ROL_2013-08-16_16k_Hr3-4.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:13.000]  Your listening to the Liberty Beat, your daily source for Liberty news and activist updates online at TheLibertyBeats.com.
[00:13.000 --> 00:29.000]  John Bush here with your Liberty Beat for Thursday, August 15th, 2013. Gold opened today at $1,326, silver at $21.82 and Bitcoin is trading at $97.39.
[00:29.000 --> 00:35.000]  Support for The Liberty Beat comes from Brave New Books, Austin's only brick and mortar store carrying Teeny Teen Dream 2.0.
[00:35.000 --> 00:40.000]  In Austin at 1904 Guadalupe Street or online at BraveNewBooks.com.
[00:40.000 --> 00:45.000]  And from Combo Bobs, the first high fructose corn syrup free quick serve restaurant in the country.
[00:45.000 --> 00:50.000]  Serving Baja California style burritos and non-GMO corn tortillas and chips.
[00:50.000 --> 00:57.000]  In Austin at 500 East Bend White Boulevard or by phone at 512-432-1111.
[00:57.000 --> 01:06.000]  And now the news. On Wednesday afternoon Bradley Manning's defense rested after calling a number of witnesses including Manning's aunt Deborah and sister Casey.
[01:06.000 --> 01:13.000]  Manning himself gave a statement apologizing for hurting the United States and for unintended consequences of his actions.
[01:13.000 --> 01:20.000]  He also told Colonel Lind that he realized after having much self-reflection he should have worked within the system to achieve change.
[01:20.000 --> 01:28.000]  For most of the afternoon the defense attempted to portray Manning as idealistic and naive at one point stating that he was stuck in post adolescent idealism.
[01:28.000 --> 01:33.000]  The defense also detailed Manning's experience growing up with abusive alcoholic parents.
[01:33.000 --> 01:39.000]  The prosecution spent their time questioning Manning's empathy and painting him as unsympathetic to his fellow soldiers.
[01:39.000 --> 01:42.000]  Manning is currently facing life in military prison.
[01:42.000 --> 01:50.000]  Colonel Lind is expected to rule on final sentencing early next week.
[01:50.000 --> 02:03.000]  Police accountability activists from all around the country are descending on Austin, Texas this week for the upcoming Peaceful Streets Project Police Accountability Summit this Saturday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the AT&T Executive Conference Center on UT campus.
[02:03.000 --> 02:15.000]  Among those scheduled to speak are Pete Ayer of CopLock.org and Jacob Crawford of WeCopWatch.org who are currently embarking on a police accountability tour that will take them all throughout the U.S. and even to South Africa.
[02:15.000 --> 02:17.000]  Their first stop, Austin, Texas.
[02:17.000 --> 02:21.000]  We caught up with Pete who filled us in on the goal of the police accountability tour.
[02:21.000 --> 02:30.000]  Right now there's existing CopWatch groups in a lot of towns that aren't as much online and there's a lot of CopLock and Peaceful Streets groups springing up all over the place.
[02:30.000 --> 02:37.000]  I think when people connect, when we can focus on our comparative advantages and, you know, we'll look out for each other, we can accomplish a lot.
[02:37.000 --> 02:39.000]  So I think it's very timely.
[02:39.000 --> 02:45.000]  To learn more about their efforts or to support their journey, visit CopLock.org slash tour.
[02:45.000 --> 03:00.000]  Support for the Liberty Beat comes from Carmacazi Productions, specializing in high quality audio recording and video production for the Liberty Movement. Online at Carmacazi.tv and from Central Texas Gunworks, CHL courses, self-defense training and firearm sales.
[03:16.000 --> 03:18.000]  Okay, we are back.
[03:18.000 --> 03:23.000]  Randy Kelton, Debra Stevens, Joe Esquivel, Rue La Radio.
[03:23.000 --> 03:28.000]  And we were talking to Carlos in California.
[03:28.000 --> 03:39.000]  And when we went out, James certainly stomped the chomp talking about the first debtor, second debtor, party, the first part, party, the confused part.
[03:39.000 --> 03:44.000]  James, will you pick that up and kind of see if you can sort that out for us?
[03:44.000 --> 03:46.000]  Okay.
[03:46.000 --> 03:53.000]  The simplest way to put it is you can look at it as a homeowner being the tangible obligor.
[03:53.000 --> 03:56.000]  It's based on paper.
[03:56.000 --> 04:03.000]  And he takes out a loan and has a security instrument with the lender.
[04:03.000 --> 04:08.000]  That lender at that point is the tangible obligee.
[04:08.000 --> 04:15.000]  Now, this tangible obligee switches hats and becomes an account debtor in the intangible world.
[04:15.000 --> 04:21.000]  And when he does that, he is now going to sell the payment stream.
[04:21.000 --> 04:30.000]  This payment stream is what goes through the securitization of seller, depositor, to the trustee.
[04:30.000 --> 04:34.000]  It's not the tangible note that gets there.
[04:34.000 --> 04:40.000]  But when you go back and look at the PSA, a lot of the PSAs in the private place memorandums and all this,
[04:40.000 --> 04:52.000]  they'll sit there and say that we're going to buy it, but we also need all this paperwork showing that we have a chain of perfected rights.
[04:52.000 --> 04:59.000]  And one of those perfected chain of rights is to the security instrument, the mortgage.
[04:59.000 --> 05:07.000]  But this is where the mortgage loosey-goosey terms is you've got a tangible mortgage and you've got an intangible mortgage.
[05:07.000 --> 05:14.000]  Now, the intangible mortgage is the paper personal property.
[05:14.000 --> 05:20.000]  And it's supposed to contain the rights from the tangible.
[05:20.000 --> 05:32.000]  But if it's not filed a record and so forth, those rights aren't perfected as the note has to negotiate according to the PSA.
[05:32.000 --> 05:35.000]  It doesn't happen.
[05:35.000 --> 05:39.000]  So they have the rights.
[05:39.000 --> 05:44.000]  They just don't have the legal capacity to enforce the rights.
[05:44.000 --> 05:47.000]  That would be correct.
[05:47.000 --> 05:55.000]  We do an FDCPA suit where we challenge agency standing and capacity.
[05:55.000 --> 05:59.000]  And that goes to capacity.
[05:59.000 --> 06:03.000]  Okay.
[06:03.000 --> 06:04.000]  Okay.
[06:04.000 --> 06:10.000]  Carlos, have we thoroughly confused you?
[06:10.000 --> 06:12.000]  No, not yet.
[06:12.000 --> 06:15.000]  I didn't think so.
[06:15.000 --> 06:18.000]  Carlos is generally a step or two ahead of us.
[06:18.000 --> 06:19.000]  Okay.
[06:19.000 --> 06:28.000]  Did you have a – did we answer the question that you have or did we not get to the question?
[06:28.000 --> 06:31.000]  You have not answered, but I kind of get it.
[06:31.000 --> 06:35.000]  My question is this for Mr. James.
[06:35.000 --> 06:39.000]  What is the duty of the foreclosing beneficiary?
[06:39.000 --> 06:42.000]  I want to hear from him.
[06:42.000 --> 06:57.000]  Well, the thing is if the note is not properly sold, then the right to acclaim the title that's in the security instrument
[06:57.000 --> 07:10.000]  has not been properly assigned to a nonpart – a fourth subsequent purchaser of the intangible.
[07:10.000 --> 07:19.000]  He has not purchased the right to the claim of title that's in that security instrument
[07:19.000 --> 07:23.000]  because it's never been perfected in his name.
[07:23.000 --> 07:25.000]  That's what happens when you don't file a record.
[07:25.000 --> 07:27.000]  You lose your perfection.
[07:27.000 --> 07:28.000]  Okay.
[07:28.000 --> 07:39.000]  Isn't the foreclosing beneficiary – he has the right to convey the power to the trustee to invoke the power sale?
[07:39.000 --> 07:46.000]  If those rights have not been lawfully assigned according to law,
[07:46.000 --> 07:52.000]  and that could be by the note not being properly negotiated,
[07:52.000 --> 07:58.000]  then rights to the security instrument are not properly transferred or assigned.
[07:58.000 --> 08:06.000]  And also, if the security instrument itself or the deed of trust as it is in California is not assigned properly,
[08:06.000 --> 08:12.000]  then rights to acclaim the title have not been lawfully assigned.
[08:12.000 --> 08:22.000]  And if you've got somebody that's way on down the line three years later and tries to perfect their rights,
[08:22.000 --> 08:24.000]  you've got to look at the state laws.
[08:24.000 --> 08:28.000]  Are they timely trying to perfect their rights or are they out of time?
[08:28.000 --> 08:31.000]  It's kind of like statute of limitations.
[08:31.000 --> 08:40.000]  Carlos, I don't remember, did your deed of trust have MERS included in it?
[08:40.000 --> 08:42.000]  No, it did not have MERS.
[08:42.000 --> 08:50.000]  No, it did not have MERS and it did not have Covenant 20 because it was a world savings document.
[08:50.000 --> 08:55.000]  Okay, so this wasn't your Fannie Mae Freddie Mac uniformed instrument?
[08:55.000 --> 08:57.000]  No.
[08:57.000 --> 09:07.000]  Okay, if you're in California and you have a deed of trust with MERS in it,
[09:07.000 --> 09:15.000]  you absolutely want to look at the second paragraph of the deed of trust contract portion.
[09:15.000 --> 09:19.000]  The top half are all definitions.
[09:19.000 --> 09:25.000]  And where MERS is first referenced in the contract is just a definition.
[09:25.000 --> 09:30.000]  In that first paragraph of the contract, it's the transfer of property rights
[09:30.000 --> 09:34.000]  and it transfers legal title to the trustee.
[09:34.000 --> 09:40.000]  Second paragraph, middle of the paragraph, they stuck this little sentence in there that says,
[09:40.000 --> 09:50.000]  you understand that MERS does not hold beneficial interest in the title, but rather MERS holds legal title.
[09:50.000 --> 09:55.000]  If that's in there, that is not a trust document.
[09:55.000 --> 10:01.000]  I know it says it's a trust, but if they've transferred legal title to MERS,
[10:01.000 --> 10:09.000]  then the trustee doesn't hold legal title and MERS, if MERS is purporting to act as an agent for the lender,
[10:09.000 --> 10:13.000]  then they've transferred the property to the lender.
[10:13.000 --> 10:25.000]  And in Texas, that is specifically forbidden with rendering the contract in violation of state law and therefore void on its face.
[10:25.000 --> 10:27.000]  But Randy, we're going back again.
[10:27.000 --> 10:28.000]  What was acquired?
[10:28.000 --> 10:30.000]  How was it acquired?
[10:30.000 --> 10:37.000]  So if you're in California pursuant to 3203D, if the transfer purports to transfer,
[10:37.000 --> 10:50.000]  less than the entire instrument, negotiation does not occur, the transfer does not acquire any rights.
[10:50.000 --> 10:58.000]  So if they have not acquired any rights, as James has said, you may own the tangible document,
[10:58.000 --> 11:05.000]  but you have not acquired the rights to enforce collection of the obligation.
[11:05.000 --> 11:14.000]  So even if it's properly filed in the record, it's still of no force and effect.
[11:14.000 --> 11:19.000]  No, how does one acquire rights?
[11:19.000 --> 11:22.000]  We need to go backstatch to our requirements of law.
[11:22.000 --> 11:24.000]  What was acquired?
[11:24.000 --> 11:31.000]  If it is less than the entire instrument, then negotiation does not take place.
[11:31.000 --> 11:39.000]  The transfer only is given a partial assignment.
[11:39.000 --> 11:40.000]  Okay.
[11:40.000 --> 11:50.000]  Now, as I read the definitions, a note is negotiated, the deed of trust is transferred.
[11:50.000 --> 11:59.000]  So if they purport to move them both to the same entity and the negotiation doesn't take place,
[11:59.000 --> 12:04.000]  does the transfer of the note of the deed of trust take place?
[12:04.000 --> 12:06.000]  You've got to remember one thing.
[12:06.000 --> 12:10.000]  The payment string has already ripped value from that note,
[12:10.000 --> 12:16.000]  and usually it's for the full value of that note over the duration of 360 months.
[12:16.000 --> 12:24.000]  So that note really has no value when they allege it to hold.
[12:24.000 --> 12:33.000]  Well, that part I kind of understand if they don't have the right to receive payment,
[12:33.000 --> 12:42.000]  then they can't claim default because they can't come to the court with a controversy.
[12:42.000 --> 12:46.000]  They have to show the court how they've been harmed,
[12:46.000 --> 12:51.000]  and if they don't have a right to collect payment, they can't be harmed anymore.
[12:51.000 --> 12:57.000]  And if they've acquired no rights because negotiation did not take place...
[12:57.000 --> 12:59.000]  Then they have no standing...
[12:59.000 --> 13:02.000]  Correct. You only have a partial cause of action.
[13:02.000 --> 13:05.000]  And a partial cause of action is no cause of action.
[13:05.000 --> 13:13.000]  Correct. And now you have issues of fact.
[13:13.000 --> 13:24.000]  And now you can bring them forth and you have a motion to vacate or a motion to quash if done in a timely fashion.
[13:24.000 --> 13:31.000]  I'm glad you said that that way because this is really what this goes to.
[13:31.000 --> 13:40.000]  A trial judge, it is his duty to determine the facts in accordance with the rules of evidence,
[13:40.000 --> 13:45.000]  then apply the law as it comes to him to the facts in the case.
[13:45.000 --> 13:54.000]  And when you put relevant facts and material facts before the court, the court must consider them.
[13:54.000 --> 13:58.000]  And with Joe's evaluation, that's why I liked it,
[13:58.000 --> 14:03.000]  is it puts relevant facts in front of the court
[14:03.000 --> 14:13.000]  that shows that the lender has no either agency standing or contractual or legal capacity.
[14:13.000 --> 14:24.000]  And the judge has no power to grant the other party a positive decision when those facts are in front of him.
[14:24.000 --> 14:30.000]  You can't go to the court with a cogent and convincing argument.
[14:30.000 --> 14:33.000]  The judge can agree with you 100 percent.
[14:33.000 --> 14:40.000]  But if you don't give him facts in law, he has no power to rule in your favor.
[14:40.000 --> 14:41.000]  Does that make sense?
[14:41.000 --> 14:43.000]  Okay. That is correct.
[14:43.000 --> 14:51.000]  Can a non-foreclosing beneficiary comment or closure?
[14:51.000 --> 14:55.000]  Wait, I missed that. Can a non-what?
[14:55.000 --> 15:00.000]  A non-foreclosing beneficiary. He's not the foreclosing beneficiary.
[15:00.000 --> 15:07.000]  Can that entity commence the foreclosure?
[15:07.000 --> 15:09.000]  You've got to prove that.
[15:09.000 --> 15:11.000]  Your relationship broke down.
[15:11.000 --> 15:15.000]  A non-foreclosing beneficiary.
[15:15.000 --> 15:19.000]  It's not the beneficiary who has power to foreclose.
[15:19.000 --> 15:28.000]  It's the holder of the deed of trust or the rights granted in the deed of trust.
[15:28.000 --> 15:34.000]  Now, the way we're reading this, he would have to be the beneficiary in order to make the claim.
[15:34.000 --> 15:39.000]  But I don't know what you mean by non-foreclosing beneficiary.
[15:39.000 --> 15:52.000]  It says on the deed, Wells Fargo was not the foreclosing beneficiary, but he foreclosed on me.
[15:52.000 --> 15:54.000]  I'm kind of confused by that.
[15:54.000 --> 15:58.000]  I'll probably have to look at the documents to try to make sense.
[15:58.000 --> 16:05.000]  You're saying that the document itself states that he's a non-foreclosing beneficiary.
