ROL_2013-03-01_16k_Hr3-4.timecode
[00:00.000 --> 00:10.200] You are listening to the Liberty Beats, your daily source for Liberty News and activist
[00:10.200 --> 00:15.400] updates online at TheLibertyBeat.com.
[00:15.400 --> 00:20.400] John Bush here with your Liberty Beats for February 22, 2013.
[00:20.400 --> 00:29.560] Gold opened today at $1,571, silver at $28.70 and Bitcoin is trading at $31.24.
[00:29.560 --> 00:34.480] Today's edition of The Liberty Beats is sponsored by Voice and Exit, conference in Austin taking
[00:34.480 --> 00:39.560] place March 9, exploring social entrepreneurship and radical community.
[00:39.560 --> 00:42.680] Tickets and information online at VoiceandExit.com.
[00:42.680 --> 00:43.680] And now the news.
[00:43.680 --> 00:49.560] A U.S. senator has said an estimated 4,700 people, including some civilians, have been
[00:49.560 --> 00:53.800] killed in the contentious bombing raids of America's secretive drone war.
[00:53.800 --> 00:57.360] It was the first time a politician or any government representative had referred to
[00:57.360 --> 01:01.680] a total number of fatalities in the drone strikes, which had been condemned by rights
[01:01.680 --> 01:05.080] groups as extrajudicial assassinations.
[01:05.080 --> 01:08.600] The toll from hundreds of drone-launched missile strikes against suspected al-Qaeda
[01:08.600 --> 01:13.020] militants in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere has remained a mystery as U.S. officials
[01:13.020 --> 01:18.040] refused to publicly discuss any details of the covert campaign.
[01:18.040 --> 01:23.480] In 2008, President Barack Obama made statements regarding a, quote, civilian national security
[01:23.480 --> 01:24.480] force.
[01:24.480 --> 01:27.940] Just that day, many have been curious as to what President Obama had in mind when he
[01:27.940 --> 01:29.640] made that statement.
[01:29.640 --> 01:33.840] Representative Charles Rangel may have just given a bit of insight into what he meant when
[01:33.840 --> 01:36.880] he introduced HR748 last week.
[01:36.880 --> 01:42.360] HR748 would require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 25 to perform
[01:42.360 --> 01:43.760] national service.
[01:43.760 --> 01:46.960] These persons in the United States would either serve the country as a member of the
[01:46.960 --> 01:50.360] Uniformed Services or as a civilian service.
[01:50.360 --> 01:54.440] The civilian service could be served with a federal, state or local government program.
[01:54.440 --> 01:58.240] Federal government programs include community-based organizations.
[01:58.240 --> 02:03.080] An Illinois state representative has introduced the Internet Posting Removal Act, which was
[02:03.080 --> 02:08.280] introduced February 13th by Illinois General Assembly veteran Iris Silverstein, a Democrat.
[02:08.280 --> 02:09.640] Here's a summary of the bill.
[02:09.640 --> 02:14.280] The act provides that a Web site administrator shall, upon request, remove any posted comments
[02:14.280 --> 02:18.600] posted by an anonymous poster unless the anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to
[02:18.600 --> 02:24.760] the post and confirm that his or her IP address, legal name and home address are accurate.
[02:24.760 --> 02:27.680] Privacy advocates are protesting the measure.
[02:27.680 --> 02:31.720] Members of the Task Force proposing regulations for recreational marijuana in Colorado approved
[02:31.720 --> 02:36.480] recommendations Tuesday that would allow for marijuana tourism but block out-of-state
[02:36.480 --> 02:40.680] pot shop owners.
[02:40.680 --> 02:45.600] Today's edition of the Liberty Feed is sponsored by Central Texas Gun Works, CHL courses and
[02:45.600 --> 02:52.040] firearm sales, online at CentralTexasGunWorks.com and by Brave New Books, free thinking materials
[02:52.040 --> 03:19.840] for free people since 2006, online at BraveNewBooksStore.com.
[03:19.840 --> 03:32.100] On踪 fit payment, or text by stereotype rating, Euchغعغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغغ
[03:32.100 --> 03:39.100] We are originators, and the pathways seem to get straighter every day
[03:39.100 --> 03:46.100] And I can take anything that belongs to me, and don't it too good to use?
[03:46.100 --> 03:54.100] But I was good for the gander, don't work for the goose
[03:54.100 --> 04:01.100] I know some architects, I know some engineers
[04:01.100 --> 04:05.100] They see me every day
[04:05.100 --> 04:12.100] Okay, we are back, Randy Kelton with our special guest, Dan Real
[04:12.100 --> 04:15.100] And I do want to give a soap report
[04:15.100 --> 04:18.100] I do apologize for taking so long
[04:18.100 --> 04:24.100] My suppliers, since I hadn't bought from them in a long time, flushed me out of their computers
[04:24.100 --> 04:30.100] And I had to make a rather large purchase in order to get back in
[04:30.100 --> 04:35.100] So I got product and I made up some batches of soap and wasn't happy with it
[04:35.100 --> 04:38.100] But I got the process down
[04:38.100 --> 04:44.100] I just got my boxes in today, I've got about 200 bars made up
[04:44.100 --> 04:49.100] And I will start sending them out if I can get to it tomorrow
[04:49.100 --> 04:54.100] But I should have them all boxed up and labeled for certain by Monday morning
[04:54.100 --> 04:58.100] And the soap start coming out
[04:58.100 --> 05:02.100] And I would like to get feedback on it
[05:02.100 --> 05:09.100] I have someone who is willing to produce the soap if anybody wants to buy it
[05:09.100 --> 05:11.100] So that's enough of the soap report
[05:11.100 --> 05:15.100] Okay Dan, where were we?
[05:15.100 --> 05:19.100] We were on the fact that I think people were calling in
[05:19.100 --> 05:24.100] Yeah, okay, I did have one question on inrogatories
[05:24.100 --> 05:30.100] In most jurisdictions, certain here in Texas, you are limited to 25
[05:30.100 --> 05:36.100] Are you limited that way in Connecticut?
[05:36.100 --> 05:41.100] Not that I know of yet, but one thing you always have to pay attention to
[05:41.100 --> 05:46.100] And every state will have this, it's usually like in Connecticut, it's the rules committee
[05:46.100 --> 05:49.100] They deal with the rules of court, the General Assembly does too
[05:49.100 --> 05:55.100] But generally they will talk about a change, they will have a public hearing on a change you're going to make
[05:55.100 --> 06:04.100] And most of those changes I believe in Connecticut are rolled out either in October and or January depending on the change
[06:04.100 --> 06:11.100] But as far as I know in Connecticut you are not limited, but I would not use that as license to go hog wild unless you had to
[06:11.100 --> 06:18.100] Yeah, discovery is really an art
[06:18.100 --> 06:26.100] And admissions are the best ones, admissions, that's a good way to talk to the other side
[06:26.100 --> 06:35.100] It's a good way to tell the other side what you've got without actually holding it in front of them
[06:35.100 --> 06:44.100] You ask them a question that when they read the question they say, uh oh, this guy knows the right place to go
[06:44.100 --> 06:50.100] But you haven't stated the position yet, so they have plausible deniability
[06:50.100 --> 06:58.100] And you can use these to bring them to the table where they can come to the table and not lose face
[06:58.100 --> 07:06.100] And as much as that sounds outrageous and ridiculous, it is very important
[07:06.100 --> 07:14.100] There is no understanding that, as a matter of fact, I don't care what kind of suit you're in, whether you're plaintiff, whether you're defendant
[07:14.100 --> 07:22.100] You should always have, especially as a defendant for closure, you should always have a list of here are the special defenses against foreclosure
[07:22.100 --> 07:32.100] And you should always make sure when you have that list you have each of the elements that would establish either in whole or part as the case may be
[07:32.100 --> 07:45.100] What that special defense would be, and if you're going to, you know, send over a request for admissions, make sure you hit all of them if you possibly can
[07:45.100 --> 07:53.100] Okay, how long normally do they, okay, I've got a couple questions on discovery
[07:53.100 --> 08:01.100] How long do you have to have to respond to discovery, and how soon can you start discovery?
[08:01.100 --> 08:06.100] Generally in Connecticut, you can start it at any time after the return date
[08:06.100 --> 08:16.100] And generally, unless the other side objects, or they ask for more time, when they want more time to reply to, you know, or see if they can object
[08:16.100 --> 08:22.100] They'll have to file a motion to the court, you know, basically asking for, you know, more time
[08:22.100 --> 08:25.100] That's in Chapter 13 of your Connecticut practice book
[08:25.100 --> 08:31.100] If you want to know all about that, I believe there are only 26 sections to it
[08:31.100 --> 08:44.100] I forget the name of the particular section, but one thing you do have to bear in mind, 13-15 does specifically say that regardless of what side you're on, you have an ongoing duty to disclose
[08:44.100 --> 08:53.100] Like, for example, if something changes, and you have already answered the discovery request and you've come into new knowledge or information, you have to provide that
[08:53.100 --> 09:07.100] And if you don't, there are different sanctions. I believe the maximum penalty for each request for admission that is either not answered fairly or honestly or within the time provided is $500 per one
[09:07.100 --> 09:19.100] I haven't seen it get to that point yet, but at the same time, you know, you generally, the short answer to your question is 30 days, unless they ask for more time or they object
[09:19.100 --> 09:24.100] What I'll see the banks do is they'll ask for more time and they'll wait as long as they possibly can
[09:24.100 --> 09:35.100] And then they will object to basically stop the clock, and the clock doesn't start until you take, you know, some effort to resolve any dispute you have and bring it before the court and the judge makes a ruling
[09:35.100 --> 09:50.100] Yeah, that's, everything tends to be about delay, and this is something that we talk about regularly, that the courts will rule against you out of hand at every turn
[09:50.100 --> 09:57.100] Okay, maybe they won't, but it behooves you to conduct yourself as if they will
[09:57.100 --> 10:04.100] If you go to court expecting the judge's ruling your favor, you're going to be sadly disappointed
[10:04.100 --> 10:14.100] But even if the judge rules against you out of hand at every turn, it's going to take them a long time to get through all of the stuff you can do
[10:14.100 --> 10:28.100] And this is one of the things that causes them to take a long time is everybody seems to want to take as much time as they can on every response or every pleading
[10:28.100 --> 10:41.100] The last thing someone wants to do, a lawyer, is to file a pleading or a response to a pleading or a motion, and the next day realizing missed something
[10:41.100 --> 10:57.100] So they tend to wait till the last day, and it tends to stretch things out, especially if you're at an air foreclosure, a nice hefty lawsuit will tend to keep you there for quite a while
[10:57.100 --> 11:02.100] You find that to be the case in Connecticut
[11:02.100 --> 11:07.100] Actually, from what I've found, you don't even have to go there generally
[11:07.100 --> 11:16.100] I just find if you do it right and you set it up right and you don't make any admissions that you just don't answer right off the bat
[11:16.100 --> 11:21.100] You're generally okay, like let's just say you've got your situation under control from day one
[11:21.100 --> 11:33.100] One thing that I find infinitely frustrating, and I have no words to describe how frustrating this is, is when somebody decides, I want to take this seriously
[11:33.100 --> 11:44.100] I want to do something about it, but generally they're at that point, we're like, oh, by the way, the Committee of Sales is already incurring fees and the sales going to occur in 45 days
[11:44.100 --> 11:51.100] Or worse yet, let's hypothetically say the property has already been sold or taken through strict foreclosure
[11:51.100 --> 11:59.100] In Connecticut, generally you have four months to unpack that, absent fraud, fraud is attackable at any time
[11:59.100 --> 12:12.100] But generally what I see a lot of people do is they get sucked into the whole modification mess and they fall asleep at the wheel and they don't collect documentation and they let it go
[12:12.100 --> 12:18.100] Okay, Dan, you need to go back and listen to our archive from last Friday
[12:18.100 --> 12:35.100] We had a guest on that has been doing modifications, he worked for Bank of America in the modification department
[12:35.100 --> 12:52.100] And then he got out of that and did his own modifications, helped people with modifications, and he has really, really good information on how the banks very deliberately structure what they're doing
[12:52.100 --> 13:01.100] So that the people they have working the modification program cannot legitimately get one done
[13:01.100 --> 13:08.100] And the banks receive $2,000 to $3,000 for each one
[13:08.100 --> 13:16.100] They receive the amount for offering the modification
[13:16.100 --> 13:28.100] But if they offer that modification in bad faith, then the money they collected from the government goes to whistleblower
[13:28.100 --> 13:33.100] You have Kwaitam in Connecticut?
[13:33.100 --> 13:41.100] Kwaitam in Connecticut, sadly, is limited to Medicaid fraud
[13:41.100 --> 13:50.100] Unfortunately, I mean, I looked into it and it could be so much fun you could have with that cause of action, but Connecticut is limited to that
[13:50.100 --> 14:01.100] Well, one thing you do have with it, even if it's in Connecticut, this one would not be a state suit in any case
[14:01.100 --> 14:04.100] The Kwaitam action would be federal
[14:04.100 --> 14:14.100] Okay, let me move ahead, we've got a couple of callers, one's from Connecticut, but let me take Rob, he has a comment
[14:14.100 --> 14:16.100] Hey, Randy?
[14:16.100 --> 14:18.100] Hello, Rob
[14:18.100 --> 14:20.100] Good evening, how are you doing, my friend?
[14:20.100 --> 14:22.100] I'm doing good
[14:22.100 --> 14:25.100] How's everything in Texas?
[14:25.100 --> 14:28.100] It was warm hot down here
[14:28.100 --> 14:31.100] You took the charges?
[14:31.100 --> 14:42.100] And as Texans wouldn't lie about this stuff, you might hear some stories up north about it snowing in Texas
[14:42.100 --> 14:48.100] That's a bunch of Yankee propaganda
[14:48.100 --> 14:51.100] Okay, you had a comment?
[14:51.100 --> 14:56.100] Yes, I just wanted to say hello and of course comment on your usual excellent program
[14:56.100 --> 15:00.100] I understand the moderator is from Connecticut, is that correct?
[15:00.100 --> 15:04.100] Yes, the People's Republic of Connecticut
[15:04.100 --> 15:10.100] Secondly, the People's Republic of Santa Monica, so I'm familiar with that
[15:10.100 --> 15:15.100] So what is the status of foreclosures in pro pur in Connecticut?
[15:15.100 --> 15:21.100] What is the ratio of white title favorable results?
[15:21.100 --> 15:29.100] I honestly haven't seen anything on that because there are a lot of things that are common in Connecticut
[15:29.100 --> 15:37.100] I generally haven't seen people take that step yet, although I'm sure somebody has
[15:37.100 --> 15:48.100] I don't see that happening a lot, but I'll tell you, it's something I'd be very interested in getting my hot little hands on when I had a minute or two to spare
[15:48.100 --> 15:53.100] Rob, how do you get to quiet title in Florida?
[15:53.100 --> 16:00.100] Well, in Florida, actually we've been able to accomplish it, probably in one out of maybe 50 to 60 cases
[16:00.100 --> 16:03.100] It's becoming more frequent than it was previously
[16:03.100 --> 16:08.100] The way to get to quiet title, of course, you attack at ab initio with respect to standing at capacity
[16:08.100 --> 16:11.100] You want to go after it aggressively from the beginning
[16:11.100 --> 16:17.100] We've got a case where the plaintiff, a well-known mortgage company, is on their fifth amended complaint
[16:17.100 --> 16:22.100] In other words, they've had five bites to the apple, normally one or two are more than enough to get a dismissed
[16:22.100 --> 16:27.100] But in this case, they're on their fifth amended complaint and nothing has changed
[16:27.100 --> 16:29.100] Same standing, same capacity
[16:29.100 --> 16:33.100] So I think at this point we're going to be able to defeat it and ultimately get quiet title
[16:33.100 --> 16:38.100] Okay, I'd like to address that a little bit when we come back on the other side
[16:38.100 --> 16:45.100] Yeah, I would too, there's something else to it that I have, which is unfortunate, but I want to play devil's advocate
[16:45.100 --> 16:53.100] Okay, this is Randy Kelton, never seen with Eddie Craig, rule of law radio, our call in number 512-646-1984
[16:53.100 --> 16:59.100] We'll be right back
[17:24.100 --> 17:28.100] Second place prize is the Spikes Tactical AR-15 Lower Receiver
[17:28.100 --> 17:31.100] Sponsored by CentralTexasGunworks.com
[17:31.100 --> 17:34.100] Every $20 you donate will put your name in the hat
[17:34.100 --> 17:37.100] So increase your chances of winning by increasing your donation
[17:37.100 --> 17:41.100] Winners must be eligible to lawfully own and possess these items
[17:41.100 --> 17:44.100] Please visit LogosRadioNetwork.com for details
[17:44.100 --> 17:48.100] If you love all the liberty-minded programming on Logos Radio Network
[17:48.100 --> 17:53.100] Get to the fundraiser and secure your chance to win a Rock River AR-15
[17:53.100 --> 17:55.100] Sponsored by ZombieKillers, Ammo & Guns
[17:55.100 --> 17:58.100] Like them on Facebook at ZombieKillers, LLC
[17:58.100 --> 18:00.100] Contest ends February 28
[18:00.100 --> 18:06.100] Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even losses?
