, I'll run them into fill in the blanks, that would work great
[25:41.200 --> 25:47.200]  On my AI docs website, I've got a whole bunch of them already made up
[25:47.200 --> 25:50.200]  For different things
[25:50.200 --> 25:53.200]  And it turns out it's relatively simple to do
[25:53.200 --> 25:59.200]  And anybody can pull this thing down with Adobe Reader
[25:59.200 --> 26:03.200]  And fix it and run it with Adobe Reader
[26:03.200 --> 26:09.200]  So we get that done, I would also like to get a lawsuit
[26:09.200 --> 26:14.200]  It doesn't have to be a very sophisticated lawsuit
[26:14.200 --> 26:20.200]  But a lawsuit with check the causes of action
[26:20.200 --> 26:27.200]  If you do this check, you get this check and just leave the other ones unchecked
[26:27.200 --> 26:33.200]  That will make them go berserk
[26:33.200 --> 26:41.200]  They look like they're going to get sued every time anybody who knows us or finds our site is going to sue them
[26:41.200 --> 26:45.200]  It doesn't really take a lot to really get their attention
[26:45.200 --> 26:51.200]  And lawsuits, lawsuits really worry them
[26:51.200 --> 26:56.200]  For especially local municipalities
[26:56.200 --> 27:01.200]  When they get a lawsuit, that really worries them
[27:01.200 --> 27:06.200]  And creates a lot of politics
[27:06.200 --> 27:11.200]  So let's see how much politics we can create
[27:11.200 --> 27:13.200]  This is something I've been wanting to do for quite a while
[27:13.200 --> 27:23.200]  I'm actually getting my foreclosure issues caught up enough that I'm getting back to where I'm having more time to research
[27:23.200 --> 27:32.200]  As you see when I get to talking about the deep trust, I've done a lot of research on that lately
[27:32.200 --> 27:35.200]  I'm getting to where I can get back and build some of these documents
[27:35.200 --> 27:40.200]  And maybe get my bar grievance introduced to conduct sites up and working like it should be
[27:40.200 --> 27:47.200]  If anybody out there is willing to help me build those sites, they don't take much to get them up
[27:47.200 --> 27:51.200]  But I don't have time to sit down and go through all the manuals and figure it all out
[27:51.200 --> 27:57.200]  If anybody has even a little bit of experience building sites, I sure could use a little help to get these
[27:57.200 --> 28:03.200]  I have bar grievance working just barely and I need to get the beautiful conduct up and working
[28:03.200 --> 28:11.200]  Especially with the election coming and we're going into a legislative session
[28:11.200 --> 28:14.200]  I would have liked to have already had it up and working
[28:14.200 --> 28:17.200]  So if there's any volunteers out there, I'd sure like to hear them
[28:17.200 --> 28:21.200]  Okay Eddie, would you like to go to, looks like we lost Chris
[28:21.200 --> 28:23.200]  Yeah, let's go ahead and start taking the call
[28:23.200 --> 28:25.200]  You'll have to go through some call-ups
[28:25.200 --> 28:27.200]  Yeah, let's go ahead
[28:27.200 --> 28:32.200]  Okay, we're going to Alex in New York
[28:32.200 --> 28:35.200]  Randy, how are you?
[28:35.200 --> 28:40.200]  Hello Mr. Alex, what is up with you these days?
[28:40.200 --> 28:46.200]  I enjoy your talks, you know, if you don't mind actually expanding a little bit more
[28:46.200 --> 28:52.200]  On what you had in mind or how do you make lawsuits political in nature
[28:52.200 --> 28:55.200]  Because I have often contemplated that
[28:55.200 --> 28:58.200]  I like to hear more views on that
[28:58.200 --> 29:06.200]  But as you know, I also have an issue and you said you might be able to assist me with administrative remedies
[29:06.200 --> 29:12.200]  So that's the reason why I called in, but I actually like the talking to you
[29:12.200 --> 29:20.200]  Well, I sure would like to see it working
[29:20.200 --> 29:25.200]  What is the issue that you have?
[29:25.200 --> 29:34.200]  Well, the issue that I have is I can't even find, you know
[29:34.200 --> 29:39.200]  I was looking to possible fine attorneys even though we usually don't like to get that type of assistance
[29:39.200 --> 29:46.200]  Okay, okay, hold on, you've used up all your time, you've used up whole segments
[29:46.200 --> 29:50.200]  Okay, we'll be right back, I'll pick you up on the other side
[29:50.200 --> 29:54.200]  This is Randy Sheldon, Dave Stevens, Eddie Craig with Rural Law Radio
[29:54.200 --> 29:59.200]  I'll call in number 512-646-1984
[29:59.200 --> 30:05.200]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11
[30:05.200 --> 30:07.200]  The government says that fire brought it down
[30:07.200 --> 30:12.200]  Over 1,500 architects and engineers have concluded it was a controlled demolition
[30:12.200 --> 30:15.200]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives
[30:15.200 --> 30:18.200]  Thousands of my fellow first responders have died
[30:18.200 --> 30:19.200]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist
[30:19.200 --> 30:20.200]  I'm a structural engineer
[30:20.200 --> 30:21.200]  I'm a New York City correction officer
[30:21.200 --> 30:22.200]  I'm an Air Force pilot
[30:22.200 --> 30:24.200]  I'm a father who lost his son
[30:24.200 --> 30:27.200]  We're Americans and we deserve the truth
[30:27.200 --> 30:30.200]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today
[30:30.200 --> 30:37.200]  HempUSA.org has moved and expanded its operations for faster worldwide shipping
[30:37.200 --> 30:42.200]  Our product line has grown from 5 to nearly 100 items in less than 5 years
[30:42.200 --> 30:46.200]  Our food has grown naturally, always chemical free, not found in stores
[30:46.200 --> 30:50.200]  Great for daily intake and perfect for your emergency storage shelter
[30:50.200 --> 30:56.200]  Call 908-6912608 or visit HempUSA.org
[30:56.200 --> 31:00.200]  and see what our powders, sieves and oil can do for you
[31:00.200 --> 31:03.200]  It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM
[31:03.200 --> 31:06.200]  but finding things on the internet isn't so easy
[31:06.200 --> 31:09.200]  and neither is finding like-minded people to share it with
[31:09.200 --> 31:12.200]  Oh, well I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books then
[31:12.200 --> 31:13.200]  Brave New Books?
[31:13.200 --> 31:17.200]  Yes, Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for
[31:17.200 --> 31:20.200]  by authors like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, Angie Ebert Griffin
[31:20.200 --> 31:24.200]  They even stock inner food, Burkey products, and Calvin Soap
[31:24.200 --> 31:26.200]  There's no way a place like that exists
[31:26.200 --> 31:28.200]  Go check it out for yourself
[31:28.200 --> 31:32.200]  It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street, just south of UT
[31:32.200 --> 31:36.200]  Oh, by UT? There's never anywhere to park down there
[31:36.200 --> 31:39.200]  Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers
[31:39.200 --> 31:43.200]  at the 500 MLK parking facility just behind the bookstore
[31:43.200 --> 31:47.200]  It does exist, but when are they open?
[31:47.200 --> 31:52.200]  Monday through Saturday, 11am to 9pm and 1-6pm on Sundays
[31:52.200 --> 31:56.200]  Give them a call at 512-480-2503
[31:56.200 --> 32:00.200]  or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com
[32:03.200 --> 32:06.200]  Yeah, I got that one rent
[32:06.200 --> 32:09.200]  and I'm gonna solve them
[32:09.200 --> 32:12.200]  to the head of government then
[32:12.200 --> 32:14.200]  prosecute them
[32:14.200 --> 32:16.200]  Okay
[32:18.200 --> 32:20.200]  What was that?
[32:20.200 --> 32:22.200]  This doesn't arrest
[32:22.200 --> 32:25.200]  or arrest a bushel
[32:25.200 --> 32:27.200]  This doesn't arrest
[32:27.200 --> 32:29.200]  or arrest a teen
[32:29.200 --> 32:33.200]  Well, I need a prosecutor to come and help me
[32:33.200 --> 32:35.200]  Prosecute them wicked leaders, you see
[32:35.200 --> 32:38.200]  If I'm gonna run, lie and let them tell me
[32:38.200 --> 32:40.200]  Then I'll lie and not tell six stories
[32:40.200 --> 32:42.200]  Me not believe me, so let them tell me
[32:42.200 --> 32:45.200]  3% of America vote for a bushel
[32:45.200 --> 32:47.200]  So how do they get the president?
[32:47.200 --> 32:50.200]  That's why we have a warrant for him
[32:50.200 --> 32:52.200]  Everybody listen carefully
[32:52.200 --> 32:54.200]  Listen to the word, don't let issues pass in
[32:54.200 --> 32:55.200]  Okay, we are back
[32:55.200 --> 32:57.200]  Thank you for helping get the things done
[32:57.200 --> 33:00.200]  Greg, we have our radio
[33:00.200 --> 33:03.200]  and we're talking to Alex in New York
[33:03.200 --> 33:06.200]  and Alex, you had an administrative issue
[33:06.200 --> 33:08.200]  and Eddie's just the right guy
[33:08.200 --> 33:10.200]  for administrative issues
[33:10.200 --> 33:12.200]  So explain what your issue is
[33:12.200 --> 33:14.200]  Simple
[33:14.200 --> 33:19.200]  I got beaten up by the sheriff's deputies
[33:19.200 --> 33:22.200]  and not only was it painful
[33:22.200 --> 33:26.200]  but the injuries seem to be taking months now to heal
[33:26.200 --> 33:29.200]  or they're gonna take months to heal
[33:29.200 --> 33:31.200]  and they have not yet healed
[33:31.200 --> 33:35.200]  In any case, I can't even find attorneys
[33:35.200 --> 33:38.200]  that would be interested in the case
[33:38.200 --> 33:42.200]  and I would hate to allow this to happen
[33:42.200 --> 33:45.200]  but so I was interested in hearing
[33:45.200 --> 33:49.200]  about administrative remedies against them
[33:53.200 --> 33:55.200]  Okay, when you say it
[33:55.200 --> 33:57.200]  you're talking about administrative remedies
[33:57.200 --> 33:59.200]  against the officers?
[33:59.200 --> 34:02.200]  Well, you know, I don't even know
[34:02.200 --> 34:04.200]  the individual officers who injured me
[34:04.200 --> 34:07.200]  because it happened on several different occasions
[34:07.200 --> 34:09.200]  and they weren't always all the same
[34:09.200 --> 34:11.200]  I would have five of them jump on me
[34:11.200 --> 34:13.200]  each time it occurred
[34:13.200 --> 34:16.200]  and I know that they have to be insured and bonded
[34:16.200 --> 34:18.200]  but in order to claim
[34:18.200 --> 34:21.200]  I think usually you have to win against them in court
[34:21.200 --> 34:23.200]  in order to claim against it
[34:23.200 --> 34:25.200]  but regardless, I believe there should be
[34:25.200 --> 34:27.200]  some remedies available though
[34:27.200 --> 34:31.200]  I am not, you know, I'm not keen on them
[34:31.200 --> 34:34.200]  Okay, technically
[34:34.200 --> 34:37.200]  you're not really gonna have an administrative remedy
[34:37.200 --> 34:39.200]  in this case, your remedy is to sue
[34:39.200 --> 34:42.200]  and that's civil, not administrative
[34:42.200 --> 34:45.200]  But can't administrative also be criminal?
[34:45.200 --> 34:48.200]  No, you can't prosecute a criminal case
[34:48.200 --> 34:52.200]  you can only make a criminal accusation
[34:52.200 --> 34:56.200]  Now you can sue because a certain criminal acts
[34:56.200 --> 34:59.200]  but your side is still always civil
[34:59.200 --> 35:01.200]  Right
[35:02.200 --> 35:04.200]  I'm not unaware of that
[35:04.200 --> 35:11.200]  Did you file a report and a administrative complaint
[35:11.200 --> 35:14.200]  with the department each time this occurred?