[16:05.000 --> 16:13.000]  Right. It says Wells Fargo was not the foreclosing beneficiary on the trust he did upon the law.
[16:13.000 --> 16:18.000]  He's not the foreclosing beneficiary, but he foreclosed on me.
[16:18.000 --> 16:27.000]  And to me, if he's not the beneficiary, he didn't have the power to initiate the foreclosure.
[16:27.000 --> 16:30.000]  Okay. Carlos, let's come back.
[16:30.000 --> 16:35.000]  This is Joe Westphal, Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens on Rule of Law Radio.
[16:35.000 --> 16:42.000]  Our call-in number is 512-646-1984.
[16:42.000 --> 16:47.000]  And we will address the rest of the question when we come back.
[16:47.000 --> 16:53.000]  Along with taking any other calls that are calling in, we've got our call board stacked up.
[16:53.000 --> 16:56.000]  So, Carlos, we will get back to you after the break.
[16:56.000 --> 17:00.000]  Thank you.
[17:26.000 --> 17:31.000]  I love you.
[17:56.000 --> 18:01.000]  Thank you.
[18:26.000 --> 18:31.000]  Thank you.
[18:57.000 --> 19:02.000]  To learn how to stop debt collectors' net.
[19:02.000 --> 19:06.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network.
[19:06.000 --> 19:12.000]  LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[19:12.000 --> 19:15.000]  Well, don't let nothing get to you.
[19:15.000 --> 19:18.000]  Only the father can deliver you.
[19:18.000 --> 19:21.000]  Don't let bad-minded people hurt you.
[19:21.000 --> 19:24.000]  Until they can get behind you.
[19:24.000 --> 19:27.000]  You know what I mean, my friend?
[19:27.000 --> 19:29.000]  I'm not judging you.
[19:35.000 --> 19:39.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Joe Esquivel.
[19:39.000 --> 19:41.000]  And we're talking to Carlos in California.
[19:41.000 --> 19:49.000]  Carlos, we talked about this over the break, and we're not sure what the issue is.
[19:49.000 --> 19:52.000]  Could you send us that document?
[19:52.000 --> 19:57.000]  Yes.
[19:52.000 --> 19:57.000]  Let us look at it, and then call us back next week.
[19:57.000 --> 20:01.000]  Yes, take 30 seconds what it says in the description.
[20:01.000 --> 20:08.000]  It says, going to the Internet, the clearance of default has elapsed without any action by the owner.
[20:08.000 --> 20:16.000]  The beneficiary and beneficiary forward slash lender now sketches a property for trustee sale.
[20:16.000 --> 20:18.000]  Okay, I'm having...
[20:18.000 --> 20:20.000]  Is he breaking up on you, Joe?
[20:20.000 --> 20:24.000]  He's breaking up. I'm getting like every third or fourth word.
[20:24.000 --> 20:28.000]  Yeah, that's what I was getting at, so I've been having trouble understanding it.
[20:28.000 --> 20:30.000]  Can you send that to us?
[20:30.000 --> 20:38.000]  One thing I'd like to see is precisely what the document purports to be.
[20:38.000 --> 20:40.000]  Yeah, yeah, okay.
[20:40.000 --> 20:44.000]  But I got the definition of foreclosing beneficiary.
[20:44.000 --> 20:48.000]  It says here that the foreclosing beneficiary after three months...
[20:48.000 --> 20:50.000]  No, no, what is the document?
[20:50.000 --> 20:54.000]  Is it a sell-to-trustee's deed? Is it a notice of default?
[20:54.000 --> 20:59.000]  What is the context of the document itself?
[20:59.000 --> 21:03.000]  The trustee's deed upon sale, it says.
[21:03.000 --> 21:06.000]  Okay, okay, so it's a trustee's deed.
[21:06.000 --> 21:07.000]  Yes.
[21:07.000 --> 21:09.000]  I'm not...
[21:09.000 --> 21:11.000]  I really need to look at the document.
[21:11.000 --> 21:17.000]  It's hard to do this with you reading it to us, and we've wasted a lot of time trying to figure this out.
[21:17.000 --> 21:21.000]  Can you send it to us, and we'll address it next week?
[21:21.000 --> 21:23.000]  All right, thank you.
[21:23.000 --> 21:25.000]  Okay, thank you, Carlos.
[21:25.000 --> 21:32.000]  Okay, we're going to go to Clayton in Illinois.
[21:32.000 --> 21:34.000]  Hello, Clayton.
[21:34.000 --> 21:37.000]  Hey, Randy, this is Clayton Cherry. How are you doing?
[21:37.000 --> 21:39.000]  I am doing fine.
[21:39.000 --> 21:45.000]  Clayton Cherry, I understand you do some of these analyses.
[21:45.000 --> 21:52.000]  Yeah, I go really deep in a lot of places where most auditors don't go.
[21:52.000 --> 21:56.000]  Me and Joe, we've conversed quite a bit as well.
[21:56.000 --> 22:09.000]  So in terms of explaining to the callers, I always let the listeners know that you have to identify two parties on every single transaction.
[22:09.000 --> 22:17.000]  And one, you have to identify, you know, who the original lender is when you set down and close the document, set down and close,
[22:17.000 --> 22:20.000]  and the documents were given to you at the closing.
[22:20.000 --> 22:27.000]  And in the event that there's a foreclosure, you know, most original lenders are out of business, they transfer the loan.
[22:27.000 --> 22:35.000]  So, you know, you have to understand that there's a servicing party that's responsible for making those payments when you don't make it.
[22:35.000 --> 22:40.000]  Those first 90 days when you don't make those payments, when you go into a foreclosure,
[22:40.000 --> 22:44.000]  the servicing company is responsible for making those payments on your behalf.
[22:44.000 --> 22:47.000]  So they have the obligation to pay it.
[22:47.000 --> 22:53.000]  So what they do is they file an insurance claim, and those proceeds are put into an escrow account.
[22:53.000 --> 23:02.000]  So I've revealed all this through my personal due diligence to understand that the services are held liable at the end of the day.
[23:02.000 --> 23:10.000]  So what me and Joe have seen on the Bloomberg is that the servicing company is making payments every month while the homeowner sits in foreclosure.
[23:10.000 --> 23:21.000]  And that's if one person's situation is a loan is securitized where it's publicly being traded and the trust is registered with the SEC.
[23:21.000 --> 23:28.000]  So, you know, most homeowners on the call are looking for their loans to be publicly securitized,
[23:28.000 --> 23:37.000]  and you have to understand that the securitization can happen publicly, private limit, limited trust, or private trust.
[23:37.000 --> 23:42.000]  And that's where Joe was explaining earlier that some of these local banks,
[23:42.000 --> 23:49.000]  such as the one that Carlos was explaining, that particular bank is a private entity.
[23:49.000 --> 23:56.000]  So a lot of these private banks will go out to like hedge funds and pension funds and private investors,
[23:56.000 --> 24:00.000]  and they will put these on their books, these notes.
[24:00.000 --> 24:10.000]  So I just wanted to kind of just explain that, you know, some of the things that we're revealing, like a U.S. bank as trustee,
[24:10.000 --> 24:17.000]  and as far as being the trustee of the trust, is we have a publication that we received recently
[24:17.000 --> 24:23.000]  where the trustee says that they're not responsible for initiating any foreclosures
[24:23.000 --> 24:31.000]  and that the servicer is the party that's foreclosing, and they're using the name of the trust slash trustee's name.
[24:31.000 --> 24:35.000]  They're not aware of when a loan is in default for any of those things.
[24:35.000 --> 24:40.000]  Their responsibility is to collect payment from the servicing company.
[24:40.000 --> 24:45.000]  So I just want to just kind of put that out there that you have to sit down,
[24:45.000 --> 24:56.000]  and with Carlos' situation, I've spoken with them too as well, is that the – I want to say that it's Wells Fargo.
[24:56.000 --> 25:04.000]  One of those parties, Wachovia, is a servicing company, and they're the one that actually foreclosed on Carlos.
[25:04.000 --> 25:13.000]  So a lot of the times that a loan goes in default, you'll find that if it's a Fannie Mae or Jenny Mae or Freddie MacLone,
[25:13.000 --> 25:17.000]  you'll find that the servicing company will come in.
[25:17.000 --> 25:22.000]  For an example, if your loan was originated with Countrywide and it was sold to Bank of America,
[25:22.000 --> 25:26.000]  you'll find that Bank of America is coming in foreclosed,
[25:26.000 --> 25:32.000]  which in fact, if you find out through like a qualified rig request or if you do your due diligence
[25:32.000 --> 25:39.000]  and check Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, or Jenny Mae to determine if they are the owner of the note,
[25:39.000 --> 25:45.000]  we find that there's lots of times the servicers are coming in and foreclosing on the homeowner.
[25:45.000 --> 25:53.000]  So the key thing is to identify who all the key players are on the assignment.
[25:53.000 --> 25:59.000]  You know, when you look at the note, if you see that it's showing pay to the order on the note itself,
[25:59.000 --> 26:03.000]  it means that they use that note as a draft.
[26:03.000 --> 26:06.000]  So that's like not even a promissory note anymore.
[26:06.000 --> 26:12.000]  And I'm sure that, you know, Joe can explain a little bit more in depth on that.
[26:12.000 --> 26:16.000]  But if you look under the persons and obligations under the note,
[26:16.000 --> 26:24.000]  it does tell you that any event that if the note is endorsed, that that party can be held liable.
[26:24.000 --> 26:29.000]  So when you look at some of these foreclosures, like what I look at in the judicial state,
[26:29.000 --> 26:32.000]  you'll find that when the homeowner is being foreclosed on,
[26:32.000 --> 26:38.000]  you'll see the name of the original lender as a defendant.
[26:38.000 --> 26:44.000]  And they're trying to, you know, push the obligation and the debt off on you and make you responsible,
[26:44.000 --> 26:50.000]  which is the party that endorsed the note is the party that's supposed to be held liable.
[26:50.000 --> 26:55.000]  And that's why they try to put on the note without recourse so that it doesn't fall back on them
[26:55.000 --> 26:57.000]  and it falls on the homeowner.
[26:57.000 --> 27:04.000]  So there's a lot of things I'd like to cover, but I just wanted to just kind of explain some of the basics
[27:04.000 --> 27:07.000]  of some of the things that's on the...
[27:07.000 --> 27:08.000]  Yeah.
[27:08.000 --> 27:09.000]  Thanks, Clayton.
[27:09.000 --> 27:10.000]  You are right.
[27:10.000 --> 27:21.000]  Many times a servicer is coming forth in the capacity of acting as agent for the holder of the note.
[27:21.000 --> 27:25.000]  And many times they claim agency relationship.
[27:25.000 --> 27:32.000]  But again, go back, what is an assignment?
[27:32.000 --> 27:39.000]  Because what happens is if there is a purported loan interest that was sold to a GSE,
[27:39.000 --> 27:47.000]  such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or Ginny Mae, what was sold?
[27:47.000 --> 27:51.000]  An interest was sold.
[27:51.000 --> 28:01.000]  So when the homeowner goes into default, an assignment is made to the servicer,
[28:01.000 --> 28:06.000]  thus given an impression of an agency relationship.
[28:06.000 --> 28:17.000]  And many times the verbiage within that assignment says together with the note and all beneficial interest payments as well.
[28:17.000 --> 28:25.000]  But again, the whole purpose of an assignment is to memorialize the sale of the tangible promissory note.
[28:25.000 --> 28:33.000]  So one of the first questions that you need to ask is, is this document eligible to be recorded?
[28:33.000 --> 28:34.000]  Yes or no?
[28:34.000 --> 28:36.000]  And usually the answer is no.
[28:36.000 --> 28:53.000]  Because the person that is claiming to transfer the note in all beneficial interest, there must be evidence in the record that he has that, that he has it to transfer.
[28:53.000 --> 28:54.000]  Correct.
[28:54.000 --> 29:03.000]  And are we talking about the electronic note or are we talking about the tangible promissory note?
[29:03.000 --> 29:12.000]  I'd like to also dive in just really quick to just what Carlos said earlier about the 1099A.
[29:12.000 --> 29:16.000]  The servicing companies will always file a 1099A.
[29:16.000 --> 29:24.000]  Well, we're going to say in some cases you'll, if you do your due diligence, you can find that it's been mailed to you or you check with the IRS.
[29:24.000 --> 29:33.000]  And me and Joe have talked about this, the 1099A is abandonment for an acquisition and it's always done by the servicing company.
[29:33.000 --> 29:37.000]  Sometimes they'll kind of file that or they'll do what's called the 1098A.
[29:37.000 --> 29:38.000]  Okay.
[29:38.000 --> 29:39.000]  Hold on.
[29:39.000 --> 29:40.000]  Hold on, Clayton.
[29:40.000 --> 29:42.000]  We're about to go to break here.
[29:42.000 --> 29:47.000]  This is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Joe Esquivel, Rule of Law Radio.
[29:47.000 --> 29:52.000]  Our call in number 512-646-1984.
[29:52.000 --> 29:55.000]  Give us a call. It always really builds up toward the end.
[29:55.000 --> 29:58.000]  We're going to try to move a little faster so that we get to everybody.
[29:58.000 --> 30:02.000]  We'll be right back.
[30:02.000 --> 30:09.000]  Shakespeare's classic play, The Taming of the Shrew, implies women need the firm hand of a man to behave appropriately.
[30:09.000 --> 30:13.000]  But researchers say women are really the ones doing the taming.
[30:13.000 --> 30:16.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll tell you more in just a moment.
[30:16.000 --> 30:18.000]  Privacy is under attack.
[30:18.000 --> 30:22.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[30:22.000 --> 30:26.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:26.000 --> 30:28.000]  So protect your rights.
[30:28.000 --> 30:32.000]  Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[30:32.000 --> 30:34.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[30:34.000 --> 30:38.000]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com,
[30:38.000 --> 30:42.000]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[30:42.000 --> 30:45.000]  Start over with StartPage.
[30:45.000 --> 30:48.000]  When men behave badly, don't put them in prison.
[30:48.000 --> 30:50.000]  Send them to the altar.
[30:50.000 --> 30:54.000]  Studies show that married men are less aggressive and commit fewer crimes.
[30:54.000 --> 31:00.000]  One study of high-risk boys in adulthood found that marriage reduced their criminal behaviors by 35%.
[31:00.000 --> 31:05.000]  Women are more likely to marry nice guys, which might account for some of the better behavior of married men.
[31:05.000 --> 31:10.000]  But studies of identical twin brothers prove that even when factoring out genetics,
[31:10.000 --> 31:13.000]  men do mellow out after saying, I do.
[31:13.000 --> 31:18.000]  Married twins exhibit 30% less antisocial behavior than their unmarried brothers.
[31:18.000 --> 31:24.000]  It seems women have a calming effect on their husbands and help them find more positive social outlets.
[31:24.000 --> 31:30.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[31:30.000 --> 31:36.000]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[31:36.000 --> 31:38.000]  The government says that fire brought it down.
[31:38.000 --> 31:43.000]  However, 1,500 architects and engineers have concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[31:43.000 --> 31:46.000]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives.
[31:46.000 --> 31:49.000]  And thousands of my fellow first responders are dying.
[31:49.000 --> 31:50.000]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[31:50.000 --> 31:51.000]  I'm a structural engineer.
[31:51.000 --> 31:52.000]  I'm a New York City correction officer.
[31:52.000 --> 31:53.000]  I'm an Air Force pilot.
[31:53.000 --> 31:55.000]  I'm a father who lost his son.
[31:55.000 --> 31:58.000]  We're Americans, and we deserve the truth.
[31:58.000 --> 32:01.000]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[32:01.000 --> 32:04.000]  Do you feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics?