[18:06.100 --> 18:10.100] Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mearris Proven Method
[18:10.100 --> 18:15.100] Michael Mearris has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win too
[18:15.100 --> 18:21.100] You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes
[18:21.100 --> 18:25.100] What to do when contacted by phones, mail, or court summons
[18:25.100 --> 18:27.100] How to answer letters and phone calls
[18:27.100 --> 18:29.100] How to get debt collectors out of your credit reports
[18:29.100 --> 18:34.100] How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away
[18:34.100 --> 18:39.100] The Michael Mearris Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors
[18:39.100 --> 18:41.100] Personal consultation is available as well
[18:41.100 --> 18:45.100] For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com
[18:45.100 --> 18:47.100] and click on the blue Michael Mearris banner
[18:47.100 --> 18:50.100] or email MichaelMearris at yahoo.com
[18:50.100 --> 18:52.100] That's ruleoflawradio.com
[18:52.100 --> 18:58.100] or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com
[18:58.100 --> 19:13.100] To learn how to stop debt collectors next, you are listening to the Logos Radio Network
[19:13.100 --> 19:15.100] Well, don't let nothing get to you
[19:15.100 --> 19:18.100] Only the father can deliver you
[19:18.100 --> 19:21.100] And don't let bad-mine people hurt you
[19:21.100 --> 19:24.100] Until Satan gets behind you
[19:24.100 --> 19:29.100] You know what I mean? My friend, my love got you in the club
[19:34.100 --> 19:41.100] Okay, we are back with Randy Kelton with our special guest, Dan Reel
[19:41.100 --> 19:47.100] and we went out, we were talking about quite a title
[19:47.100 --> 19:51.100] and I was asking some questions that ran out of time
[19:51.100 --> 19:54.100] and the reason I was asking those questions is because
[19:54.100 --> 20:02.100] we tend to hear always to take a preparatory approach
[20:02.100 --> 20:07.100] When you go for quite a title, you're asking the judge to rule
[20:07.100 --> 20:15.100] that the lender cannot collect the money he's loaned out
[20:15.100 --> 20:19.100] and that's hard to get a judge to do
[20:19.100 --> 20:25.100] So what we look to do first is by doing an exhaustive examination
[20:25.100 --> 20:28.100] of the documents in the county record
[20:28.100 --> 20:31.100] They are a goldmine
[20:31.100 --> 20:35.100] The primary documents that I get to rip to pieces
[20:35.100 --> 20:38.100] are the Appointments Associated Trustee
[20:38.100 --> 20:43.100] and Assignments of Deed to Trust or Mortgage
[20:43.100 --> 20:48.100] Almost always the notary is a problem
[20:48.100 --> 20:51.100] So we send out letters to the notary
[20:51.100 --> 20:56.100] requesting evidence of the acknowledgement
[20:56.100 --> 20:58.100] We never get a proper response
[20:58.100 --> 21:04.100] and that creates prima facie evidence that the document was not properly acknowledged
[21:04.100 --> 21:10.100] and therefore fails to meet the filing requirements
[21:10.100 --> 21:12.100] for the county registrar's office
[21:12.100 --> 21:16.100] We go to the court with a declaratory judgment
[21:16.100 --> 21:19.100] and we have, you know, everyone I've looked at
[21:19.100 --> 21:24.100] where you see a notary, an acknowledgement
[21:24.100 --> 21:29.100] that acknowledged the document two days before it was signed
[21:29.100 --> 21:36.100] We have a lot of them that state that they are affirming
[21:36.100 --> 21:41.100] that this person told me they actually signed this
[21:41.100 --> 21:47.100] Now the notary is not affirming that the person actually did sign it
[21:47.100 --> 21:50.100] They are affirming that the guy told him he did
[21:50.100 --> 21:53.100] Well, big deal!
[21:53.100 --> 21:56.100] That doesn't meet the requirements
[21:56.100 --> 21:59.100] So we go in with that and say
[21:59.100 --> 22:03.100] this document based on this problem
[22:03.100 --> 22:09.100] A lot of what you will see is information is crossed out on the document
[22:09.100 --> 22:11.100] and then it's acknowledged
[22:11.100 --> 22:14.100] Well, you have this information
[22:14.100 --> 22:17.100] that's been redacted from this document
[22:17.100 --> 22:21.100] and it's filed in the county record with the redaction on it
[22:21.100 --> 22:23.100] So the question becomes
[22:23.100 --> 22:27.100] was this information redacted
[22:27.100 --> 22:31.100] before or after it was acknowledged
[22:31.100 --> 22:34.100] and if it was acknowledged
[22:34.100 --> 22:37.100] and the redaction was there
[22:37.100 --> 22:41.100] it would seem that the notary would have initialed that
[22:41.100 --> 22:46.100] showing across the redaction to show that it was already there
[22:46.100 --> 22:48.100] That didn't happen
[22:48.100 --> 22:52.100] So we'll go to the court and say
[22:52.100 --> 22:55.100] in petition for declaratory judgment
[22:55.100 --> 23:01.100] all we want is declaratory judgment based on this document
[23:01.100 --> 23:08.100] and only based on the validity of this particular document
[23:08.100 --> 23:12.100] We don't want any kind of adjudication
[23:12.100 --> 23:17.100] on the validity of the underlying debt obligation
[23:17.100 --> 23:20.100] because if the judge gives you both
[23:20.100 --> 23:23.100] you wind up getting your whole pleading thrown out
[23:23.100 --> 23:26.100] So you go in and ask the judge to say
[23:26.100 --> 23:29.100] based on the four corners of this document
[23:29.100 --> 23:34.100] by looking within the four corners of this document
[23:34.100 --> 23:38.100] there is evidence that this document does not meet your rules
[23:38.100 --> 23:42.100] the court rules for filing these documents in the county registrar's office
[23:42.100 --> 23:45.100] and that's all you want the court to rule on
[23:45.100 --> 23:48.100] that it's insufficient for filing
[23:48.100 --> 23:50.100] You get that filing
[23:50.100 --> 23:54.100] especially if you can get it on a deed of trust or mortgage
[23:54.100 --> 23:56.100] If you're going after a deed of trust or mortgage
[23:56.100 --> 23:59.100] fell a problem on one of those
[23:59.100 --> 24:02.100] then you want to have a warranty deed in your back pocket
[24:02.100 --> 24:06.100] and as soon as you get the ruling that the document is insufficient for filing
[24:06.100 --> 24:10.100] the court can make this ruling
[24:10.100 --> 24:13.100] and then the bank can always come back
[24:13.100 --> 24:18.100] and refile the deed of trust with the appropriate corrections
[24:18.100 --> 24:22.100] You don't tell the judge you've got a warranty deed in your back pocket
[24:22.100 --> 24:28.100] as soon as you get the order from the judge drop that warranty deed in the record
[24:28.100 --> 24:32.100] the bank can come back with their deed of trust if they want to
[24:32.100 --> 24:36.100] but now they run into the first in line
[24:36.100 --> 24:40.100] first in time is first in line problem
[24:40.100 --> 24:45.100] but even if it doesn't go to sudden death for the banker
[24:45.100 --> 24:49.100] if we can get a ruling that an appointment of substitute trustee
[24:49.100 --> 24:52.100] was insufficient for filing
[24:52.100 --> 24:57.100] and there has been subsequent actions based on that
[24:57.100 --> 25:00.100] for instance a foreclosure
[25:00.100 --> 25:04.100] based on that substitute trustee
[25:04.100 --> 25:07.100] once we have West Judicata
[25:07.100 --> 25:10.100] already been adjudicated
[25:10.100 --> 25:12.100] now we go for quiet title
[25:12.100 --> 25:14.100] we go back to the court and say
[25:14.100 --> 25:19.100] this document here on which they base this action is fraudulent
[25:19.100 --> 25:22.100] as ruled by this other court
[25:22.100 --> 25:27.100] being West Judicata is not something this court can go back and revisit
[25:27.100 --> 25:32.100] now you've got a spot where you can push for
[25:32.100 --> 25:37.100] quiet title and have a lot more likelihood of getting it
[25:37.100 --> 25:42.100] does that make sense Rob?
[25:42.100 --> 25:46.100] I think I put him to sleep, I do that a lot
[25:46.100 --> 25:50.100] you had a comment on this issue as well Dan
[25:50.100 --> 25:57.100] yes and this is why I was asking for your non-hypothetical statement
[25:57.100 --> 26:00.100] of facts on this and normally
[26:00.100 --> 26:04.100] if you didn't qualify things the way you did
[26:04.100 --> 26:07.100] what the bank would do
[26:07.100 --> 26:10.100] let's just say the property was already in foreclosed
[26:10.100 --> 26:13.100] and it had gone through the process and it was a judicial state
[26:13.100 --> 26:15.100] they would basically
[26:15.100 --> 26:18.100] unless the facts were qualified as you did
[26:18.100 --> 26:22.100] they would basically say listen this is an impermissible collateral
[26:22.100 --> 26:25.100] tack on a judgment
[26:25.100 --> 26:28.100] I think just some background on declaratory judgment
[26:28.100 --> 26:30.100] this is the way it is in Connecticut
[26:30.100 --> 26:33.100] I'm pretty sure it's the same
[26:33.100 --> 26:36.100] but an action for declaratory judgment
[26:36.100 --> 26:40.100] is an action to determine the rights of the parties
[26:40.100 --> 26:43.100] before any litigation occurs
[26:43.100 --> 26:46.100] so yes this would be a correct use of that here
[26:46.100 --> 26:50.100] a classic case of this in Connecticut was
[26:50.100 --> 26:52.100] Viceroy's v. DiNardo
[26:52.100 --> 26:54.100] there's some background on this
[26:54.100 --> 26:58.100] Nancy DiNardo is the chair of the Democratic Party
[26:58.100 --> 27:01.100] at the time for the purposes of the suit
[27:01.100 --> 27:04.100] Viceroy's was the former secretary of state
[27:04.100 --> 27:06.100] many of you out there you know
[27:06.100 --> 27:10.100] that I sued Susan Viceroy's as a pro se
[27:10.100 --> 27:13.100] it was a case where the Supreme Court
[27:13.100 --> 27:15.100] here at original jurisdiction
[27:15.100 --> 27:18.100] so I have joined the people who have sued Viceroy's
[27:18.100 --> 27:21.100] pro se club we all have our decoderings
[27:21.100 --> 27:23.100] it's pretty neat
[27:23.100 --> 27:25.100] we all you know there's quite a bit of us
[27:25.100 --> 27:28.100] but in any case she filed suit
[27:28.100 --> 27:31.100] because she wanted to run for attorney general
[27:31.100 --> 27:34.100] and the law here was that you had to have
[27:34.100 --> 27:37.100] ten years of practice as an attorney
[27:37.100 --> 27:39.100] before the bar in Connecticut
[27:39.100 --> 27:42.100] what she tried to do was basically say
[27:42.100 --> 27:45.100] well I practiced for two years in New York
[27:45.100 --> 27:49.100] and I was secretary of state for another eight years
[27:49.100 --> 27:52.100] and I provided legal advice all the time
[27:52.100 --> 27:55.100] our courts didn't buy it
[27:55.100 --> 27:59.100] you know I mean effectively what she was doing
[27:59.100 --> 28:02.100] was one of a postmaster basically saying
[28:02.100 --> 28:05.100] well if you want to mail this package
[28:05.100 --> 28:07.100] you need X amount of postage
[28:07.100 --> 28:10.100] but that is the funniest example of an action
[28:10.100 --> 28:13.100] for declaratory judgment that I could think of
[28:13.100 --> 28:15.100] considering my viewpoint
[28:15.100 --> 28:18.100] and considering the fact that she didn't know
[28:18.100 --> 28:21.100] the number two from the number ten
[28:21.100 --> 28:24.100] but that was a common usage
[28:24.100 --> 28:27.100] okay well in Texas at least
[28:27.100 --> 28:30.100] you can file for declaratory judgment
[28:30.100 --> 28:34.100] within a existing case
[28:34.100 --> 28:37.100] if there is a dispositive fact
[28:37.100 --> 28:41.100] or a fact that was material
[28:41.100 --> 28:44.100] you can ask the court for a ruling on that fact
[28:44.100 --> 28:46.100] especially if the facts in contention
[28:46.100 --> 28:49.100] and it will move the case along
[28:49.100 --> 28:52.100] but otherwise we're not really
[28:52.100 --> 28:54.100] at least that I know of
[28:54.100 --> 28:59.100] we're not really restricted in what we can ask the court
[28:59.100 --> 29:02.100] to grant declaratory judgment on
[29:02.100 --> 29:05.100] anytime you file declaratory judgment
[29:05.100 --> 29:08.100] in Texas
[29:08.100 --> 29:11.100] you can you I'm sorry I said that wrong
[29:11.100 --> 29:14.100] in Texas you can file for declaratory judgment
[29:14.100 --> 29:19.100] against any public official or any office
[29:19.100 --> 29:23.100] the state weighs its sovereign immunity
[29:23.100 --> 29:27.100] in matters of petitions for declaratory judgment
[29:27.100 --> 29:31.100] so that can often be a very effective tool
[29:31.100 --> 29:34.100] for dragging the court into the state
[29:34.100 --> 29:38.100] into court and squeezing the information
[29:38.100 --> 29:41.100] you need out of them perhaps for another issue
[29:41.100 --> 29:46.100] is that Messiah?
[29:46.100 --> 29:48.100] I'm not sure how to pronounce that
[29:48.100 --> 29:50.100] M-A-S-H-A-C-H
[29:50.100 --> 29:52.100] we will pick you up on the other side
[29:52.100 --> 29:54.100] this is Randy Kelton, David Stevens and Craig
[29:54.100 --> 29:57.100] we'll go radio, we'll be right back
[30:01.100 --> 30:04.100] Political persecution can turn families into refugees
[30:04.100 --> 30:06.100] but in Sweden and Germany
[30:06.100 --> 30:08.100] parents are being forced to leave their homelands
[30:08.100 --> 30:11.100] because they want to homeschool their kids
[30:11.100 --> 30:12.100] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht
[30:12.100 --> 30:15.100] back with the stories of the homeschooling refugees
[30:15.100 --> 30:16.100] next
[30:16.100 --> 30:18.100] Privacy is under attack
[30:18.100 --> 30:20.100] when you give up data about yourself
[30:20.100 --> 30:22.100] you'll never get it back again
[30:22.100 --> 30:24.100] and once your privacy is gone
[30:24.100 --> 30:26.100] you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too
[30:26.100 --> 30:28.100] so protect your rights
[30:28.100 --> 30:30.100] say no to surveillance
[30:30.100 --> 30:32.100] and keep your information to yourself
[30:32.100 --> 30:34.100] Privacy, it's worth hanging on to
[30:34.100 --> 30:36.100] this message is brought to you by
[30:36.100 --> 30:38.100] startpage.com
[30:38.100 --> 30:40.100] the private search engine alternative
[30:40.100 --> 30:42.100] to Google, Yahoo and Bing
[30:42.100 --> 30:44.100] start over with Start Page
[30:46.100 --> 30:48.100] Jonas Himmelsrand, a Swedish father
[30:48.100 --> 30:50.100] and Dagmar Neubronner, a German mother
[30:50.100 --> 30:52.100] are refugees
[30:52.100 --> 30:54.100] they didn't leave their homelands because of war
[30:54.100 --> 30:55.100] or politics
[30:55.100 --> 30:57.100] they left because their governments punished them
[30:57.100 --> 30:59.100] for homeschooling their kids
[30:59.100 --> 31:01.100] threatened with financial ruin
[31:01.100 --> 31:02.100] and the seizure of his children
[31:02.100 --> 31:04.100] Himmelsrand fled to Finland
[31:04.100 --> 31:07.100] when his government banned home education in 2010
[31:07.100 --> 31:09.100] Neubronner similarly left Germany
[31:09.100 --> 31:11.100] and now lives in France
[31:11.100 --> 31:13.100] directing the education of a child
[31:13.100 --> 31:15.100] is one of the most basic of parental rights
[31:15.100 --> 31:18.100] persecuting parents for controlling their own kids' education
[31:18.100 --> 31:20.100] is a violation of their human rights
[31:20.100 --> 31:22.100] it's probably just as well
[31:22.100 --> 31:24.100] those parents left those countries
[31:24.100 --> 31:26.100] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for
[31:26.100 --> 31:27.100] startpage.com
[31:27.100 --> 31:29.100] the world's most private search engine
[31:31.100 --> 31:33.100] this is building 7
[31:33.100 --> 31:35.100] a 47 story skyscraper that fell
[31:35.100 --> 31:37.100] on the afternoon of September 11
[31:37.100 --> 31:39.100] the government says that fire brought it down
[31:39.100 --> 31:41.100] however, 1500 architects and engineers
[31:41.100 --> 31:44.100] concluded it was a controlled demolition
[31:44.100 --> 31:46.100] over 6,000 of my fellow service members
[31:46.100 --> 31:47.100] have given their lives
[31:47.100 --> 31:49.100] thousands of my fellow first responders have died
[31:49.100 --> 31:51.100] I'm not a conspiracy theorist
[31:51.100 --> 31:52.100] I'm a structural engineer
[31:52.100 --> 31:53.100] I'm a New York City correction officer
[31:53.100 --> 31:54.100] I'm an Air Force pilot
[31:54.100 --> 31:56.100] I'm a father who lost his son
[31:56.100 --> 31:57.100] we're Americans
[31:57.100 --> 31:58.100] and we deserve the truth
[31:58.100 --> 31:59.100] go to
[31:59.100 --> 32:01.100] rememberbuilding7.org today
[32:02.100 --> 32:05.100] it is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM
[32:05.100 --> 32:08.100] but finding things on the internet isn't so easy
[32:08.100 --> 32:10.100] and neither is finding like-minded people
[32:10.100 --> 32:11.100] to share it with
[32:11.100 --> 32:13.100] oh well I guess you haven't heard of brave new books then
[32:13.100 --> 32:14.100] brave new books?