[35:14.200 --> 35:17.200]  No, because each time it occurred
[35:17.200 --> 35:19.200]  it all occurred on the same day
[35:19.200 --> 35:23.200]  but repeated, you know, but over a span of several, you know
[35:23.200 --> 35:26.200]  and increments of several hours
[35:26.200 --> 35:30.200]  but did I file a complaint?
[35:30.200 --> 35:34.200]  I have actually, each time I've been drawing again
[35:34.200 --> 35:36.200]  an attorney to take the case
[35:36.200 --> 35:38.200]  and I wanted to go with them
[35:38.200 --> 35:41.200]  I knew someone that worked in the state
[35:41.200 --> 35:47.200]  and they warned me that these two towns
[35:47.200 --> 35:49.200]  know each other very well
[35:49.200 --> 35:52.200]  and the police will actively be seeking me out
[35:52.200 --> 35:55.200]  whether on the road or on the street
[35:55.200 --> 36:00.200]  and so I have... How long ago did this happen?
[36:00.200 --> 36:02.200]  Less than a month
[36:02.200 --> 36:05.200]  but it's been several weeks now
[36:05.200 --> 36:07.200]  Okay
[36:07.200 --> 36:12.200]  You need to first start filing criminal charges
[36:12.200 --> 36:16.200]  with your local magistrate
[36:16.200 --> 36:18.200]  Well actually, back up
[36:18.200 --> 36:22.200]  How much research have you done?
[36:22.200 --> 36:26.200]  Not enough, apparently not enough
[36:26.200 --> 36:29.200]  Over the last month I kept looking into this more and more
[36:29.200 --> 36:32.200]  Actually I was hoping maybe I could even take it into federal court
[36:32.200 --> 36:35.200]  and take it out of the states
[36:35.200 --> 36:37.200]  I didn't know if that would be better or not
[36:37.200 --> 36:40.200]  Okay, okay, but hold on Alex
[36:40.200 --> 36:42.200]  Enough
[36:42.200 --> 36:46.200]  If you don't do your homework
[36:46.200 --> 36:48.200]  Right
[36:48.200 --> 36:50.200]  you will not get remedy
[36:50.200 --> 36:52.200]  and that's all there is to it
[36:52.200 --> 36:54.200]  Have you wear the code of criminal procedure
[36:54.200 --> 36:56.200]  for the year?
[36:56.200 --> 36:58.200]  I have read it, but that's just the thing
[36:58.200 --> 37:02.200]  I don't understand it well enough to execute it
[37:02.200 --> 37:04.200]  That's why I haven't taken much action yet
[37:04.200 --> 37:06.200]  because I've read it
[37:06.200 --> 37:10.200]  but not enough or I believe that I could win
[37:10.200 --> 37:12.200]  or to really pursue it
[37:12.200 --> 37:17.200]  and this is why I thought maybe...
[37:17.200 --> 37:21.200]  Okay, what are the procedures
[37:21.200 --> 37:25.200]  in the code of criminal procedure concerning
[37:25.200 --> 37:31.200]  arrest and incarceration?
[37:31.200 --> 37:33.200]  Yes
[37:33.200 --> 37:36.200]  That was too long of a blank
[37:36.200 --> 37:41.200]  You really need to read that thing again
[37:41.200 --> 37:44.200]  I went to Australia
[37:44.200 --> 37:47.200]  to do some seminars there and they were complaining
[37:47.200 --> 37:49.200]  that when they filed complaints
[37:49.200 --> 37:52.200]  the county registrar
[37:52.200 --> 37:54.200]  in Australia
[37:54.200 --> 37:58.200]  you can file a complaint as common law public official
[37:58.200 --> 38:00.200]  but if you file a complaint
[38:00.200 --> 38:02.200]  you're not a prosecutor or a police officer
[38:02.200 --> 38:06.200]  the county registrar has to sign off on the complaint
[38:06.200 --> 38:08.200]  asserting that the complaint meets
[38:08.200 --> 38:10.200]  all the legal requirements
[38:10.200 --> 38:12.200]  So the first thing I asked these guys is
[38:12.200 --> 38:14.200]  I was in Sydney and I asked them
[38:14.200 --> 38:16.200]  I had about 30 people in the room
[38:16.200 --> 38:21.200]  all of them, premier legal researchers
[38:21.200 --> 38:24.200]  I asked them, according to the 1995
[38:24.200 --> 38:28.200]  New South Wales Crimes Act
[38:28.200 --> 38:31.200]  what is a fault element of a crime?
[38:31.200 --> 38:34.200]  I'm sorry, what is a physical element of a crime?
[38:34.200 --> 38:37.200]  And they all just sat there and looked at me
[38:37.200 --> 38:39.200]  I said, okay, okay
[38:39.200 --> 38:44.200]  what is a fault element that renders a physical element criminal?
[38:44.200 --> 38:46.200]  And they just sat there and looked at me
[38:46.200 --> 38:53.200]  Guys, how do you expect to write a proper criminal complaint
[38:53.200 --> 38:58.200]  if you have no clue what the law is?
[38:58.200 --> 39:03.200]  How can you accuse a police officer
[39:03.200 --> 39:05.200]  of violating the law
[39:05.200 --> 39:08.200]  if you don't know which one it is?
[39:08.200 --> 39:11.200]  And how he violated it?
[39:11.200 --> 39:13.200]  You got to know this
[39:13.200 --> 39:15.200]  If you're in New York or in Texas
[39:15.200 --> 39:17.200]  we can't do that part for you
[39:17.200 --> 39:20.200]  Well, you know
[39:20.200 --> 39:22.200]  when this is happening
[39:22.200 --> 39:25.200]  they don't exactly warn you
[39:25.200 --> 39:30.200]  and I didn't expect it to reoccur every time
[39:30.200 --> 39:33.200]  Down on, not Chris, not Chris
[39:33.200 --> 39:35.200]  Chris, I mean Alex
[39:35.200 --> 39:39.200]  Hold on here
[39:39.200 --> 39:43.200]  Are they attacking you every day?
[39:43.200 --> 39:46.200]  Have they attacked you every day since this happened?
[39:46.200 --> 39:52.200]  No, just while I was incarcerated
[39:52.200 --> 39:55.200]  while I was in their presence
[39:55.200 --> 39:59.200]  and they did it several times
[39:59.200 --> 40:04.200]  Alex, if you've just come to air your complaint
[40:04.200 --> 40:09.200]  that won't get you anywhere
[40:09.200 --> 40:12.200]  My point is though, I didn't know
[40:12.200 --> 40:17.200]  I don't know exactly how to handle it properly
[40:17.200 --> 40:19.200]  This is what we're telling you
[40:19.200 --> 40:24.200]  Read the code
[40:24.200 --> 40:26.200]  It will tell you
[40:26.200 --> 40:30.200]  if you do not read the code
[40:30.200 --> 40:33.200]  we are not going to be able to help you
[40:33.200 --> 40:36.200]  We can show you how to apply the code
[40:36.200 --> 40:39.200]  If you don't read it
[40:39.200 --> 40:43.200]  we can't read the codes for all the states
[40:43.200 --> 40:44.200]  Okay, no
[40:44.200 --> 40:46.200]  Wouldn't if could
[40:46.200 --> 40:49.200]  Would you recommend taking it out of state
[40:49.200 --> 40:53.200]  and bring it into the federal arena?
[40:53.200 --> 40:54.200]  Don't know
[40:54.200 --> 40:56.200]  Pile it with the federal
[40:56.200 --> 41:00.200]  Don't know, most likely
[41:00.200 --> 41:02.200]  but I don't have enough details
[41:02.200 --> 41:03.200]  Okay
[41:03.200 --> 41:08.200]  You don't know what to tell me
[41:08.200 --> 41:12.200]  I know you tell me that they're mistreating you
[41:12.200 --> 41:14.200]  but that's not the part I need to hear
[41:14.200 --> 41:17.200]  to be able to evaluate what's going on
[41:17.200 --> 41:20.200]  I need to hear specifically
[41:20.200 --> 41:23.200]  what they were required to do
[41:23.200 --> 41:26.200]  and what they did that was in variance
[41:26.200 --> 41:29.200]  of what they were required to do
[41:29.200 --> 41:32.200]  You don't have to tell me that
[41:32.200 --> 41:35.200]  Here's what I do know from my reading
[41:35.200 --> 41:42.200]  Basically when someone is incarcerated
[41:42.200 --> 41:48.200]  they have a very wide and open discrepancy
[41:48.200 --> 41:52.200]  and they're allowed and given authority to abuse
[41:52.200 --> 41:59.200]  physically if the person that is incarcerated
[41:59.200 --> 42:02.200]  is not cooperating
[42:02.200 --> 42:04.200]  Where do you get that from?
[42:04.200 --> 42:06.200]  How do you know that?
[42:06.200 --> 42:10.200]  How do I know this?
[42:10.200 --> 42:13.200]  I'm sorry, repeat that
[42:13.200 --> 42:17.200]  Are you asking how do you know that?
[42:17.200 --> 42:20.200]  How do you know that?
[42:20.200 --> 42:25.200]  You made that essentially as a proactive statement of law
[42:25.200 --> 42:31.200]  What law gives them that wide discretion?
[42:31.200 --> 42:35.200]  This is what I read in the statutes
[42:35.200 --> 42:38.200]  This is basically what I got out of it
[42:38.200 --> 42:41.200]  It wasn't word for word, I would have to read it again
[42:41.200 --> 42:43.200]  to give it to you as a...
[42:43.200 --> 42:46.200]  I'm going to suggest
[42:46.200 --> 42:51.200]  that you didn't read anywhere in the statute
[42:51.200 --> 42:55.200]  where it said that the detention officers
[42:55.200 --> 42:59.200]  had wide discretion to abuse a prisoner
[42:59.200 --> 43:02.200]  You didn't read that anywhere
[43:02.200 --> 43:06.200]  because it absolutely is not in there
[43:06.200 --> 43:08.200]  It never will be in there
[43:08.200 --> 43:11.200]  Now they can use force and it will very clearly define
[43:11.200 --> 43:13.200]  when they can use that force
[43:13.200 --> 43:16.200]  and the limits to which they can use that force
[43:16.200 --> 43:21.200]  You need to know what those are
[43:21.200 --> 43:24.200]  Okay, well I...
[43:24.200 --> 43:27.200]  That's what I try to read, I'm reading
[43:27.200 --> 43:29.200]  It didn't really describe it
[43:29.200 --> 43:31.200]  It didn't really describe it
[43:31.200 --> 43:32.200]  It didn't go into detail
[43:32.200 --> 43:35.200]  So it left like a wide gap
[43:35.200 --> 43:40.200]  to someone to decipher
[43:40.200 --> 43:42.200]  Not to read again
[43:42.200 --> 43:44.200]  Okay, we can't do anything with this
[43:44.200 --> 43:47.200]  because we're talking in all generalities
[43:47.200 --> 43:50.200]  we don't have any specifics to work with
[43:50.200 --> 43:52.200]  I say, do you need something particular
[43:52.200 --> 43:53.200]  that we can work with?