[32:04.000 --> 32:05.000]  Boring!
[32:05.000 --> 32:08.000]  Are you confused by words like the Constitution or the Federal Reserve?
[32:08.000 --> 32:09.000]  What?
[32:09.000 --> 32:13.000]  If so, you may be diagnosed with the deadliest disease known today, stupidity.
[32:13.000 --> 32:15.000]  Hi, my name is Steve Holt.
[32:15.000 --> 32:20.000]  And like millions of other Americans, I was diagnosed with stupidity at an early age.
[32:20.000 --> 32:26.000]  I had no idea that the number one cause of the disease is found in almost every home in America, the television.
[32:26.000 --> 32:29.000]  Unfortunately, that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity.
[32:29.000 --> 32:31.000]  But there is hope.
[32:31.000 --> 32:37.000]  The staff at Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other Foxaholics suffering from sports zombieism recover.
[32:37.000 --> 32:44.000]  And because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading and watching educational documentaries without feeling tired or uninterested.
[32:44.000 --> 32:55.000]  So if you or anybody you know suffers from stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503 or visit them in 1904 Guadalupe or bravenewbookstore.com.
[32:55.000 --> 33:01.000]  Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include discernment and enlarged vocabulary and an overall increase in mental functioning.
[33:25.000 --> 33:54.000]  Okay, we are back.
[33:54.000 --> 34:01.000]  Hi, my name is Eddie Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Joe Esquivel, and we're talking to Clayton in Illinois.
[34:01.000 --> 34:15.000]  And it's fortunate that I grew up in Illinois, so I can interpret for Clayton when he speaks that strange foreign accent.
[34:15.000 --> 34:21.000]  It's clear, Clayton, from your accent that you are not from Texas, so you are definitely a foreigner.
[34:21.000 --> 34:25.000]  Yeah, my people are from Mississippi, so I got to represent them.
[34:25.000 --> 34:30.000]  You got a hillbilly blood. That will work.
[34:30.000 --> 34:33.000]  Okay, where were we?
[34:33.000 --> 34:42.000]  I just want to quickly say that any forms that are filed against you at the IRS are typically a servicing company.
[34:42.000 --> 34:46.000]  If you read those forms, it will specify there's only a lender.
[34:46.000 --> 34:56.000]  So the other gentleman that Joe's mentor was also pointing out is that you have to, and you guys are having a table discussion,
[34:56.000 --> 35:04.000]  is that you have to be the actual owner to record anything an accountant recorder offers the true owner.
[35:04.000 --> 35:08.000]  And a lot of these servicing companies are recording the interest through the assignment,
[35:08.000 --> 35:13.000]  and you'll find that the loan numbers that the servicer created, they'll put it on the assignment,
[35:13.000 --> 35:17.000]  or they'll put the servicing company's name where it's prepared by the servicing company,
[35:17.000 --> 35:20.000]  and that is how they record their interest.
[35:20.000 --> 35:24.000]  And this is how they're getting away with recording these documents with the IRS.
[35:24.000 --> 35:28.000]  So I just wanted to kind of point that out, but the lending strategies,
[35:28.000 --> 35:36.000]  I personally think the problem there is you have to not create the controversy in the courtroom because you're going to lose game over.
[35:36.000 --> 35:45.000]  I think if you resolve, try to resolve the controversy that you're having with the plaintiffs and the servicing company outside of the courtroom
[35:45.000 --> 35:50.000]  and the attorney, just try to challenge these people through an affidavit.
[35:50.000 --> 35:53.000]  If they fail to rebut that affidavit, put them in default.
[35:53.000 --> 35:59.000]  Win your case before you show up to court so you can go in there and say, Your Honor, there is no controversy here.
[35:59.000 --> 36:05.000]  We've got this all resolved, and also report these parties to the IRS because we understand
[36:05.000 --> 36:08.000]  that there's a double book entry going on.
[36:08.000 --> 36:14.000]  There's the financial asset side, and there's the debt side, and we understand that the servicing company...
[36:14.000 --> 36:17.000]  Okay, wait a minute. You're getting confusing.
[36:17.000 --> 36:23.000]  I know you know what you're talking about, but you're jumping from this one to the other.
[36:23.000 --> 36:30.000]  The financial asset side is that note, that there's the alleged party that claims to own it.
[36:30.000 --> 36:32.000]  That is the financial asset side.
[36:32.000 --> 36:36.000]  The debt side is the one that the servicing company is servicing,
[36:36.000 --> 36:40.000]  which is the mortgage deed of trust that you set down and signed.
[36:40.000 --> 36:42.000]  So there's two sets of books.
[36:42.000 --> 36:46.000]  And if you challenge these people outside of the courtroom, at the end of the day,
[36:46.000 --> 36:50.000]  it's about if they can prove that there's an interest party, and they can.
[36:50.000 --> 36:56.000]  Okay. You're saying when you're talking about challenging them outside the courtroom,
[36:56.000 --> 37:00.000]  you're talking about a set of administrative procedures.
[37:00.000 --> 37:02.000]  Is that correct?
[37:02.000 --> 37:06.000]  Exactly. Exactly.
[37:06.000 --> 37:09.000]  Because if you go into the courtroom, it's just like an audit.
[37:09.000 --> 37:14.000]  When Joe does perform as an audit, I think the audit is going to be more powerful
[37:14.000 --> 37:19.000]  if you put that in front of the attorneys, and you put it in front of the deficit of trust in law,
[37:19.000 --> 37:23.000]  and you put it in front of the servicers before you show up to court,
[37:23.000 --> 37:29.000]  before you even put that as evidence in the court, because now they have to rebut all of that evidence.
[37:29.000 --> 37:31.000]  So now when you go to the courts, you can say,
[37:31.000 --> 37:35.000]  well, Your Honor, they fail to respond to everything.
[37:35.000 --> 37:39.000]  We're getting results here where these guys are coming in,
[37:39.000 --> 37:43.000]  and they're just saying, hey, we wish not to proceed here.
[37:43.000 --> 37:46.000]  And that's what we're getting results.
[37:46.000 --> 37:51.000]  That is interesting because, you know, I've been doing this show for a very long time,
[37:51.000 --> 38:00.000]  and the one thing that I've been trying to get to is how to use the commercial process.
[38:00.000 --> 38:05.000]  I have a lot of people that have proposed a commercial process,
[38:05.000 --> 38:16.000]  but they always wind up giving me a bunch of legal theory, but no legal substance.
[38:16.000 --> 38:21.000]  So I haven't had a way to actually apply it.
[38:21.000 --> 38:28.000]  And as to the techniques to actually apply it and how to,
[38:28.000 --> 38:34.000]  when you send a demand to the other side that they respond,
[38:34.000 --> 38:44.000]  how do I invoke a duty on their part to respond so that I can claim a default against them when they don't?
[38:44.000 --> 38:45.000]  Right.
[38:45.000 --> 38:50.000]  I need more than just saying they didn't respond.
[38:50.000 --> 39:01.000]  When we do the death validation letter or the request for the production of the original tangible instrument,
[39:01.000 --> 39:10.000]  there I can show the duty to respond, 3-501 and 15 USC 1692G.
[39:10.000 --> 39:11.000]  Right.
[39:11.000 --> 39:20.000]  The rest of the commercial process, how do I show the court the duty?
[39:20.000 --> 39:25.000]  Well, one of the things that we initially do when we're going through a foreclosure
[39:25.000 --> 39:31.000]  or prior to a foreclosure is file a QWR slash death validation letter
[39:31.000 --> 39:36.000]  so that the other parties will know the purpose of obviously using the QWR.
[39:36.000 --> 39:49.000]  Okay. How do you get to what claim of a accounting error do you use in the QWR in order to invoke the statute?
[39:49.000 --> 39:50.000]  Okay.
[39:50.000 --> 39:54.000]  Well, they're bringing you in to say that you owe money,
[39:54.000 --> 39:59.000]  and you're basically saying, hey, prove to me the accounting.
[39:59.000 --> 40:01.000]  No, that's a death validation.
[40:01.000 --> 40:10.000]  In order for it to be a QWR, you must make a claim of an accounting error and demand that they correct the error.
[40:10.000 --> 40:11.000]  Uh-huh.
[40:11.000 --> 40:20.000]  And that is an admission in order to invoke the statute under the QWR.
[40:20.000 --> 40:28.000]  This has been a problem we've ran into where people are filing documents making demands
[40:28.000 --> 40:31.000]  and calling it a QWR.
[40:31.000 --> 40:39.000]  And fortunately, for the most part, it seems the bank lawyers don't know that it's really not a QWR.
[40:39.000 --> 40:45.000]  And the reason I said that is there is a real simple way to do that.
[40:45.000 --> 40:48.000]  Just take all the fees on the HUD-1 settlement statement.
[40:48.000 --> 40:51.000]  Say you charged this garbage at closing,
[40:51.000 --> 40:58.000]  but you didn't provide me any documentation to show me that these fees were valid,
[40:58.000 --> 41:01.000]  so we maintain all these fees are fraudulent,
[41:01.000 --> 41:13.000]  and you're charging us for those on the note or on the payments that you demand include these fees,
[41:13.000 --> 41:15.000]  and these fees are fraudulent.
[41:15.000 --> 41:21.000]  Take these fees off and charge me what I'd have to pay if these fees were taken off ahead of note.
[41:21.000 --> 41:25.000]  That makes it a QWR.
[41:25.000 --> 41:27.000]  Understood.
[41:27.000 --> 41:29.000]  It just needs some kind of accounting error.
[41:29.000 --> 41:34.000]  Then they can't jump to that way out.
[41:34.000 --> 41:41.000]  That invokes their duty, and that's always been my issue is how do we invoke their duty?
[41:41.000 --> 41:42.000]  Okay, we do need to move along.
[41:42.000 --> 41:44.000]  We've got a bunch of callers on.
[41:44.000 --> 41:51.000]  A key outline just to let everyone know is try to resolve your controversy outside of the courtroom
[41:51.000 --> 41:55.000]  so that when you go to court, people already won your case before you get there.
[41:55.000 --> 41:56.000]  Okay.
[41:56.000 --> 41:58.000]  I am going to want to talk to you more about that.
[41:58.000 --> 42:01.000]  Can you send me an email so we can correspond back and forth?
[42:01.000 --> 42:07.000]  I've got your number too, Randy, and I'll call Joe and share some other information pertaining to the trust.
[42:07.000 --> 42:09.000]  Joe, I'll give you a call tomorrow, but...
[42:09.000 --> 42:10.000]  All right, that's fine.
[42:10.000 --> 42:11.000]  Thank you.
[42:11.000 --> 42:12.000]  Okay.
[42:12.000 --> 42:13.000]  Thank you, Clayton.
[42:13.000 --> 42:19.000]  All right, now we're going to go to Thomas in Virginia.
[42:19.000 --> 42:24.000]  Hello, Thomas.
[42:24.000 --> 42:25.000]  Hello, Thomas.
[42:25.000 --> 42:26.000]  Are you there?
[42:26.000 --> 42:28.000]  We've talked to Thomas before.
[42:28.000 --> 42:30.000]  I was thinking we had.
[42:30.000 --> 42:35.000]  We can go to Robert in Georgia.
[42:35.000 --> 42:37.000]  Robert in Georgia.
[42:37.000 --> 42:38.000]  Hello, Robert.
[42:38.000 --> 42:40.000]  Hello, you guys.
[42:40.000 --> 42:41.000]  Can you hear me okay?
[42:41.000 --> 42:43.000]  Yes, I can.
[42:43.000 --> 42:44.000]  How are you?
[42:44.000 --> 42:45.000]  Great.
[42:45.000 --> 42:46.000]  Great.
[42:46.000 --> 42:47.000]  Great.
[42:47.000 --> 42:52.000]  You know, Joe, I was elated to hear you with Cherry up there in Chicago, buddy.
[42:52.000 --> 42:54.000]  Give me a call, Cherry, when you get a chance.
[42:54.000 --> 42:56.000]  Get my number from Joe.
[42:56.000 --> 43:01.000]  Hey, you guys are doing a terrific job out there, Joe.
[43:01.000 --> 43:09.000]  I've learned more tonight than you can shake a stick at there, especially from your mentor, Jimmy, there.
[43:09.000 --> 43:15.000]  And I didn't know Randy was as well-versed on this thing as he is there.
[43:15.000 --> 43:16.000]  Hey, hey, hey, hey.
[43:16.000 --> 43:24.000]  Now, everybody says that I am a farchmeller and a real deep stinker.
[43:24.000 --> 43:26.000]  Right, right, right.
[43:26.000 --> 43:28.000]  Okay.
[43:28.000 --> 43:34.000]  A couple of things, just two things real fast because I know the hour is getting late and we want to get.
[43:34.000 --> 43:35.000]  Okay, okay, hold on, hold on.
[43:35.000 --> 43:39.000]  We're about to do the break. We'll pick you up when we come back on the other side.
[43:39.000 --> 43:45.000]  This is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Joe Esquivel, Rue La Radio.
[43:45.000 --> 43:49.000]  Our call-in number, 512-646-1984.
[43:49.000 --> 43:53.000]  We are beginning to catch up on the calls, so give us a call.
[43:53.000 --> 43:54.000]  Get in line.
[43:54.000 --> 44:01.000]  We'll be right back on the other side.
[44:01.000 --> 44:08.000]  Mr. President, members of Congress, you've been making a lot of noise about taking our guns away,
[44:08.000 --> 44:11.000]  but you might want to review history.
[44:11.000 --> 44:15.000]  1835, Gonzales, Texas territory.
[44:15.000 --> 44:20.000]  The authorities wanted to confiscate the big gun that protected that colony.
[44:20.000 --> 44:22.000]  You know what the people said?
[44:22.000 --> 44:24.000]  Come and take it.
[44:24.000 --> 44:29.000]  Because they were willing to fight for their freedom and their guns.
[44:29.000 --> 44:31.000]  So are we.
[44:31.000 --> 44:34.000]  Come and take it if you want it.
[44:34.000 --> 44:37.000]  Come and take it if you think you can.
[44:37.000 --> 44:43.000]  Come and take it, but I warn you, you'll have to cry it from our cold dead hands.
[44:43.000 --> 44:50.000]  We want the freedom that God gave us, so you best not cross that line.
[44:50.000 --> 44:55.000]  If you want this gun, you've got to come through us and take it.
[44:55.000 --> 44:59.000]  One shot at a time, just like Gonzales.
[44:59.000 --> 45:01.000]  We're keeping our guns.
[45:01.000 --> 45:04.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[45:04.000 --> 45:08.000]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary,
[45:08.000 --> 45:16.000]  the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step.
[45:16.000 --> 45:19.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[45:19.000 --> 45:23.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[45:23.000 --> 45:28.000]  Thousands have won with our step by step course, and now you can too.
[45:28.000 --> 45:34.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience.
[45:34.000 --> 45:39.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[45:39.000 --> 45:43.000]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[45:43.000 --> 45:49.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[45:49.000 --> 45:56.000]  pro se tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner
[45:56.000 --> 46:24.000]  or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ.
[46:24.000 --> 46:53.000]  Music playing.
[46:53.000 --> 46:58.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Debra Stevens, Rule of Law Radio,
[46:58.000 --> 47:04.000]  and we're talking to Clayton in Georgia. Okay, Clayton, where were we?
[47:04.000 --> 47:08.000]  You're talking to Robert in Georgia.
[47:08.000 --> 47:12.000]  I'm sorry, we were talking about Clayton on the break.
[47:12.000 --> 47:17.000]  Oops, that does say Robert in Georgia.
[47:17.000 --> 47:21.000]  It's getting late and I'm old and getting senile.
[47:21.000 --> 47:27.000]  Hey, join the choir. You're preaching to the choir.