[32:14.100 --> 32:15.100] yes
[32:15.100 --> 32:18.100] brave new books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for
[32:18.100 --> 32:20.100] by authors like Alex Jones, Ron Paul
[32:20.100 --> 32:21.100] and G. Edward Griffin
[32:21.100 --> 32:24.100] they even stock inner food, Burkey products
[32:24.100 --> 32:25.100] and Calvin Soap
[32:25.100 --> 32:28.100] there's no way a place like that exists
[32:28.100 --> 32:29.100] go check it out for yourself
[32:29.100 --> 32:32.100] it's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street
[32:32.100 --> 32:33.100] just south of UT
[32:33.100 --> 32:35.100] aww by UT
[32:35.100 --> 32:37.100] there's never anywhere to park down there
[32:37.100 --> 32:39.100] actually they now offer a free hour of parking
[32:39.100 --> 32:42.100] for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking
[32:42.100 --> 32:45.100] facility just behind the bookstore
[32:45.100 --> 32:47.100] it does exist
[32:47.100 --> 32:48.100] but when are they open?
[32:48.100 --> 32:49.100] Monday through Saturday
[32:49.100 --> 32:53.100] 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. and 1 to 6 p.m. on Sundays
[32:53.100 --> 32:57.100] so get them a call at 512-480-2503
[32:57.100 --> 33:00.100] or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com
[33:03.100 --> 33:05.100] live free speech radio
[33:05.100 --> 33:12.100] logosradionetwork.com
[33:35.100 --> 34:00.100] okay we are back
[34:00.100 --> 34:03.100] Randy Kelton with Dan Real
[34:03.100 --> 34:05.100] and we're gonna go to caller's
[34:05.100 --> 34:08.100] Meshach
[34:08.100 --> 34:10.100] is that right?
[34:10.100 --> 34:12.100] or is that Manchuk?
[34:12.100 --> 34:15.100] we have a street in Austin called Manchuk
[34:15.100 --> 34:17.100] Meshach?
[34:17.100 --> 34:19.100] Connecticut?
[34:19.100 --> 34:20.100] yep
[34:20.100 --> 34:21.100] there we go
[34:21.100 --> 34:23.100] did I pronounce it right?
[34:23.100 --> 34:25.100] uh yeah yeah almost
[34:25.100 --> 34:27.100] Meshach
[34:27.100 --> 34:29.100] Meshach, okay
[34:29.100 --> 34:32.100] okay what do you have for us?
[34:32.100 --> 34:34.100] um alright
[34:34.100 --> 34:37.100] I'm wondering what I should do about this
[34:37.100 --> 34:40.100] uh judge ordered a competency evaluation
[34:40.100 --> 34:42.100] and um
[34:42.100 --> 34:44.100] I ended up originally going
[34:44.100 --> 34:46.100] and answering all the questions and then
[34:46.100 --> 34:48.100] they sent me another letter
[34:48.100 --> 34:50.100] telling me that I had to come back
[34:50.100 --> 34:52.100] and um
[34:52.100 --> 34:55.100] basically I told them I wasn't gonna come back
[34:55.100 --> 34:57.100] unless they got another court order
[34:57.100 --> 34:59.100] and uh
[34:59.100 --> 35:01.100] I didn't go back
[35:01.100 --> 35:03.100] and I went to my court the other day
[35:03.100 --> 35:06.100] and uh basically the judge
[35:06.100 --> 35:08.100] put me in jail
[35:08.100 --> 35:11.100] and uh
[35:11.100 --> 35:13.100] basically yeah put me in jail for exercise
[35:13.100 --> 35:15.100] and more rights and remain silent
[35:15.100 --> 35:17.100] competency evaluation
[35:17.100 --> 35:19.100] okay
[35:19.100 --> 35:21.100] um
[35:21.100 --> 35:25.100] Dan do you have something specifically on that?
[35:25.100 --> 35:26.100] yes
[35:26.100 --> 35:28.100] as a matter of fact
[35:28.100 --> 35:31.100] one thing they love to do in Connecticut
[35:31.100 --> 35:33.100] is assume
[35:33.100 --> 35:35.100] you know that because you're pro say
[35:35.100 --> 35:37.100] and you're filing different things
[35:37.100 --> 35:39.100] which in a lot of cases um
[35:39.100 --> 35:41.100] unfortunately aren't correct
[35:41.100 --> 35:43.100] what they will do is that you know
[35:43.100 --> 35:45.100] they will make the assumption that you are
[35:45.100 --> 35:46.100] you are a knucking futz
[35:46.100 --> 35:48.100] you are absolute crazy
[35:48.100 --> 35:51.100] you are like you know a few cards short of a deck
[35:51.100 --> 35:53.100] and they will automatically
[35:53.100 --> 35:55.100] railroad you into competency hearings
[35:55.100 --> 35:57.100] I've seen this go one or two ways
[35:57.100 --> 36:00.100] um the first way I've seen this happen
[36:00.100 --> 36:02.100] is it's just
[36:02.100 --> 36:05.100] an unholy amount of embarrassment
[36:05.100 --> 36:07.100] um but the statute in Connecticut
[36:07.100 --> 36:09.100] i.e. it's entitled 54
[36:09.100 --> 36:11.100] um but it basically states
[36:11.100 --> 36:14.100] that you know you're assumed to be competent
[36:14.100 --> 36:17.100] um and basically a lot of the cases
[36:17.100 --> 36:19.100] I will see this issue come up
[36:19.100 --> 36:21.100] is when somebody wants to you know
[36:21.100 --> 36:23.100] go ahead and say
[36:23.100 --> 36:25.100] I'm using admiralty law in this criminal case
[36:25.100 --> 36:27.100] or something like really far out there
[36:27.100 --> 36:29.100] or even not necessarily so
[36:29.100 --> 36:31.100] um
[36:31.100 --> 36:34.100] but the other way I've seen this sort of situation go
[36:34.100 --> 36:36.100] is you know
[36:36.100 --> 36:38.100] a case where somebody actually is seen
[36:38.100 --> 36:40.100] and is capable of understanding
[36:40.100 --> 36:42.100] what's happening to him in the process
[36:42.100 --> 36:45.100] but they deem him incompetent anyway
[36:45.100 --> 36:48.100] um there are ways to challenge that
[36:48.100 --> 36:50.100] depending on how the hearing goes
[36:50.100 --> 36:53.100] I mean I forget the name of the shrink that they have
[36:53.100 --> 36:56.100] doing most of these things out on the western end of the state
[36:56.100 --> 36:59.100] but I mean this guy does make quite a lot of money doing it
[36:59.100 --> 37:01.100] saying like oh this guy is competent
[37:01.100 --> 37:03.100] oh this guy isn't competent
[37:03.100 --> 37:06.100] um but as far as um
[37:06.100 --> 37:09.100] you know a competency hearing goes
[37:09.100 --> 37:12.100] I think an interesting thing to do
[37:12.100 --> 37:14.100] I mean and I'm waiting for somebody to do this
[37:14.100 --> 37:15.100] and it goes south
[37:15.100 --> 37:17.100] it is for them to appeal it
[37:17.100 --> 37:19.100] and appeal it on the grounds of the state
[37:19.100 --> 37:21.100] the statute says I'm competent
[37:21.100 --> 37:24.100] you know what are we doing here
[37:24.100 --> 37:27.100] so I guess my question would be
[37:27.100 --> 37:30.100] what is the desired outcome in this case
[37:30.100 --> 37:34.100] uh for me or for them
[37:34.100 --> 37:38.100] um for you mean for the situation
[37:38.100 --> 37:40.100] you know in this case
[37:40.100 --> 37:42.100] uh
[37:42.100 --> 37:44.100] what do you mean
[37:44.100 --> 37:46.100] what is the nature of the case
[37:46.100 --> 37:48.100] oh um
[37:48.100 --> 37:51.100] I mean I was charged with a bridge of peace
[37:51.100 --> 37:54.100] and interfering
[37:54.100 --> 37:56.100] okay so I would assume
[37:56.100 --> 37:58.100] you want the charges dropped
[37:58.100 --> 38:01.100] yeah yeah
[38:01.100 --> 38:04.100] okay perfect um
[38:04.100 --> 38:06.100] now what what stage
[38:06.100 --> 38:08.100] in this case are you at right now
[38:08.100 --> 38:10.100] I mean did you enter a plea
[38:10.100 --> 38:13.100] did you you know I mean how long has this been going
[38:13.100 --> 38:15.100] um
[38:15.100 --> 38:18.100] for about uh for over yeah for two years
[38:18.100 --> 38:21.100] I mean I spoke to you a while back
[38:21.100 --> 38:23.100] yeah yeah I remember that I yeah
[38:23.100 --> 38:25.100] I'm remembering this now because I remember
[38:25.100 --> 38:27.100] I spoke to you
[38:27.100 --> 38:29.100] and then effectively the Mayan calendar happened
[38:29.100 --> 38:31.100] to be my life um just
[38:31.100 --> 38:34.100] just some background for everybody that's trying to get a hold of me
[38:34.100 --> 38:35.100] I mean my house is getting knocked down
[38:35.100 --> 38:37.100] I had a whole bunch of
[38:37.100 --> 38:39.100] weird financial and personal stuff going on
[38:39.100 --> 38:41.100] so I it took me out of the loop for a little bit
[38:41.100 --> 38:43.100] so that's why you haven't heard from me
[38:43.100 --> 38:45.100] um but yeah basically
[38:45.100 --> 38:47.100] have you filed any discovery
[38:47.100 --> 38:49.100] request yet
[38:49.100 --> 38:51.100] yeah yes I did
[38:51.100 --> 38:53.100] I filed the discovery
[38:53.100 --> 38:55.100] I filed a motion to compel the discovery
[38:55.100 --> 38:57.100] but it didn't ask
[38:57.100 --> 38:59.100] for uh exculpatory evidence
[38:59.100 --> 39:01.100] it only asked for inculpatory
[39:01.100 --> 39:03.100] so then I filed
[39:03.100 --> 39:05.100] um
[39:05.100 --> 39:07.100] uh informal discovery
[39:07.100 --> 39:09.100] and uh the DA hasn't responded
[39:09.100 --> 39:11.100] to that yet
[39:11.100 --> 39:13.100] yeah because the exculpatory evidence
[39:13.100 --> 39:15.100] I mean you should explicitly ask for that
[39:15.100 --> 39:17.100] um just just for anybody
[39:17.100 --> 39:19.100] who doesn't know this listening
[39:19.100 --> 39:21.100] exculpatory evidence is evidence
[39:21.100 --> 39:23.100] that would you know for the purposes of
[39:23.100 --> 39:25.100] Brady in any case
[39:25.100 --> 39:27.100] would basically you know
[39:27.100 --> 39:29.100] one point to the fact that
[39:29.100 --> 39:31.100] you probably didn't do whatever they're
[39:31.100 --> 39:33.100] accusing you of or two
[39:33.100 --> 39:35.100] would point to a mitigating factor
[39:35.100 --> 39:37.100] in any sentencing that would occur
[39:37.100 --> 39:39.100] um obviously it is
[39:39.100 --> 39:41.100] a Brady violation of you withhold exculpatory
[39:41.100 --> 39:43.100] evidence so what I would probably do
[39:43.100 --> 39:45.100] is go back
[39:45.100 --> 39:47.100] and renew like
[39:47.100 --> 39:49.100] I'd probably make a different discovery request saying
[39:49.100 --> 39:51.100] listen give me all this plus
[39:51.100 --> 39:53.100] any exculpatory evidence you have
[39:53.100 --> 39:55.100] and now what you're probably going to find
[39:55.100 --> 39:57.100] is I would back this up with a FOIA request
[39:57.100 --> 39:59.100] to the arresting police department
[39:59.100 --> 40:01.100] and just to see what kind
[40:01.100 --> 40:03.100] of records and information they have
[40:03.100 --> 40:05.100] because a lot of times
[40:05.100 --> 40:07.100] the prosecutor's going to say okay
[40:07.100 --> 40:09.100] I'll let you look at my file
[40:09.100 --> 40:11.100] but did the prosecutor talk to the cops
[40:11.100 --> 40:13.100] no he probably didn't
[40:13.100 --> 40:15.100] did the prosecutor say give me all
[40:15.100 --> 40:17.100] like the video footage from your booking room
[40:17.100 --> 40:19.100] or whatever give me your
[40:19.100 --> 40:21.100] your time sheets for that day
[40:21.100 --> 40:23.100] probably not so
[40:23.100 --> 40:25.100] I would probably attack that one
[40:25.100 --> 40:27.100] with a FOIA request to the police department
[40:27.100 --> 40:29.100] see what they give you back
[40:29.100 --> 40:31.100] and remember think about evidence
[40:31.100 --> 40:33.100] that they would have like don't be afraid
[40:33.100 --> 40:35.100] to ask for their training records
[40:35.100 --> 40:37.100] you know any audio any video
[40:37.100 --> 40:39.100] any time sheets they have
[40:39.100 --> 40:41.100] like for example often so
[40:41.100 --> 40:43.100] officers so-and-so allegedly arrested me
[40:43.100 --> 40:45.100] at like say 501pm
[40:45.100 --> 40:47.100] well where was he
[40:47.100 --> 40:49.100] that day does he have any time sheets
[40:49.100 --> 40:51.100] who was with him who in the department
[40:51.100 --> 40:53.100] saw him going where he was going
[40:53.100 --> 40:55.100] which cruiser was he driving
[40:55.100 --> 40:57.100] you can get really creative with that
[40:57.100 --> 40:59.100] but I would probably start with a FOIA request
[40:59.100 --> 41:01.100] to the police department
[41:01.100 --> 41:03.100] and I would also at the same time I did that
[41:03.100 --> 41:05.100] file like
[41:05.100 --> 41:07.100] you know some kind of a brady motion
[41:07.100 --> 41:09.100] with a prosecutor that asked for exculpatory evidence
[41:09.100 --> 41:11.100] so if you attack them both
[41:11.100 --> 41:13.100] at the same time like that
[41:13.100 --> 41:15.100] and you find a difference
[41:15.100 --> 41:17.100] in between what the prosecutor comes up
[41:17.100 --> 41:19.100] with and what the police department
[41:19.100 --> 41:21.100] comes up with then life is going to
[41:21.100 --> 41:23.100] get very interesting
[41:25.100 --> 41:27.100] you said it happens
[41:27.100 --> 41:29.100] it happens
[41:29.100 --> 41:31.100] you said it was called the FOIA request
[41:31.100 --> 41:33.100] yeah freedom of information
[41:33.100 --> 41:35.100] act request you can look at
[41:35.100 --> 41:37.100] Connecticut general statutes
[41:37.100 --> 41:39.100] 1-200
[41:39.100 --> 41:41.100] 1-200
[41:41.100 --> 41:43.100] alright yeah I
[41:43.100 --> 41:45.100] yeah
[41:45.100 --> 41:47.100] okay so the way I argue
[41:47.100 --> 41:49.100] it was that
[41:49.100 --> 41:51.100] on the order that was
[41:51.100 --> 41:53.100] that was signed
[41:53.100 --> 41:55.100] it says that
[41:55.100 --> 41:57.100] it has to be a probable cause
[41:57.100 --> 41:59.100] to termination
[42:03.100 --> 42:05.100] this is not true
[42:05.100 --> 42:07.100] and
[42:07.100 --> 42:09.100] they never filed a police report
[42:09.100 --> 42:11.100] up until
[42:11.100 --> 42:13.100] wait Misha
[42:13.100 --> 42:15.100] you are breaking up really bad
[42:15.100 --> 42:17.100] I'm losing you
[42:17.100 --> 42:19.100] I'm sorry hold on
[42:19.100 --> 42:21.100] is that better
[42:21.100 --> 42:23.100] that sounds a little better
[42:23.100 --> 42:25.100] alright
[42:25.100 --> 42:27.100] I
[42:27.100 --> 42:29.100] argued that
[42:29.100 --> 42:31.100] the competency evaluation wasn't
[42:31.100 --> 42:33.100] it was void
[42:33.100 --> 42:35.100] considering there was no probable cause
[42:35.100 --> 42:37.100] of termination and in the statutes
[42:37.100 --> 42:39.100] specifically says that
[42:39.100 --> 42:41.100] for the order
[42:41.100 --> 42:43.100] for the court to be able to make the order
[42:43.100 --> 42:45.100] they have to have probable cause
[42:45.100 --> 42:47.100] for the termination of probable cause
[42:47.100 --> 42:49.100] which they didn't have
[42:49.100 --> 42:51.100] and basically
[42:51.100 --> 42:53.100] now I have a question
[42:53.100 --> 42:55.100] how did the competency evaluation
[42:55.100 --> 42:57.100] turn out did they deem you competent after
[42:57.100 --> 42:59.100] or did they not
[42:59.100 --> 43:01.100] no they
[43:01.100 --> 43:03.100] they cancelled the
[43:03.100 --> 43:05.100] or they suspended the evaluation
[43:05.100 --> 43:07.100] because I only showed up for
[43:07.100 --> 43:09.100] the first one
[43:09.100 --> 43:11.100] and then all of a sudden I got a letter
[43:11.100 --> 43:13.100] that I had to come in again
[43:13.100 --> 43:15.100] but I had to go to that
[43:15.100 --> 43:17.100] and from what you were saying earlier
[43:17.100 --> 43:19.100] it sounds like they had a capious
[43:19.100 --> 43:21.100] issued
[43:21.100 --> 43:23.100] a capious issue
[43:23.100 --> 43:25.100] warrant
[43:25.100 --> 43:27.100] basically they had a warrant
[43:27.100 --> 43:29.100] it sounds like they had a warrant issued
[43:29.100 --> 43:31.100] for your arrest because you didn't show up
[43:31.100 --> 43:33.100] to this thing
[43:33.100 --> 43:35.100] honestly I
[43:35.100 --> 43:37.100] hold on
[43:37.100 --> 43:39.100] we're about to go to break
[43:39.100 --> 43:41.100] this is Randy Kelton
[43:41.100 --> 43:43.100] Debra Stephens Eddie Craig
[43:43.100 --> 43:45.100] I call in number
[43:45.100 --> 43:47.100] 512-646-1984
[43:47.100 --> 43:49.100] we'll be
[43:49.100 --> 43:51.100] right back on the other side
[43:51.100 --> 43:53.100] Tom and Tony
[43:53.100 --> 43:55.100] I'll see you there
[43:55.100 --> 44:19.100] pick you up when we get back
[44:25.100 --> 44:27.100] we'll be back
[44:55.100 --> 44:57.100] come on Facebook at Zombie Killers LLC
[44:57.100 --> 44:59.100] contest ends February 28
[45:01.100 --> 45:03.100] are you the plaintiff or defendant
[45:03.100 --> 45:05.100] in a lawsuit?