[43:53.200 --> 43:55.200]  Okay, Randy Kelton, David Stephen,
[43:55.200 --> 43:57.200]  Jenny Craig, we'll go to the radio
[43:57.200 --> 44:23.200]  We'd like that
[44:23.200 --> 44:28.200]  Okay, we'll go to the radio
[44:53.200 --> 45:03.200]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[45:03.200 --> 45:06.200]  Win your case without an attorney with jurisdictionary
[45:06.200 --> 45:10.200]  The affordable, easy to understand four CD course
[45:10.200 --> 45:13.200]  that will show you how in 24 hours
[45:13.200 --> 45:14.200]  Step by step
[45:14.200 --> 45:18.200]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing
[45:18.200 --> 45:22.200]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself
[45:22.200 --> 45:25.200]  Thousands have won with our step by step course
[45:25.200 --> 45:27.200]  and now you can too
[45:27.200 --> 45:30.200]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney
[45:30.200 --> 45:33.200]  with 22 years of case winning experience
[45:33.200 --> 45:35.200]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit
[45:35.200 --> 45:38.200]  you can learn what everyone should understand
[45:38.200 --> 45:40.200]  about the principles and practices
[45:40.200 --> 45:42.200]  that control our American courts
[45:42.200 --> 45:44.200]  You'll receive our audio classroom,
[45:44.200 --> 45:47.200]  video seminar, tutorials,
[45:47.200 --> 45:49.200]  forms for civil cases,
[45:49.200 --> 45:52.200]  prosa tactics, and much more
[45:52.200 --> 45:54.200]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com
[45:54.200 --> 45:56.200]  and click on the banner
[45:56.200 --> 46:00.200]  or call toll-free 866-LAW-EV
[46:00.200 --> 46:29.200]  Always, I must be careful what I'm wishing for
[46:29.200 --> 46:34.200]  When I'm hungry, I like to know just what I'm wishing for
[46:34.200 --> 46:39.200]  I ain't asking for much, I ain't trying to be no-bloodin'
[46:39.200 --> 46:44.200]  I'm just here makin' my livin' pushin' button
[46:44.200 --> 46:49.200]  I get my message out to anyone
[46:49.200 --> 46:51.200]  if you shout in distance
[46:51.200 --> 46:53.200]  Are you ready?
[46:53.200 --> 46:57.200]  Alright folks, we are back, this is Rule of Law Radio
[46:57.200 --> 47:01.200]  Alright, Randy, you still want to finish up with Alex?
[47:01.200 --> 47:07.200]  I'm just so glad to make my livin' pushin' button
[47:07.200 --> 47:09.200]  Yes
[47:09.200 --> 47:11.200]  Alright, you want to finish up with Alex?
[47:11.200 --> 47:12.200]  Yes
[47:12.200 --> 47:14.200]  Am I muted? No, I'm not muted
[47:14.200 --> 47:15.200]  No, you're not muted
[47:15.200 --> 47:16.200]  Yes, yes, yes
[47:16.200 --> 47:17.200]  Okay
[47:17.200 --> 47:20.200]  Yes, yes, yes
[47:20.200 --> 47:22.200]  Yes, we're here
[47:22.200 --> 47:27.200]  Okay, I'm suspecting Randy is having technical difficulty
[47:27.200 --> 47:28.200]  right about this moment
[47:28.200 --> 47:29.200]  Are we on?
[47:29.200 --> 47:31.200]  Yes, we're on
[47:31.200 --> 47:32.200]  Hi, Randy
[47:32.200 --> 47:34.200]  I am, you know, this is...
[47:34.200 --> 47:37.200]  Okay, you're asking me and I'm answering
[47:37.200 --> 47:40.200]  and you say you're hearing me and I'm confused
[47:40.200 --> 47:42.200]  Hi, Alex
[47:42.200 --> 47:45.200]  I'm trying to find that right now as we speak
[47:45.200 --> 47:49.200]  but I need to email it to you if you're okay with that
[47:49.200 --> 47:54.200]  but...
[47:54.200 --> 47:57.200]  Okay, say that again, you kind of drifted in and out
[47:57.200 --> 48:01.200]  I said I am looking for the statutes now as we speak
[48:01.200 --> 48:05.200]  but I may need to email it to you if you're okay with that
[48:05.200 --> 48:07.200]  Okay
[48:07.200 --> 48:09.200]  Okay, try this, Alex
[48:09.200 --> 48:13.200]  You know, when we talk about issues on the show
[48:13.200 --> 48:17.200]  we start pumping out statutes
[48:17.200 --> 48:22.200]  and it sounds like we have the code memorized
[48:22.200 --> 48:25.200]  Well, that is not the case
[48:25.200 --> 48:32.200]  If you listen close, you'll find we keep referencing the same statutes
[48:32.200 --> 48:34.200]  over and over and over
[48:34.200 --> 48:38.200]  because from your perspective
[48:38.200 --> 48:42.200]  what concerns you
[48:42.200 --> 48:45.200]  there aren't a lot of statutes that go to it
[48:45.200 --> 48:50.200]  so I suggest that you read the Pina Code twice
[48:50.200 --> 48:56.200]  just read through it and don't skip over crimes
[48:56.200 --> 48:59.200]  because you think they're not applicable
[48:59.200 --> 49:01.200]  just read through them quickly
[49:01.200 --> 49:04.200]  if they're not, next time you won't have to look at them
[49:04.200 --> 49:07.200]  but once you've been through all of them
[49:07.200 --> 49:09.200]  and then you go back and do it again
[49:09.200 --> 49:12.200]  and you'll be surprised how short it is
[49:12.200 --> 49:15.200]  there aren't even near as many as you think
[49:15.200 --> 49:17.200]  and as you go through them
[49:17.200 --> 49:21.200]  the structure of what constitutes a crime
[49:21.200 --> 49:23.200]  will be repeated over and over
[49:23.200 --> 49:27.200]  and it will begin to become really clear
[49:27.200 --> 49:31.200]  as to what you need to look at as concerns a crime
[49:31.200 --> 49:35.200]  and there are a couple of special statutes
[49:35.200 --> 49:39.200]  one section that most every code has
[49:39.200 --> 49:42.200]  that you need to pay special attention to
[49:42.200 --> 49:46.200]  and those are crimes by public officials
[49:46.200 --> 49:49.200]  in there you'll find official misconduct
[49:49.200 --> 49:51.200]  or official oppression
[49:51.200 --> 49:57.200]  those statutes especially you need to have memorized
[49:57.200 --> 49:59.200]  generally what they'll say is
[49:59.200 --> 50:02.200]  if a public official violates a law
[50:02.200 --> 50:04.200]  relating to his office and in the process
[50:04.200 --> 50:07.200]  harms you or denies you in a right
[50:07.200 --> 50:10.200]  and that's crime on their part
[50:10.200 --> 50:13.200]  then when you go back to the codes
[50:13.200 --> 50:16.200]  you read them carefully
[50:16.200 --> 50:20.200]  especially those kinds of codes
[50:20.200 --> 50:23.200]  that have to do with someone exercising
[50:23.200 --> 50:26.200]  force or control over someone else
[50:26.200 --> 50:28.200]  Eddie went to the legislature
[50:28.200 --> 50:32.200]  and reamed them
[50:32.200 --> 50:35.200]  over the official oppression statute
[50:35.200 --> 50:38.200]  they were discussing whether or not
[50:38.200 --> 50:43.200]  to increase the punishment on a act
[50:43.200 --> 50:46.200]  of official misconduct or official oppression
[50:46.200 --> 50:48.200]  because the prosecutor told them
[50:48.200 --> 50:51.200]  that's the only thing he could charge these officers with
[50:51.200 --> 50:54.200]  well Eddie read the code
[50:54.200 --> 51:00.200]  and the code under 22.04
[51:00.200 --> 51:07.200]  paragraph A B2A way down in there
[51:07.200 --> 51:11.200]  said that if someone commits simple assault
[51:11.200 --> 51:13.200]  and they commit simple assault
[51:13.200 --> 51:17.200]  whilst displaying a deadly weapon
[51:17.200 --> 51:20.200]  and there are public official acting
[51:20.200 --> 51:21.200]  under the code of their authority
[51:21.200 --> 51:24.200]  that's first degree felony
[51:24.200 --> 51:29.200]  that's a really really big deal
[51:29.200 --> 51:31.200]  and the legislature was talking about
[51:31.200 --> 51:34.200]  increasing the punishment for 3903
[51:34.200 --> 51:36.200]  heck you don't need to
[51:36.200 --> 51:39.200]  you got 22.04 the prosecutor just started using it
[51:39.200 --> 51:41.200]  and he lied to the legislature
[51:41.200 --> 51:44.200]  that came out of reading all of them
[51:44.200 --> 51:46.200]  even if we didn't think they applied
[51:46.200 --> 51:48.200]  because you will be surprised
[51:48.200 --> 51:51.200]  at the gyms you will find
[51:51.200 --> 51:54.200]  so really please
[51:54.200 --> 51:57.200]  one is
[51:57.200 --> 52:00.200]  do I still have to show up to court
[52:00.200 --> 52:02.200]  do I need to win that
[52:02.200 --> 52:04.200]  or show my innocence
[52:04.200 --> 52:07.200]  for what I got to show the court for
[52:07.200 --> 52:09.200]  does that have anything to do with it?
[52:09.200 --> 52:11.200]  okay hold on hold on hold on
[52:11.200 --> 52:16.200]  you're kind of just dumping something on it
[52:16.200 --> 52:19.200]  and we have no idea what it's about
[52:19.200 --> 52:21.200]  why are you showing up to court
[52:21.200 --> 52:23.200]  it's your first appearance at court
[52:23.200 --> 52:25.200]  what is going on at the court
[52:25.200 --> 52:27.200]  what are you showing up to?
[52:27.200 --> 52:29.200]  well the arraignment has already been done
[52:29.200 --> 52:32.200]  but this will be my first appearance
[52:32.200 --> 52:35.200]  after the arraignment
[52:35.200 --> 52:38.200]  okay then this is your motion hearing
[52:38.200 --> 52:43.200]  yeah you know I know there's no motion hearing
[52:43.200 --> 52:46.200]  basically you know I
[52:46.200 --> 52:49.200]  listen listen listen
[52:49.200 --> 52:52.200]  there is no motion hearing if you haven't filed any motions
[52:52.200 --> 52:55.200]  right I haven't filed any motions no
[52:55.200 --> 52:57.200]  there's a
[52:57.200 --> 52:59.200]  there's an arraignment
[52:59.200 --> 53:01.200]  and after that
[53:01.200 --> 53:05.200]  there has to be something before the court
[53:05.200 --> 53:07.200]  well that's the
[53:07.200 --> 53:10.200]  you really need to read the code of criminal procedure
[53:10.200 --> 53:13.200]  in Texas 28.01
[53:13.200 --> 53:16.200]  says this is what a judge
[53:16.200 --> 53:18.200]  in a criminal case
[53:18.200 --> 53:22.200]  ordered somebody to come to court for
[53:22.200 --> 53:27.200]  and this is all he can order him to come to court for
[53:27.200 --> 53:32.200]  you need to know what that is
[53:32.200 --> 53:36.200]  and if they order you to come to court for any other reason
[53:36.200 --> 53:40.200]  you file charges against the judge for
[53:40.200 --> 53:42.200]  issuing a
[53:42.200 --> 53:45.200]  the simulation of legal process
[53:45.200 --> 53:47.200]  well see this is the next thing I wanted to get into for
[53:47.200 --> 53:50.200]  because when I was in cars
[53:50.200 --> 53:51.200]  you're not
[53:51.200 --> 53:54.200]  I was brought into the courts for arraignment
[53:54.200 --> 53:57.200]  you know they bring you there and shackles and chains
[53:57.200 --> 54:00.200]  and found the court for arraignment
[54:00.200 --> 54:05.200]  but then I had when I was in their custody refused to be processed
[54:05.200 --> 54:08.200]  so the court refused to arraign me
[54:08.200 --> 54:11.200]  and the courts very well had to know
[54:11.200 --> 54:14.200]  that I was going to get abused
[54:14.200 --> 54:18.200]  when I had refused to get well hold on hold on
[54:22.200 --> 54:24.200]  okay
[54:26.200 --> 54:30.200]  I'm having some difficulty because
[54:30.200 --> 54:35.200]  it sounds like you're just calling in to complain
[54:35.200 --> 54:39.200]  and tell us how bad the courts have been treating you
[54:39.200 --> 54:41.200]  and I appreciate that
[54:41.200 --> 54:44.200]  but we get that all the time and it's not helpful
[54:44.200 --> 54:45.200]  sorry
[54:45.200 --> 54:47.200]  wait a minute
[54:47.200 --> 54:49.200]  hold on
[54:49.200 --> 54:54.200]  in order for us to be able to talk about this
[54:54.200 --> 54:58.200]  we have to talk about this in specifics of law
[54:58.200 --> 55:00.200]  okay
[55:00.200 --> 55:01.200]  yes
[55:01.200 --> 55:03.200]  not how bad you feel mistreated
[55:03.200 --> 55:07.200]  specifically what did they do under what circumstances they do it
[55:07.200 --> 55:11.200]  not just they beat me up they mistreated me
[55:11.200 --> 55:13.200]  need someone specific?