[47:27.000 --> 47:30.000]  I'll be 62 this year, okay?
[47:30.000 --> 47:33.000]  Somebody asked me if I was going to get my Social Security check,
[47:33.000 --> 47:37.000]  and I thought, you bet your bottom dollar, right? I'm not leading to 70.
[47:37.000 --> 47:48.000]  Listen, Joe, on that tangible obligation, once that is taken out of that promissory note,
[47:48.000 --> 47:51.000]  what happens to the promissory note, buddy?
[47:51.000 --> 48:00.000]  The promissory note is stripped of its value and is now personal property.
[48:00.000 --> 48:06.000]  There is nothing for the security instrument to attach itself to.
[48:06.000 --> 48:18.000]  So let's give you an example. When Countrywide was taken over in a portfolio buyout in 08 by Bank of America,
[48:18.000 --> 48:26.000]  what was it that Bank of America acquired? Okay, they bought personal assets.
[48:26.000 --> 48:29.000]  They bought servicing rights.
[48:29.000 --> 48:41.000]  Oh, yeah, let's not forget they bought millions of boxes that contain pieces of paper with writings on them.
[48:41.000 --> 48:53.000]  Now, at one time, these documents were tangible promissory notes, which evidenced debt,
[48:53.000 --> 48:59.000]  which evidenced a promise to pay a legal obligation.
[48:59.000 --> 49:11.000]  Now, in years since that, prior to the acquisition, these assets, the promise to pay, the beneficial interest was sold.
[49:11.000 --> 49:23.000]  So now, fast forward to 2013, when Bank of America comes forth with a document that is purported to be the tangible promissory note,
[49:23.000 --> 49:30.000]  I've got Randy Clayton's signature on it. This is the real deal.
[49:30.000 --> 49:40.000]  Well, what are they holding? They're holding personal property with simple possession.
[49:40.000 --> 49:52.000]  There are no legal rights attached to that piece of paper. It's just a worthless piece of paper.
[49:52.000 --> 49:57.000]  So they do not have a beneficial interest in the real estate.
[49:57.000 --> 50:01.000]  How can you have a beneficial interest if you've acquired no rights?
[50:01.000 --> 50:02.000]  I got you.
[50:02.000 --> 50:17.000]  So, again, go back for Georgia, you know, go back to the statutory requirements of law for negotiation, transfer, and endorsement.
[50:17.000 --> 50:22.000]  So, transfer of instrument, rights acquired by transfer.
[50:22.000 --> 50:37.000]  3203, transfer, rights acquired. It tells you what is going to happen. A tells you what will happen. B, C, and D restrict what can happen.
[50:37.000 --> 50:44.000]  So it gets pretty simple. You just need to just take that elephant and take it a bite at a time.
[50:44.000 --> 50:57.000]  Absolutely. And that's why I brought the question up, because when you hear the oratory, everyone says, what happened to the note?
[50:57.000 --> 51:01.000]  Hey, the beneficial interest was stripped away from it. It's the most important thing.
[51:01.000 --> 51:10.000]  You know, where is the note? We don't care where the note's located, because the value of it is what we're concerned about.
[51:10.000 --> 51:19.000]  Hey, thank you for clearing that up for me, Joe. And I just have one last comment on the administrative process, Randy.
[51:19.000 --> 51:29.000]  Most people don't understand it, and this is no reflection on any attorneys or anything, but they didn't teach this thing in law school.
[51:29.000 --> 51:33.000]  I graduated from Tulane, and they didn't get anywhere close to it.
[51:33.000 --> 51:48.000]  The administrative process, historically, was what we as living, breathing men and women were supposed to use to settle our debts in the first place, was administrative.
[51:48.000 --> 51:58.000]  Let's do it on paper. Let's shake hands and say, I'm sorry, that type of deal. And the Administrative Procedures Act 1946 came out of that.
[51:58.000 --> 52:06.000]  It is now with the Secretary of State of all 50 states.
[52:06.000 --> 52:14.000]  Now, it's a process. It's anywhere from a four- to eight-step process.
[52:14.000 --> 52:26.000]  And what's the objective? The objective is to get the bank or the servicer and watch this, and their CEOs, CFOs, COOs in dishonor.
[52:26.000 --> 52:34.000]  They are so arrogant that they will dishonor themselves by their what? By their silence to our request.
[52:34.000 --> 52:45.000]  So to give you an example, the administrative process that I use has probably about 160 questions going from QWR questions all the way up to banking questions.
[52:45.000 --> 52:52.000]  Banking questions like what? Where did the money come from that you say that you loaned me?
[52:52.000 --> 53:01.000]  They will not answer that question. And when we get an expert witness like Joe on the stand, that's one of the questions that we want to pose.
[53:01.000 --> 53:04.000]  Where did the money come from? They won't answer that question.
[53:04.000 --> 53:14.000]  So we have no problem getting the bank into dishonor or any of its employees, especially when we use the surveying.
[53:14.000 --> 53:31.000]  Okay. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Here's where I have the – this is where I get tripped up. When you ask the bank where did the money come from, what stipulates a duty to the bank to answer that question?
[53:31.000 --> 53:38.000]  Well, because watch this. Number one is because they're perpetrating as a lender.
[53:38.000 --> 53:44.000]  No, no, we can't do it that way. Never make a proactive statement of law out of your own mouth.
[53:44.000 --> 53:45.000]  Right.
[53:45.000 --> 53:56.000]  Where is the code that I can go to the court with and say here's where they have a duty to respond?
[53:56.000 --> 54:03.000]  Oh, that's right there in Title XII under Banks and Banking Section 24.
[54:03.000 --> 54:06.000]  Title XII of what?
[54:06.000 --> 54:13.000]  Title XII of USC. USC Title XII under Banks and Banking Section 24 clearly states that they –
[54:13.000 --> 54:18.000]  Oh, okay. Good. That's what I need. That's what I've always needed because –
[54:18.000 --> 54:20.000]  Loan in their credit.
[54:20.000 --> 54:26.000]  You can't go to the court and give them a good convincing argument.
[54:26.000 --> 54:27.000]  Right.
[54:27.000 --> 54:29.000]  They can agree with you.
[54:29.000 --> 54:38.000]  What Jerry was trying to explain was that once we do the administrative process, we don't have to go to court and argue anything
[54:38.000 --> 54:46.000]  because they've already dishonored themselves and when we walk into the courtroom, we already have a claim.
[54:46.000 --> 54:53.000]  Okay. Well, what I have to be able to do with the court is establish my claim.
[54:53.000 --> 54:54.000]  Exactly.
[54:54.000 --> 55:08.000]  And I need the law to do that. I'm going to say I made a request to which he had a duty to respond and this is what invoked that duty.
[55:08.000 --> 55:14.000]  He failed to respond and this is the remedy for his failure to respond.
[55:14.000 --> 55:25.000]  And most of these guys that I've talked to about the administrative process, they just tell me all this stuff like Winston Shroud.
[55:25.000 --> 55:30.000]  I did a spot on his show with him. Pastor Master had set me up for that.
[55:30.000 --> 55:38.000]  And he's telling me how all of this legacy account and such works and I said, well, Winston, I'm a creature of statute.
[55:38.000 --> 55:39.000]  Right.
[55:39.000 --> 55:46.000]  And an engineer, all I can do is connect the dots. Where is the law that establishes this?
[55:46.000 --> 55:49.000]  And he said, well, I don't think you'll find any.
[55:49.000 --> 55:54.000]  Well, where did you come up with this? And he said, well, I figured it out.
[55:54.000 --> 56:00.000]  So, Winston, you're saying you made it up?
[56:00.000 --> 56:07.000]  To his credit, he paused a bit and he said, well, yes, as a matter of fact, I did.
[56:07.000 --> 56:12.000]  I said, Winston, I can't go into court without made it up.
[56:12.000 --> 56:13.000]  Absolutely.
[56:13.000 --> 56:22.000]  I need the code. If I can find the code to put in the judge's hand so that I put facts in law.
[56:22.000 --> 56:24.000]  Step of the process.
[56:24.000 --> 56:26.000]  Of the process, exactly.
[56:26.000 --> 56:29.000]  Administrative process act. That's where all the codes are right there in that act.
[56:29.000 --> 56:34.000]  I don't see why it was that difficult for Shroud, one of the pioneers in there.
[56:34.000 --> 56:42.000]  I never followed this stuff anyway. I never followed the, what you call them, the, what you call those guys, the patriots.
[56:42.000 --> 56:48.000]  Everything that they came up with was conjectures, as far as I'm concerned, because they didn't back it up.
[56:48.000 --> 56:56.000]  For instance, when they come in and talk about the straw man and the living man, I asked for years, how do you back that analogy up?
[56:56.000 --> 56:58.000]  Nobody could give it to me.
[56:58.000 --> 57:10.000]  Until one day I was looking for something and I ran across in the Georgia statutes, Georgia Code, Section 1-2-1,
[57:10.000 --> 57:15.000]  simply says that they recognize two classes of persons.
[57:15.000 --> 57:22.000]  One is artificial and the other one is what? Natural.
[57:22.000 --> 57:25.000]  There it is right there in the fake code.
[57:25.000 --> 57:35.000]  Go ask the Amish. The Amish really, really understand the difference between the public side and the private side.
[57:35.000 --> 57:37.000]  And the private side, right.
[57:37.000 --> 57:40.000]  That makes a lot more difference in that straw man nonsense.
[57:40.000 --> 57:47.000]  Oh, absolutely. I don't use that. When we teach this stuff, we don't use those kind of words. Those are old words.
[57:47.000 --> 57:57.000]  You know, we need to, like you, we need to get this stuff from what law professors, guys like Joe, that have studied these citations.
[57:57.000 --> 58:01.000]  Joe is just a walking law book.
[58:01.000 --> 58:05.000]  Hey, listen gang, thank you for the time and Joe, that's a wonderful job there, buddy.
[58:05.000 --> 58:08.000]  I look forward to us working up in D.C. together, all right?
[58:08.000 --> 58:10.000]  All right, buddy. Thank you.
[58:10.000 --> 58:12.000]  Thank you, Robert and Darlene.
[58:12.000 --> 58:18.000]  We will go to you next, then to Johnny and James, Isaac and Doug, we see you there.
[58:18.000 --> 58:22.000]  We will go to your calls when we come back on the other side.
[58:22.000 --> 58:26.000]  We're going to the top of the hour break, so we will be a couple of minutes.
[58:26.000 --> 58:37.000]  This is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Joe Esquivel, Rule of Law Radio, a call in number, 512-646-1984.
[58:37.000 --> 58:43.000]  So, in the last hour, it always picks up, so if you want to get in on the calls, call in quickly,
[58:43.000 --> 58:48.000]  so we'll be able to tell how long we can spend if we just want to try to get to everybody.
[58:48.000 --> 58:50.000]  We'll be right back.
[58:50.000 --> 58:54.000]  Would you like to make more definite progress in your walk with God?
[58:54.000 --> 59:01.000]  Bibles for America is offering a free study Bible and a set of free Christian books that can really help.
[59:01.000 --> 59:06.000]  The New Testament Recovery Version is one of the most comprehensive study Bibles available today.
[59:06.000 --> 59:11.000]  It's an accurate translation, and it contains thousands of footnotes that will help you to know God
[59:11.000 --> 59:13.000]  and to know the meaning of life.
[59:13.000 --> 59:18.000]  The free books are a three-volume set called Basic Elements of the Christian Life.
[59:18.000 --> 59:24.000]  Chapter by chapter, Basic Elements of the Christian Life clearly presents God's plan of salvation,
[59:24.000 --> 59:28.000]  growing in Christ, and how to build up the Church.
[59:28.000 --> 59:34.000]  To order your free New Testament Recovery Version and Basic Elements of the Christian Life,
[59:34.000 --> 59:41.000]  call Bibles for America toll-free at 888-551-0102.
[59:41.000 --> 59:45.000]  That's 888-551-0102.
[59:45.000 --> 59:50.000]  Or visit us online at bfa.org.
[59:50.000 --> 01:00:03.000]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:03.000 --> 01:00:10.000]  You're listening to the Liberty Beat, your daily source for Liberty news and activist updates,
[01:00:10.000 --> 01:00:15.000]  online at thelibertybeats.com.
[01:00:15.000 --> 01:00:20.000]  John Bush here with your Liberty Beat for Thursday, August 15th, 2013.
[01:00:20.000 --> 01:00:29.000]  Gold opened today at $1,326, silver at $21.82, and Bitcoin is trading at $97.39.
[01:00:29.000 --> 01:00:33.000]  Support for the Liberty Beat comes from Brave New Books, Austin's only brick-and-mortar store,
[01:00:33.000 --> 01:00:40.000]  carrying 10 and 10 green 2.0, in Austin at 1904 Guadalupe Street, or online at bravenewbookstore.com,
[01:00:40.000 --> 01:00:45.000]  and from Combo Bob's, the first high-fructose corn syrup-free quick-serve restaurant in the country,
[01:00:45.000 --> 01:00:50.000]  serving Baja California-style burritos and non-GMO corn tortillas and chips,
[01:00:50.000 --> 01:00:57.000]  in Austin at 500 East Ben White Boulevard, or by phone at 512-432-1111.
[01:00:57.000 --> 01:00:59.000]  And now, the news.
[01:00:59.000 --> 01:01:03.000]  On Wednesday afternoon, Bradley Manning's defense rested after calling a number of witnesses,
[01:01:03.000 --> 01:01:06.000]  including Manning's Aunt Deborah and Sister Casey.
[01:01:06.000 --> 01:01:10.000]  Manning himself gave a statement apologizing for hurting the United States
[01:01:10.000 --> 01:01:13.000]  and for unintended consequences of his actions.
[01:01:13.000 --> 01:01:17.000]  He also told Colonel Lind that he realized, after having much self-reflection,
[01:01:17.000 --> 01:01:20.000]  he should have worked within the system to achieve change.
[01:01:20.000 --> 01:01:25.000]  For most of the afternoon, the defense attempted to portray Manning as idealistic and naive,
[01:01:25.000 --> 01:01:29.000]  at one point stating that he was stuck in post-adolescent idealism.
[01:01:29.000 --> 01:01:33.000]  The defense also detailed Manning's experience growing up with abusive alcoholic parents.
[01:01:33.000 --> 01:01:36.000]  The prosecution spent their time questioning Manning's empathy
[01:01:36.000 --> 01:01:39.000]  and painting him as unsympathetic to his fellow soldiers.
[01:01:39.000 --> 01:01:42.000]  Manning is currently facing life in military prison.
[01:01:42.000 --> 01:01:50.000]  Colonel Lind is expected to rule on final sentencing early next week.
[01:01:50.000 --> 01:01:53.000]  Police accountability activists from all around the country are descending
[01:01:53.000 --> 01:01:56.000]  on Austin, Texas this week for the upcoming Peaceful Streets Project
[01:01:56.000 --> 01:01:59.000]  Police Accountability Summit this Saturday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
[01:01:59.000 --> 01:02:03.000]  at the AT&T Executive Conference Center on UT campus.
[01:02:03.000 --> 01:02:06.000]  Among those scheduled to speak are Pete Ayer of CopLock.org
[01:02:06.000 --> 01:02:11.000]  and Jacob Crawford of WeCopWatch.org, who are currently embarking on a police accountability tour
[01:02:11.000 --> 01:02:15.000]  that will take them all throughout the U.S. and even to South Africa.
[01:02:15.000 --> 01:02:17.000]  Their first stop, Austin, Texas.
[01:02:17.000 --> 01:02:21.000]  We caught up with Pete, who filled us in on the goal of the police accountability tour.