[45:05.100 --> 45:07.100] win your case without an attorney
[45:07.100 --> 45:09.100] with Jurisdictionary
[45:09.100 --> 45:11.100] the affordable easy to understand
[45:11.100 --> 45:13.100] for CD course that will show you how
[45:13.100 --> 45:15.100] in 24 hours
[45:15.100 --> 45:17.100] step by step
[45:17.100 --> 45:19.100] if you have a lawyer know what your lawyer should be doing
[45:19.100 --> 45:21.100] if you don't have a lawyer
[45:21.100 --> 45:23.100] know what you should do for yourself
[45:23.100 --> 45:25.100] thousands have won with our step by step
[45:25.100 --> 45:27.100] course and now you can too
[45:27.100 --> 45:29.100] Jurisdictionary was created
[45:29.100 --> 45:31.100] by a licensed attorney
[45:31.100 --> 45:33.100] with 22 years of case winning
[45:33.100 --> 45:35.100] experience
[45:35.100 --> 45:37.100] even if you're not in a lawsuit
[45:37.100 --> 45:39.100] you can learn what everyone should understand
[45:39.100 --> 45:41.100] about the principles and practices
[45:41.100 --> 45:43.100] that control our American courts
[45:43.100 --> 45:45.100] you'll receive our audio classroom
[45:45.100 --> 45:47.100] video seminar
[45:47.100 --> 45:49.100] tutorials
[45:49.100 --> 45:51.100] forms for civil cases
[45:51.100 --> 45:53.100] and much more
[45:53.100 --> 45:55.100] please visit ruleoflawradio.com
[45:55.100 --> 45:57.100] and click on the banner
[45:57.100 --> 45:59.100] or call toll-free 866
[45:59.100 --> 46:23.100] law easy
[46:23.100 --> 46:25.100] yeah
[46:25.100 --> 46:27.100] always I must be careful
[46:27.100 --> 46:29.100] what I'm wishing for
[46:29.100 --> 46:31.100] when I'm hungry
[46:31.100 --> 46:33.100] I'd like to know just
[46:33.100 --> 46:35.100] what I'm wishing for
[46:35.100 --> 46:37.100] I ain't asking for much
[46:37.100 --> 46:39.100] I ain't trying to be no
[46:39.100 --> 46:41.100] but
[46:41.100 --> 46:43.100] I'm just still making my
[46:43.100 --> 46:45.100] little bit pushing buttons
[46:47.100 --> 46:49.100] I'll get my message out
[46:49.100 --> 46:51.100] do anyone in a shouting distance
[46:51.100 --> 46:53.100] a vote for bravery
[46:53.100 --> 46:55.100] and against slavery
[46:55.100 --> 46:57.100] okay
[46:57.100 --> 46:59.100] a little too soon
[46:59.100 --> 47:01.100] okay we are back
[47:01.100 --> 47:03.100] Randy Kelton
[47:03.100 --> 47:05.100] then Steve and Danny Craig
[47:05.100 --> 47:07.100] we're talking to Dan
[47:07.100 --> 47:09.100] I'm sorry we're not talking to Dan
[47:09.100 --> 47:11.100] Dan's our special guest
[47:11.100 --> 47:13.100] nobody wants to talk to me
[47:13.100 --> 47:15.100] we're talking to Misha
[47:15.100 --> 47:17.100] in Connecticut
[47:19.100 --> 47:21.100] we were talking about this on the break
[47:21.100 --> 47:23.100] and we both agreed
[47:23.100 --> 47:25.100] you should go to the
[47:25.100 --> 47:27.100] evaluation
[47:27.100 --> 47:29.100] being in jail really sucks
[47:31.100 --> 47:33.100] go ahead Dan
[47:33.100 --> 47:35.100] tell them what you said on the break
[47:35.100 --> 47:37.100] yeah I was kind of thinking about it
[47:37.100 --> 47:39.100] this way I mean
[47:39.100 --> 47:41.100] basically I'd say go to it
[47:41.100 --> 47:43.100] I mean I'm pretty sure
[47:43.100 --> 47:45.100] now that I remember that I've spoken to you
[47:45.100 --> 47:47.100] I doubt they're going to conclude that you are incompetent
[47:47.100 --> 47:49.100] it's just basically going to be
[47:49.100 --> 47:51.100] I suspect
[47:51.100 --> 47:53.100] embarrassing and just
[47:53.100 --> 47:55.100] a complete waste of time on their part
[47:55.100 --> 47:57.100] but they do this as a matter of having
[47:57.100 --> 47:59.100] here but I would say if it went
[47:59.100 --> 48:01.100] bad I would be very interested
[48:01.100 --> 48:03.100] to see somebody file an appeal
[48:03.100 --> 48:05.100] of that because realistically
[48:05.100 --> 48:07.100] if somebody determines that you're
[48:07.100 --> 48:09.100] incompetent to like defend yourself
[48:09.100 --> 48:11.100] or participate in your own defense
[48:11.100 --> 48:13.100] I mean that would effectively
[48:13.100 --> 48:15.100] be at least in my mind with all the
[48:15.100 --> 48:17.100] disclaimers you know that the network has
[48:17.100 --> 48:19.100] here a final judgment
[48:19.100 --> 48:21.100] and it would
[48:21.100 --> 48:23.100] you want to look at a case called
[48:23.100 --> 48:25.100] state v. Curcio if you think about
[48:25.100 --> 48:27.100] doing this but in state
[48:27.100 --> 48:29.100] v. Curcio they actually set forth
[48:29.100 --> 48:31.100] the different prongs for
[48:31.100 --> 48:33.100] when can you appeal
[48:33.100 --> 48:35.100] an interlocutory judgment if that
[48:35.100 --> 48:37.100] makes any sense
[48:39.100 --> 48:41.100] do you know what an interlocutory
[48:41.100 --> 48:43.100] judgment is Misha
[48:43.100 --> 48:45.100] an inauguratory
[48:45.100 --> 48:47.100] no no
[48:47.100 --> 48:49.100] interlocutory judgment
[48:49.100 --> 48:51.100] is basically a determination
[48:51.100 --> 48:53.100] by the court prior
[48:53.100 --> 48:55.100] to you know the determination
[48:55.100 --> 48:57.100] of the whole case like for example
[48:57.100 --> 48:59.100] you know somebody rules
[48:59.100 --> 49:01.100] on a discovery motion it's an
[49:01.100 --> 49:03.100] interlocutory judgment
[49:03.100 --> 49:05.100] you know somebody rules on a motion to
[49:05.100 --> 49:07.100] compel or something like that you know
[49:07.100 --> 49:09.100] something in between like the start
[49:09.100 --> 49:11.100] of the case and before a final judgment
[49:11.100 --> 49:13.100] you know
[49:13.100 --> 49:15.100] many summary judgments are
[49:15.100 --> 49:17.100] interlocutory nature like with a foreclosure
[49:17.100 --> 49:19.100] a lot of the banks will move
[49:19.100 --> 49:21.100] for you know motion for summary judgment
[49:21.100 --> 49:23.100] it's a liability only it's interlocutory
[49:23.100 --> 49:25.100] because even if they've
[49:25.100 --> 49:27.100] ruled you're just liable for it
[49:27.100 --> 49:29.100] the whole case isn't over there are
[49:29.100 --> 49:31.100] different things that have to happen yet
[49:31.100 --> 49:33.100] foreclosure hadn't been awarded yet
[49:33.100 --> 49:35.100] so what I'd say is I'd
[49:35.100 --> 49:37.100] go and
[49:37.100 --> 49:39.100] I would be honestly very surprised
[49:39.100 --> 49:41.100] if you
[49:41.100 --> 49:43.100] what's the better term for this failed
[49:43.100 --> 49:45.100] evaluation but in the event
[49:45.100 --> 49:47.100] you did I'd be very interested in seeing
[49:47.100 --> 49:49.100] you know
[49:49.100 --> 49:51.100] what would happen if somebody appealed
[49:51.100 --> 49:53.100] it
[49:53.100 --> 49:55.100] okay and what did you say
[49:55.100 --> 49:57.100] that the case
[49:57.100 --> 49:59.100] was called against state versus state
[49:59.100 --> 50:01.100] v. Curcio
[50:01.100 --> 50:03.100] C-U-R-C-I-O
[50:03.100 --> 50:05.100] C-U-R-C-I-O
[50:07.100 --> 50:09.100] yes state v. Curcio it has to
[50:09.100 --> 50:11.100] do with appealing interlocutory judgments
[50:11.100 --> 50:13.100] I would probably read
[50:13.100 --> 50:15.100] that if you were even
[50:15.100 --> 50:17.100] thinking about like taking that
[50:17.100 --> 50:19.100] course of action just to be familiar with it
[50:19.100 --> 50:21.100] but it does set forth
[50:21.100 --> 50:23.100] you know the criteria
[50:23.100 --> 50:25.100] of you know different types
[50:25.100 --> 50:27.100] of judgments you can appeal
[50:27.100 --> 50:29.100] before there is a final judgment in the case
[50:31.100 --> 50:33.100] alright
[50:33.100 --> 50:35.100] also
[50:35.100 --> 50:37.100] the
[50:37.100 --> 50:39.100] what else
[50:39.100 --> 50:41.100] I also brought this up at
[50:41.100 --> 50:43.100] the hearing I said
[50:43.100 --> 50:45.100] that
[50:45.100 --> 50:47.100] the evaluation was never
[50:47.100 --> 50:49.100] should have never been ordered
[50:49.100 --> 50:51.100] because there was no probable cause determination
[50:51.100 --> 50:53.100] and
[50:53.100 --> 50:55.100] there's no way that they could have been into
[50:55.100 --> 50:57.100] determination because there's no facts entered into the record
[50:57.100 --> 50:59.100] and then basically
[50:59.100 --> 51:01.100] they kicked me out
[51:01.100 --> 51:03.100] of the courtroom and recessed it
[51:03.100 --> 51:05.100] and what they did
[51:05.100 --> 51:07.100] was they went ahead and filed the police reports
[51:07.100 --> 51:09.100] and
[51:09.100 --> 51:11.100] then they did a probable cause
[51:11.100 --> 51:13.100] determination when they came back
[51:13.100 --> 51:15.100] but they never gave me a copy of the report
[51:15.100 --> 51:17.100] or one of the report I have
[51:17.100 --> 51:19.100] I have one of them
[51:19.100 --> 51:21.100] well no I have both of them but
[51:21.100 --> 51:23.100] one of the reports
[51:23.100 --> 51:25.100] is not verified
[51:25.100 --> 51:27.100] it's not not notarized
[51:27.100 --> 51:29.100] and it's not like it's not verified by a supervisor
[51:29.100 --> 51:31.100] or anyone there's only one signature on there
[51:31.100 --> 51:33.100] it's probably a substitute information
[51:33.100 --> 51:35.100] is that what it says
[51:35.100 --> 51:37.100] no it's a police report
[51:37.100 --> 51:39.100] oh ok yeah I just wanted to make sure
[51:39.100 --> 51:41.100] because a lot of times what they'll do
[51:41.100 --> 51:43.100] is they'll have the original like complainer
[51:43.100 --> 51:45.100] information they'll file a substitute
[51:45.100 --> 51:47.100] information
[51:47.100 --> 51:49.100] what I would probably do
[51:49.100 --> 51:51.100] I mean it sounds like
[51:51.100 --> 51:53.100] this is a little complex I'm probably
[51:53.100 --> 51:55.100] sure you know it would take a lot of time
[51:55.100 --> 51:57.100] to go through
[51:57.100 --> 51:59.100] but when I get resituated in the week or two
[51:59.100 --> 52:01.100] I'd like to do that with you
[52:01.100 --> 52:03.100] but what I would say is go look up
[52:03.100 --> 52:05.100] Curcio
[52:05.100 --> 52:07.100] and at the same time I'd probably say
[52:07.100 --> 52:09.100] go renew your discovery request
[52:09.100 --> 52:11.100] except add in
[52:11.100 --> 52:13.100] exculpatory evidence
[52:13.100 --> 52:15.100] and I would also go look at Connecticut
[52:15.100 --> 52:17.100] practice book 10-40
[52:17.100 --> 52:19.100] you know
[52:19.100 --> 52:21.100] 45
[52:21.100 --> 52:23.100] as
[52:23.100 --> 52:25.100] to the lack of
[52:25.100 --> 52:27.100] verification
[52:27.100 --> 52:29.100] of the affidavit by the officer
[52:29.100 --> 52:31.100] there is probably
[52:31.100 --> 52:33.100] case law in Connecticut
[52:33.100 --> 52:35.100] as there is in most other places
[52:35.100 --> 52:37.100] that
[52:37.100 --> 52:39.100] when a police
[52:39.100 --> 52:41.100] officer files a report
[52:41.100 --> 52:43.100] it is construed to be
[52:43.100 --> 52:45.100] filed under oath
[52:45.100 --> 52:47.100] the acknowledgement the notary
[52:47.100 --> 52:49.100] is merely
[52:49.100 --> 52:51.100] for the purpose of determining
[52:51.100 --> 52:53.100] for certain the identity
[52:53.100 --> 52:55.100] of the person
[52:55.100 --> 52:57.100] signing the document and in this case
[52:57.100 --> 52:59.100] the identity is not in question
[52:59.100 --> 53:01.100] the courts
[53:01.100 --> 53:03.100] will generally accept those
[53:03.100 --> 53:05.100] filings as if they are
[53:05.100 --> 53:07.100] sufficient
[53:07.100 --> 53:09.100] to meet the filing requirements
[53:09.100 --> 53:11.100] and thereby they are filed under oath
[53:11.100 --> 53:13.100] I don't think you'd get anywhere
[53:13.100 --> 53:15.100] arguing that issue
[53:15.100 --> 53:17.100] what about
[53:17.100 --> 53:19.100] if they're not even time and date stamped
[53:19.100 --> 53:21.100] they're not like
[53:21.100 --> 53:23.100] actually filed up record
[53:23.100 --> 53:25.100] that's
[53:25.100 --> 53:27.100] different Dan can you address that
[53:27.100 --> 53:29.100] I don't know
[53:29.100 --> 53:31.100] it's kind of hard to
[53:31.100 --> 53:33.100] really say much of me because I don't have
[53:33.100 --> 53:35.100] like everything you have in front of me
[53:35.100 --> 53:37.100] but
[53:37.100 --> 53:39.100] what I can say is there is usually
[53:39.100 --> 53:41.100] there would have to be an information
[53:41.100 --> 53:43.100] in the prosecutor's file
[53:43.100 --> 53:45.100] what I would probably do
[53:45.100 --> 53:47.100] is you know
[53:47.100 --> 53:49.100] when you go ahead and you
[53:49.100 --> 53:51.100] file a new discovery request except
[53:51.100 --> 53:53.100] with the sculptory information I probably just ask
[53:53.100 --> 53:55.100] like you know
[53:55.100 --> 53:57.100] copy your whole file and send it over
[53:57.100 --> 53:59.100] while you're at it just to see exactly
[53:59.100 --> 54:01.100] what they're looking at
[54:01.100 --> 54:03.100] and now we'd probably answer
[54:03.100 --> 54:05.100] you know what's going on
[54:05.100 --> 54:07.100] I mean have you seen their entire
[54:07.100 --> 54:09.100] file
[54:09.100 --> 54:11.100] no I haven't but in the informal
[54:11.100 --> 54:13.100] discovery that I sent
[54:13.100 --> 54:15.100] it was recent it was like
[54:15.100 --> 54:17.100] with
[54:17.100 --> 54:19.100] I think I sent it like last month
[54:19.100 --> 54:21.100] but I mean I asked for everything
[54:21.100 --> 54:23.100] I asked for like a copy
[54:23.100 --> 54:25.100] of the valid cause of action
[54:25.100 --> 54:27.100] I mean it was 10 pages long
[54:27.100 --> 54:29.100] and you know I asked for the
[54:29.100 --> 54:31.100] witnesses the video footage
[54:31.100 --> 54:33.100] kind of for everything that I could have
[54:33.100 --> 54:35.100] and but what they did was
[54:35.100 --> 54:37.100] when they ordered the competency evaluation
[54:37.100 --> 54:39.100] and I went in for a motion hearing
[54:39.100 --> 54:41.100] because I had all these motions
[54:41.100 --> 54:43.100] to vacate the hearing and all this stuff
[54:43.100 --> 54:45.100] what they wouldn't hear
[54:45.100 --> 54:47.100] and so they
[54:47.100 --> 54:49.100] got a
[54:49.100 --> 54:51.100] got a response back of my
[54:51.100 --> 54:53.100] competency from the
[54:53.100 --> 54:55.100] from the evaluators
[54:55.100 --> 54:57.100] and they said there's nothing to rule upon any motion
[54:57.100 --> 54:59.100] until they find out whether or not
[54:59.100 --> 55:01.100] I'm competent and you know
[55:01.100 --> 55:03.100] the judge went off on some BS
[55:03.100 --> 55:05.100] like saying well you know if you're not confident
[55:05.100 --> 55:07.100] and I'm not saying you're not but
[55:07.100 --> 55:09.100] if you're not then it'd be a waste of
[55:09.100 --> 55:11.100] everyone's time and blah blah blah
[55:11.100 --> 55:13.100] and they won't hear
[55:13.100 --> 55:15.100] any of my motions
[55:15.100 --> 55:17.100] that's exactly
[55:17.100 --> 55:19.100] why they do that they would rather
[55:19.100 --> 55:21.100] not deal with it I mean because
[55:21.100 --> 55:23.100] I think the judge is hoping that you're ruled incompetent
[55:23.100 --> 55:25.100] just so he doesn't have to deal with us
[55:25.100 --> 55:27.100] Did you file a judicial
[55:27.100 --> 55:29.100] conduct complaint against the judge?