[55:13.200 --> 55:19.200]  I still don't know what in the heck you're claiming went on
[55:19.200 --> 55:21.200]  let me go through it with you okay
[55:21.200 --> 55:25.200]  when I was in their custody I had refused to be processed
[55:25.200 --> 55:30.200]  then I had actually asked you know I want to know more about my rights
[55:30.200 --> 55:32.200]  okay wait a minute Alex wait a minute
[55:32.200 --> 55:34.200]  you are still starting in the middle
[55:34.200 --> 55:36.200]  I am okay
[55:36.200 --> 55:41.200]  back us up to the front and give us referential index
[55:41.200 --> 55:46.200]  give us those pieces of information we're sitting here wondering about
[55:46.200 --> 55:52.200]  what the heck is he in jail for why did they stop him in the first place
[55:52.200 --> 55:55.200]  why did they bring him to jail and not let him go
[55:55.200 --> 55:56.200]  I got stopped
[55:56.200 --> 56:00.200]  and once they got him to jail why did they mistreat him once they got him to jail
[56:00.200 --> 56:02.200]  but we need some of these answers
[56:02.200 --> 56:07.200]  so we'll answer so we'll kind of understand what the heck is going on
[56:07.200 --> 56:13.200]  okay I was stopped for speeding
[56:13.200 --> 56:15.200]  particularly
[56:15.200 --> 56:18.200]  so when I got stopped for speeding
[56:18.200 --> 56:24.200]  then the officer asked me identification questions
[56:24.200 --> 56:28.200]  which they could not find me in their database I suppose
[56:28.200 --> 56:32.200]  you know they don't exactly sit there explain themselves to you
[56:32.200 --> 56:37.200]  so I got arrested because they wanted to confirm identification
[56:37.200 --> 56:44.200]  regardless you know I was then brought on to after the arrest
[56:44.200 --> 56:48.200]  the next thing I noticed that the sheriff is taking me away
[56:48.200 --> 56:51.200]  nothing else was explained to me
[56:51.200 --> 56:54.200]  hold on you are not Alex
[56:54.200 --> 57:00.200]  you can't just you're driving through this like a bulldozer
[57:00.200 --> 57:04.200]  what are you not wanting to tell us
[57:04.200 --> 57:07.200]  there is nothing that I'm not wanting to tell you I'm letting you know
[57:07.200 --> 57:12.200]  you got arrested they couldn't figure out who you were
[57:12.200 --> 57:16.200]  you just blasted I don't know what you're talking about
[57:16.200 --> 57:20.200]  yes okay when I got brought down to the station
[57:20.200 --> 57:25.200]  when I got brought down to the station they didn't tell me
[57:25.200 --> 57:28.200]  they don't tell me you know Alex you're fading out
[57:28.200 --> 57:30.200]  it says that we need to confirm identification
[57:30.200 --> 57:34.200]  they don't tell me I'm just suspecting that they couldn't find me in their database
[57:34.200 --> 57:37.200]  I said fine then when they question
[57:37.200 --> 57:42.200]  okay Alex Alex Alex Alex stop
[57:42.200 --> 57:48.200]  I am okay
[57:48.200 --> 57:51.200]  listen
[57:51.200 --> 57:56.200]  I'm going to ask you some questions and just answer my question
[57:56.200 --> 57:59.200]  okay
[57:59.200 --> 58:02.200]  okay hold on we're going to break it
[58:02.200 --> 58:04.200]  we're going to top it up
[58:04.200 --> 58:07.200]  when we come back we're going to ask you questions
[58:07.200 --> 58:11.200]  because I need these places still there
[58:11.200 --> 58:17.200]  you're jumping over huge sections
[58:17.200 --> 58:22.200]  it sounds like you just trying to tell us what a bunch of rotten guys these kinds are
[58:22.200 --> 58:25.200]  and you're not giving us all the pieces of
[58:25.200 --> 58:27.200]  I still have no idea what's going on here
[58:27.200 --> 58:31.200]  other than that you would stop for speeding and then the arrest you didn't beat you up
[58:31.200 --> 58:33.200]  okay hang on we're about to go to break
[58:33.200 --> 58:36.200]  it's Randy Kelton dead in Stephen City Craig we have our radio
[58:36.200 --> 58:41.200]  call it number 512-646-1984
[58:41.200 --> 58:46.200]  give us a call get in line it's going to get busy later on
[58:46.200 --> 58:49.200]  we'll be right back
[59:17.200 --> 59:23.200]  chapter by chapter basic elements of the Christian life clearly presents God's plan of salvation
[59:23.200 --> 59:27.200]  growing in Christ and how to build up the church
[59:27.200 --> 59:30.200]  to order your free New Testament recovery version
[59:30.200 --> 59:33.200]  and basic elements of the Christian life
[59:33.200 --> 59:40.200]  call Bibles for America toll free at 888-551-0102
[59:40.200 --> 59:44.200]  that's 888-551-0102
[59:44.200 --> 59:49.200]  or visit us online at bfa.org
[01:00:15.200 --> 01:00:21.200]  privacy is under attack when you give up data about yourself you'll never get it back again
[01:00:21.200 --> 01:00:26.200]  and once your privacy is gone you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too
[01:00:26.200 --> 01:00:32.200]  so protect your rights say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself
[01:00:32.200 --> 01:00:36.200]  privacy it's worth hanging on to this message is brought to you by
[01:00:36.200 --> 01:00:41.200]  startpage.com the private search engine alternative to google yahoo and bing
[01:00:41.200 --> 01:00:45.200]  start over with start page
[01:00:45.200 --> 01:00:51.200]  iris patterns email records cell phone coordinates the FBI is collecting data on us all
[01:00:51.200 --> 01:00:56.200]  now the feds want images of tattoos as a way of knowing who we are and what we might do
[01:00:56.200 --> 01:01:01.200]  tattoo recognition is part of the next generational identification program
[01:01:01.200 --> 01:01:05.200]  that identifies Americans beyond fingerprints and mug shots
[01:01:05.200 --> 01:01:10.200]  tattoo symbols are collected by the FBI's biometric center of excellence
[01:01:10.200 --> 01:01:16.200]  a one-stop shop of biometric data from voice patterns to footprints to hand geometry
[01:01:16.200 --> 01:01:21.200]  needless to say this is one more step towards the establishment of a total surveillance state
[01:01:21.200 --> 01:01:24.200]  what's next microchips for us all
[01:01:24.200 --> 01:01:29.200]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for startpage.com the world's most private search engine
[01:01:29.200 --> 01:01:36.200]  China has nearly unlimited access to our telecommunications networks
[01:01:36.200 --> 01:01:39.200]  and that puts us at risk for sabotage
[01:01:39.200 --> 01:01:44.200]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht back with more on China's covert spy program next
[01:01:44.200 --> 01:01:50.200]  privacy is under attack when you give up data about yourself you'll never get it back again
[01:01:50.200 --> 01:01:55.200]  and once your privacy is gone you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too
[01:01:55.200 --> 01:02:00.200]  so protect your rights say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself
[01:02:00.200 --> 01:02:06.200]  privacy it's worth hanging on to this message is brought to you by startpage.com
[01:02:06.200 --> 01:02:10.200]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing
[01:02:10.200 --> 01:02:13.200]  start over with start page
[01:02:13.200 --> 01:02:18.200]  when the media covers foreign threats it generally spotlights the Middle East
[01:02:18.200 --> 01:02:21.200]  but experts say China poses a bigger threat
[01:02:21.200 --> 01:02:28.200]  not only because of massive military build up but because Beijing now has access to 80% of the world's communications
[01:02:28.200 --> 01:02:32.200]  Chinese companies like Huawei Technologies and ZTE
[01:02:32.200 --> 01:02:36.200]  service 45 of the world's 50 largest telecoms
[01:02:36.200 --> 01:02:39.200]  that means China can conduct industrial espionage
[01:02:39.200 --> 01:02:46.200]  and it could allow the People's Liberation Army to disable our communications and defense systems for an attack
[01:02:46.200 --> 01:02:51.200]  China has said its military wants cyber superiority
[01:02:51.200 --> 01:02:54.200]  I say it's time to stop letting them tap our phones
[01:02:54.200 --> 01:03:20.200]  I'm Dr. Gabrielle Brecht for startpage.com the world's most private search engine
[01:03:20.200 --> 01:03:24.200]  these warm under some by that term of writing
[01:03:24.200 --> 01:03:28.200]  Okay we are back, Andy Felton, David Stevens, Eddie Craig, we will go radio
[01:03:28.200 --> 01:03:33.200]  and Eddie and I were talking about car problems on the break
[01:03:33.200 --> 01:03:39.200]  and I understand that Click and Clack Taffy Brothers are retiring
[01:03:39.200 --> 01:03:45.200]  so we should do a show on Click and Clacks
[01:03:45.200 --> 01:03:50.200]  that would be great fun or not
[01:03:50.200 --> 01:03:55.200]  Okay Alex, I think this has to do with New York
[01:03:55.200 --> 01:04:00.200]  I have some other people from New York and they tend to do the same things
[01:04:00.200 --> 01:04:06.200]  it is they only tell their part of the story
[01:04:06.200 --> 01:04:12.200]  and they don't tell enough of the rest of it
[01:04:12.200 --> 01:04:16.200]  so we can really get a good grasp of what's going on now
[01:04:16.200 --> 01:04:19.200]  I understand you were stopped for speeding
[01:04:19.200 --> 01:04:28.200]  and the officers apparently ask you for proof of insurance if they do that in New York
[01:04:28.200 --> 01:04:33.200]  they certainly ask for a driver's license, did you give them one?
[01:04:33.200 --> 01:04:35.200]  No
[01:04:35.200 --> 01:04:41.200]  Did they ask for another form of identification?
[01:04:41.200 --> 01:04:43.200]  Yes they did
[01:04:43.200 --> 01:04:47.200]  Did you give them another form of identification?
[01:04:47.200 --> 01:04:50.200]  I did but they weren't satisfied with it
[01:04:50.200 --> 01:04:55.200]  Was it a photo ID, state authorized?
[01:04:55.200 --> 01:05:03.200]  No, the ID that I actually had at the time was a self issued ID
[01:05:03.200 --> 01:05:07.200]  Oh kind of like the one you would get out of the cracker jack box?
[01:05:07.200 --> 01:05:09.200]  Something like that, yes
[01:05:09.200 --> 01:05:20.200]  Okay then now we understand why since they claimed that you were speeding in New York
[01:05:20.200 --> 01:05:29.200]  are the police authorized to arrest someone for speeding?
