ROL_2015-04-23_16k.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:10.600]  This news flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing your daily bulletins
[00:10.600 --> 00:12.160]  for the commodities market.
[00:12.160 --> 00:23.640]  Today in history, news updates and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative.
[00:23.640 --> 00:29.000]  Markets today opened up with gold at $1,188.93 an ounce.
[00:29.000 --> 00:39.320]  Texas crude, $56.16 a barrel, and Bitcoin is currently sitting at $235 U.S. currency.
[00:39.320 --> 00:50.880]  Today in history, Thursday, April 23, 2009, gamma ray burst GRB 090423 is detected by
[00:50.880 --> 00:53.720]  the Swift gamma ray burst mission satellite.
[00:53.720 --> 00:57.920]  The afterglow of the gamma ray was detected in infrared and allowed for astronomers to
[00:57.920 --> 01:03.120]  determine that it was the most distant object to have ever been seen to date with the spectroscopic
[01:03.120 --> 01:09.760]  redshift method.
[01:09.760 --> 01:13.460]  In recent news, former CIA Director David Petraeus is expected to be sentenced today
[01:13.460 --> 01:16.800]  in federal court for giving out classified material.
[01:16.800 --> 01:20.840]  He agreed to plead guilty several months ago to the misdemeanor count of unauthorized removal
[01:20.840 --> 01:23.820]  and retention of sensitive information.
[01:23.820 --> 01:28.600]  He was giving the classified data to his biographer, Paul Abrodwell, with whom he was caught having
[01:28.600 --> 01:30.960]  an extramarital affair.
[01:30.960 --> 01:35.620]  The plea agreement carries a possible sentence of up to a year in prison, two years probation
[01:35.620 --> 01:43.080]  and a $40,000 fine.
[01:43.080 --> 01:46.780]  According to new U.S. census figures, legal and illegal immigrants will hit record high
[01:46.780 --> 01:52.980]  of $51 million in just eight years and eventually account for an astounding 82% of all population
[01:52.980 --> 01:54.200]  growth in America.
[01:54.200 --> 01:59.080]  A report from the Center of Immigration Studies, which analyzed the census statistics, said
[01:59.080 --> 02:11.960]  that by 2023, 1 in 7 U.S. residents will be an immigrant, rising to about 1 in 5 by 2060.
[02:11.960 --> 02:16.620]  The American Enterprise Institute released 18 spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions
[02:16.620 --> 02:20.080]  made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970.
[02:20.080 --> 02:21.080]  Expect more this year.
[02:21.080 --> 02:25.160]  This article is written by AEI scholar Mark J. Perry.
[02:25.160 --> 02:30.200]  It outlines the hysteria being promoted in the 1970s from the environmentalist community,
[02:30.200 --> 02:34.760]  everything from predicting that billions would be dying off in the 80s due to lack of adequate
[02:34.760 --> 02:39.320]  food and water to the eventual collapse of civilization in 30 years.
[02:39.320 --> 02:43.320]  Slightly hysterical, to say the least.
[02:43.320 --> 02:48.320]  The All-Star Lowdown is currently looking for sponsors.
[02:48.320 --> 02:51.920]  If you have a product or service that you would like to advertise in the Lowdown, feel
[02:51.920 --> 02:56.280]  free to give us a call at 210-863-5617.
[02:56.280 --> 03:22.760]  This has been the Lowdown for April 23, 2015.
[03:27.120 --> 03:30.100]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do?
[03:30.100 --> 03:32.600]  Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[03:32.600 --> 03:35.620]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do?
[03:35.620 --> 03:38.520]  Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[03:38.520 --> 03:43.640]  When you were eight and you had bad traits You'd go to school and learn the golden rules
[03:43.640 --> 03:46.500]  So why are you acting like a bloody fool?
[03:46.500 --> 03:49.200]  Give you sugar and you must get cool!
[03:49.200 --> 03:52.080]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do?
[03:52.080 --> 03:54.540]  Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[03:54.540 --> 03:57.380]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do?
[03:57.380 --> 04:00.280]  Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[04:00.280 --> 04:03.000]  You took it on that one, you took it on this one
[04:03.000 --> 04:05.800]  You took it on your mother and you took it on your father
[04:05.800 --> 04:08.460]  You took it on your brother and you took it on your sister
[04:08.460 --> 04:11.080]  You took it on that one and you took it on me
[04:11.080 --> 04:13.980]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do?
[04:13.980 --> 04:16.460]  Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[04:16.460 --> 04:19.400]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do?
[04:19.400 --> 04:20.600]  Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[04:20.600 --> 04:27.160]  Okay, howdy, howdy everyone. This is Brandon Pelton, Debra Stevens, rule of our radio on this
[04:27.800 --> 04:36.520]  Thursday, April the 23rd, 2015. We're starting out with callers on the board first thing.
[04:37.720 --> 04:43.080]  So we have someone held over from the last show actually called in for this show, but called it
[04:43.080 --> 04:48.840]  a little early. So we're going to start out by taking a caller. Terry in Missouri. Terry,
[04:48.840 --> 04:54.840]  what is it you have for us today? Yes, sir. I'm going to update you quickly on that
[04:54.840 --> 05:01.880]  fair credit reporting act case. I submitted to the court two motions, one to strike the
[05:01.880 --> 05:09.480]  perjurist document, the other for a more definite statement. I've also sent the bar
[05:09.480 --> 05:14.920]  grievances to two attorneys. So all that's accomplished. Okay, hold on, hold on. For those
[05:14.920 --> 05:20.760]  who didn't hear you last time you were on, kind of give us a quick synopsis up to where you're at.