[55:29.100 --> 55:31.100] Yes
[55:31.100 --> 55:33.100] Good. What about the
[55:33.100 --> 55:35.100] prosecutor?
[55:35.100 --> 55:37.100] If you requested all of the
[55:37.100 --> 55:39.100] records that the prosecutor had
[55:39.100 --> 55:41.100] and the prosecutor failed
[55:41.100 --> 55:43.100] to produce that
[55:43.100 --> 55:45.100] according to the American Bar Association
[55:45.100 --> 55:47.100] model standards for the prosecutorial
[55:47.100 --> 55:49.100] function that is
[55:49.100 --> 55:51.100] construed as an ethical conduct
[55:51.100 --> 55:53.100] I brought this in court too
[55:53.100 --> 55:55.100] I bring that
[55:55.100 --> 55:57.100] I bring that exact thing up in court every single time
[55:57.100 --> 55:59.100] I always say
[55:59.100 --> 56:01.100] In court doesn't okay you gotta understand
[56:01.100 --> 56:03.100] in court you're in the den of thieves
[56:03.100 --> 56:05.100] Bar
[56:05.100 --> 56:07.100] in the state bar is gonna cost
[56:07.100 --> 56:09.100] them more
[56:09.100 --> 56:11.100] to bond this lawyer
[56:13.100 --> 56:15.100] It's always about the money follow
[56:15.100 --> 56:17.100] the bar grievance against him
[56:17.100 --> 56:19.100] I did that too
[56:19.100 --> 56:21.100] Oh good
[56:21.100 --> 56:23.100] File another one file one every time he squeaks
[56:23.100 --> 56:25.100] and
[56:25.100 --> 56:27.100] which gives me
[56:27.100 --> 56:29.100] a nice segue
[56:29.100 --> 56:31.100] I have the final documents
[56:31.100 --> 56:33.100] we've had to redo
[56:33.100 --> 56:35.100] a bar grievance.net several times
[56:35.100 --> 56:37.100] to get it right we will have
[56:37.100 --> 56:39.100] we should have it up Monday
[56:39.100 --> 56:41.100] up and working
[56:41.100 --> 56:43.100] American Bar Association model standards
[56:43.100 --> 56:45.100] and the standards for the prosecutorial
[56:45.100 --> 56:47.100] function
[56:47.100 --> 56:49.100] at long last
[56:49.100 --> 56:51.100] Okay
[56:51.100 --> 56:53.100] Okay do you have anything else for us
[56:53.100 --> 56:55.100] Misha?
[56:55.100 --> 56:57.100] Yes just one more thing
[56:57.100 --> 56:59.100] I filed criminal charges on these guys
[56:59.100 --> 57:01.100] and I sent it to the federal prosecutor
[57:01.100 --> 57:03.100] or well I filed a criminal affidavit
[57:03.100 --> 57:05.100] and I
[57:05.100 --> 57:07.100] faxed it to the criminal prosecutor
[57:07.100 --> 57:09.100] to forward to the grand jury
[57:09.100 --> 57:11.100] and I never got a response
[57:11.100 --> 57:13.100] Well that's because
[57:13.100 --> 57:15.100] you sent him to the prosecutor
[57:15.100 --> 57:17.100] you should have sent him to the grand jury
[57:17.100 --> 57:19.100] registered restricted
[57:19.100 --> 57:21.100] and
[57:21.100 --> 57:23.100] needed to be a letter
[57:23.100 --> 57:25.100] a cover letter in there
[57:25.100 --> 57:27.100] addressed to the foreman of the grand jury
[57:27.100 --> 57:29.100] so you might want to send another one
[57:29.100 --> 57:31.100] to the foreman of the grand jury
[57:31.100 --> 57:33.100] requesting that the foreman
[57:33.100 --> 57:35.100] initial this document
[57:35.100 --> 57:37.100] and return it to you in the enclosed
[57:37.100 --> 57:39.100] stamp self-addressed envelope
[57:39.100 --> 57:41.100] so that you will know that he actually
[57:41.100 --> 57:43.100] received it but ask him
[57:43.100 --> 57:45.100] please do not sign it
[57:45.100 --> 57:47.100] only initial it
[57:47.100 --> 57:49.100] as the U.S. Attorney has a
[57:49.100 --> 57:51.100] stamp rubber stamp with your name on it
[57:51.100 --> 57:53.100] that he uses to stamp
[57:53.100 --> 57:55.100] superseding indictments
[57:55.100 --> 57:57.100] and we want to make sure the
[57:57.100 --> 57:59.100] U.S. Attorney doesn't
[57:59.100 --> 58:01.100] stamp your name on it
[58:01.100 --> 58:03.100] that'll make him real unhappy
[58:03.100 --> 58:05.100] but send it back
[58:05.100 --> 58:07.100] and then there's a whole routine
[58:07.100 --> 58:09.100] of time to go through tonight
[58:09.100 --> 58:11.100] on how to handle
[58:11.100 --> 58:13.100] the U.S. Attorney maybe we can talk about that
[58:13.100 --> 58:15.100] next Friday at the beginning
[58:15.100 --> 58:17.100] if you're calling early
[58:17.100 --> 58:19.100] we will talk about
[58:19.100 --> 58:21.100] how to run the routine on a U.S. Attorney
[58:21.100 --> 58:23.100] when
[58:23.100 --> 58:25.100] you send it to the foreman
[58:25.100 --> 58:27.100] and you don't get the letter back
[58:27.100 --> 58:29.100] then you assume
[58:29.100 --> 58:31.100] that the foreman didn't get it and someone interfered
[58:31.100 --> 58:33.100] with the U.S. mail and you file that on U.S. Attorney
[58:33.100 --> 58:35.100] okay
[58:35.100 --> 58:37.100] in my case.
[58:37.100 --> 58:38.540] We're having to count
[58:38.540 --> 58:40.100] and devil's Stephen
[58:40.100 --> 58:42.100] Eddie Craig move on radio Tom
[58:42.100 --> 58:44.100] of the U.S. Attorney
[58:44.100 --> 58:46.100] and we will take you when we get back on the other
[58:46.100 --> 58:48.100] side.
[58:48.100 --> 58:50.100] We really need to move along
[58:50.100 --> 58:52.100] our calling at number 512-646-1984
[58:52.100 --> 58:54.100] we'll be right back.
[58:54.100 --> 58:57.100] Would you like to make more definite
[58:57.100 --> 58:59.100] progress in your walk with God
[58:59.100 --> 59:01.100] Bibles for America is
[59:01.100 --> 59:03.100] offering a free study Bible
[59:03.100 --> 59:08.020] the most comprehensive study Bibles available today. It's an accurate translation and it
[59:08.020 --> 59:12.420] contains thousands of footnotes that will help you to know God and to know the meaning
[59:12.420 --> 59:13.580] of life.
[59:13.580 --> 59:18.860] The free books are a three-volume set called Basic Elements of the Christian Life. Chapter
[59:18.860 --> 59:24.460] by chapter, Basic Elements of the Christian Life clearly presents God's plan of salvation,
[59:24.460 --> 59:30.100] growing in Christ and how to build up the church. To order your free New Testament recovery
[59:30.100 --> 59:36.700] version and Basic Elements of the Christian Life, call Bibles for America toll free at
[59:36.700 --> 59:49.460] 888-551-0102. That's 888-551-0102. Or visit us online at bfa.org.
[59:49.460 --> 01:00:03.860] You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at www.logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:03.860 --> 01:00:10.260] You're listening to the Liberty Beats, your daily source for Liberty News and activist
[01:00:10.260 --> 01:00:15.460] updates online at thelibertybeat.com.
[01:00:15.460 --> 01:00:23.780] John Bush here with your Liberty Beats for February 22, 2013. Gold open today at $1571.
[01:00:23.780 --> 01:00:30.900] Silver at $28.70 and Bitcoin is trading at $31.24. Today's edition of the Liberty Beat
[01:00:30.900 --> 01:00:36.140] is sponsored by Voice and Exit. Conference in Austin taking place March 9th exploring
[01:00:36.140 --> 01:00:42.740] social entrepreneurship and radical community. Tickets and information online at voiceandexit.com.
[01:00:42.740 --> 01:00:49.460] And now the news. A U.S. Senator has said an estimated 4,700 people, including some civilians,
[01:00:49.460 --> 01:00:53.860] have been killed in the contentious bombing raids of America's secretive drone war. It
[01:00:53.860 --> 01:00:58.180] was the first time a politician or any government representative had referred to a total number
[01:00:58.180 --> 01:01:02.860] of fatalities in the drone strikes, which had been condemned by rights groups as extra
[01:01:02.860 --> 01:01:08.260] judicial assassinations. The toll from hundreds of drone-launched missile strikes against suspected
[01:01:08.260 --> 01:01:13.100] al-Qaeda militants in Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere has remained a mystery as U.S. officials
[01:01:13.100 --> 01:01:18.140] refused to publicly discuss any details of the covert campaign.
[01:01:18.140 --> 01:01:23.580] In 2008, President Barack Obama made statements regarding a, quote, civilian national security
[01:01:23.580 --> 01:01:27.940] force. Since that day, many have been curious as to what President Obama had in mind when
[01:01:27.940 --> 01:01:32.740] he made that statement. Representative Charles Rangel may have just given a bit of insight
[01:01:32.740 --> 01:01:39.020] into what he meant when he introduced HR748 last week. HR748 would require all persons
[01:01:39.020 --> 01:01:43.860] in the United States between the ages of 18 and 25 to perform national service. These
[01:01:43.860 --> 01:01:48.300] persons in the United States would either serve the country as a member of uniform services
[01:01:48.300 --> 01:01:52.860] or as a civilian service. The civilian service could be served with a federal, state, or
[01:01:52.860 --> 01:01:58.300] local government program. Local government programs include community-based organizations.
[01:01:58.300 --> 01:02:03.100] An Illinois state representative has introduced the Internet Posting Removal Act, which was
[01:02:03.100 --> 01:02:08.340] introduced February 13 by Illinois General Assembly veteran Iris Silverstein, a Democrat.
[01:02:08.340 --> 01:02:12.860] Here's a summary of the bill. The Act provides that a website administrator shall upon request
[01:02:12.860 --> 01:02:17.300] remove any posted comments posted by an anonymous poster unless the anonymous poster agrees
[01:02:17.300 --> 01:02:21.660] to attach his or her name to the post and confirm that his or her IP address, legal
[01:02:21.660 --> 01:02:27.740] name, and home address are accurate. Privacy advocates are protesting the measure.
[01:02:27.740 --> 01:02:31.780] Consumers of a task force proposing regulations for recreational marijuana in Colorado approved
[01:02:31.780 --> 01:02:36.540] recommendations Tuesday that would allow for marijuana tourism but block out-of-state
[01:02:36.540 --> 01:02:44.540] pot shop owners. Today's edition of the Liberty Beat is sponsored by Central Texas Gun Works,
[01:02:44.540 --> 01:02:51.180] CHL courses, and firearm sales. Online at centraltexasgunworks.com and by Brave New Books,
[01:02:51.180 --> 01:02:58.180] free thinking materials for free people since 2006, online at bravenewbooksstore.com.
[01:03:21.180 --> 01:03:28.180] Thank you.
[01:03:51.180 --> 01:04:00.060] Okay, we are back. Brandy Kelton with Dan Reel. We're taking calls. We're going to
[01:04:00.060 --> 01:04:06.180] Tom in Texas. Tom, you have a question or comment for us.
[01:04:06.180 --> 01:04:09.180] Yes, gentlemen. Good evening. Good evening.
[01:04:09.180 --> 01:04:18.340] Thank you for short. I bought a house, an O2, the building company financed it, financed
[01:04:18.340 --> 01:04:23.460] my buying of it. They told me during the process they would sell the note to a giant bank which
[01:04:23.460 --> 01:04:28.060] they did. They sold the note to Wells Fargo and I've been paying Wells Fargo ever since.
[01:04:28.060 --> 01:04:33.660] I'm one of those fortunate guys that have been able to pay my mortgage. However, I have
[01:04:33.660 --> 01:04:40.780] an opportunity to refinance through my credit union and my question is, I guess I could
[01:04:40.780 --> 01:04:47.620] do that or would I lose the opportunity to eventually get quiet title if the Camille
[01:04:47.620 --> 01:04:53.740] Reel. That wouldn't affect your claim against the original mortgage company Oneiota.
[01:04:53.740 --> 01:05:00.740] I could refinance and still have an opportunity to maybe one day do quiet title.
[01:05:00.740 --> 01:05:06.740] Okay, you're kind of fading in and out. Oh, quiet title.
[01:05:06.740 --> 01:05:14.420] My question is, should I ever move towards quiet title? Do I jeopardize that if I refinance?
[01:05:14.420 --> 01:05:18.860] That's a really good question. Thank you.
[01:05:18.860 --> 01:05:28.820] You may be, yes, I believe you reasonably and I'm not a lawyer, but I have looked at
[01:05:28.820 --> 01:05:39.860] this a lot. Reasonable, I would say yes. Now, you would not lose your claim against the
[01:05:39.860 --> 01:05:47.780] original lender for any fraud they committed. However, if you refinance with a different
[01:05:47.780 --> 01:05:59.980] company, yes, then they will put up funds in good faith and ask you to pledge the title
[01:05:59.980 --> 01:06:09.340] to them. Now, because somebody else committed fraud doesn't in any way implicate this company
[01:06:09.340 --> 01:06:15.580] and if they give funds to Wells Fargo and Wells Fargo releases their claim and then
[01:06:15.580 --> 01:06:20.940] these guys file a claim, any claim you had against Wells Fargo is separate from this
[01:06:20.940 --> 01:06:31.380] one. I can't see you're having any claim against as goes to quiet title. But you would have
[01:06:31.380 --> 01:06:36.580] a claim, any claim you had against Wells Fargo, you would still have.