[01:05:29.200 --> 01:05:36.200]  They can arrest anybody for really any reason or no reason
[01:05:36.200 --> 01:05:41.200]  Hold on, hold on, the reason I asked that particular question
[01:05:41.200 --> 01:05:47.200]  is in most states that's the one thing you can't arrest someone for
[01:05:47.200 --> 01:05:58.200]  unless they're driving fast enough over the limit so that it can be called reckless driving
[01:05:58.200 --> 01:06:07.200]  because there were so many speed traps most states have put in laws that the one thing you can't arrest someone for
[01:06:07.200 --> 01:06:13.200]  is speeding, in Texas we have two, speeding and open container
[01:06:13.200 --> 01:06:19.200]  You need to check the code to see if that exclusion is in there
[01:06:19.200 --> 01:06:30.200]  If that exclusion is not in there then if the code in New York is similar to the code in Texas
[01:06:30.200 --> 01:06:40.200]  once you are arrested now they have the right to demand that you identify yourself
[01:06:40.200 --> 01:06:44.200]  If they don't have a reasonable probable cause to arrest
[01:06:44.200 --> 01:06:50.200]  they can ask you for identification but they can't arrest you if you don't produce it
[01:06:50.200 --> 01:07:00.200]  If they have probable cause for arrest then they can demand that if you don't produce it then they can arrest you
[01:07:00.200 --> 01:07:06.200]  Okay, so we don't know that one yet, we'll have to test that one to see if we can add one thing to that
[01:07:06.200 --> 01:07:11.200]  The car that I was driving was not mine but I had all the papers there
[01:07:11.200 --> 01:07:17.200]  Would that be an issue? I mean they never caused me, they never suspected me of stealing or anything
[01:07:17.200 --> 01:07:19.200]  All the papers were there
[01:07:19.200 --> 01:07:26.200]  No, if you weren't charged, what were you charged with?
[01:07:26.200 --> 01:07:32.200]  Well, speeding was for one and ID issues
[01:07:32.200 --> 01:07:36.200]  Okay, then they didn't arrest the cars so the car is not an issue
[01:07:36.200 --> 01:07:44.200]  They cited me like five different times for using ID that I could not prove or they suspected was not mine
[01:07:44.200 --> 01:07:49.200]  or I alleged to be someone else or all these different things
[01:07:49.200 --> 01:07:52.200]  and that was it
[01:07:52.200 --> 01:08:00.200]  Wait a minute, hold on, hold on, hold on, five times please explain
[01:08:00.200 --> 01:08:11.200]  Well, the police I think wrote one or two of them and the arrest was written by the sheriff when I was in their custody
[01:08:11.200 --> 01:08:14.200]  So...
[01:08:14.200 --> 01:08:26.200]  Okay, hold on, so what you're saying is each officer that asked you to identify yourself cited you when you didn't identify yourself
[01:08:26.200 --> 01:08:33.200]  You know, I don't know if that's the way that it worked, I only found out about that when I was in front of the magistrate
[01:08:33.200 --> 01:08:39.200]  and they had assigned like an attorney there and she was saying, well we don't know why they cited them five times
[01:08:39.200 --> 01:08:46.200]  It's really all the same thing, they could have just cited it once and the judge agreed
[01:08:46.200 --> 01:08:48.200]  So I...
[01:08:48.200 --> 01:08:53.200]  Okay, hold on, that was what I was going to say, they're going to toss all the rest of them
[01:08:53.200 --> 01:08:57.200]  One arrest, one failure to ID, all the rest of those are going to trash
[01:08:57.200 --> 01:09:05.200]  And you can use those, you can file charges against the officers for filing those
[01:09:05.200 --> 01:09:15.200]  But so far, if you don't have the exclusion against arrest for speeding
[01:09:15.200 --> 01:09:28.200]  the police officers are technically righteous in that not that you didn't identify yourself as they didn't trust your identification
[01:09:28.200 --> 01:09:34.200]  Did they subsequently find out that you were exactly who you said you were?
[01:09:34.200 --> 01:09:39.200]  Well, they suspected it, they called up the owners of...
[01:09:39.200 --> 01:09:45.200]  That was not the question I asked, don't go off on a whole binge
[01:09:45.200 --> 01:09:55.200]  Did they find out that you were the person you told them you were?
[01:09:55.200 --> 01:09:58.200]  That's a yes or no?
[01:09:58.200 --> 01:10:03.200]  I don't know the answer to that, that's why I'm saying I don't know the answer to that
[01:10:03.200 --> 01:10:05.200]  They had...
[01:10:05.200 --> 01:10:11.200]  Hold on, hold on, hold on, there's two ways you can't know the answer to that
[01:10:11.200 --> 01:10:12.200]  Okay
[01:10:12.200 --> 01:10:23.200]  The first one is, did you give them identification that identified you as who you are or as someone else?
[01:10:23.200 --> 01:10:32.200]  Well, I gave them, I told you, the ID that I had made up, they had called the owner's car
[01:10:32.200 --> 01:10:35.200]  You are dodging my question
[01:10:35.200 --> 01:10:37.200]  I didn't think I was
[01:10:37.200 --> 01:10:41.200]  Objection witnesses non-responsive
[01:10:41.200 --> 01:10:45.200]  I ask one question, you answer a different question
[01:10:45.200 --> 01:10:47.200]  Well, I only told them...
[01:10:47.200 --> 01:10:50.200]  Let me ask that question again
[01:10:50.200 --> 01:10:51.200]  Okay
[01:10:51.200 --> 01:11:03.200]  Did you give them an ID that identified yourself as who you are?
[01:11:03.200 --> 01:11:04.200]  Yes
[01:11:04.200 --> 01:11:06.200]  That's an easy question
[01:11:06.200 --> 01:11:08.200]  Alright
[01:11:08.200 --> 01:11:20.200]  So, do they have any reason to believe that you are someone else other than the person you told them you were?
[01:11:20.200 --> 01:11:21.200]  Yes
[01:11:21.200 --> 01:11:30.200]  What reason do they have to believe that you are someone else other than the person you told them you were?
[01:11:30.200 --> 01:11:34.200]  One, they did not find me in their database
[01:11:34.200 --> 01:11:47.200]  Two, the people that I am, that they called, okay, that know me, they went to an extent to get them
[01:11:47.200 --> 01:11:53.200]  They called, they know me by a different name
[01:11:53.200 --> 01:11:55.200]  You have a problem
[01:11:55.200 --> 01:11:56.200]  Okay
[01:11:56.200 --> 01:12:02.200]  Do you travel under an alias?
[01:12:02.200 --> 01:12:04.200]  Well, let me put it this way
[01:12:04.200 --> 01:12:07.200]  Yes and no, depends how you want to look at it
[01:12:07.200 --> 01:12:09.200]  That's not an answer
[01:12:09.200 --> 01:12:12.200]  I'm letting you know, I don't have a legal name
[01:12:12.200 --> 01:12:17.200]  Never apply
[01:12:17.200 --> 01:12:23.200]  I think we've lost you
[01:12:23.200 --> 01:12:26.200]  Hello, Alex
[01:12:26.200 --> 01:12:32.200]  It sounds like Alex blinked out there
[01:12:32.200 --> 01:12:38.200]  Okay, Eddie, what do you think so far?
[01:12:38.200 --> 01:12:41.200]  About this discussion
[01:12:41.200 --> 01:12:44.200]  I think he's going to get stung
[01:12:44.200 --> 01:12:46.200]  I think so
[01:12:46.200 --> 01:12:50.200]  I think the police were right
[01:12:50.200 --> 01:12:57.200]  Whether or not we believe the police have the right to ask for identification, it's in the statutes
[01:12:57.200 --> 01:13:16.200]  And if someone identifies themselves as an alias and that alias is not codified into a filing with the state as a, what do you call, a.k.a.
[01:13:16.200 --> 01:13:18.200]  And he also identified himself
[01:13:18.200 --> 01:13:22.200]  Yeah, also known as
[01:13:22.200 --> 01:13:25.200]  Yes
[01:13:25.200 --> 01:13:28.200]  I'd hate to even guess what he had in the paperwork
[01:13:28.200 --> 01:13:34.200]  Since he's saying that it doesn't appear, which tells me that he fabricated a fictitious name
[01:13:34.200 --> 01:13:37.200]  And the fact that he's saying he's never had a legal name
[01:13:37.200 --> 01:13:45.200]  That, you know, that unless he was born actually in a cabbage patch and has a Mattel tag sewn on his butt
[01:13:45.200 --> 01:13:48.200]  I don't actually think that's going to be the case
[01:13:48.200 --> 01:13:50.200]  Yeah, I think
[01:13:50.200 --> 01:13:54.200]  You know, we like to help people, but
[01:13:54.200 --> 01:13:56.200]  If you're wrong, you're wrong
[01:13:56.200 --> 01:14:02.200]  We can't help you if you if you've screwed up real bad
[01:14:02.200 --> 01:14:10.200]  The best thing he could probably do is make some kind of a deal because it's not much of an accusation
[01:14:10.200 --> 01:14:12.200]  They just accuse him of speeding
[01:14:12.200 --> 01:14:17.200]  It's not like you robbed a bank or something and then gave you false identity, but
[01:14:17.200 --> 01:14:20.200]  Alex has had trouble before
[01:14:20.200 --> 01:14:23.200]  That he's been calling in for some time
[01:14:23.200 --> 01:14:27.200]  Alex, are you back?
[01:14:27.200 --> 01:14:32.200]  You know, I don't actually see him or avail them on the board
[01:14:32.200 --> 01:14:34.200]  So I guess we've lost them all together
[01:14:34.200 --> 01:14:36.200]  Okay
[01:14:36.200 --> 01:14:42.200]  I hope everybody listening got to just of what was going on
[01:14:42.200 --> 01:14:48.200]  Initially, I know I seem kind of hard on him and I don't mean to be hard on my callers
[01:14:48.200 --> 01:14:53.200]  But it was clear they wasn't telling us everything
[01:14:53.200 --> 01:15:02.200]  And anybody who hears these kind of stories, especially as often as Eddie and I do
[01:15:02.200 --> 01:15:08.200]  It becomes clear after a while that people never tell you everything
[01:15:08.200 --> 01:15:12.200]  It's not always intentional
[01:15:12.200 --> 01:15:16.200]  Alex is calling us to get our help
[01:15:16.200 --> 01:15:26.200]  So he's going to tell us what he thinks will get us to give him our assistance
[01:15:26.200 --> 01:15:35.200]  And those things that might make it look bad for him, they tend just not to come to mind
[01:15:35.200 --> 01:15:44.200]  So sometimes we have to kind of press a little bit in order to bring those things to mind
[01:15:44.200 --> 01:15:49.200]  And then sometimes people aren't telling us that on purpose
[01:15:49.200 --> 01:15:53.200]  And that's what appeared to be the case here
[01:15:53.200 --> 01:15:59.200]  He didn't want to tell us if he had actually given them an ID of someone that he wasn't
[01:15:59.200 --> 01:16:07.200]  If he doesn't have a name, then any ID he gives them is going to be faking fraudulent
[01:16:07.200 --> 01:16:11.200]  Okay, enough of that
[01:16:11.200 --> 01:16:15.200]  Our call-in lines are open
[01:16:15.200 --> 01:16:20.200]  The call-in number is 512-646-1984
[01:16:20.200 --> 01:16:25.200]  We are into the second hour, the phone's generally built up at the end
[01:16:25.200 --> 01:16:27.200]  We don't have any callers at the moment
[01:16:27.200 --> 01:16:34.200]  When we come back on the other side, I've got something I was talking about yesterday
[01:16:34.200 --> 01:16:37.200]  I've got the gold, we're in a little more detail
[01:16:37.200 --> 01:16:42.200]  There's a couple of issues, one of them is the cost and the other one is the due process
[01:16:42.200 --> 01:16:45.200]  And what we actually do to seek remedy
[01:16:45.200 --> 01:16:48.200]  This is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Eddie Craig
[01:16:48.200 --> 01:17:11.200]  Through the radio, we'll be right back
[01:17:19.200 --> 01:17:24.200]  In addition to coins and bullion, we carry popular young jevity products such as
[01:17:24.200 --> 01:17:27.200]  Beyond Tangy Tangerine and pollen boost
[01:17:27.200 --> 01:17:31.200]  We offer freeze-dried, storeable foods by Augustin Farms, Bergy Water Products
[01:17:31.200 --> 01:17:34.200]  Ammunition at 10% above wholesale and more
[01:17:34.200 --> 01:17:39.200]  You can lock in a spot price with our silver pool and we set up Metal's IRA accounts
[01:17:39.200 --> 01:17:43.200]  Call us at 512-646-440 for more details
[01:17:43.200 --> 01:17:48.200]  We're located at 7304 Burnett Road, Suite A, about a half-mile south of Anderson
[01:17:48.200 --> 01:17:52.200]  We're open Monday through Friday, 10-6, Saturdays, 10-2
[01:17:52.200 --> 01:18:21.200]  Visit us at capitalcoinandbullion.com or call 512-646-640
[01:18:22.200 --> 01:18:28.200]  Ain't I a sight compared to what I used to be?