[01:02:21.000 --> 01:02:25.000]  Right now there's existing CopWatch groups in a lot of towns that aren't as much online,
[01:02:25.000 --> 01:02:30.000]  and there's a lot of CopLock and Peaceful Streets groups springing up all over the place.
[01:02:30.000 --> 01:02:33.000]  And I think when people connect, when we can focus on our comparative advantages
[01:02:33.000 --> 01:02:36.000]  and, you know, we'll look out for each other, we can accomplish a lot.
[01:02:36.000 --> 01:02:39.000]  So I think it's very timely.
[01:02:39.000 --> 01:02:45.000]  To learn more about their efforts or to support their journey, visit CopLock.org slash tour.
[01:02:45.000 --> 01:02:48.000]  Support for the Liberty Beat comes from Carmacazi Productions,
[01:02:48.000 --> 01:02:52.000]  specializing in high-quality audio recording and video production for the Liberty Movement,
[01:02:52.000 --> 01:02:56.000]  online at carmacazi.tv, and from Central Texas Gunworks,
[01:02:56.000 --> 01:03:00.000]  CHL courses, self-defense training, and firearm sales.
[01:03:00.000 --> 01:03:22.000]  Music playing.
[01:03:22.000 --> 01:03:50.000]  Hi, this is Joe Esquivel with Randy Kellum,
[01:03:50.000 --> 01:03:55.000]  Deborah Stevens on Rule of Law Radio, welcoming you back.
[01:03:55.000 --> 01:04:02.000]  And we are going to go to Darlene in Florida, because you have been patient, Darlene.
[01:04:02.000 --> 01:04:05.000]  Thank you.
[01:04:05.000 --> 01:04:10.000]  You know, in my foreclosure over here, I was represented by an attorney.
[01:04:10.000 --> 01:04:13.000]  Well, the attorney wasn't doing anything.
[01:04:13.000 --> 01:04:15.000]  I never knew what was going on.
[01:04:15.000 --> 01:04:18.000]  And then he just withdrew from the case.
[01:04:18.000 --> 01:04:23.000]  But he also withdrew my defenses, my amended defenses also.
[01:04:23.000 --> 01:04:25.000]  So he left me hanging.
[01:04:25.000 --> 01:04:29.000]  But I had to go through all this and get copies.
[01:04:29.000 --> 01:04:34.000]  And I've got this assignment of mortgage that was never recorded,
[01:04:34.000 --> 01:04:42.000]  but the judge took this attachment that the bank asked for a motion to substitute the party plaintiff
[01:04:42.000 --> 01:04:50.000]  and took this and just accepted it and then put in an order to substitute party plaintiff.
[01:04:50.000 --> 01:04:54.000]  That, of course, they went and filed against my property.
[01:04:54.000 --> 01:04:59.000]  But I'm reading this assignment of mortgage that they produced.
[01:04:59.000 --> 01:05:00.000]  And I've got a question.
[01:05:00.000 --> 01:05:02.000]  Where is Mears?
[01:05:02.000 --> 01:05:09.000]  Do they have assistant secretaries in Travis County, Texas?
[01:05:09.000 --> 01:05:14.000]  Mears does not have any employees.
[01:05:14.000 --> 01:05:20.000]  Their president of the company said so.
[01:05:20.000 --> 01:05:21.000]  Okay.
[01:05:21.000 --> 01:05:31.000]  So there would be no way that anybody from Mears would have their signature notarized in Texas then, right?
[01:05:31.000 --> 01:05:33.000]  Here's how you do that.
[01:05:33.000 --> 01:05:41.000]  That person works for probably one of the foreclosure mules, probably daffy and frappin' and kiss my behind.
[01:05:41.000 --> 01:05:43.000]  That's the biggest one here.
[01:05:43.000 --> 01:05:52.000]  But make up a letter to Mears on the address that's on that document.
[01:05:52.000 --> 01:05:59.000]  Send the letter to them and tell them, you got this person here that signed this document
[01:05:59.000 --> 01:06:05.000]  claiming to have power of attorney for your company, but I looked in the record
[01:06:05.000 --> 01:06:08.000]  and I don't see evidence of power of attorney.
[01:06:08.000 --> 01:06:14.000]  Will you provide for me evidence of power of attorney for this person to sign on behalf of your company?
[01:06:14.000 --> 01:06:19.000]  We have never got a response from that.
[01:06:19.000 --> 01:06:25.000]  You can go to the court and say, Your Honor, this guy's a robo-signer.
[01:06:25.000 --> 01:06:29.000]  Why, his name is splattered all over the Internet, and the judge says so.
[01:06:29.000 --> 01:06:34.000]  That doesn't mean he doesn't have power to sign here.
[01:06:34.000 --> 01:06:38.000]  So you go to the judge and say, this guy's a robo-signer, his name's splattered all over the Internet.
[01:06:38.000 --> 01:06:45.000]  So we send a letter to the entity he claimed to sign for and ask for evidence of power of attorney.
[01:06:45.000 --> 01:06:48.000]  We didn't get evidence of power of attorney.
[01:06:48.000 --> 01:06:54.000]  So that gives us reason to believe, and we do believe, that this person does not have power of attorney.
[01:06:54.000 --> 01:06:58.000]  That gives you prima facie evidence.
[01:06:58.000 --> 01:07:03.000]  Do that for everybody who signed anything.
[01:07:03.000 --> 01:07:11.000]  Yeah, I mean, he states he's the assistant secretary for MERS, and that's how it was notarized.
[01:07:11.000 --> 01:07:18.000]  Okay, ask MERS to establish that in fact he is an assistant secretary of MERS
[01:07:18.000 --> 01:07:24.000]  and ask them to verify that he has power of attorney to sign from MERS.
[01:07:24.000 --> 01:07:30.000]  Okay, now on this assignment of mortgage that was never recorded against my property,
[01:07:30.000 --> 01:07:38.000]  when I read it, it says that this document has been executed and is being recorded
[01:07:38.000 --> 01:07:48.000]  in order to familiarize and memorize an assignment of the subject mortgage which took place prior to the date thereof.
[01:07:48.000 --> 01:07:50.000]  This was never recorded.
[01:07:50.000 --> 01:07:53.000]  Well, then it's not a document, all right?
[01:07:53.000 --> 01:07:57.000]  It is a paper that purports to be something.
[01:07:57.000 --> 01:08:05.000]  However, until it has been recorded, indexed, and filed, Darlene, it is not a properly recorded assignment.
[01:08:05.000 --> 01:08:09.000]  All right, so I can challenge the subject matter jurisdiction with this judge
[01:08:09.000 --> 01:08:13.000]  and make him reverse it or void it, correct, vacate it?
[01:08:13.000 --> 01:08:26.000]  If the subject matter jurisdiction of the court rests on the standing of the person named in this document,
[01:08:26.000 --> 01:08:37.000]  yes, you can claim that this entity, this person lacked standing to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of this court.
[01:08:37.000 --> 01:08:45.000]  But I would suggest before you do that, file a petition for declaratory judgment
[01:08:45.000 --> 01:08:52.000]  and ask the court to rule on the sufficiency of this document.
[01:08:52.000 --> 01:09:01.000]  And you maintain that based on the four corners of the document, that this document is void and of no force and effect.
[01:09:01.000 --> 01:09:12.000]  If you send me an email, I'll send you a copy of the deposition where one of the executive vice president of MERS
[01:09:12.000 --> 01:09:16.000]  testified in court that MERS doesn't have any employees.
[01:09:16.000 --> 01:09:21.000]  Now, that establishes collateral estoppel.
[01:09:21.000 --> 01:09:33.000]  You can't go into one court and take a position, then go into another court and take a diametrically opposed position.
[01:09:33.000 --> 01:09:39.000]  Your first position subjects you to estoppel from taking the second one.
[01:09:39.000 --> 01:09:46.000]  So this guy can't get on the stand and testify under oath that MERS doesn't have any employees
[01:09:46.000 --> 01:09:55.000]  and then MERS come into another court and take an action by one of their employees.
[01:09:55.000 --> 01:10:03.000]  I don't care if they do have employees. Once they said they don't, they can never say they do.
[01:10:03.000 --> 01:10:11.000]  And that's one of the things, Darlene, that we do, all right, because we are a private investigation company.
[01:10:11.000 --> 01:10:21.000]  I run background checks on people that purport to be employed by one company when, in fact, they're employed by another company.
[01:10:21.000 --> 01:10:33.000]  So by being a licensed private investigator that can look at certain documents, it's a lot easier to disprove what they are saying.
[01:10:33.000 --> 01:10:35.000]  That's one of the things that we do.
[01:10:35.000 --> 01:10:48.000]  And that's much more powerful than just that letter. If you can get a third party to come in, that is something that it does not matter what the judge thinks or believes.
[01:10:48.000 --> 01:10:49.000]  Right.
[01:10:49.000 --> 01:10:57.000]  That's evidence he can't get around, but keep in mind, you're upset at this judge for being a scoundrel.
[01:10:57.000 --> 01:11:09.000]  They're scoundrels. However, the trial court, the only purpose is to get the facts in the record for the court of appeals.
[01:11:09.000 --> 01:11:14.000]  So screw that judge. Let him rule whatever he wants to.
[01:11:14.000 --> 01:11:15.000]  Right.
[01:11:15.000 --> 01:11:23.000]  You take it to the court of appeals, and if the court of appeals says, oh, it doesn't have to be filed in the court record,
[01:11:23.000 --> 01:11:30.000]  they change the legal world as they know it, and they are not going to want to go there.
[01:11:30.000 --> 01:11:36.000]  So the point is, don't let these guys upset you. You just lay the record.
[01:11:36.000 --> 01:11:46.000]  You make all these arguments. Let them toss the arguments. Who cares? We get you to the court of appeals, Bubba. They'll take care of you.
[01:11:46.000 --> 01:11:47.000]  Does that make sense?
[01:11:47.000 --> 01:11:55.000]  Okay. So like when I send the email over to you, what am I looking for that you're going to send me?
[01:11:55.000 --> 01:11:59.000]  Oh, a deposition by MERS.
[01:11:59.000 --> 01:12:08.000]  A MERS, right. Okay. And I want to send the letter to MERS, or do I not even want to wait?
[01:12:08.000 --> 01:12:11.000]  I mean, I've got to send the letter to MERS to get an answer.
[01:12:11.000 --> 01:12:27.000]  It would actually be much better if you talk to Joe and had a private investigator do the test or even have the investigator send the letter.
[01:12:27.000 --> 01:12:29.000]  Okay.
[01:12:29.000 --> 01:12:41.000]  And then because he's a third party and with the license, he's someone who can testify in court who is credible as a matter of law.
[01:12:41.000 --> 01:12:51.000]  And when he is a third party who don't have a dog in the hunt, testifies before the court to these facts, the court will accept the facts.
[01:12:51.000 --> 01:12:56.000]  And now they have to apply the law to the facts. This guy claimed to sign for this company.
[01:12:56.000 --> 01:13:01.000]  There is no evidence of power of attorney in the record.
[01:13:01.000 --> 01:13:05.000]  And MERS failed to provide power of attorney.
[01:13:05.000 --> 01:13:11.000]  And his private investigator checked him and this person works for somebody else.
[01:13:11.000 --> 01:13:16.000]  That's not something the appeals court can dance around.
[01:13:16.000 --> 01:13:22.000]  Okay. Yeah, I have more faith in the appellate court than I do in our local court.
[01:13:22.000 --> 01:13:26.000]  Yeah, just don't worry about the local courts.
[01:13:26.000 --> 01:13:32.000]  All you're doing, and this is if you've ever looked at Jurisdictionary, this is what Dr. Graves says.
[01:13:32.000 --> 01:13:39.000]  The only purpose for the trial court is to set the record for appeal.
[01:13:39.000 --> 01:13:45.000]  So do not let these trial courts intimidate you.
[01:13:45.000 --> 01:13:53.000]  They're chumps, they're bought and paid for, but the court of appeals is not bought and paid for.
[01:13:53.000 --> 01:13:55.000]  They have a different agenda.
[01:13:55.000 --> 01:14:04.000]  They have to make sure the court of jurists retains its stability.
[01:14:04.000 --> 01:14:13.000]  They start rendering bogus decisions there, and then every lawyer in the state can use their bogus decisions to destabilize the law.
[01:14:13.000 --> 01:14:19.000]  So it's not that the court of appeals is any more scrupulous.
[01:14:19.000 --> 01:14:24.000]  It's just that they have to be careful if they don't screw up everything.
[01:14:24.000 --> 01:14:29.000]  Okay. Now, let me ask, is there a statute of limitation?
[01:14:29.000 --> 01:14:41.000]  The title company that did my loan, is there a statute of limitation on things that they did for going after them?
[01:14:41.000 --> 01:14:43.000]  It depends.
[01:14:43.000 --> 01:14:54.000]  If you're going after them for fraud, generally statute of limitations on like a misdemeanor's two years and a felony's four years,
[01:14:54.000 --> 01:14:59.000]  and that's just kind of general, some felonies, like fraud is five years.
[01:14:59.000 --> 01:15:07.000]  But fraud, it is the intent of fraud that it be hidden.
[01:15:07.000 --> 01:15:12.000]  So the clock starts to run on fraud when you find out about it.
[01:15:12.000 --> 01:15:22.000]  So if you go to Joe and ask him to do an evaluation and you look in there and you find fraud, that's when you found out about it.
[01:15:22.000 --> 01:15:25.000]  That's when the clock starts on fraud.
[01:15:25.000 --> 01:15:29.000]  There are some other limitations that are real important.
[01:15:29.000 --> 01:15:40.000]  Once you go into default, in Texas, they have four years to foreclose.
[01:15:40.000 --> 01:15:43.000]  In California, they have four years to foreclose.
[01:15:43.000 --> 01:15:46.000]  In New York, they have six years to foreclose.
[01:15:46.000 --> 01:15:51.000]  We just had someone in California the other day that had been five years.
[01:15:51.000 --> 01:15:54.000]  They started a foreclosure proceeding.
[01:15:54.000 --> 01:15:55.000]  She fought them.
[01:15:55.000 --> 01:15:57.000]  They dismissed the proceeding.
[01:15:57.000 --> 01:15:59.000]  They stopped the whole thing.
[01:15:59.000 --> 01:16:07.000]  If something is dismissed or if they non-suit, then it's like it never happened.
[01:16:07.000 --> 01:16:11.000]  They didn't get back to court in time, so they ran out of time.
[01:16:11.000 --> 01:16:17.000]  In Texas, once you foreclosed, you've got two years to evict.
[01:16:17.000 --> 01:16:21.000]  So if you can stop them there and they can't get it done in two years, they ran out of statute of limitations.
[01:16:21.000 --> 01:16:24.000]  So those work in both directions.
[01:16:24.000 --> 01:16:34.000]  You need to look at Florida law on statute of limitations for foreclosure, statute of limitations for eviction,
[01:16:34.000 --> 01:16:37.000]  and statute of limitations for claims against them.
[01:16:37.000 --> 01:16:39.000]  In Texas, okay, we're going to go to break.
[01:16:39.000 --> 01:16:41.000]  I'll pick up that on the other side.
[01:16:41.000 --> 01:16:44.000]  This is Randy Kelton, David Stevens, Eddie Craig.
[01:16:44.000 --> 01:16:45.000]  Eddie Craig.
[01:16:45.000 --> 01:16:46.000]  Not Eddie Craig.
[01:16:46.000 --> 01:16:47.000]  He's on Monday.
[01:16:47.000 --> 01:16:54.000]  Joe Esquivel, I call in number 512-646-1984. Give us a call.