[01:06:36.580 --> 01:06:42.900] I wish you would have. What is the nature of quiet title that you're
[01:06:42.900 --> 01:06:47.380] going after? Well, I would want to eventually do that
[01:06:47.380 --> 01:06:53.420] if things goes sour and I can't pay the loan is what I'm thinking. I don't think I want
[01:06:53.420 --> 01:06:58.700] to. Okay, in that case, you're strictly dealing
[01:06:58.700 --> 01:07:10.660] with the newly financed company. And they've gotten a lot better at things. The newer notes
[01:07:10.660 --> 01:07:17.780] I've seen are really well done. I've got one that was done in 2012 and a friend of mine
[01:07:17.780 --> 01:07:24.100] in Austin and man, I went through that thing backwards, forwards, upside down and sideways
[01:07:24.100 --> 01:07:31.020] and I could not find a way around it. They did their job right.
[01:07:31.020 --> 01:07:38.260] What if in the process of refinancing, we're trying to figure out who to pay the loan off
[01:07:38.260 --> 01:07:44.260] to? Like we could say, Wells Fargo, we need to know for sure you're the guys who get all
[01:07:44.260 --> 01:07:49.780] the money. Can you prove that? I have a question. Who is your servicer?
[01:07:49.780 --> 01:07:54.740] Wells Fargo. I don't know if they've sold the mortgage. I don't know if they've done
[01:07:54.740 --> 01:08:01.260] any of that stuff. I haven't done any research in that, but I'm just...
[01:08:01.260 --> 01:08:07.900] You can be sure Wells Fargo does not hold note. They're just servicing it.
[01:08:07.900 --> 01:08:14.820] They're just servicing the note. Okay. Good chance they are. Okay. Is MERS included
[01:08:14.820 --> 01:08:19.820] in your deed of trust? I definitely have a MERS identification number.
[01:08:19.820 --> 01:08:28.260] Okay. Did you look in the deed of trust itself? It would be about the fourth paragraph and
[01:08:28.260 --> 01:08:32.940] see if MERS is actually included in it. Yeah. I'll check that out.
[01:08:32.940 --> 01:08:38.460] Okay. The fact that it has a number that looks like a MERS identification number, it doesn't
[01:08:38.460 --> 01:08:45.580] necessarily... It's not dispositive. We'd have to look in it itself. But if you do, then
[01:08:45.580 --> 01:08:55.100] look at the signature page and see if the lender affirmed the appointment of MERS.
[01:08:55.100 --> 01:09:01.980] Mm-hmm. I'd give you a shot at... Quiett Total asked concerns the deed of trust.
[01:09:01.980 --> 01:09:10.780] Which I don't push for this just out of the blue. But could I put the board in the process
[01:09:10.780 --> 01:09:15.780] of refinancing? Yeah. If you refinance... Here, on who are you...
[01:09:15.780 --> 01:09:21.100] You won't have... Pay to see. Hmm? Wait, I couldn't understand that you...
[01:09:21.100 --> 01:09:26.380] I want you to know if in the process of refinancing is when we would discover that there's a clouded
[01:09:26.380 --> 01:09:32.380] title. There won't be a clouded title. Okay.
[01:09:32.380 --> 01:09:44.580] Okay. Because if Wells Fargo isn't... Okay, wait a minute. If... Is there a proper assignment
[01:09:44.580 --> 01:09:50.460] from the original lender to Wells Fargo? I'll have to find out.
[01:09:50.460 --> 01:09:58.180] Okay. Go pull all the records that are filed in the county recorder's office. Send a letter
[01:09:58.180 --> 01:10:07.540] to each company for whom there is a signature asking for power of attorney for that person
[01:10:07.540 --> 01:10:18.780] and a request to each notary to see if... To get evidence of acknowledgement on the document.
[01:10:18.780 --> 01:10:30.420] And then see who is assigning what to whom. Sometimes you'll find some really outrageous
[01:10:30.420 --> 01:10:35.260] errors in there. But that's about all we can say without actually looking at the documents.
[01:10:35.260 --> 01:10:39.260] Okay. Yeah, I see we do private consultations.
[01:10:39.260 --> 01:10:43.260] Okay. Thank you for calling. Now we're going to...
[01:10:43.260 --> 01:10:46.260] Thank you. Okay.
[01:10:46.260 --> 01:10:53.740] Okay. Looks like we lost Mary. Maybe she'll call back. Okay. We're going to go to Mike
[01:10:53.740 --> 01:10:56.740] in Connecticut. Hey.
[01:10:56.740 --> 01:11:03.300] Hello, Mike. You have something here for Dan. I want to say hi to Dan. I haven't talked
[01:11:03.300 --> 01:11:09.180] in a while. Yeah. A long time no hear. I was busy enjoying the Mayan calendar, which is
[01:11:09.180 --> 01:11:13.260] my life of late. So that's kind of why I dropped off the face of the earth without going into
[01:11:13.260 --> 01:11:19.940] too much gory detail. So how are you? Good. Well, actually, Randy, there was a guy that
[01:11:19.940 --> 01:11:24.500] called last week from Connecticut. He was talking about his brother that was incarcerated
[01:11:24.500 --> 01:11:32.500] in the mental ward because of confidence. That was Misha's brother. No. No. His name
[01:11:32.500 --> 01:11:38.300] was Steve, I think it was. Yeah. Well, Misha, who just called, I believe this is the same
[01:11:38.300 --> 01:11:43.340] case. No, it's not the same case. Different because I know... Oh, okay. They're working
[01:11:43.340 --> 01:11:49.060] with him, too. But I wanted to work with Steve, if he's available, because it's a common
[01:11:49.060 --> 01:11:55.660] issue in Connecticut. Somebody gets arrested and they're brought into court. The prosecutor
[01:11:55.660 --> 01:12:03.260] files an information, but it's never a determination of probable cause. And when the judge orders
[01:12:03.260 --> 01:12:09.140] a competency about, it's already written on the order that he found probable cause, but
[01:12:09.140 --> 01:12:16.060] the judge never has any facts before him to find probable cause. So in many cases, this
[01:12:16.060 --> 01:12:22.060] is why it was put... No. Okay, wait a minute. Wait a minute. If the judge found probable
[01:12:22.060 --> 01:12:32.380] cause with no facts, he tampered with a government document. That's criminal. Well, that's a
[01:12:32.380 --> 01:12:37.940] good point, because this is why this issue came up in the 80s, because there was a bunch
[01:12:37.940 --> 01:12:43.060] of people sitting in the mental ward that were accused of crimes, but there was never
[01:12:43.060 --> 01:12:48.660] a probable cause of termination. So they specifically put that in the statute because of that, and
[01:12:48.660 --> 01:12:54.660] they had to release all these people. It was the Angelus versus Black. They changed it.
[01:12:54.660 --> 01:13:02.660] You can't sue the judge for his shenanigans, but you can sure pursue him for prosecution.
[01:13:02.660 --> 01:13:09.300] And if you listen to our show, we go through the routine, and I'm sure Dan can tell you
[01:13:09.300 --> 01:13:15.100] how to run the routine in Connecticut. Dan?
[01:13:15.100 --> 01:13:23.300] Well, the unfortunate part about Connecticut is we do not have a grand jury system here
[01:13:23.300 --> 01:13:29.460] to run that particular routine on a bar, which is something that...
[01:13:29.460 --> 01:13:37.380] Let me address that. If you don't have a grand jury system, then you can still take this
[01:13:37.380 --> 01:13:48.180] on because you go to the difference between discretion and caprice. I had to craft this
[01:13:48.180 --> 01:13:54.460] in Pennsylvania because Pennsylvania didn't have an effective grand jury system either,
[01:13:54.460 --> 01:14:02.020] and the prosecuting attorney was given first blush opportunity to determine whether or
[01:14:02.020 --> 01:14:11.940] not there was sufficient evidence to prosecute. Now, he was given the authority to determine
[01:14:11.940 --> 01:14:20.420] whether or not there was sufficient evidence to prosecute. He was not given caprice in that
[01:14:20.420 --> 01:14:27.420] he did not have authority to decide who he wanted to prosecute and who he did not. So
[01:14:27.420 --> 01:14:37.540] if you give him hard facts that a reasonable person, ordinary prudence, would take to indicate
[01:14:37.540 --> 01:14:43.540] that a crime had been committed and this particular individual had committed the crime, and the
[01:14:43.540 --> 01:14:51.220] prosecutor refuses to act on it, I call that caprice, I call that Ms. Fiesensen office,
[01:14:51.220 --> 01:15:00.020] and efficient misconduct. Dan does the attorney general in Connecticut have prosecutorial
[01:15:00.020 --> 01:15:01.020] powers.
[01:15:01.020 --> 01:15:08.260] No, believe it or not, Connecticut is very unique in this respect where there's a different
[01:15:08.260 --> 01:15:14.140] prosecuting authorities, the chief state's attorney, that actually keep it separate.
[01:15:14.140 --> 01:15:17.500] The attorney general's authority is civil in Connecticut.
[01:15:17.500 --> 01:15:22.340] Okay, good. Then you have another authority for that purpose?
[01:15:22.340 --> 01:15:27.020] Yes, that would be the office of the chief state's attorney would deal with criminal
[01:15:27.020 --> 01:15:28.020] matters.
[01:15:28.020 --> 01:15:36.300] Okay, give him to refute, file against the prosecutor with him, and ask the prosecutor
[01:15:36.300 --> 01:15:45.940] to present the prosecuting attorney for Ms. Fiesensen office for failing to prosecute.
[01:15:45.940 --> 01:15:52.460] And it's going to kind of put him on the dime, and when he refuses to act, run the
[01:15:52.460 --> 01:15:59.060] routine on him, just run it through the course, give it to a highest level judge you can find.
[01:15:59.060 --> 01:16:05.500] I gave mine to the chief justice of the Supreme, and when he refused to hold an examining trial,
[01:16:05.500 --> 01:16:09.260] I filed criminal charges against him with the district attorney.
[01:16:09.260 --> 01:16:13.660] The district attorney refused to act on it, and I'm going to file against district attorney
[01:16:13.660 --> 01:16:16.900] with the grand jury.
[01:16:16.900 --> 01:16:19.980] But I have a grand jury, you don't see it, you would file it with the district judge
[01:16:19.980 --> 01:16:26.140] and just keep walking this around, get criminal charges against everybody, and all of these
[01:16:26.140 --> 01:16:33.740] higher-level public officials, they know next time they run for office, their opponents
[01:16:33.740 --> 01:16:38.420] likely to drag this stuff out there and beat them up with it, they're going to get real
[01:16:38.420 --> 01:16:39.420] unhappy.
[01:16:39.420 --> 01:16:43.380] Hang on, we're about to go to break. This is Randy Kelton from Debra Stephens, Eddie
[01:16:43.380 --> 01:16:50.380] Craig, Wheel Row Radio, our call in number 512-646-1984. We'll be right back.
[01:17:13.380 --> 01:17:20.380] We'll be right back.
[01:17:43.380 --> 01:17:48.860] If you love all the Liberty-minded programming on Logos Radio Network, contribute to the fundraiser
[01:17:48.860 --> 01:17:55.140] and secure your chance to win a Rock River AR-15, sponsored by Zombie Killers, M.O. & Guns.
[01:17:55.140 --> 01:18:01.780] Like them on Facebook at Zombie Killers, LLC. Contest ends February 28th.
[01:18:01.780 --> 01:18:05.460] At Capital Coin and Bullion, our mission is to be your preferred shopping destination
[01:18:05.460 --> 01:18:10.660] by delivering excellent customer service and outstanding value at an affordable price.
[01:18:10.660 --> 01:18:14.660] Capital Coin features a great selection of high-quality coins and precious metals. In
[01:18:14.660 --> 01:18:18.660] addition to providing the best prices in the nation, we want to bring you the best shopping
[01:18:18.660 --> 01:18:24.140] experience both in-store and online. In addition to coins and bullion, we carry popular young
[01:18:24.140 --> 01:18:29.540] jeffety products such as Beyond Tangy Tangerine and Pollen Burst. We offer freeze-dried, storeable
[01:18:29.540 --> 01:18:35.460] foods by Augustin Farms, Fergie Water Products, ammunition at 10% above wholesale, and more.
[01:18:35.460 --> 01:18:40.340] You can lock in a spot price with our Silver Pool, and we set up metals IRA accounts. Call
[01:18:40.340 --> 01:18:47.700] us at 512-646-644-0 for more details. We're located at 7304 Burnett Road, Suite A, about
[01:18:47.700 --> 01:18:53.260] half a mile south of Amersham. We're open Monday through Friday 10-6, Saturdays 10-2.
[01:18:53.260 --> 01:19:11.180] Visit us at capitalcoinandbullion.com or call 512-646-644-0.
[01:19:11.180 --> 01:19:33.220] Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton with Dan Reel, and we weren't talking to anybody. We were
[01:19:33.220 --> 01:19:41.420] going to... We lost Tom. We're going to Tony in Illinois. Oh, wait. We were talking to
[01:19:41.420 --> 01:19:45.420] Mike in Connecticut. Were we done with Mike? Dan?
[01:19:45.420 --> 01:19:47.420] Is he still there?
[01:19:47.420 --> 01:19:52.940] Yeah, he's still there. Let me go back to... Sorry, Tony. Hang on. I'm going back to Mike.
[01:19:52.940 --> 01:19:54.940] Lost track of where he was at. Hello, Mike.
[01:19:54.940 --> 01:20:02.220] Hi. No. Real quick, the Oskator does have a duty to investigate into all crimes he's
[01:20:02.220 --> 01:20:05.220] made him aware of, and there is a complaint process that he doesn't...
[01:20:05.220 --> 01:20:09.220] Ah, wonderful, wonderful. Just run the routine on it.
[01:20:09.220 --> 01:20:15.540] All right. But in Meshack's case, he was not arrested on a warrant. They raised his bond
[01:20:15.540 --> 01:20:26.220] saying he refused to cooperate. But the original order was not issued after a power clause
[01:20:26.220 --> 01:20:32.220] determination. That's why when we went back in there, he brought that issue up, and the
[01:20:32.220 --> 01:20:36.220] judge threw him out of the courtroom and called the recess, because I think he went to go
[01:20:36.220 --> 01:20:43.220] read the law. And then he came back, and he said, you probably waived that by not timely
[01:20:43.220 --> 01:20:48.220] objecting. So he basically said he waived the power clause determination that's mandated
[01:20:48.220 --> 01:20:50.220] in the statute.
[01:20:50.220 --> 01:20:58.220] Okay. File against the judge. If the judge issued the order, and he did not issue the
[01:20:58.220 --> 01:21:06.220] order in accordance with law, then that's some official misconduct in most every state.
[01:21:06.220 --> 01:21:14.220] I couldn't find it in New Mexico. Dan, do you have an official misconduct statute that reflects
[01:21:14.220 --> 01:21:24.220] the 18 U.S. Code 242 in Connecticut? No, not exactly. Let me see if I can find it here.
[01:21:24.220 --> 01:21:31.220] I don't believe... I mean, because the penal code is... It's weird the way it's set up here,
[01:21:31.220 --> 01:21:38.220] because you have the regular penal code, which I believe is 53A. And then you have other
[01:21:38.220 --> 01:21:45.220] things that are just generically crimes in Title 53. I forget which chapter it is, but
[01:21:45.220 --> 01:21:52.220] you want to look at crimes against public administration. You probably find it there.
[01:21:52.220 --> 01:21:57.220] It's not terribly long, but you will probably find something like that there.
[01:21:57.220 --> 01:22:03.220] Yeah. Most every state has got to have this, because they have to have a way of controlling
[01:22:03.220 --> 01:22:11.220] public officials. So they're going to have somewhere, something that makes it a crime
[01:22:11.220 --> 01:22:17.220] for a public official to misappropriate public funds.
[01:22:17.220 --> 01:22:25.220] Yeah, we have one here that goes to destroying documents, concealing them.
[01:22:25.220 --> 01:22:34.220] Here it is, Chapter 942, offenses against public justice. Well, that's one of them.
[01:22:34.220 --> 01:22:41.220] The one I was just talking about, that's 53A, 153, unlawful removal or alteration of records.
[01:22:41.220 --> 01:22:43.220] That's a biggie.
[01:22:43.220 --> 01:22:51.220] Okay. There is going to be a section that only applies to public officials.
[01:22:51.220 --> 01:22:57.220] In Texas, it's Chapter 39, and it goes to official misconduct, official oppression,
[01:22:57.220 --> 01:23:04.220] and then several others that we seldom get to. But this reflects 18 U.S. Code 242,
[01:23:04.220 --> 01:23:09.220] and most every state's got to have this. So if you could find that one.
[01:23:09.220 --> 01:23:17.220] Here it is. It's kinetic internal statutes, 53-37B, deprivation of a person's equal rights
[01:23:17.220 --> 01:23:22.220] and privileges by force or threat. That sounds right.
[01:23:22.220 --> 01:23:27.220] It's not exact, it's not an exact mirror, but it's very similar.
[01:23:27.220 --> 01:23:35.220] That's probably close enough, but you probably have one that goes to the duty of a public official
[01:23:35.220 --> 01:23:45.220] to exercise his duty in office, and that'll go to malfeasance and misfeasance.
[01:23:45.220 --> 01:23:52.220] In that, he's not allowed to exert an authority he doesn't have, and misfeasance,
[01:23:52.220 --> 01:23:56.220] he must perform duties he's required to perform.