[01:18:28.200 --> 01:18:33.200]  Calcium, magnesium, selenium and zinc
[01:18:33.200 --> 01:18:39.200]  Take a moment now and think if you have a little thing
[01:18:39.200 --> 01:18:45.200]  Every day will bring the life that you've been looking for
[01:18:45.200 --> 01:18:52.200]  Beyond Tangy Tangerine is available at Brave New Books, located at 1904 Guadalupe Street
[01:18:52.200 --> 01:18:57.200]  The bookstore also carries the works of Dr. Joel Wallach, founder of Young Jevity
[01:18:57.200 --> 01:19:00.200]  and creator of Beyond Tangy Tangerine
[01:19:00.200 --> 01:19:16.200]  Ain't gonna blind me, don't bore me
[01:19:16.200 --> 01:19:41.200]  Ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick again
[01:19:41.200 --> 01:20:02.200]  Ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick again
[01:20:02.200 --> 01:20:14.200]  Okay, we are back, Randy Kelk just did a crazy video, and we seem to have our call page crossed
[01:20:14.200 --> 01:20:19.200]  I think Alex standardized our call page
[01:20:19.200 --> 01:20:24.200]  Anyway, it seems to be back up at the moment
[01:20:24.200 --> 01:20:28.200]  We have Walton, New York
[01:20:28.200 --> 01:20:32.200]  Now we have Mike
[01:20:32.200 --> 01:20:34.200]  I get the wrong guy
[01:20:34.200 --> 01:20:38.200]  Just as I clicked Walt in New York, it switched to Mike
[01:20:38.200 --> 01:20:42.200]  Mike in Texas, what do you have for us today?
[01:20:42.200 --> 01:20:45.200]  Oh, Mike, I recognize that
[01:20:45.200 --> 01:20:48.200]  This is Mr. Waterbottle
[01:20:48.200 --> 01:20:53.200]  Are you there?
[01:20:53.200 --> 01:21:01.200]  I think not, my call page just blits down again
[01:21:01.200 --> 01:21:11.200]  I think we are having a peer to see, but I can't unmute him
[01:21:11.200 --> 01:21:15.200]  Until the call page comes back up
[01:21:15.200 --> 01:21:20.200]  Last night I talked some about Deeds of Trust
[01:21:20.200 --> 01:21:35.200]  I really wanted to talk about, spend some time talking about how to use the criminal side to help the civil side
[01:21:35.200 --> 01:21:44.200]  If you've been listening to us regularly, you know, I've been talking a lot lately about the politics of what we're doing
[01:21:44.200 --> 01:21:51.200]  I've been kicking this dog for the last 30 years or so
[01:21:51.200 --> 01:21:56.200]  And with limited success, I've had some
[01:21:56.200 --> 01:22:02.200]  And we've got a number of people's attention, but we really haven't got things changed
[01:22:02.200 --> 01:22:10.200]  And I think if we're ever to get them changed, we're going to have to add some tools to our repertoire
[01:22:10.200 --> 01:22:22.200]  And now I'm working in the foreclosure area, and I have been working in the criminal
[01:22:22.200 --> 01:22:31.200]  And it really looks like if we start using the criminal in the foreclosure issues and in the civil side
[01:22:31.200 --> 01:22:38.200]  This may be the best way to bring some justice back to the system
[01:22:38.200 --> 01:22:44.200]  We have these judges that seem to think they're gods
[01:22:44.200 --> 01:22:55.200]  They get into this position and they spend all of their time laying down the law for everybody who comes in front of them
[01:22:55.200 --> 01:23:03.200]  And they tend to get the perception that they are the law
[01:23:03.200 --> 01:23:08.200]  And we have done nothing to dispel that perception
[01:23:08.200 --> 01:23:13.200]  It's time we did something
[01:23:13.200 --> 01:23:21.200]  And we can do that best by what Eddie and I were talking about at the beginning of the show, judicial conduct complaints against the judges
[01:23:21.200 --> 01:23:25.200]  And I'm thinking a step beyond that
[01:23:25.200 --> 01:23:32.200]  Criminal complaints should be as a matter of course
[01:23:32.200 --> 01:23:38.200]  Now we don't care if they actually prosecute these guys or not
[01:23:38.200 --> 01:23:41.200]  That won't really help us
[01:23:41.200 --> 01:23:47.200]  The threat of prosecution is a lot more powerful than actual prosecution
[01:23:47.200 --> 01:23:53.200]  If they actually prosecute them, we lose all of our influence
[01:23:53.200 --> 01:23:59.200]  If they're facing the threat of prosecution, now we've got the influence that we need
[01:23:59.200 --> 01:24:09.200]  So I'm looking at beginning to craft a set of documents as just standard criminal complaints
[01:24:09.200 --> 01:24:21.200]  When you go, for instance, with the traffic issue, they do almost exactly the same thing every time
[01:24:21.200 --> 01:24:37.200]  We had, in the foreclosures, we had a, I'm sorry, sometimes I get boys outside
[01:24:37.200 --> 01:24:39.200]  Well that's an interesting development
[01:24:39.200 --> 01:24:47.200]  Chris, Eddie, you want to pick this up for a minute? Somebody's parked outside, you know, as far as I can't remember
[01:24:47.200 --> 01:24:49.200]  Okay
[01:24:49.200 --> 01:24:56.200]  Alright, well, considering everything we've got going on tonight, this is not going to be the best archive ever
[01:24:56.200 --> 01:24:58.200]  I could tell you that
[01:24:58.200 --> 01:25:01.200]  Okay, okay, I'm sorry, go ahead
[01:25:01.200 --> 01:25:05.200]  Whoever it was, they left
[01:25:05.200 --> 01:25:12.200]  I'm doing this from my home and I'm close to a really busy intersection and I don't have a soundproof studio yet
[01:25:12.200 --> 01:25:15.200]  So I apologize for that outside noise
[01:25:15.200 --> 01:25:22.200]  I could go somewhere else but I've been separated from home for a long time and I'm trying to get that fixed
[01:25:22.200 --> 01:25:30.200]  So anyway, politics, that's how we're going to win these things
[01:25:30.200 --> 01:25:37.200]  And if we set up a set of complaints where we know what the judge is going to do
[01:25:37.200 --> 01:25:47.200]  I mean, if you listen to Eddie's show and hear people calling him, they say the judge did this, the judge did that, the judge did the other
[01:25:47.200 --> 01:25:51.200]  And everybody says essentially the same thing
[01:25:51.200 --> 01:26:00.200]  So I'm suggesting we not only make up a set of complaints
[01:26:00.200 --> 01:26:13.200]  But we make up our pleadings and our motions and such so that we lead the judge to exactly these places
[01:26:13.200 --> 01:26:20.200]  And as soon as he does what they always do, we drop the complaints on
[01:26:20.200 --> 01:26:33.200]  I was in court with Ken Magnuson, the judge ruled against him on an issue, Ken stood up and said, Your Honor, I have a document I'd like to present to the court
[01:26:33.200 --> 01:26:40.200]  And the attorney on the other side said, Your Honor, I'd like to see the document, which is standard procedure
[01:26:40.200 --> 01:26:50.200]  Ken handed him the document and the lawyer looked at it and he kind of grinned a little bit and he shrugged his shoulders and he said, I have no objection
[01:26:50.200 --> 01:26:59.200]  He gave it to the judge and it was a motion to reconsider the decision the judge just made
[01:26:59.200 --> 01:27:12.200]  And the judge read it and he said, Well, Mr. Magnuson, it seems you were a step ahead of the court and Ken raised three fingers
[01:27:12.200 --> 01:27:18.200]  This is what we want them to think
[01:27:18.200 --> 01:27:33.200]  We want them to think that we filed this motion so that we could get you to take this action so that we could do this to you
[01:27:33.200 --> 01:27:41.200]  Barr grievance, judicial conduct, all of these municipal judges are lawyers, so you Barr grievance
[01:27:41.200 --> 01:27:45.200]  They can't be a municipal judge if they're not a lawyer
[01:27:45.200 --> 01:27:48.200]  They don't have a Barr card
[01:27:48.200 --> 01:27:53.200]  So anything they do should play against a Barr card
[01:27:53.200 --> 01:28:00.200]  So not only judicial conduct complain them, but we Barr grievance as well
[01:28:00.200 --> 01:28:04.200]  They want to cost us money, let's cost them money
[01:28:04.200 --> 01:28:10.200]  And we give them the complaint in a fill-in-the-blank format
[01:28:10.200 --> 01:28:20.200]  So it will look like every person who comes in here with a ticket is likely to do the same thing
[01:28:20.200 --> 01:28:29.200]  You think we'll be able to fix this system? We'll fix it so they can't get municipal judges to be the prosecutors
[01:28:29.200 --> 01:28:35.200]  Because they can't afford to be there, it's going to cost them so much in malpractice insurance
[01:28:35.200 --> 01:28:42.200]  The municipalities want to use their position to see how much money they can steal from us
[01:28:42.200 --> 01:28:45.200]  Let's take it back to them
[01:28:45.200 --> 01:28:48.200]  They want to have this fight, let's give them a good one
[01:28:48.200 --> 01:28:51.200]  Okay, I have a caller
[01:28:51.200 --> 01:28:56.200]  The caller is Mr. Device from 276
[01:28:56.200 --> 01:29:03.200]  Hello Mr. Device
[01:29:03.200 --> 01:29:05.200]  Mr. Device, are you there?
[01:29:05.200 --> 01:29:09.200]  I guess our bridge is not up, it looked like I could unmute him
[01:29:09.200 --> 01:29:11.200]  But the bridge is not up
[01:29:11.200 --> 01:29:17.200]  Okay, when I come back on the other side, I'm going to talk about the...