[01:16:54.000 --> 01:17:18.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:17:24.000 --> 01:17:47.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:17:47.000 --> 01:18:02.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:18:02.000 --> 01:18:17.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:18:17.000 --> 01:18:32.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:18:32.000 --> 01:18:47.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:18:47.000 --> 01:19:02.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:19:02.000 --> 01:19:17.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:19:17.000 --> 01:19:39.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:19:39.000 --> 01:19:49.000]  Hi, this is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, and Joe Esquivel on Rule of Law Radio welcoming you back.
[01:19:49.000 --> 01:19:53.000]  And we're going to go back to Darlene for one more moment.
[01:19:53.000 --> 01:19:57.000]  And I believe we've answered your question, Darlene.
[01:19:57.000 --> 01:20:02.000]  Is there anything else that we could answer?
[01:20:02.000 --> 01:20:09.000]  No, just for clarification that I will send over the information on this.
[01:20:09.000 --> 01:20:18.000]  But what I wanted to know is if I'm going to do the motion for declaratory judgment on the document,
[01:20:18.000 --> 01:20:24.000]  I don't really want to go and do a challenge of the subject matter jurisdiction on the judge
[01:20:24.000 --> 01:20:29.000]  for doing that order substituting party plaintiff, correct?
[01:20:29.000 --> 01:20:32.000]  That's a perfect question.
[01:20:32.000 --> 01:20:35.000]  You are obviously paying attention.
[01:20:35.000 --> 01:20:41.000]  You asked the question about the thing I didn't tell you.
[01:20:41.000 --> 01:20:42.000]  My bad.
[01:20:42.000 --> 01:20:46.000]  You do the declaratory judgment first.
[01:20:46.000 --> 01:20:49.000]  You get the ruling on the declaratory judgment.
[01:20:49.000 --> 01:20:56.000]  And then you come back to the court and say, Your Honor, you ruled based on this document.
[01:20:56.000 --> 01:21:00.000]  I have a res judicata.
[01:21:00.000 --> 01:21:10.000]  I have an issue that's already adjudicated that you may not revisit that says that this document is void.
[01:21:10.000 --> 01:21:18.000]  Therefore, you must rule that the claimant lacks subject matter jurisdiction to invoke,
[01:21:18.000 --> 01:21:23.000]  the lack standing to invoke subject matter jurisdiction in court.
[01:21:23.000 --> 01:21:24.000]  Okay.
[01:21:24.000 --> 01:21:26.000]  Does that make sense how that works?
[01:21:26.000 --> 01:21:27.000]  Yeah.
[01:21:27.000 --> 01:21:28.000]  Oh, yeah, definitely.
[01:21:28.000 --> 01:21:31.000]  Now, you said the estoppel.
[01:21:31.000 --> 01:21:33.000]  What's that?
[01:21:33.000 --> 01:21:36.000]  Collateral estoppel.
[01:21:36.000 --> 01:21:40.000]  There are a number of different types of estoppel.
[01:21:40.000 --> 01:21:41.000]  There's promissory.
[01:21:41.000 --> 01:21:44.000]  There's equitable.
[01:21:44.000 --> 01:21:53.000]  Collateral is where you take a position like this executive from MERS went on the stand under oath and said,
[01:21:53.000 --> 01:21:56.000]  We do not have any employees.
[01:21:56.000 --> 01:22:06.000]  Now, MERS cannot have a document filed in the record signed by one of their employees because they've already said they don't have any.
[01:22:06.000 --> 01:22:07.000]  Okay.
[01:22:07.000 --> 01:22:10.000]  They're subject to collateral estoppel for making the claim.
[01:22:10.000 --> 01:22:16.000]  Even if they actually do have employees, they said they didn't have them.
[01:22:16.000 --> 01:22:19.000]  They can't come back and say they do.
[01:22:19.000 --> 01:22:21.000]  Okay.
[01:22:21.000 --> 01:22:22.000]  All right.
[01:22:22.000 --> 01:22:32.000]  So I will email to Joe tomorrow to give him the name and we can talk about what I need to do for him to get me a document for court.
[01:22:32.000 --> 01:22:34.000]  Sure.
[01:22:34.000 --> 01:22:35.000]  Okay.
[01:22:35.000 --> 01:22:36.000]  Go ahead, Joe.
[01:22:36.000 --> 01:22:37.000]  All right.
[01:22:37.000 --> 01:22:38.000]  That's fine.
[01:22:38.000 --> 01:22:39.000]  All right.
[01:22:39.000 --> 01:22:44.000]  If we're done, Darlene, let's jump down to Marlene from Texas.
[01:22:44.000 --> 01:22:46.000]  Thank you so much.
[01:22:46.000 --> 01:22:48.000]  You're welcome, Darlene.
[01:22:48.000 --> 01:22:50.000]  Good night.
[01:22:50.000 --> 01:22:54.000]  Thank you.
[01:22:54.000 --> 01:22:56.000]  Marlene, are you there?
[01:22:56.000 --> 01:22:57.000]  I am here.
[01:22:57.000 --> 01:22:58.000]  I am listening.
[01:22:58.000 --> 01:22:59.000]  How are you?
[01:22:59.000 --> 01:23:00.000]  I am doing great.
[01:23:00.000 --> 01:23:02.000]  How are you today?
[01:23:02.000 --> 01:23:04.000]  I am fine.
[01:23:04.000 --> 01:23:07.000]  I have really, really issues like what I'll do.
[01:23:07.000 --> 01:23:14.000]  First, I am not in foreclosure yet, but I am headed that way because I have offline servicing.
[01:23:14.000 --> 01:23:16.000]  They took over my servicing in March.
[01:23:16.000 --> 01:23:20.000]  They are sending back my payments.
[01:23:20.000 --> 01:23:33.000]  It's a long, long story, but on my backup, I did a refi in 2003 with AmeriQuest Mortgage, and I'm sure you're familiar with AmeriQuest Mortgage stuff.
[01:23:33.000 --> 01:23:38.000]  I closed with Fidelity National Title.
[01:23:38.000 --> 01:23:48.000]  Anyway, I have RoboSinder, Brian Blind, and Crystal Moore doing an assignment in 2009 to Mr. Duschbank.
[01:23:48.000 --> 01:23:52.000]  Sorry about that.
[01:23:52.000 --> 01:24:06.000]  Anyway, in the meantime, I sent out my qualified written request to everybody on my land records, even to AmeriQuest, even though I knew they were closed, and I sent it out to every servicer.
[01:24:06.000 --> 01:24:16.000]  I started getting all these documents in, and City Mortgage took over the servicing and also American Home Mortgage.
[01:24:16.000 --> 01:24:23.000]  City Mortgage was my servicer, took over the servicing, and AmeriQuest went belly up in 2006.
[01:24:23.000 --> 01:24:30.000]  I've had no one to service their sense, and my loan is secured, tied in 2003.
[01:24:30.000 --> 01:24:39.000]  Now, here's the situation. When I was getting these documents back from City Mortgage and everyone, and I'm cutting this real short.
[01:24:39.000 --> 01:24:41.000]  Of course, we can go on forever.
[01:24:41.000 --> 01:24:49.000]  I find a HUD form with my signature on it, and it's dated with all kinds of fees and whatever.
[01:24:49.000 --> 01:24:53.000]  I never sign, never, ever sign.
[01:24:53.000 --> 01:24:57.000]  So I take this document, and I'm going, holy crap.
[01:24:57.000 --> 01:25:02.000]  I take it to the land records in Williamson County, and in fact, I was involved.
[01:25:02.000 --> 01:25:04.000]  I was at the commissioner meeting at the audit.
[01:25:04.000 --> 01:25:08.000]  In fact, I was the one that was screaming and got the audit, I think, started.
[01:25:08.000 --> 01:25:20.000]  But anyway, so I'm at the registry, and I'm pulling my documents up, and I'm showing the employees there what I found, et cetera, et cetera, and I find out.
[01:25:20.000 --> 01:25:24.000]  Okay. Marlene, hold on.
[01:25:24.000 --> 01:25:26.000]  Do you have a question?
[01:25:26.000 --> 01:25:29.000]  I know you have a lot of information.
[01:25:29.000 --> 01:25:35.000]  It works better for us if you give us the question and then back up to this information.
[01:25:35.000 --> 01:25:41.000]  That way, we have referential index to know how this information applies to your question.
[01:25:41.000 --> 01:25:43.000]  Does that make sense?
[01:25:43.000 --> 01:25:57.000]  I was told that I could not sue on the fraud on the HUD because I had been paying on a mortgage on a loan that I never signed.
[01:25:57.000 --> 01:25:59.000]  I never signed it.
[01:25:59.000 --> 01:26:02.000]  And it's out of the fidelity.
[01:26:02.000 --> 01:26:03.000]  It was a closing.
[01:26:03.000 --> 01:26:05.000]  Okay, hold on.
[01:26:05.000 --> 01:26:07.000]  HUD 1 settlement statement you didn't sign?
[01:26:07.000 --> 01:26:08.000]  Yes.
[01:26:08.000 --> 01:26:09.000]  I did not sign.
[01:26:09.000 --> 01:26:11.000]  I did not sign that loan.
[01:26:11.000 --> 01:26:15.000]  Okay, good.
[01:26:15.000 --> 01:26:17.000]  It's been 10 years.
[01:26:17.000 --> 01:26:28.000]  Were you presented with a HUD 1 settlement statement at least one day prior to closing?
[01:26:28.000 --> 01:26:29.000]  You know what?
[01:26:29.000 --> 01:26:35.000]  Here's the thing of it is, before I closed, correct?
[01:26:35.000 --> 01:26:37.000]  Yes, I was.
[01:26:37.000 --> 01:26:43.000]  Okay, did you sign that document?
[01:26:43.000 --> 01:26:46.000]  I did not sign that document.
[01:26:46.000 --> 01:27:05.000]  At closing, did the closing agent put in front of you a HUD 1 settlement statement and ask you to sign it?
[01:27:05.000 --> 01:27:08.000]  Are you there?
[01:27:08.000 --> 01:27:10.000]  Okay, I'm waiting for the siren to end.
[01:27:10.000 --> 01:27:11.000]  Okay.
[01:27:11.000 --> 01:27:12.000]  I'm sorry.
[01:27:12.000 --> 01:27:16.000]  It's recorded in my land records that I closed.
[01:27:16.000 --> 01:27:17.000]  No, don't wait.
[01:27:17.000 --> 01:27:19.000]  You didn't answer my question.
[01:27:19.000 --> 01:27:27.000]  At closing, did the closing agent ask you to sign or initial a HUD 1 settlement statement?
[01:27:27.000 --> 01:27:29.000]  No, not a HUD 1, absolutely not.
[01:27:29.000 --> 01:27:35.000]  Okay, here's what you do, and I have great fun with this.
[01:27:35.000 --> 01:27:44.000]  At closing, the lender charged a whole bunch of fees that's listed on the HUD 1 settlement statement.
[01:27:44.000 --> 01:27:49.000]  They added those fees to the principal on your note.
[01:27:49.000 --> 01:27:54.000]  However, they failed to provide documentation.
[01:27:54.000 --> 01:28:05.000]  Okay, let me ask the question, did the lender provide documentation to show that the fees charged on the HUD 1 settlement
[01:28:05.000 --> 01:28:15.000]  statement were not otherwise forbidden to be charged by law, that the services charged for were necessary,
[01:28:15.000 --> 01:28:25.000]  that the amounts charged for the services were reasonable, that the vendors who provided the services were
[01:28:25.000 --> 01:28:36.000]  bona fide vendors and not front companies for your fiduciaries, that the services were necessary,
[01:28:36.000 --> 01:28:42.000]  and that the lender did not take an undisclosed markup on those fees?
[01:28:42.000 --> 01:28:46.000]  Now, that all goes to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.
[01:28:46.000 --> 01:28:52.000]  And while the courts will say, well, you only got two years to make a claim.
[01:28:52.000 --> 01:28:57.000]  Well, under fraud, we have a lot more than that.
[01:28:57.000 --> 01:29:06.000]  If they didn't give you this documentation, then as far as you're concerned, every one of those fees is fraudulent.
[01:29:06.000 --> 01:29:15.000]  So go on the Internet and pull up a loan amortization program.
[01:29:15.000 --> 01:29:27.000]  And put in the amount of your loan from the note, I'm sorry, better from the truth in lending statement.
[01:29:27.000 --> 01:29:36.000]  And put in the principal and interest, and get one that will calculate the total amount you'll pay over the life of the note.
[01:29:36.000 --> 01:29:39.000]  Write that down on a piece of paper.
[01:29:39.000 --> 01:29:51.000]  Then subtract all of the fees from the HUD 1 settlement statement from the principal and run it again and see what the difference is.
[01:29:51.000 --> 01:29:55.000]  You will be amazed.
[01:29:55.000 --> 01:30:00.000]  Wait a minute, hold on, we were at that.
[01:30:00.000 --> 01:30:03.000]  Are you too clean for your own good?
[01:30:03.000 --> 01:30:08.000]  According to new research, being too conscientious about dirt and germs could actually make you sick.
[01:30:08.000 --> 01:30:14.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be back with some antibacterial products you might want to avoid.
[01:30:14.000 --> 01:30:21.000]  Your search engine is watching you, recording all your searches and creating a massive database of your personal information.
[01:30:21.000 --> 01:30:22.000]  That's creepy.
[01:30:22.000 --> 01:30:24.000]  But it doesn't have to be that way.
[01:30:24.000 --> 01:30:27.000]  Startpage.com is the world's most private search engine.
[01:30:27.000 --> 01:30:34.000]  Startpage doesn't store your IP address, make a record of your searches or use tracking cookies, and they're third party certified.
[01:30:34.000 --> 01:30:38.000]  If you don't like big brother spying on you, start over with Startpage.
[01:30:38.000 --> 01:30:41.000]  Great search results and total privacy.
[01:30:41.000 --> 01:30:44.000]  Startpage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:30:44.000 --> 01:30:51.000]  A University of Michigan study suggests that antibacterial soaps and hand sanitizers could make your family sick.
[01:30:51.000 --> 01:30:55.000]  Many contain the chemical triclosan, an antimicrobial.
[01:30:55.000 --> 01:31:01.000]  Young people with higher levels of triclosan in their systems are more likely to be diagnosed with allergies and hay fever.
[01:31:01.000 --> 01:31:07.000]  Scientists believe the chemical may interfere with the body's immune system by mimicking or affecting human hormones.
[01:31:07.000 --> 01:31:13.000]  Triclosan may also prevent kids from dealing with everyday germs so they don't develop a natural immunity to them.
[01:31:13.000 --> 01:31:19.000]  So if you want a healthy clean, skip the antibacterial products and wash up with good old fashioned soap and water.
[01:31:19.000 --> 01:31:24.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:31:31.000 --> 01:31:38.000]  Here at Zombie Killer Ammo and Guns, we believe that the Second Amendment guarantees our rights as citizens to be able to defend ourselves and our loved ones.
[01:31:38.000 --> 01:31:43.000]  We also believe that the right to carry weapons comes with the responsibility of being safe and smart about guns.
[01:31:43.000 --> 01:31:50.000]  So if you're going to be in the Corpus Christi area, give us a call at 361-704-6103.
[01:31:50.000 --> 01:31:54.000]  Ask for Chris or Portia and mention this radio ad for a 10% discount.
[01:31:54.000 --> 01:32:14.000]  We can ship ammo, parts and accessories. Like us on Facebook at Zombie Killers LLC.
[01:32:24.000 --> 01:32:28.000]  Now you know hemp is not marijuana and marijuana is not hemp.
[01:32:28.000 --> 01:32:31.000]  They are different varieties of the same species.
[01:32:31.000 --> 01:32:40.000]  HempUSA.org wants the world to know these basic facts and to help people understand that hemp protein powder is the best kept health secret you need to know about.