[01:23:56.220 --> 01:24:01.220] So look that up, and that's the one you get to throw at him.
[01:24:01.220 --> 01:24:06.220] When the prosecutor refuses to prosecute, you charge him with misfeasance in office.
[01:24:06.220 --> 01:24:17.220] If a judge takes an act that he doesn't have authority to take because he failed to follow the law,
[01:24:17.220 --> 01:24:21.220] then you charge him with misfeasance or malfeasance depending on how it works,
[01:24:21.220 --> 01:24:28.220] and charge him criminally. That'll make him happy.
[01:24:28.220 --> 01:24:32.220] He's not used to that because lawyers won't do it.
[01:24:32.220 --> 01:24:37.220] He'll get the bar card as a lawyer, but you're not a lawyer.
[01:24:37.220 --> 01:24:39.220] Go ahead, Mike.
[01:24:39.220 --> 01:24:44.220] No, he's definitely not used to that, but I'll definitely pick him by surprise.
[01:24:44.220 --> 01:24:48.220] That's what we talk about the process from hell.
[01:24:48.220 --> 01:24:53.220] They don't hate process because they write stupid pleadings.
[01:24:53.220 --> 01:25:01.220] They hate process because every once in a while they come across one that knows how to beat them up good, like them.
[01:25:01.220 --> 01:25:07.220] Don't they tell you how glad they are to see you when you get to court, Dan?
[01:25:07.220 --> 01:25:13.220] Oh, they love me.
[01:25:13.220 --> 01:25:16.220] Alright, I'm going to let you guys go.
[01:25:16.220 --> 01:25:18.220] Okay, thank you, Mike.
[01:25:18.220 --> 01:25:23.220] Now we're going to go to Tony in Illinois.
[01:25:23.220 --> 01:25:25.220] Hello, Tony.
[01:25:25.220 --> 01:25:27.220] How's it going, fellas?
[01:25:27.220 --> 01:25:30.220] It's going good.
[01:25:30.220 --> 01:25:32.220] What have you got for us?
[01:25:32.220 --> 01:25:38.220] You could probably interrogate you for all the show, but I'll try to impress as much as possible.
[01:25:38.220 --> 01:25:40.220] I'll start with this.
[01:25:40.220 --> 01:25:46.220] Any federal court, a courthouse that you've been to, do they require ID at the door?
[01:25:46.220 --> 01:25:49.220] Yes, always.
[01:25:49.220 --> 01:25:53.220] Okay, I'm not hearing it, but that's awful.
[01:25:53.220 --> 01:25:55.220] Wait, hold on.
[01:25:55.220 --> 01:25:57.220] They don't in Connecticut?
[01:25:57.220 --> 01:25:59.220] Nope.
[01:25:59.220 --> 01:26:07.220] That is interesting. Everyone I've ever been to went to great lengths to identify me.
[01:26:07.220 --> 01:26:22.220] Yeah, our courts are surprisingly, and this is why I like about them so much, is that anybody can walk in and file things and not be hassled generally.
[01:26:22.220 --> 01:26:27.220] I thought that might appear with your access to the court.
[01:26:27.220 --> 01:26:37.220] Yeah, I understand that there is an issue there, but that's not an issue that I have chosen to fight.
[01:26:37.220 --> 01:26:42.220] Right. Well, that's a minor thing anyway, so that's not something I'm going to dwell on.
[01:26:42.220 --> 01:26:50.220] I was just curious what your take would be on that.
[01:26:50.220 --> 01:26:52.220] You have another question?
[01:26:52.220 --> 01:27:08.220] Yes, as far as the original lender signing the mortgage, if MERS is not included in there and MERS didn't make its way through MERS at all.
[01:27:08.220 --> 01:27:15.220] Okay, then you probably won't have that argument. This is how I get there.
[01:27:15.220 --> 01:27:36.220] For 200 years when MERS wasn't in the equation, the lender would produce funds to secure the warranty deed, trade the warranty deed to you for a promise to pay them X amount of funds over Y number of years at the Z interest,
[01:27:36.220 --> 01:27:44.220] and they requested that you put up the property as collateral.
[01:27:44.220 --> 01:28:01.220] In the mortgage, in your case it's a judicial state, so it'll be a mortgage, you made concessions to the lender with conditions or stipulations.
[01:28:01.220 --> 01:28:09.220] The lender made no concessions of any kind, so the lender has nothing to affirm.
[01:28:09.220 --> 01:28:27.220] So the lender didn't have to sign it, but when they put MERS in the mix, then there's a provision in there that purports to assign MERS to beneficial interest of the note.
[01:28:27.220 --> 01:28:39.220] That is not something the borrower has the power to do because the borrower does not hold equitable title to the beneficial interest.
[01:28:39.220 --> 01:28:52.220] The lender does. So if the lender wants to give his claim to somebody else, he's got to sign that document, and they didn't do it.
[01:28:52.220 --> 01:29:13.220] So that leaves MERS on a sign, and in the non-judicial states it gets even worse because in the Together with paragraph, you have a paragraph where the title is transferred to the trustee.
[01:29:13.220 --> 01:29:23.220] Right after that, in this Together with paragraph, Together with refers to improvements.
[01:29:23.220 --> 01:29:35.220] You have the transfer of the property to the trustee, and right under that they describe the property as being what was transferred to the trustee.
[01:29:35.220 --> 01:29:45.220] And under that, it says the property is transferred together with all improvements and several different things at least.
[01:29:45.220 --> 01:29:55.220] Well, on the MERS document, in that paragraph, they stuck in this sentence that you agree that MERS holds only legal title.
[01:29:55.220 --> 01:29:59.220] Well, that's a contradiction of terms.
[01:29:59.220 --> 01:30:11.220] In Wisconsin, an elderly woman who housed orphans was about to lose her home to foreclosure when her 12-year-old grandson came to the rescue.
[01:30:11.220 --> 01:30:30.220] I'm Dr. Catherine Albright, back with a story of Noah the Dreamcatcher after this.
[01:30:42.220 --> 01:30:54.220] For years, Janice Sparhawk cared for dozens of orphans. Many dropped under doorstep after dark, but at 72, she was in trouble.
[01:30:54.220 --> 01:31:00.220] Her health failing, she couldn't pay the mortgage unless she found $10,000 the bank would foreclose.
[01:31:00.220 --> 01:31:07.220] She appealed to her congressman, her governor, and even the president, but it was her grandson, Noah, who saved the day.
[01:31:07.220 --> 01:31:15.220] The 12-year-old posted her story on a website he created three years earlier, Noah's Dreamcatcher Network, to help hurricane victims.
[01:31:15.220 --> 01:31:21.220] Within days, enough money had poured in to rescue Sparhawk, her foster kids, and their faith in America.
[01:31:21.220 --> 01:31:27.220] I'm Dr. Catherine Albright for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:31:27.220 --> 01:31:37.220] A Noble Lie, Oklahoma City, 1995 will change forever the way you look at the true nature of terrorism.
[01:31:37.220 --> 01:31:41.220] Based on the damage pattern to the building, but the government sends impossible.
[01:31:41.220 --> 01:31:45.220] The grand jury did not want to hear anything I had to say.
[01:31:45.220 --> 01:31:48.220] The decision was made not to pursue any more of those individuals.
[01:31:48.220 --> 01:31:53.220] Some of these columns were ripped up, shredded, tossed around.
[01:31:53.220 --> 01:31:57.220] The people that did the things they did, knew dog on well what they were doing.
[01:31:57.220 --> 01:32:23.220] Expose the cover-up now at www.AnobleLie.com
[01:32:28.220 --> 01:32:34.220] We urge our listeners to please visit us at hempusa.org.
[01:32:34.220 --> 01:32:38.220] And remember, all of our products are chemical-free and healthy to eat.
[01:32:38.220 --> 01:32:43.220] We constantly strive to give you the best service, highest quality, and rapid shipping anywhere.
[01:32:43.220 --> 01:32:47.220] And we offer free shipping on orders over $95 in the U.S.
[01:32:47.220 --> 01:32:53.220] Please visit us at hempusa.org or call 908-6912608.
[01:32:53.220 --> 01:33:02.220] That's 908-6912608. See what our powders, seeds, and oil can do for you at hempusa.org.
[01:33:02.220 --> 01:33:24.220] You are listening to the Logos Radio Network. LogosRadionetwork.com.
[01:33:32.220 --> 01:33:43.220] LogosRadionetwork.com
[01:33:43.220 --> 01:33:49.220] Okay, we're back. Randy Kelton here with Dan Reel, Rule of Law Radio.
[01:33:49.220 --> 01:33:54.220] And I apologize that last time I got into my story and wasn't watching the clock.
[01:33:54.220 --> 01:33:58.220] So I kind of talked right over the break. I'll get beat up over that.
[01:33:58.220 --> 01:34:03.220] Okay, we're talking to Tony in Illinois.
[01:34:03.220 --> 01:34:09.220] I'm not going to go any further on the deal of trust. I think I got to beat that one up or the mortgage.
[01:34:09.220 --> 01:34:23.220] But I think, does that pretty well explain why you can't use the non-signature issue?
[01:34:23.220 --> 01:34:25.220] Can you hear me?
[01:34:25.220 --> 01:34:28.220] Yeah, go ahead.
[01:34:28.220 --> 01:34:36.220] I was speaking of a third party bringing the mortgage in, but Mer's not being involved.
[01:34:36.220 --> 01:34:42.220] Which I know is rare, but if a particular mortgage isn't in the Mer's system,
[01:34:42.220 --> 01:34:51.220] but a party, not the original lender, attempts to foreclose on a mortgage that is not signed by the original lender.
[01:34:51.220 --> 01:34:54.220] Can you make that argument?
[01:34:54.220 --> 01:35:04.220] Okay, the mortgage doesn't need to be signed by the original lender because it's signed by the one who issued it.
[01:35:04.220 --> 01:35:05.220] Okay.
[01:35:05.220 --> 01:35:12.220] It's kind of like you write a check. The guy you write to check too don't have to sign it.
[01:35:12.220 --> 01:35:26.220] Unless the guy you write to check is actually an agreement. Unless the guy you write to too has some duty to perform.
[01:35:26.220 --> 01:35:30.220] So that's not an issue you would have.
[01:35:30.220 --> 01:35:33.220] Is this an FHA loan?
[01:35:33.220 --> 01:35:34.220] No.
[01:35:34.220 --> 01:35:48.220] Okay, if it's an FHA loan, FHA has no authorization to sell provision in it, like the Fannie Mae Freddie Mac documents do.
[01:35:48.220 --> 01:35:58.220] Does it have an assignment of deed of trust? I mean, an assignment of mortgage in the record?
[01:35:58.220 --> 01:36:07.220] Well, in the particular one I'm talking about, I'm just speaking generally, but in the particular one I'm speaking of, the assignment was laid.
[01:36:07.220 --> 01:36:09.220] We've spoken about that before.
[01:36:09.220 --> 01:36:10.220] Okay.
[01:36:10.220 --> 01:36:15.220] Okay, so you look at the assignments, you can break one of those, then you break the chain.
[01:36:15.220 --> 01:36:19.220] Right, right. That's what we're looking to do.
[01:36:19.220 --> 01:36:30.220] Speaking of assignments, most of them say this party conveys or assigns to the, hereby assigns to this other party.
[01:36:30.220 --> 01:36:42.220] Have you seen this particular verbiage and is it valid? This one's wrong, but for good and valuable consideration of efficiency, blah, blah, blah.
[01:36:42.220 --> 01:36:44.220] Yeah, that's standard.
[01:36:44.220 --> 01:36:45.220] That's standard.
[01:36:45.220 --> 01:36:50.220] Okay.
[01:36:50.220 --> 01:36:57.220] Wait, hold on, did you look at the deed of trust? Does it have a provision? I'm sorry, I keep saying deed of trust.
[01:36:57.220 --> 01:37:14.220] Mortgage, does it have a covenant, generally covenant 20, that authorizes the sale of the portion of the note or the entire note together with the security instrument?
[01:37:14.220 --> 01:37:20.220] Well, again, I'm asking generally, this is on a completely different case.
[01:37:20.220 --> 01:37:22.220] Okay, okay, go ahead.
[01:37:22.220 --> 01:37:39.220] On this particular one, it says the verbiage is that the countrywide bid hereby assigns prior to 5-6-10. Is that an actual assignment or is that something else?
[01:37:39.220 --> 01:37:45.220] That is, that sounds like an acknowledgement of an assignment.
[01:37:45.220 --> 01:37:53.220] The heading is assignment of mortgage, but that doesn't sound like an actual assignment. Right?
[01:37:53.220 --> 01:37:57.220] Well, prior to?
[01:37:57.220 --> 01:38:00.220] Prior to, I've seen that a number of times.
[01:38:00.220 --> 01:38:07.220] Well, that might be an interesting challenge to the sufficiency of the document.
[01:38:07.220 --> 01:38:08.220] Right.
[01:38:08.220 --> 01:38:29.220] Because the document's insufficient in that it doesn't really stipulate the assignment. This is not the assignment itself. It sounds like this is just an assertion that an assignment at some point in the past has been made.
[01:38:29.220 --> 01:38:30.220] Right.
[01:38:30.220 --> 01:38:34.220] It'd be an interesting thing to bring for declaratory adjustment.
[01:38:34.220 --> 01:38:47.220] Yeah, that's sort of like a affidavit of assignment, masquerading as an assignment.
[01:38:47.220 --> 01:38:51.220] Yeah, that's kind of what it sounds like.
[01:38:51.220 --> 01:39:05.220] You know, there may be something in Illinois law that where that's been addressed and been approved or not approved, you'd have to look in Illinois law to see if there's something particular on that.
[01:39:05.220 --> 01:39:15.220] I would expect that there is. That's generally not the kinds of dumb mistakes they make.
[01:39:15.220 --> 01:39:27.220] Right. This is in Illinois. It was notarized in Illinois by a known robo-signer, Jill Rain.
[01:39:27.220 --> 01:39:35.220] Good. Have you sent the robo-signer request for evidence of the authentication?
[01:39:35.220 --> 01:39:56.220] Well, I think we're kind of screwed on this particular one, so no, because of other circumstances. But because I've seen that verbiage, I was wondering if that's something that could be taken up in another case, because it doesn't sound very valid.
[01:39:56.220 --> 01:40:07.220] It sounds like you could, but I would sure want to do some research on that verbiage before I raise the issue.
[01:40:07.220 --> 01:40:26.220] In the main case that I'm involved in, we set the hearings for motion to strike the complaint and dismiss the foreclosure due to lack of standing out. And we appear in court and we discuss this on the air.
[01:40:26.220 --> 01:40:43.220] The judge said that, oh, I granted a continuance. The attorney appeared earlier this morning and asked for a continuance. Now, you said that I should bill the court for the time?
[01:40:43.220 --> 01:40:57.220] Yeah, bill, since you didn't receive notice, then bill the court for not notifying you and causing you to have to come down there for nothing.
[01:40:57.220 --> 01:41:07.220] That's strictly administrative. That ought to get them excited.
[01:41:07.220 --> 01:41:14.220] Should I just make up a number? One thousand dollars or what? Does that sound good?
[01:41:14.220 --> 01:41:27.220] Yeah, just whatever. What's your time worth? Generally, a lawyer will charge 200, at least here, to go and represent a motion.
[01:41:27.220 --> 01:41:36.220] So a little bit more than that, you're worth more than any bottom feeding lawyer.
[01:41:36.220 --> 01:41:41.220] I wouldn't make it outrageous. Just enough to sting them.
[01:41:41.220 --> 01:41:46.220] Now, how do I avoid that happening in the future?
[01:41:46.220 --> 01:41:49.220] This is how you avoid it. You bill them for it.
[01:41:49.220 --> 01:42:00.220] How do I force them to rule on this? Should I instead have them take judicial notice of certain facts so it's not really adversarial?
[01:42:00.220 --> 01:42:07.220] Yeah, there's a kind of a force to judge, to acknowledge that this...
[01:42:07.220 --> 01:42:22.220] Oh, okay. No, you can't go where you're trying to go. You can't ask for a ruling forbidding them to do something that they haven't done.
[01:42:22.220 --> 01:42:35.220] That won't get anywhere. You can't grant a continuance at the last minute. That's a right the judge reserves and you won't get that going up.
[01:42:35.220 --> 01:42:39.220] That would be a waste of time.
[01:42:39.220 --> 01:42:47.220] Because it may be needed. Maybe a lawyer gets an accident and breaks a leg on the way to the courthouse.
[01:42:47.220 --> 01:42:52.220] The judge can issue an emergency continuance, but it has to be caused.
[01:42:52.220 --> 01:43:02.220] In that case, if you wanted to address that issue, then you might request, and I think we talked about this before,
[01:43:02.220 --> 01:43:12.220] request the petition for continuance and the affidavit that was included with it.
[01:43:12.220 --> 01:43:15.220] There probably won't be one.
[01:43:15.220 --> 01:43:24.220] What I was actually going towards was have the judge take judicial notice of the facts in the motion.
[01:43:24.220 --> 01:43:31.220] So that this assignment was filed in the county record, that this assignment was...
[01:43:31.220 --> 01:43:34.220] Oh yeah, you can definitely do that.