[01:29:17.200 --> 01:29:21.200]  Mostly I want to talk about this in the foreclosure issue and the Deeds of Trust
[01:29:21.200 --> 01:29:26.200]  How we can use both civil and criminal to get these guys off the dime
[01:29:26.200 --> 01:29:30.200]  This is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Eddie Craig, we have a radio
[01:29:30.200 --> 01:29:35.200]  Our call in number is 512-646-1984
[01:29:35.200 --> 01:29:41.200]  I'm hoping that we will have the call bridge back up here pretty soon
[01:29:41.200 --> 01:29:46.200]  So give us a call so we have something to work with to get that thing working
[01:29:46.200 --> 01:29:50.200]  Okay, we will be right back on the other side
[01:29:50.200 --> 01:29:59.200]  Music
[01:29:59.200 --> 01:30:06.200]  A noble lie, Oklahoma City 1995 will change forever the way you look at the true nature of terrorism
[01:30:06.200 --> 01:30:10.200]  Based on the damage patting to the building, but the gum it sends impossible
[01:30:10.200 --> 01:30:13.200]  The grand jury did not want to hear anything I had to say
[01:30:13.200 --> 01:30:17.200]  The decision was made not to pursue any more of those individuals
[01:30:17.200 --> 01:30:22.200]  Some of these columns were ripped up, shredded, tossed around
[01:30:22.200 --> 01:30:26.200]  The people that did the things they did knew don't unwell what they were doing
[01:30:26.200 --> 01:30:30.200]  Expose the cover up now at enobleye.com
[01:30:30.200 --> 01:30:36.200]  The Rule of Law Radio Network is proud to present a due process of law seminar hosted by our own Eddie Craig
[01:30:36.200 --> 01:30:42.200]  Eddie is a former Nacodotius sheriff's deputy and for the past 21 years he's been studying the due process of law
[01:30:42.200 --> 01:30:47.200]  Now offers his knowledge to you at a seminar every Sunday from 2 o'clock to 5 o'clock at Brave New Books
[01:30:47.200 --> 01:30:50.200]  Located at 1904 Guadalupe Street
[01:30:50.200 --> 01:30:58.200]  Admission is $20 so please make plans to come by and sit with Eddie and learn for yourself what the true intent of law really is
[01:30:58.200 --> 01:31:04.200]  At hempusa.org we offer chemical free products to people around the world
[01:31:04.200 --> 01:31:08.200]  Detoxifying self-healing while rebuilding the immune system
[01:31:08.200 --> 01:31:13.200]  We urge our listeners to please consider our largest selling product, micro plant powder
[01:31:13.200 --> 01:31:21.200]  Our micro plant powder is rich in iodine, probiotics, zinc and silica to help rebuild the immune system
[01:31:21.200 --> 01:31:28.200]  And to create a healthy stomach flora, micro plant powder is excellent for daily intake and is perfect to add to your storage shelter
[01:31:28.200 --> 01:31:32.200]  We urge our listeners to please visit us at hempusa.org
[01:31:32.200 --> 01:31:36.200]  And remember all of our products are chemical free and healthy to eat
[01:31:36.200 --> 01:31:41.200]  We constantly strive to give you the best service, highest quality and rapid shipping anywhere
[01:31:41.200 --> 01:31:45.200]  And we offer free shipping on orders over $95 in the US
[01:31:45.200 --> 01:31:51.200]  Please visit us at hempusa.org or call 908-6912608
[01:31:51.200 --> 01:31:54.200]  That's 908-6912608
[01:31:54.200 --> 01:32:10.200]  See what our powder, seeds and oil can do for you at hempusa.org
[01:32:24.200 --> 01:32:29.200]  The wicked come with temptation
[01:32:29.200 --> 01:32:34.200]  They're trying to buy the whole place
[01:32:34.200 --> 01:32:40.200]  They want a voice in the nation
[01:32:40.200 --> 01:32:44.200]  Because they're falling from grace
[01:32:44.200 --> 01:32:50.200]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Debra Steed and Debra Craig. We're on radio
[01:32:50.200 --> 01:32:55.200]  And it looks like we have a technical problem on the bridge. It may not be up for a while
[01:32:55.200 --> 01:33:07.200]  I want to talk about Deed of Trust. I talked about it last night and I'll kind of go through it again today for those who weren't with me last night
[01:33:07.200 --> 01:33:11.200]  I'm trying to make it a little more coherent
[01:33:11.200 --> 01:33:25.200]  I'm doing evaluations of the court records. I know if you've done any research on this issue or looked around on the internet, what's going on
[01:33:25.200 --> 01:33:41.200]  You find a lot of complaining about MERS and how the banks haven't filed the proper documents in the court record and how the documents that are filed are all messed up
[01:33:41.200 --> 01:33:52.200]  Well, I finally took that to heart and went back and looked into the court record and started looking at the documents that are in there
[01:33:52.200 --> 01:34:03.200]  And what I found was that the people in the internet were absolutely right. These records are a horrendous mess
[01:34:03.200 --> 01:34:13.200]  But the important part about that was most of the people on the internet were just complaining about how these records were a mess
[01:34:13.200 --> 01:34:28.200]  Well, if these records aren't liked, then whoever uses these records as a basis for their claim has no claim
[01:34:28.200 --> 01:34:36.200]  Now, if you enter into a contract and the contract has a set of covenants within the contract
[01:34:36.200 --> 01:34:43.200]  If you breach one of those covenants as a rule, you breach the whole contract
[01:34:43.200 --> 01:35:02.200]  Well, as I read the deed of trust, which is always the first document in a set of files, the deed of trust is a horrible mess
[01:35:02.200 --> 01:35:08.200]  It's amazing how messed up that thing is
[01:35:08.200 --> 01:35:24.200]  We start out, most deeds of trust are prepared and presented to the lender to the borrower at closing
[01:35:24.200 --> 01:35:37.200]  That's the first time the borrower sees the document. It's prepared by a trustee who is intended to be a fiduciary for both parties
[01:35:37.200 --> 01:35:44.200]  This is not the trustee that is appointed in the deed of trust. This is a closing trustee
[01:35:44.200 --> 01:35:47.200]  Generally, it's a title company or something that they produce the documents
[01:35:47.200 --> 01:35:52.200]  Well, you go in and sit down at the closing table and put this deed of trust in front of you
[01:35:52.200 --> 01:36:03.200]  And usually, it'll have a footer on it. The footer will say that this is a, like I'm looking at one from Colorado
[01:36:03.200 --> 01:36:18.200]  Multi-state note, single family, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mat, uniform, instrument, number, I can't read the number, 30206
[01:36:18.200 --> 01:36:31.200]  Well, if you're an unsuscared borrower and you read that, you're going to think that this isn't an official document
[01:36:31.200 --> 01:36:51.200]  First, the footer says it is and it will give you the impression, since it comes from your fiduciary, that it is a regular instrument and that it is consistent with the uniform document as it's presented
[01:36:51.200 --> 01:37:02.200]  The fact is, it's no such thing, for the most part, especially if you have MERS included in the document
[01:37:02.200 --> 01:37:25.200]  So, you have that as the indication that since you've exercised due diligence in that you only dealt with licensed professionals, you come to the table as a non-sophisticated borrower
[01:37:25.200 --> 01:37:33.200]  And it's not expected that you will understand the sophisticated legal issues contained in the contract
[01:37:33.200 --> 01:37:45.200]  And for that reason, the contract is required to be written in a language that a unsophisticated lender can understand
[01:37:45.200 --> 01:37:58.200]  Well, in fact, the deed of trust is written in a language that nobody can understand, at least the deed of trust that includes MERS in it
[01:37:58.200 --> 01:38:09.200]  So, you have a document that's presented to you as a uniform instrument and it will generally start out by defining itself
[01:38:09.200 --> 01:38:20.200]  It has a definition section, it starts out by, in definition A, it will define itself as a security instrument
[01:38:20.200 --> 01:38:26.200]  And then it will define the borrower as where the borrower is
[01:38:26.200 --> 01:38:35.200]  Then it will usually define a trustee or state who the trustee is
[01:38:35.200 --> 01:38:43.200]  Now, there is nothing in this document stating that they appoint this person as the trustee
[01:38:43.200 --> 01:38:49.200]  This is not a covenant of the contract, this is in the definition section
[01:38:49.200 --> 01:38:57.200]  It simply defines this person as trustee and I make that stipulation for a reason I'll get to in a bit
[01:38:57.200 --> 01:39:10.200]  And then it defines the lender and then it defines MERS and it defines MERS as the beneficiary for the lender
[01:39:10.200 --> 01:39:24.200]  And then there are a few more definitions, it defines the note and there's about 10 or 11 definitions, most of those go to issues of securing the instrument
[01:39:24.200 --> 01:39:35.200]  And then it goes down to, I'm doing it, I'm stepping over this so that what I'm highlighting, if you look through a deed of trust
[01:39:35.200 --> 01:39:39.200]  These are the things you really need to look at
[01:39:39.200 --> 01:39:51.200]  Look at who is defined as the lender, is there a footer that says this is a security instrument, I mean this is a uniform instrument
[01:39:51.200 --> 01:39:59.200]  Who's the trustee, who is the lender, who is MERS in the contract
[01:39:59.200 --> 01:40:09.200]  And then next thing you need to look at is transfer section, it's a section that's title transfer of rights
[01:40:09.200 --> 01:40:24.200]  And this section transfers in the uniform instrument, it transfers the legal title to the property to the trustee
[01:40:24.200 --> 01:40:35.200]  The one I'm looking at is a one for Colorado, Colorado is different than all the other states, in that Colorado has a public trustee
[01:40:35.200 --> 01:40:46.200]  So it will transfer legal title to the property to the public trustee
[01:40:46.200 --> 01:40:55.200]  Now, what legal title is, is it merely gives someone technical ownership of the property
[01:40:55.200 --> 01:41:05.200]  In that they can transfer that ownership back to the giver or to someone else depending on what the contract calls for
[01:41:05.200 --> 01:41:10.200]  They only have legal title, they don't have equitable title
[01:41:10.200 --> 01:41:20.200]  If they had equitable title they'd be able to receive the payments, but it is the beneficiary who holds equitable title
[01:41:20.200 --> 01:41:27.200]  The beneficiary is the one that's authorized to receive payments
[01:41:27.200 --> 01:41:37.200]  So with this said, if you read the first part of the deed of trust with MERS in the contract
[01:41:37.200 --> 01:41:51.200]  You have the lender defined, now normally it is the lender who would have a right to receive the payments or benefit from the note
[01:41:51.200 --> 01:42:05.200]  The note is a promise to pay, the deed of trust is an instrument intended to act as collateral and ensure the payments that are included in the promise to pay
[01:42:05.200 --> 01:42:13.200]  It is the lender who would have a right to receive those, therefore it is the lender who is the beneficiary
[01:42:13.200 --> 01:42:27.200]  Under the common definition of the term beneficiary, common meaning, not just common English usage, but also common legal meaning is the same
[01:42:27.200 --> 01:42:32.200]  Beneficiary is the one entitled to the benefit
[01:42:32.200 --> 01:42:39.200]  Well, when you get to MERS it defines MERS as the beneficiary
[01:42:39.200 --> 01:42:49.200]  And agent for the lender, nominee, nominee is a subset of agent, it's a special kind of agent
[01:42:49.200 --> 01:42:57.200]  With actually limited authority for less than an actual agent would have
[01:42:57.200 --> 01:43:11.200]  And then we go down to this transfer section where in Colorado it will transfer the legal title to the trustee so that the trustee can hold the property in trust
[01:43:11.200 --> 01:43:19.200]  But only legal title because trustee has no claim on the payments, that's what the lender gives
[01:43:19.200 --> 01:43:23.200]  But they've called MERS to beneficiary
[01:43:23.200 --> 01:43:35.200]  The very next paragraph, it generally starts with together with, and it goes on together with, all improvements
[01:43:35.200 --> 01:43:41.200]  It addresses anything you would add to the property to improve its value
[01:43:41.200 --> 01:43:46.200]  That that would become a part of this security instrument
[01:43:46.200 --> 01:43:50.200]  And that's what the uniform is
[01:43:50.200 --> 01:43:55.200]  As soon as we come back we'll talk about what the MERS is
[01:43:55.200 --> 01:43:59.200]  Ready to count down the seasons, Eddie Craig, you got radios
[01:43:59.200 --> 01:44:08.200]  It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM, but finding things on the internet isn't so easy, and neither is finding like-minded people to share it with
[01:44:08.200 --> 01:44:11.200]  Oh, well I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books then
[01:44:11.200 --> 01:44:12.200]  Brave New Books?
[01:44:12.200 --> 01:44:20.200]  Yes, Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for by authors like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, and G. Edward Griffin
[01:44:20.200 --> 01:44:23.200]  They even stock Interfood, Berkey products, and Calvin Soap
[01:44:23.200 --> 01:44:26.200]  There's no way a place like that exists
[01:44:26.200 --> 01:44:31.200]  Go check it out for yourself, it's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street just south of UT
[01:44:31.200 --> 01:44:35.200]  Oh, by UT? There's never anywhere to park down there
[01:44:35.200 --> 01:44:43.200]  Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking facility just behind the bookstore
[01:44:43.200 --> 01:44:46.200]  It does exist, but when are they open?