[01:32:40.000 --> 01:32:49.000]  Remember, hemp protein powder contains 53% protein, is gluten free, anti-inflammatory, non-GMO and is loaded with nutrients.
[01:32:49.000 --> 01:33:02.000]  Call 888-910-4367 and see what our powder, seeds and oil can do for you, only at HempUSA.org.
[01:33:02.000 --> 01:33:24.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com.
[01:33:24.000 --> 01:33:52.000]  Thank you.
[01:33:52.000 --> 01:33:56.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Devin Stevens, Rule of Law Radio.
[01:33:56.000 --> 01:34:00.000]  And it looks like Marlene dropped off the board.
[01:34:00.000 --> 01:34:08.000]  But where we were going was the fees charged at closing.
[01:34:08.000 --> 01:34:15.000]  A couple of things I use this for is we use it for a qualified written request.
[01:34:15.000 --> 01:34:19.000]  And a qualified written request, you have to claim an accounting error.
[01:34:19.000 --> 01:34:25.000]  So we claim all these fees you put on this HUD-1 settlement statement, well, those things were bogus.
[01:34:25.000 --> 01:34:28.000]  They were all fraudulent.
[01:34:28.000 --> 01:34:33.000]  Now we helped about 500 people file suits with this claim in there.
[01:34:33.000 --> 01:34:37.000]  We said every one of these are garbage.
[01:34:37.000 --> 01:34:41.000]  They should never have been added to the principal, so we subtract them from the principal.
[01:34:41.000 --> 01:34:44.000]  So where are we going to go next?
[01:34:44.000 --> 01:34:49.000]  And calculate how much we overpaid.
[01:34:49.000 --> 01:34:55.000]  And then we use that as a claim of an accounting error.
[01:34:55.000 --> 01:35:01.000]  So that when you file the QWR, you have the accounting error.
[01:35:01.000 --> 01:35:04.000]  And you can also sue the lender for fraud.
[01:35:04.000 --> 01:35:06.000]  And that's where we were going, the claims we have.
[01:35:06.000 --> 01:35:16.000]  We claim they added these fees that they, for fraudulent fees that were never, for services that were never rendered.
[01:35:16.000 --> 01:35:21.000]  And in 500 suits, we never had the lender.
[01:35:21.000 --> 01:35:26.000]  We told the lender that if you prove up one of these fees, well, we'll take it off the calculation.
[01:35:26.000 --> 01:35:35.000]  We never had a lender prove up a single fee because on every note they have fraudulent fees.
[01:35:35.000 --> 01:35:40.000]  That was a practice that was so common it was institutionalized.
[01:35:40.000 --> 01:35:43.000]  So, but we'll talk about that on another show.
[01:35:43.000 --> 01:35:50.000]  That was, since Marlene has, we've lost her, we will, we're going to go on to Johnny in Texas.
[01:35:50.000 --> 01:35:51.000]  Hello, Johnny.
[01:35:51.000 --> 01:35:54.000]  What do you have for us?
[01:35:54.000 --> 01:35:55.000]  Hey, Randy.
[01:35:55.000 --> 01:36:03.000]  I just wanted to briefly update you on my situation with my lawsuit and get your feedback on it.
[01:36:03.000 --> 01:36:11.000]  As I go through this, I know all kinds of bells and whistles are going to go off for you related to going after attorneys.
[01:36:11.000 --> 01:36:13.000]  And trust me, I got that handled.
[01:36:13.000 --> 01:36:17.000]  We can talk about that off air maybe.
[01:36:17.000 --> 01:36:22.000]  But as you know, I've filed a quiet title suit in state district court.
[01:36:22.000 --> 01:36:33.000]  And I have in an application for a temporary injunction to restrain eviction during dependency of the case.
[01:36:33.000 --> 01:36:40.000]  There's also another case pending in county court on an eviction appeal that is temporarily abated.
[01:36:40.000 --> 01:36:45.000]  I had a temporary restraining order issued when I filed the lawsuit in district court.
[01:36:45.000 --> 01:36:58.000]  Last week, we were to have a hearing on my application for a preliminary injunction to decide whether or not the TRO is going to be converted to a preliminary injunction.
[01:36:58.000 --> 01:37:01.000]  Okay, hang on just a second, Johnny.
[01:37:01.000 --> 01:37:03.000]  They were trying to evict him.
[01:37:03.000 --> 01:37:04.000]  And he filed it.
[01:37:04.000 --> 01:37:09.000]  They had already foreclosed and ordered him to vacate.
[01:37:09.000 --> 01:37:11.000]  And he said, heck with you.
[01:37:11.000 --> 01:37:16.000]  And they filed a petition for eviction.
[01:37:16.000 --> 01:37:17.000]  And the judge ruled against him.
[01:37:17.000 --> 01:37:19.000]  And he appealed.
[01:37:19.000 --> 01:37:24.000]  And now he's filed a declaratory judgment.
[01:37:24.000 --> 01:37:39.000]  And he's asked for a restraining order against the JP court, restraining the JP court from authorizing the new purchaser from evicting him from the property.
[01:37:39.000 --> 01:37:42.000]  Is that right, Johnny?
[01:37:42.000 --> 01:37:46.000]  Everything except for the restraining order is not against the JP court.
[01:37:46.000 --> 01:37:54.000]  It's against the defendant to enjoin them from taking any action whatsoever to have me removed from the property.
[01:37:54.000 --> 01:37:55.000]  Okay, okay.
[01:37:55.000 --> 01:37:56.000]  Good, good.
[01:37:56.000 --> 01:37:57.000]  Okay.
[01:37:57.000 --> 01:37:59.000]  So that's to keep you from being evicted.
[01:37:59.000 --> 01:38:05.000]  And now we're looking at a declaratory judgment.
[01:38:05.000 --> 01:38:06.000]  Correct.
[01:38:05.000 --> 01:38:06.000]  Okay, go ahead.
[01:38:06.000 --> 01:38:09.000]  I was just trying to catch everybody up.
[01:38:09.000 --> 01:38:10.000]  Okay, go ahead.
[01:38:10.000 --> 01:38:19.000]  When we went in for the hearing on the preliminary injunction, a defendant's attorney showed up and said, he claims special appearance.
[01:38:19.000 --> 01:38:23.000]  He said, we have not been served with any documents in this matter.
[01:38:23.000 --> 01:38:27.000]  And the judge said, okay, so you haven't been served with any documents in the matter.
[01:38:27.000 --> 01:38:33.000]  You just basically came today to note your client's special appearance and all that.
[01:38:33.000 --> 01:38:38.000]  And the judge says, well, you know, how did you know to show up here today?
[01:38:38.000 --> 01:38:45.000]  Because I have, you know, in the file, the officer's return on service, his vacation, and the temporary restraining order.
[01:38:45.000 --> 01:38:48.000]  So I mean, the client was served.
[01:38:48.000 --> 01:39:01.000]  We, under Rule 680 of the Texas Rule of Civil Procedure, we mutually agreed, and let me clarify, the attorney who was there was paid to stand in on that one hearing.
[01:39:01.000 --> 01:39:07.000]  The actual attorney firm that's prosecuting the eviction is out of Houston.
[01:39:07.000 --> 01:39:12.000]  Okay, so the judge says, well, you're claiming special appearance.
[01:39:12.000 --> 01:39:14.000]  You're saying you haven't been served with anything.
[01:39:14.000 --> 01:39:17.000]  I've got evidence in the file that says the contrary.
[01:39:17.000 --> 01:39:24.000]  You know, in order to be fair to everybody, why don't we, you know, would you guys be willing to agree,
[01:39:24.000 --> 01:39:34.000]  mutually agree to an extension on the TRO until such time as the defendant can, you know, research the service issue.
[01:39:34.000 --> 01:39:36.000]  You know, we'll leave the TRO in effect.
[01:39:36.000 --> 01:39:42.000]  You guys can go away, figure out when you want to come back for a hearing on the preliminary injunction,
[01:39:42.000 --> 01:39:48.000]  and we'll leave the TRO in effect until you guys decide when you want to come back on that hearing.
[01:39:48.000 --> 01:39:50.000]  So we both agreed to that.
[01:39:50.000 --> 01:40:01.000]  I've been trying to get the attorney firm in Houston to sign an order, an agreement on an order for the mutual agreement.
[01:40:01.000 --> 01:40:04.000]  And today they say, well, we never agreed to that.
[01:40:04.000 --> 01:40:10.000]  We only agreed to a two-week extension on the TRO, not until, you know, next month on the hearing.
[01:40:10.000 --> 01:40:19.000]  But it's all about to be a move anyway because right now as we speak, I'm removing this to federal court.
[01:40:19.000 --> 01:40:28.000]  So and in my suit, I don't, it's all, everything that I've asked for is declaratory judgment on documents in the public record.
[01:40:28.000 --> 01:40:31.000]  It's all brought under the Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.
[01:40:31.000 --> 01:40:33.000]  It's all brought under state statutes.
[01:40:33.000 --> 01:40:36.000]  There's no federal questions in the suit whatsoever.
[01:40:36.000 --> 01:40:41.000]  And honestly, I don't think that they care whether or not it actually gets removed to federal court.
[01:40:41.000 --> 01:40:48.000]  I think that they are only doing it to open a window where they can push forward with the eviction appeal.
[01:40:48.000 --> 01:40:53.000]  Now, my question is that we never, when the, you know, the judge, and it's on record.
[01:40:53.000 --> 01:40:56.000]  All this was on record.
[01:40:56.000 --> 01:41:05.000]  When the judge asked us to agree, we agreed to a, you know, mutually agreed to an extension on the TRO until such time as we can come back, you know,
[01:41:05.000 --> 01:41:10.000]  for a hearing on the preliminary injunction, which was set in September.
[01:41:10.000 --> 01:41:12.000]  But there's no written order to that effect.
[01:41:12.000 --> 01:41:15.000]  It is all on the records, but there's no order to that effect.
[01:41:15.000 --> 01:41:20.000]  So my question is, does that TRO go away now?
[01:41:20.000 --> 01:41:30.000]  Are they, I mean, it seems to me like they are just using this removal of the federal court thing as a kind of a loophole to open a little window
[01:41:30.000 --> 01:41:33.000]  where they can push forward in the...
[01:41:33.000 --> 01:41:34.000]  Oh, okay.
[01:41:34.000 --> 01:41:37.000]  Let me make sure I understand the question.
[01:41:37.000 --> 01:41:42.000]  The TRO is in effect, temporary restraining order.
[01:41:42.000 --> 01:41:51.000]  They remove to the federal court, and what that means is, is that the state court loses all subject matter jurisdiction.
[01:41:51.000 --> 01:42:05.000]  And you're saying, is the order the judge issued concerning the TRO still valid because he doesn't have a written order?
[01:42:05.000 --> 01:42:07.000]  Correct.
[01:42:07.000 --> 01:42:09.000]  Yes, it is.
[01:42:09.000 --> 01:42:19.000]  If he, this was a court of record, if he made the ruling in court, the ruling was made.
[01:42:19.000 --> 01:42:24.000]  And when he made the ruling, he had subject matter jurisdiction.
[01:42:24.000 --> 01:42:33.000]  Once it's removed to the federal court, he doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction to make any further rulings.
[01:42:33.000 --> 01:42:47.000]  But the rulings he has already made stand unless the federal court accepts jurisdiction and then overrules the ruling made by the state court.
[01:42:47.000 --> 01:42:49.000]  So the short answer is, yes, it is.
[01:42:49.000 --> 01:42:52.000]  Is the TRO still steps?
[01:42:52.000 --> 01:42:57.000]  Well, I talked with the court coordinator about it, and she said, you know, this is...
[01:42:57.000 --> 01:43:11.000]  She said, I really don't know how that works because, you know, what you guys agreed to was to extend TRO out until such time as a hearing can be held on your preliminary injunction.
[01:43:11.000 --> 01:43:16.000]  But now that, you know, now that we're not actually going to have that hearing, does it still stand?
[01:43:16.000 --> 01:43:18.000]  She, you know, she was a little bit confused about it.
[01:43:18.000 --> 01:43:27.000]  She said she was going to run it by the judge, and I'll probably follow up on Monday and maybe try to talk to the judge and just see.
[01:43:27.000 --> 01:43:31.000]  And once they get it removed to federal court, I can easily get it remanded.
[01:43:31.000 --> 01:43:33.000]  I'm not asking for damages.
[01:43:33.000 --> 01:43:35.000]  I'm not asking for attorney's fees.
[01:43:35.000 --> 01:43:38.000]  No federal questions raised.
[01:43:38.000 --> 01:43:40.000]  I hear we're going to break there.
[01:43:40.000 --> 01:43:48.000]  Okay, this is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Wheel of Law Radio, our caller number, 512-646-1984.
[01:43:48.000 --> 01:43:50.000]  But it may be a little late.
[01:43:50.000 --> 01:43:57.000]  We have about three more callers and one segment left, so we're about to run out of time.
[01:43:57.000 --> 01:44:00.000]  We'll be right back on the other side.
[01:44:00.000 --> 01:44:04.000]  Do you feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics?
[01:44:04.000 --> 01:44:05.000]  Sorry.
[01:44:05.000 --> 01:44:08.000]  Are you confused by words like the Constitution or the Federal Reserve?
[01:44:08.000 --> 01:44:09.000]  What?
[01:44:09.000 --> 01:44:13.000]  I was diagnosed with the deadliest disease known today, stupidity.
[01:44:13.000 --> 01:44:19.000]  Hi, my name is Steve Holt, and like millions of other Americans, I was diagnosed with stupidity at an early age.
[01:44:19.000 --> 01:44:25.000]  I had no idea that the number one cause of the disease is found in almost every home in America, the television.
[01:44:25.000 --> 01:44:30.000]  Unfortunately, that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity, but there is hope.
[01:44:30.000 --> 01:44:36.000]  The staff at Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other foxaholics suffering from sports-zombieism recover.
[01:44:36.000 --> 01:44:43.000]  And because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading and watching educational documentaries without feeling tired or uninterested.
[01:44:43.000 --> 01:44:50.000]  So if you or anybody you know suffers from stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503
[01:44:50.000 --> 01:44:55.000]  or visit them in 1904 Guadalupe or bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:44:55.000 --> 01:44:58.000]  Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include discernment and enlarged vocabulary
[01:44:58.000 --> 01:45:01.000]  and an overall increase in mental functioning.
[01:45:01.000 --> 01:45:04.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:04.000 --> 01:45:11.000]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand 4-CD course
[01:45:11.000 --> 01:45:15.000]  that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[01:45:15.000 --> 01:45:19.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:45:19.000 --> 01:45:23.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:23.000 --> 01:45:28.000]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:45:28.000 --> 01:45:34.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:45:34.000 --> 01:45:39.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[01:45:39.000 --> 01:45:43.000]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:43.000 --> 01:45:49.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[01:45:49.000 --> 01:45:52.000]  pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:45:52.000 --> 01:45:56.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner
[01:45:56.000 --> 01:46:01.000]  or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:26.000 --> 01:46:43.000]  Okay, we are back, Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Rule of Law Radio,
[01:46:43.000 --> 01:46:46.000]  Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Joe Esquivel.
[01:46:46.000 --> 01:46:51.000]  It's always just Randy Kelton, Joe Esquivel, because Deborah Stevens is not here tonight.
[01:46:51.000 --> 01:46:54.000]  Okay, enough of that.
[01:46:54.000 --> 01:47:01.000]  On the break, we talked about preliminary injunction, temporary restraining order.
[01:47:01.000 --> 01:47:04.000]  Before we go back to Johnny, let me talk about that.
[01:47:04.000 --> 01:47:09.000]  Temporary restraining order goes to the preliminary injunction.