[01:43:34.220 --> 01:43:37.220] It was filed later than the complaint.
[01:43:37.220 --> 01:43:39.220] Okay, hold on, hold on. We're going to break.
[01:43:39.220 --> 01:44:06.220] It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM, but finding things on the Internet isn't so easy,
[01:44:06.220 --> 01:44:09.220] and neither is finding like-minded people to share it with.
[01:44:09.220 --> 01:44:12.220] Oh, well, I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books then.
[01:44:12.220 --> 01:44:13.220] Brave New Books?
[01:44:13.220 --> 01:44:20.220] Yes, Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for by authors like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, and G. Albert Griffin.
[01:44:20.220 --> 01:44:24.220] They even stock Interfood, Berkey products, and Calvin Soaps.
[01:44:24.220 --> 01:44:27.220] There's no way a place like that exists.
[01:44:27.220 --> 01:44:32.220] Go check it out for yourself. It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street, just south of UT.
[01:44:32.220 --> 01:44:36.220] Oh, by UT? There's never anywhere to park down there.
[01:44:36.220 --> 01:44:44.220] Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking facility just behind the bookstore.
[01:44:44.220 --> 01:44:47.220] It does exist, but when are they open?
[01:44:47.220 --> 01:44:52.220] Monday through Saturday, 11am to 9pm and 1-6pm on Sundays.
[01:44:52.220 --> 01:45:01.220] So give them a call at 512-480-2503, or check out their events page at BraveNewBookstore.com.
[01:45:01.220 --> 01:45:04.220] Are you the plaintiff or defendant in the lawsuit?
[01:45:04.220 --> 01:45:11.220] Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand four-CD course
[01:45:11.220 --> 01:45:15.220] that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[01:45:15.220 --> 01:45:19.220] If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:45:19.220 --> 01:45:23.220] If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:23.220 --> 01:45:28.220] Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:45:28.220 --> 01:45:34.220] Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:45:34.220 --> 01:45:43.220] 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.
[01:45:43.220 --> 01:45:52.220] You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro-save tactics, and much more.
[01:45:52.220 --> 01:46:01.220] Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:22.220 --> 01:46:45.220] Okay, we are back. Randy Calton, David Stevens, Eddie Craig, Rule of Law Radio. This is our last segment.
[01:46:45.220 --> 01:46:52.220] We're talking to Tony in Illinois. Okay, Tony, where were we?
[01:46:52.220 --> 01:47:05.220] Well, I think we can go on to the next thing. I'll try to be quick for the next call, but what we've discussed previously is the motion to strike the complaint and all that.
[01:47:05.220 --> 01:47:11.220] Is that something that could be done with a motion for declaratory judgment?
[01:47:11.220 --> 01:47:20.220] That's kind of a general question. It depends on the conditions of the documents in the county record.
[01:47:20.220 --> 01:47:30.220] You were talking about those when we went out about declaratory judgment. I'm sorry, judicial notice.
[01:47:30.220 --> 01:47:37.220] You can absolutely request that the court take judicial notice of everything that's in the record.
[01:47:37.220 --> 01:47:42.220] That's in the public and it cannot be refuted.
[01:47:42.220 --> 01:47:53.220] Look at those documents and send out the letters, send out the letter to the notary, send out the letter to the signatory, and then look at the documents.
[01:47:53.220 --> 01:47:58.220] First, look at the four corners of the documents. See if you can find something wrong with them.
[01:47:58.220 --> 01:48:17.220] One really cool thing to find on them are redactions, because if the redaction is not initialed by the notary, then you don't know if this is the document that was actually verified by the notary or not.
[01:48:17.220 --> 01:48:19.220] You don't know what this thing is.
[01:48:19.220 --> 01:48:35.220] You can challenge that if all of the writing on the jurorate or the acknowledgement by the notary is in the same hand as the signatory on the document itself.
[01:48:35.220 --> 01:48:40.220] The signature of the notary is clearly a different hand.
[01:48:40.220 --> 01:48:58.220] That's an issue you can raise to the court and that's when you send out the letter and if you don't get the ledger or proof of evidence of the authentication and you've got problems with the signature, that's a good way to get you declared to adjustment.
[01:48:58.220 --> 01:49:04.220] Right, but in this particular case, it's a matter of the date and that's public evidence.
[01:49:04.220 --> 01:49:09.220] We've had those before and that should be a killer.
[01:49:09.220 --> 01:49:11.220] Right, right.
[01:49:11.220 --> 01:49:25.220] Okay, now I've been thinking about finding properties that have been sold that meet this same criteria so I can bring this up also and try to acquire the property.
[01:49:25.220 --> 01:49:39.220] So if I get a quick claim to those properties, would I then file a motion to intervene or a motion for joiner?
[01:49:39.220 --> 01:49:47.220] A motion for joiner and then file the motion to strike, set aside the foreclosure, set aside the sale, dismiss the foreclosure, etc.
[01:49:47.220 --> 01:49:53.220] I think I might have some fun if I can pull that off.
[01:49:53.220 --> 01:49:55.220] Okay, let's move along.
[01:49:55.220 --> 01:49:59.220] We're running out of time and Steve has been waiting a while.
[01:49:59.220 --> 01:50:02.220] Alright, thanks a lot guys.
[01:50:02.220 --> 01:50:04.220] Dan, you're awesome as well.
[01:50:04.220 --> 01:50:06.220] Two of my favorite members.
[01:50:06.220 --> 01:50:08.220] Okay, thank you, Tony.
[01:50:08.220 --> 01:50:14.220] You're going to say he's your favorite Yankee?
[01:50:14.220 --> 01:50:18.220] I'm just going to sit here and sound intelligent.
[01:50:18.220 --> 01:50:20.220] Wait for it.
[01:50:20.220 --> 01:50:23.220] You're sounding more articulate than usual.
[01:50:23.220 --> 01:50:28.220] Okay, we're going to Steve in Kansas.
[01:50:28.220 --> 01:50:30.220] What do you have for Steve?
[01:50:30.220 --> 01:50:33.220] A quick question for you and Dan.
[01:50:33.220 --> 01:50:39.220] I've heard Dan, I've been listening for, I don't know, a couple of hours and I believe you're in Texas, aren't you, Randy?
[01:50:39.220 --> 01:50:42.220] And I think Dan's from Connecticut.
[01:50:42.220 --> 01:50:45.220] The People's Republic of Connecticut.
[01:50:45.220 --> 01:50:50.220] Ah, yeah, yeah, I helped strategize the divorce up there.
[01:50:50.220 --> 01:50:57.220] It took three years, but to me there was a lot of corruption up there in the family court.
[01:50:57.220 --> 01:51:02.220] But my question is, you'd mentioned maybe you were kidding or whatever,
[01:51:02.220 --> 01:51:06.220] but you had some kind of prosaic club or group or something like that.
[01:51:06.220 --> 01:51:14.220] And I'd like to know how to find some good experienced prosaic people in Kansas.
[01:51:14.220 --> 01:51:18.220] I don't know of any in Kansas.
[01:51:18.220 --> 01:51:28.220] I'm sure you could go on the internet and do some searches and find there's plenty of groups around for prosaic.
[01:51:28.220 --> 01:51:30.220] Dan?
[01:51:30.220 --> 01:51:31.220] I don't know.
[01:51:31.220 --> 01:51:40.220] I'd probably check the court records because honestly, that's where if I'm really looking for a troublemaker that's giving everybody a whole lot of hell,
[01:51:40.220 --> 01:51:45.220] generally there's more than one lawsuit with an appearance on it and it happens to be their address
[01:51:45.220 --> 01:51:48.220] and there happens to be no attorney appearing for them.
[01:51:48.220 --> 01:51:51.220] Just write them a letter.
[01:51:51.220 --> 01:51:57.220] Actually, where might I check and what records to find?
[01:51:57.220 --> 01:52:05.220] You can, I mean, if Kansas is anything like Connecticut, all the cases like you can find like just the summary of what pleadings have been filed.
[01:52:05.220 --> 01:52:11.220] I mean, obviously you can't pull them all up, but you can see who filed an appearance, what type of case it is.
[01:52:11.220 --> 01:52:21.220] Ask the clerk who is the most irritating and annoying prosaic litigant who ever comes in here.
[01:52:21.220 --> 01:52:23.220] Okay.
[01:52:23.220 --> 01:52:26.220] The clerks are going to know all of this.
[01:52:26.220 --> 01:52:35.220] Okay, well, I'm familiar with the clerk and I don't know how still she'd be giving that kind of information out.
[01:52:35.220 --> 01:52:39.220] Well, you know, sometimes you have to kind of schmooze them.
[01:52:39.220 --> 01:52:47.220] You might ask them, are there any prosaic litigants who come in here who are more irritating than I am?
[01:52:47.220 --> 01:52:49.220] Yeah.
[01:52:49.220 --> 01:52:51.220] No, I got a better idea.
[01:52:51.220 --> 01:52:55.220] Go to jail in Cherokee County and they will all write to you.
[01:52:55.220 --> 01:53:00.220] I can take about that one.
[01:53:00.220 --> 01:53:05.220] Don't be sending FOIA requests to no one.
[01:53:05.220 --> 01:53:07.220] I don't know how many beds are in the jail.
[01:53:07.220 --> 01:53:10.220] I mean, like every crazy thing you can think of.
[01:53:10.220 --> 01:53:13.220] So I'm going to roll the toilet paper that you guys have down there.
[01:53:13.220 --> 01:53:16.220] I really did appreciate that, guys.
[01:53:16.220 --> 01:53:24.220] I don't know if I've said it enough, but that was a major factor in them.
[01:53:24.220 --> 01:53:28.220] I'm dropping the whole thing.
[01:53:28.220 --> 01:53:33.220] I was there in jail and they were calling after about four or five days.
[01:53:33.220 --> 01:53:36.220] I was, yes, sir, Mr. Kelton.
[01:53:36.220 --> 01:53:40.220] I mean, these guys were bending over backwards to be nice to me.
[01:53:40.220 --> 01:53:52.220] And that's because I got one complaint and that was one jailer complaining because I had so much mail.
[01:53:52.220 --> 01:53:55.220] But it definitely gets their attention.
[01:53:55.220 --> 01:54:01.220] But I don't suggest it as a vacation resort.
[01:54:01.220 --> 01:54:05.220] Were you talking Cherokee County, Texas?
[01:54:05.220 --> 01:54:08.220] Cherokee County jail, yeah.
[01:54:08.220 --> 01:54:10.220] The accommodations are fair.
[01:54:10.220 --> 01:54:12.220] Had worse.
[01:54:12.220 --> 01:54:16.220] Well, there is a Cherokee County, Kansas, so I'm just curious.
[01:54:16.220 --> 01:54:19.220] Oh, okay.
[01:54:19.220 --> 01:54:22.220] So I'll check with the clerk and see if I can come up.
[01:54:22.220 --> 01:54:30.220] If not there may be a summary of the pleadings that might have just an individual's name as a litigant resident or firm.
[01:54:30.220 --> 01:54:31.220] Yeah.
[01:54:31.220 --> 01:54:36.220] Almost certainly the clerks are going to know who the process are.
[01:54:36.220 --> 01:54:37.220] Okay.
[01:54:37.220 --> 01:54:38.220] Very good.
[01:54:38.220 --> 01:54:44.220] Because they probably always spend quite a bit of time with them.
[01:54:44.220 --> 01:54:46.220] Lawyers just come in and dump something in there.
[01:54:46.220 --> 01:54:49.220] They generally have to talk to the process.
[01:54:49.220 --> 01:54:51.220] So they'll probably know all of them.
[01:54:51.220 --> 01:54:54.220] How about for what's the part of court?
[01:54:54.220 --> 01:54:57.220] Well, or someplace where you can receive help.
[01:54:57.220 --> 01:54:59.220] You can't receive advice.
[01:54:59.220 --> 01:55:03.220] Oh, you have public defender?
[01:55:03.220 --> 01:55:11.220] Well, I don't know whether it would be low income people.
[01:55:11.220 --> 01:55:13.220] There's a place you can go.
[01:55:13.220 --> 01:55:16.220] Yeah, that's generally a public defender.
[01:55:16.220 --> 01:55:18.220] Just a public defender.
[01:55:18.220 --> 01:55:20.220] Public defender's office.
[01:55:20.220 --> 01:55:26.220] They may have some different term for it, but if you ask about a public defender's office, if they have one, they'll tell you.
[01:55:26.220 --> 01:55:32.220] Well, that might be a place where pro says Mike might go or whatever you think.
[01:55:32.220 --> 01:55:42.220] Well, the problem with that is, is you have someone giving you advice who lives inside a lawyer box.
[01:55:42.220 --> 01:55:51.220] And in this case, as a public defender, he is very much beholden to the prosecutor and the judge.
[01:55:51.220 --> 01:56:01.220] And he's going to give you advice that serves his political and professional purposes.
[01:56:01.220 --> 01:56:06.220] I was thinking more of, it's not a law library, but on that...
[01:56:06.220 --> 01:56:15.220] If you're looking for good legal information, that's probably the best place is the law librarian.
[01:56:15.220 --> 01:56:16.220] Yeah, that's okay.
[01:56:16.220 --> 01:56:20.220] And that's why I was wondering, those people there will help pro says.
[01:56:20.220 --> 01:56:28.220] I mean, direct them to different things, but they can't give advice, but they might know people.
[01:56:28.220 --> 01:56:36.220] Yeah, if you ask the question right, they can pretty well answer any question you ask them.
[01:56:36.220 --> 01:56:39.220] And they love it.
[01:56:39.220 --> 01:56:46.220] My favorite one was in North Carolina, and they were shutting down the legal library.
[01:56:46.220 --> 01:56:52.220] And she was saying, you can't get this on the internet.
[01:56:52.220 --> 01:56:54.220] You have to read the books.
[01:56:54.220 --> 01:56:59.220] And she cleaned my clocks on two or three issues.
[01:56:59.220 --> 01:57:03.220] And she said, see, I told you, you have to read the books.
[01:57:03.220 --> 01:57:06.220] And they really knew their stuff.
[01:57:06.220 --> 01:57:10.220] So the legal library and the librarians are absolutely wonderful.
[01:57:10.220 --> 01:57:14.220] Well, I might say no people that might hang around there or might be in there.
[01:57:14.220 --> 01:57:17.220] Oh, absolutely they would know.
[01:57:17.220 --> 01:57:24.220] So our law library is pretty much in every kind of, well, larger cities and things like this.
[01:57:24.220 --> 01:57:25.220] Say like, which college?
[01:57:25.220 --> 01:57:26.220] Universities.
[01:57:26.220 --> 01:57:28.220] Look at law schools.
[01:57:28.220 --> 01:57:30.220] That's where you find them.
[01:57:30.220 --> 01:57:32.220] You'll probably find one in the capital.
[01:57:32.220 --> 01:57:34.220] Okay.
[01:57:34.220 --> 01:57:36.220] Most capital buildings will have one.
[01:57:36.220 --> 01:57:41.220] And any law school that teaches law will have one.
[01:57:41.220 --> 01:57:46.220] Most courthouses have a law library, especially if it's a bigger town.
[01:57:46.220 --> 01:57:49.220] Do you have any big towns in Kansas?
[01:57:49.220 --> 01:57:50.220] Which cause?
[01:57:50.220 --> 01:57:51.220] A bit larger.
[01:57:51.220 --> 01:57:54.220] That's 450,000.
[01:57:54.220 --> 01:57:57.220] Yeah, they will definitely have one.
[01:57:57.220 --> 01:57:58.220] Okay.
[01:57:58.220 --> 01:57:59.220] Okay.
[01:57:59.220 --> 01:58:00.220] I am sorry.
[01:58:00.220 --> 01:58:01.220] We are out of time.
[01:58:01.220 --> 01:58:04.220] Dan, you want to give us a closing comment?
[01:58:04.220 --> 01:58:08.220] That was actually a great call to end on, you know, because it's like, where can I go
[01:58:08.220 --> 01:58:11.220] to run into troublemakers and learn awesome things?
[01:58:11.220 --> 01:58:16.220] But yeah, I can definitely say it's been quite the ride.
[01:58:16.220 --> 01:58:19.220] You've created one hell of a monster.
[01:58:19.220 --> 01:58:23.220] Lots of banks up here are thoroughly enjoying it.
[01:58:23.220 --> 01:58:24.220] Wonderful.
[01:58:24.220 --> 01:58:26.220] I am glad to hear it.
[01:58:26.220 --> 01:58:28.220] That's what I came here to do.
[01:58:28.220 --> 01:58:33.220] I could fight these guys until I got old and nothing would happen.
[01:58:33.220 --> 01:58:37.220] But if we can get more people doing it, we'll reach a tipping point.
[01:58:37.220 --> 01:58:39.220] Thank you all for listening.
[01:58:39.220 --> 01:58:42.220] We'll be back Monday with Eddie Craig and Debra Stevens.
[01:58:42.220 --> 01:58:48.220] I'll be back with Debra Thursday and we'll be back on our 4-hour marathon next Friday.
[01:58:48.220 --> 01:59:17.220] Thank you.
[01:59:18.220 --> 01:59:47.220] Thank you.
[01:59:48.220 --> 01:59:58.220] Thank you.