[01:44:46.200 --> 01:44:51.200]  Monday through Saturday, 11am to 9pm and 1-6pm on Sundays
[01:44:51.200 --> 01:44:59.200]  So get them a call at 512-480-2503 or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com
[01:45:00.200 --> 01:45:03.200]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:03.200 --> 01:45:13.200]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours
[01:45:13.200 --> 01:45:15.200]  Death by Step
[01:45:15.200 --> 01:45:18.200]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing
[01:45:18.200 --> 01:45:22.200]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself
[01:45:22.200 --> 01:45:27.200]  Thousands have won with our Step by Step course, and now you can too
[01:45:27.200 --> 01:45:33.200]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience
[01:45:33.200 --> 01:45:42.200]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts
[01:45:42.200 --> 01:45:51.200]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more
[01:45:51.200 --> 01:46:00.200]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ
[01:46:21.200 --> 01:46:49.200]  We are back, Randy Kelton is doing his 40k, he's doing his 40k radio, and here is his bill, the bill is back up
[01:46:49.200 --> 01:46:56.200]  So if you want to ask a question, you can make some comments, call in, it's getting later, the show is getting bigger
[01:46:56.200 --> 01:47:03.200]  It goes up at the end, so call in, get in line, I'm going to probably spend one more segment here
[01:47:03.200 --> 01:47:07.200]  I'm going to go down the deed of trust and tell you what to look for
[01:47:07.200 --> 01:47:16.200]  If the call is built up, then the next segment I'll go to calls, but I would like to talk about, once I show all these things that are wrong with the deed of trust
[01:47:16.200 --> 01:47:22.200]  What we can expect to be able to do to adjudicate them
[01:47:22.200 --> 01:47:38.200]  Okay, I was at the point of the trustee being given legal title so that he could ensure that the beneficiary receives the benefit of the promise to pay by the borrower
[01:47:38.200 --> 01:47:48.200]  The borrower, when he purchases the property, receives a warranty deed and the property is given to the borrower
[01:47:48.200 --> 01:47:57.200]  And now the lender wants to make sure that property is protected because that's his collateral against the default on the note
[01:47:57.200 --> 01:48:02.200]  So he insists on a deed of trust
[01:48:02.200 --> 01:48:13.200]  And in the deed of trust, this is probably the same with the states that have deeds of trust as opposed to mortgages
[01:48:13.200 --> 01:48:20.200]  If this were a mortgage, the property would be transferred to the lender
[01:48:20.200 --> 01:48:38.200]  But in Texas, the property code forbids that, that a lender in Texas may not demand that the borrower transfer the property held as collateral to the lender
[01:48:38.200 --> 01:48:46.200]  So they set up a deed of trust and he transfers legal title to the property to the trustee
[01:48:46.200 --> 01:48:55.200]  So that way the borrower holds physical possession of the property
[01:48:55.200 --> 01:49:00.200]  But he does not hold legal title so he can't sell it to someone else
[01:49:00.200 --> 01:49:04.200]  The trustee holds that legal title
[01:49:04.200 --> 01:49:16.200]  The problem is, in the deed of trust it has MERS in it, it addresses any improvements to the property as included in this deed of trust
[01:49:16.200 --> 01:49:28.200]  And then it goes on to state that MERS, as the beneficiary for the lender, only holds legal title
[01:49:28.200 --> 01:49:35.200]  Now did I miss something here? Or is that doublespeak?
[01:49:35.200 --> 01:49:44.200]  They called MERS the beneficiary and transferred legal title to the trustee
[01:49:44.200 --> 01:49:55.200]  Now after they transferred the very expirigraph, they assigned that legal title to MERS
[01:49:55.200 --> 01:50:03.200]  Well, if MERS holds legal title, then the trustee doesn't hold anything
[01:50:03.200 --> 01:50:10.200]  And this is an argument we're making in Colorado
[01:50:10.200 --> 01:50:23.200]  That the public trustee exercises the authority granted to him by the deed of trust
[01:50:23.200 --> 01:50:29.200]  If MERS is included in the contract, he has no authority whatsoever
[01:50:29.200 --> 01:50:39.200]  So if he foreclosed on the property, he did so without authority because this was not a deed of trust
[01:50:39.200 --> 01:50:48.200]  When that paragraph was put in that transferred legal title from the trustee to MERS, it became a grant
[01:50:48.200 --> 01:50:54.200]  They gave the property to the beneficiary
[01:50:54.200 --> 01:50:59.200]  So, another issue about that
[01:50:59.200 --> 01:51:07.200]  For the last 200 years, borrowers or lenders did not sign the deed of trust
[01:51:07.200 --> 01:51:15.200]  And if you looked at your deed of trust, the lender didn't sign it, I've never seen one that a lender signed
[01:51:15.200 --> 01:51:31.200]  And here's the problem, whoever the MERS company or Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, whoever put together this deed of trust with MERS included in it
[01:51:31.200 --> 01:51:35.200]  Was an incredible bungler
[01:51:35.200 --> 01:51:45.200]  I read an analysis of it and the lawyer said whoever did this appeared to have knowledge of securities laws
[01:51:45.200 --> 01:51:51.200]  But had no knowledge of real property law
[01:51:51.200 --> 01:52:04.200]  Because the lender did not sign the contract, we'd have the borrower creating a deed of trust and affirming the deed of trust before a notary
[01:52:04.200 --> 01:52:21.200]  And by his affirmation, all of the grants, all of the concessions that he places into the deed of trust are given enforceability
[01:52:21.200 --> 01:52:35.200]  Well, the question becomes, what power does the borrower have to take beneficial interest from the lender and transfer it to a third party, MERS?
[01:52:35.200 --> 01:52:48.200]  If you owned a house and you sold it to me, what power would I have to take your claim against the house and give it to somebody else?
[01:52:48.200 --> 01:53:02.200]  I would not have that power and in the deed of trust it appoints MERS as nominee or agent for the lender
[01:53:02.200 --> 01:53:15.200]  Well, if you and I were considering getting into a contractual agreement and I hire myself an attorney, what power would I have to hire your attorney?
[01:53:15.200 --> 01:53:27.200]  In this case, it is the borrower who apparently appoints MERS as an agent for the lender
[01:53:27.200 --> 01:53:34.200]  The problem is, this can be done in a deed of trust
[01:53:34.200 --> 01:53:48.200]  But only if both parties sign it. When they put MERS in the contract, now it was not only the borrower who was granting concessions, it's also the lender
[01:53:48.200 --> 01:53:57.200]  And in order for that portion of the contract to have fortune effect, it would have to be affirmed by the lender and it was not
[01:53:57.200 --> 01:54:07.200]  So it's my opinion that all this huffing and puffing about MERS is just so much cannon fodder
[01:54:07.200 --> 01:54:14.200]  This is the right term, it's just a waste of time. It doesn't mean anything because MERS doesn't mean anything
[01:54:14.200 --> 01:54:20.200]  MERS has no power, they weren't granted any power because the lender didn't sign it
[01:54:20.200 --> 01:54:30.200]  Even if the lender had signed it, or even if the court's ruled that the lender somehow didn't have to sign it
[01:54:30.200 --> 01:54:38.200]  And gave MERS the position they claim, the question is, what position is that?
[01:54:38.200 --> 01:54:54.200]  If MERS has credence in the contract, then the contract is fraud in the factum, fraud on its face, because the title of the document is deed of trust
[01:54:54.200 --> 01:55:02.200]  And if MERS has given the power claimed in the contract, it is no such thing
[01:55:02.200 --> 01:55:08.200]  It is not a deed of trust, it is a grant, it's a mortgage
[01:55:08.200 --> 01:55:16.200]  So what the court, what the banks are trying to do is have a mortgage that looks like a deed of trust
[01:55:16.200 --> 01:55:20.200]  The difference between a mortgage and a deed of trust
[01:55:20.200 --> 01:55:29.200]  A deed of trust does not grant the property to the borrower, it grants it to a third party
[01:55:29.200 --> 01:55:38.200]  So that it does grant the borrower a claim against the property
[01:55:38.200 --> 01:55:47.200]  So that the borrower wouldn't, I mean the lender wouldn't have to come to the, and sue the borrower in court, get a claim against the borrower
[01:55:47.200 --> 01:55:52.200]  And then petition the court for a judgment against the property
[01:55:52.200 --> 01:56:05.200]  The deed of trust authorizes, I mean I'm sorry, a mortgage authorizes the lender to sue the property, do an interim against the property
[01:56:05.200 --> 01:56:09.200]  Gives them a claim against the property
[01:56:09.200 --> 01:56:18.200]  So that instead of having to sue you and get a judgment against the property, they have a claim against the property
[01:56:18.200 --> 01:56:25.200]  So in that way they can encumber the property, keep you from selling it or damaging it or destroying it
[01:56:25.200 --> 01:56:28.200]  It protects their collateral
[01:56:28.200 --> 01:56:34.200]  In the deed of trust, you have the claim against the property, same as a mortgage
[01:56:34.200 --> 01:56:44.200]  And in a mortgage that have to come to the court, sue the property and give a judgment against the property
[01:56:44.200 --> 01:56:48.200]  In the deed of trust, you confess that judgment
[01:56:48.200 --> 01:56:55.200]  So they don't have to come to the court and get the judgment of the court, they've already got one, they've got a contractual judgment
[01:56:55.200 --> 01:56:58.200]  That's the difference between a mortgage and a deed of trust
[01:56:58.200 --> 01:57:03.200]  Essentially it's a little more complex than that, but basically that is the intended difference
[01:57:03.200 --> 01:57:14.200]  In this case, if MERS has credence, then there is no difference between a mortgage and a deed of trust other than you have a mortgage with a confessed judgment
[01:57:14.200 --> 01:57:28.200]  And in taxes specifically, and I haven't looked for this specific statute in other states, but Texas Property Code 5.072 forbids verbal agreements
[01:57:28.200 --> 01:57:48.200]  I'm sorry, I think it's 1201 of the Business and Commerce Code that forbids a lender from requiring that the borrower transfer the property to the lender
[01:57:48.200 --> 01:57:55.200]  So if it is a mortgage, then it's forbidden by Business Commerce Code
[01:57:55.200 --> 01:58:03.200]  If it's a deed of trust, then MERS has no power or authority in the deed of trust at all
[01:58:03.200 --> 01:58:06.200]  I've taken longer than I intended to, you can call our boardies up
[01:58:06.200 --> 01:58:11.200]  When we come back on the other side, I'll see you there Chris, I'll pick you up on the other side
[01:58:11.200 --> 01:58:19.200]  Give us a call 512-646-1984, I think you've got everything straightened out
[01:58:19.200 --> 01:58:23.200]  We'll take your calls when we get back, we're going to the top of the hour break
[01:58:23.200 --> 01:58:30.200]  So this will be a three-minute break, but when we come back, we hope to have all the little bugs ironed out
[01:58:30.200 --> 01:58:32.200]  And we'll start going to all your calls
[01:58:32.200 --> 01:58:35.200]  This is Randy Cowden, David Stevens, Eddie Craig
[01:58:35.200 --> 01:58:38.200]  With our radio, we'll be right back
[01:58:38.200 --> 01:58:57.200]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it
[01:58:57.200 --> 01:59:05.200]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the Scripture
[01:59:05.200 --> 01:59:08.200]  Enter the recovery version
[01:59:08.200 --> 01:59:17.200]  First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes
[01:59:17.200 --> 01:59:27.200]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance into the riches of the Word beyond which you've ever experienced before
[01:59:27.200 --> 01:59:32.200]  Bibles from America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking
[01:59:32.200 --> 01:59:43.200]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102
[01:59:43.200 --> 01:59:47.200]  Or by ordering online at freestudybible.com
[01:59:47.200 --> 02:00:03.200]  That's freestudybible.com