[01:47:09.000 --> 01:47:13.000]  If you want a preliminary injunction, you file that with the court.
[01:47:13.000 --> 01:47:21.000]  But in order for the other side to have adequate time, they need at least 15 days' notice.
[01:47:21.000 --> 01:47:24.000]  So what if you only got seven days?
[01:47:24.000 --> 01:47:28.000]  You go to the court and you petition for a preliminary injunction.
[01:47:28.000 --> 01:47:34.000]  However, you notice the court, you don't have time to notice the other side
[01:47:34.000 --> 01:47:37.000]  to give them adequate time to prepare.
[01:47:37.000 --> 01:47:43.000]  So will you provide for me an emergency temporary restraining order
[01:47:43.000 --> 01:47:48.000]  that will restrain the other side from moving ahead
[01:47:48.000 --> 01:47:55.000]  until we can schedule and have a hearing on the preliminary injunction?
[01:47:55.000 --> 01:47:58.000]  That's what the temporary restraining order is for.
[01:47:58.000 --> 01:48:01.000]  Okay, back to Johnny.
[01:48:01.000 --> 01:48:03.000]  Where were we?
[01:48:03.000 --> 01:48:13.000]  Well, I just wanted to get your take as to right now I filed a motion in the appellate court
[01:48:13.000 --> 01:48:18.000]  a second challenge to subject matter jurisdiction based on a ton of state law that I found that says that
[01:48:18.000 --> 01:48:23.000]  if you raise title issues in a forcible entry and detainer case,
[01:48:23.000 --> 01:48:27.000]  you affirmatively bring those title issues to the attention of the court
[01:48:27.000 --> 01:48:30.000]  and to the attention of the plaintiff,
[01:48:30.000 --> 01:48:38.000]  and you show the court that you have a case pending to get those title issues adjudicated,
[01:48:38.000 --> 01:48:44.000]  the eviction court is deprived of subject matter jurisdiction.
[01:48:44.000 --> 01:48:46.000]  So right now I have a state court suit.
[01:48:46.000 --> 01:48:48.000]  They're trying to get it removed from the federal court.
[01:48:48.000 --> 01:48:52.000]  Either way, I've got a suit pending to adjudicate title issues.
[01:48:52.000 --> 01:48:56.000]  I don't know if this particular county court is going to honor that or not,
[01:48:56.000 --> 01:48:59.000]  but it seems like they're just trying to open the window on this TRO
[01:48:59.000 --> 01:49:01.000]  by the removal of the federal court.
[01:49:01.000 --> 01:49:03.000]  I don't think they actually care to get it removed from the federal court.
[01:49:03.000 --> 01:49:09.000]  Okay, moving it to federal court will not affect the TRO.
[01:49:09.000 --> 01:49:15.000]  If the TRO is in place, it's going to stay exactly like it was.
[01:49:15.000 --> 01:49:24.000]  Unless the federal court accepts jurisdiction, they can change the TRO.
[01:49:24.000 --> 01:49:32.000]  But once the motion is filed, once the notice of removal is filed, the case is removed.
[01:49:32.000 --> 01:49:37.000]  The state court cannot change the TRO at this point.
[01:49:37.000 --> 01:49:43.000]  And until the federal court takes jurisdiction, they can't either.
[01:49:43.000 --> 01:49:50.000]  So it stays just like it is until somebody steps up with subject matter jurisdiction
[01:49:50.000 --> 01:49:56.000]  and makes a determination concerning the TRO.
[01:49:56.000 --> 01:49:59.000]  I think that answers your question.
[01:49:59.000 --> 01:50:02.000]  The TRO stays in place.
[01:50:02.000 --> 01:50:03.000]  Okay.
[01:50:03.000 --> 01:50:05.000]  Yeah, that does answer my question.
[01:50:05.000 --> 01:50:07.000]  I appreciate it.
[01:50:07.000 --> 01:50:12.000]  And almost certainly when you get to the federal court, if they accept jurisdiction,
[01:50:12.000 --> 01:50:16.000]  they're going to leave the TRO in place as well because they're going to presume
[01:50:16.000 --> 01:50:20.000]  that the state court made a misdetermination
[01:50:20.000 --> 01:50:25.000]  and they're not going to go back and revisit it.
[01:50:25.000 --> 01:50:27.000]  That's kind of what I was thinking and hoping.
[01:50:27.000 --> 01:50:33.000]  And either way, I think I'll easily get it remanded to the state court.
[01:50:33.000 --> 01:50:35.000]  But we'll see how it goes.
[01:50:35.000 --> 01:50:36.000]  I appreciate it.
[01:50:36.000 --> 01:50:39.000]  I'll drop off and see if you can squeeze another caller in.
[01:50:39.000 --> 01:50:43.000]  But before I go, I do want to congratulate you, Randy.
[01:50:43.000 --> 01:50:54.000]  I am thoroughly excited and ecstatic to hear that you now have some actual real talent
[01:50:54.000 --> 01:50:57.000]  on Friday nights now.
[01:50:57.000 --> 01:51:01.000]  Ouch.
[01:51:01.000 --> 01:51:07.000]  Why don't you just stick me in the eye with a sharp stick?
[01:51:07.000 --> 01:51:13.000]  For those of you who didn't catch that, I've been doing the Friday night shows myself.
[01:51:13.000 --> 01:51:17.000]  It's nice to know I got friends out there.
[01:51:17.000 --> 01:51:22.000]  I thought I'd wake you up a little bit, lighten up your night.
[01:51:22.000 --> 01:51:25.000]  Well, thank you very much, Johnny.
[01:51:25.000 --> 01:51:27.000]  We'll be in touch.
[01:51:27.000 --> 01:51:34.000]  Deb, make sure you block that call from now on.
[01:51:34.000 --> 01:51:35.000]  Okay.
[01:51:35.000 --> 01:51:38.000]  We're going to go to James in Texas.
[01:51:38.000 --> 01:51:39.000]  Hello, James.
[01:51:39.000 --> 01:51:41.000]  What do you have for us tonight?
[01:51:41.000 --> 01:51:42.000]  Hey, Randy.
[01:51:42.000 --> 01:51:43.000]  I'm a party.
[01:51:43.000 --> 01:51:47.000]  I'm one of five parties that own a property out in California,
[01:51:47.000 --> 01:51:52.000]  a two and a half acre lot, and we have been unable to find one of the parties.
[01:51:52.000 --> 01:51:58.000]  Apparently he dropped off the map after leaving in the night with some old business partners.
[01:51:58.000 --> 01:52:02.000]  He took some capital and left town, and no one's been able to find him.
[01:52:02.000 --> 01:52:05.000]  And we don't know what to do if we wanted to sell the property.
[01:52:05.000 --> 01:52:10.000]  How do we deal about handling the fact that we're missing one of the owners?
[01:52:10.000 --> 01:52:12.000]  That is a good question.
[01:52:12.000 --> 01:52:14.000]  Joe, do you have any idea?
[01:52:14.000 --> 01:52:17.000]  No idea. Do you have any idea, Joe?
[01:52:17.000 --> 01:52:19.000]  No, I don't.
[01:52:19.000 --> 01:52:20.000]  I can't.
[01:52:20.000 --> 01:52:22.000]  You got me stumped.
[01:52:22.000 --> 01:52:26.000]  You can't take away his ownership because you can't find him.
[01:52:26.000 --> 01:52:32.000]  You know, normally if you have something that you're trying to adjudicate and you can't locate a party,
[01:52:32.000 --> 01:52:39.000]  you can petition the court for notice by publication.
[01:52:39.000 --> 01:52:44.000]  This is a guy's ownership and property.
[01:52:44.000 --> 01:52:52.000]  There is probably some provision to, like if you want to sell the property,
[01:52:52.000 --> 01:52:59.000]  put his percentage of ownership into escrow or something.
[01:52:59.000 --> 01:53:08.000]  And I suspect if you have enough people with ownership and you have a majority of the people,
[01:53:08.000 --> 01:53:13.000]  they have enough say to sell the property without his permission.
[01:53:13.000 --> 01:53:14.000]  Okay.
[01:53:14.000 --> 01:53:20.000]  As long as you have more than 51%, you're going to have that ability
[01:53:20.000 --> 01:53:25.000]  unless there's some contractual provision preventing it.
[01:53:25.000 --> 01:53:26.000]  Okay.
[01:53:26.000 --> 01:53:34.000]  But I would suspect you would have to try to locate him, maybe hire a private investigator.
[01:53:34.000 --> 01:53:35.000]  Okay.
[01:53:35.000 --> 01:53:43.000]  If the private investigator says, I can't find him, then you file a public notice telling him
[01:53:43.000 --> 01:53:50.000]  that you have property he owns in conjunction with other people and you plan to sell it.
[01:53:50.000 --> 01:53:54.000]  If you object, please contact us by this date.
[01:53:54.000 --> 01:53:57.000]  And Julie, it's like 30 days.
[01:53:57.000 --> 01:53:58.000]  Okay.
[01:53:58.000 --> 01:54:02.000]  And you need to be able to show the court.
[01:54:02.000 --> 01:54:05.000]  We exercise due diligence in order to locate this person.
[01:54:05.000 --> 01:54:08.000]  And we had enough people that we had a majority of the property,
[01:54:08.000 --> 01:54:11.000]  so we maintained we had the right to sell it.
[01:54:11.000 --> 01:54:14.000]  But it is a very specific question.
[01:54:14.000 --> 01:54:23.000]  You'd almost certainly have to ask a lawyer in California who's familiar with California property law.
[01:54:23.000 --> 01:54:24.000]  Okay.
[01:54:24.000 --> 01:54:29.000]  And another question is the guy that gets the letters from the county with the taxes,
[01:54:29.000 --> 01:54:34.000]  everyone's been chipping in, except one of the parties has not chipped in any money.
[01:54:34.000 --> 01:54:41.000]  Is there any legal way that you know to get somebody off if they're not paying on the taxes,
[01:54:41.000 --> 01:54:42.000]  or do they just get...
[01:54:42.000 --> 01:54:45.000]  Do you have any contract?
[01:54:45.000 --> 01:54:49.000]  I don't know.
[01:54:49.000 --> 01:54:53.000]  I mean, we've just kind of been doing it in good faith.
[01:54:53.000 --> 01:54:56.000]  I don't know if there's an actual contract.
[01:54:56.000 --> 01:55:03.000]  Okay, here's a good place to do the commercial process.
[01:55:03.000 --> 01:55:14.000]  Send him a letter requesting that he make up for all of the funds he hasn't paid in accordance with the verbal agreement.
[01:55:14.000 --> 01:55:17.000]  You have enough people to establish a verbal agreement.
[01:55:17.000 --> 01:55:19.000]  Okay.
[01:55:19.000 --> 01:55:32.000]  One of the biggest lawsuits in the United States history was JP Getty Oil and someone else.
[01:55:32.000 --> 01:55:41.000]  And JP Getty Oil won this suit, one of the biggest judgments in history, on a verbal contract.
[01:55:41.000 --> 01:55:46.000]  So you have enough people to establish a verbal agreement to pay these amounts.
[01:55:46.000 --> 01:55:51.000]  If he fails to pay them and you guys have to pay them, then you send him a notice of claim,
[01:55:51.000 --> 01:55:54.000]  ask him to remit these funds.
[01:55:54.000 --> 01:55:59.000]  And if he fails to do so in the administrative process,
[01:55:59.000 --> 01:56:08.000]  you've primarily demonstrated that you've exercised due diligence in order to resolve this issue.
[01:56:08.000 --> 01:56:13.000]  Then you can go to the court and ask for a judgment against him in this amount,
[01:56:13.000 --> 01:56:18.000]  so that if you sell the property, you can take the judgment from the settlement.
[01:56:18.000 --> 01:56:23.000]  Now, if the person that received the letters from the county regarding the taxes that were due,
[01:56:23.000 --> 01:56:29.000]  if they didn't notify this person annually about these taxes, if they weren't able to be reached,
[01:56:29.000 --> 01:56:34.000]  I mean, isn't owning the property, I mean, aren't you supposed to...
[01:56:34.000 --> 01:56:35.000]  They have a duty.
[01:56:35.000 --> 01:56:41.000]  If you can't reach him, then you try to reach him by publication.
[01:56:41.000 --> 01:56:44.000]  If I try to serve you and I can't find you,
[01:56:44.000 --> 01:56:48.000]  I can go to the court and ask for alternative service by publication.
[01:56:48.000 --> 01:56:54.000]  So if you do this in a private matter, you try to reach this person and you can't,
[01:56:54.000 --> 01:56:59.000]  so you do service by publication the same way you would do it in court.
[01:56:59.000 --> 01:57:03.000]  Then when you go to the court, you can show that you've exercised due diligence
[01:57:03.000 --> 01:57:05.000]  and I'm almost certainly ruling your favor.
[01:57:05.000 --> 01:57:12.000]  But then again, this goes to some fine points of the particular state that you're in.
[01:57:12.000 --> 01:57:17.000]  This is not something I could answer definitively.
[01:57:17.000 --> 01:57:22.000]  All I can do is say, you know, this is what sounds reasonable.
[01:57:22.000 --> 01:57:26.000]  So don't believe anything I say.
[01:57:26.000 --> 01:57:33.000]  You check on it, but that gives you a place to look.
[01:57:33.000 --> 01:57:36.000]  Okay, does that make sense?
[01:57:36.000 --> 01:57:38.000]  Looks like he dropped off.
[01:57:38.000 --> 01:57:39.000]  We just lost our caller.
[01:57:39.000 --> 01:57:41.000]  Okay, we only have a minute left.
[01:57:41.000 --> 01:57:47.000]  Joe, would you like to take us out, kind of tell everybody what you do and why they should look into it?
[01:57:47.000 --> 01:57:50.000]  Sure.
[01:57:50.000 --> 01:57:54.000]  I am with mortgage compliance investigators
[01:57:54.000 --> 01:58:01.000]  and we investigate all of these fun loans that are out there.
[01:58:01.000 --> 01:58:03.000]  That's what we do.
[01:58:03.000 --> 01:58:06.000]  We use licensed private investigators.
[01:58:06.000 --> 01:58:12.000]  We use any means at our disposal that we can.
[01:58:12.000 --> 01:58:16.000]  We use documents filed in a public record, et cetera, et cetera.
[01:58:16.000 --> 01:58:24.000]  If anybody has any questions, we can be reached at 888-491-3741.
[01:58:24.000 --> 01:58:32.000]  I'd like to thank everybody. This has been Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, and Joe Esquivel on Rule of Law.
[01:58:32.000 --> 01:58:36.000]  And I will be co-hosting with Randy on Friday 9th.
[01:58:36.000 --> 01:58:42.000]  And I'm looking forward to the input from our listeners out there.
[01:58:42.000 --> 01:58:46.000]  So any question that you have, we will be answering it.
[01:58:46.000 --> 01:58:48.000]  And thank you so much for tonight.
[01:58:48.000 --> 01:58:50.000]  Thank you, everybody.
[01:58:50.000 --> 01:58:58.000]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study Bible called the New Testament Recovery Version.
[01:58:58.000 --> 01:59:04.000]  The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain what the Bible says verse by verse,
[01:59:04.000 --> 01:59:08.000]  helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[01:59:08.000 --> 01:59:11.000]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America.
[01:59:11.000 --> 01:59:20.000]  Call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:20.000 --> 01:59:30.000]  This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross references, plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:59:30.000 --> 01:59:32.000]  This is truly a Bible you can understand.
[01:59:32.000 --> 01:59:41.000]  To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:59:41.000 --> 01:59:50.000]  That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:50.000 --> 01:59:54.000]  Looking for some truth? You found it.
[01:59:54.000 --> 02:00:02.000]  LogosRadioNetwork.com