[05:21.560 --> 05:28.760]  I'll be glad to, Randy. I'm suing numerous bank entities here in central Missouri.
[05:29.640 --> 05:36.840]  Here's the deal. I applied with a credit card. Due to ongoing health illnesses, somebody got into
[05:36.840 --> 05:43.560]  my house and used the card, deprived me of the right to get loans. And it just went downhill
[05:43.560 --> 05:52.040]  from there. And in 2010, I started to get all my credit files, which I've kept now for four and a
[05:52.040 --> 06:02.040]  half years. And as we all know, only one company can issue a credit card. So why are there minimum
[06:03.640 --> 06:09.240]  in my credit report, there's actually three or four banks that have their name attached to the
[06:09.240 --> 06:19.160]  same credit card account number, and that they certainly cannot do. So is this the basis of your
[06:19.160 --> 06:28.280]  action? Yes, sir. Because of their fair credit reporting act, act duties that they violated,
[06:29.160 --> 06:37.400]  deprived me of the opportunity to get loans, run my business, cause me health issues, which I deal
[06:37.400 --> 06:47.560]  with on a daily basis now. So, okay. So where are we with them now? Yes, sir. Wait a minute. Let me
[06:47.560 --> 06:55.880]  ask first. I take it that you're the plaintiff and you sued all of them? Yes, sir. Did they all answer
[06:55.880 --> 07:05.480]  the suit? Yes, through their, through their attorney. Are they all using one attorney?
[07:05.480 --> 07:15.000]  Yes, sir. Well, that's interesting. And all of them answered individually or did they answer
[07:15.640 --> 07:23.800]  as a single entity? No, when I sued them and when they answered and answered came back from,
[07:23.800 --> 07:34.920]  through the attorney on all the various parties. Okay. What was their alleged affirmative defenses?
[07:37.240 --> 07:45.240]  I didn't see anything in there was roughly 55 pages. It was to me just general denials. They
[07:45.240 --> 07:56.840]  put forth nothing. And that's when my discovery started. And I was- Okay. Hold on. So they just
[07:56.840 --> 08:05.560]  denied your claims and did not make any affirmative defense claims of their own? Very little, Randy.
[08:05.560 --> 08:08.120]  No. Wonderful. Wonderful. Fair assumption.
[08:08.120 --> 08:15.160]  Okay. So where are we now? Did you get your discovery?
[08:16.360 --> 08:24.760]  Yeah. In the discovery, I was able to obtain the actual copy of the credit card
[08:24.760 --> 08:32.040]  contract or the cardholders agreement. And on page one, it says central trust bank
[08:32.040 --> 08:41.080]  is the issuing bank. On page eight of page nine, then it says the MasterCard Visa card here and
[08:41.080 --> 08:50.280]  after call card enclosed herein is issued by the central trust bank. I want to tell you that the
[08:50.280 --> 08:58.920]  company called central trust bank is nothing more than a DBA account. The Missouri secretary of state
[08:58.920 --> 09:07.560]  on documents through a records request prove that. And so there's two names on the cardholder
[09:07.560 --> 09:12.920]  agreement. And it really, me and Michael Mears have looked at this and we find it to be pretty
[09:12.920 --> 09:22.360]  flimsy. Doesn't make sense. You're talking the contract itself doesn't make sense.
[09:22.360 --> 09:30.920]  Yes, sir. Okay. You said central trust bank was the issuer. What was the, I thought you said the
[09:30.920 --> 09:37.480]  same name twice. What was the second name? Yeah. The actual legal name is called the
[09:38.200 --> 09:45.640]  central trust bank. That's on page eight of page nine of the cardholder agreement. Page one says
[09:45.640 --> 09:55.480]  the issuing bank is central trust bank. Page eight says the card, the creditor is the central trust
[09:55.480 --> 10:02.920]  bank, two different entities. Now that is interesting. So which one is the DBA?
[10:04.920 --> 10:12.440]  Yeah, the DBA is central trust bank shown on page one. So the central trust bank is the
[10:12.440 --> 10:21.160]  parent company. For lack of a better word, yes. They're the only legal entity that's actually
[10:21.160 --> 10:29.000]  incorporated. And they're the, it's just a maze of about 31 different banks that are all connected
[10:29.000 --> 10:35.800]  to the people I'm suing or the entities that I'm suing. Every time I've seen a DBA listed,
[10:35.800 --> 10:42.600]  they always list the name DBA and then who they're a DBA for.
[10:42.600 --> 10:47.960]  Yes. Did they not, did they not do that? So it's clear who the parent entity is?
[10:48.760 --> 10:56.280]  It doesn't say that on page one. And then on page eight, it just simply goes and mentions the other
[10:56.280 --> 11:01.400]  firm called the central trust bank called creditor.
[11:01.400 --> 11:09.240]  So that would leave a reasonable person of ordinary prudence in a position to where he could make,
[11:09.240 --> 11:17.560]  where different people could come to different conclusions about who the originating party was.
[11:18.440 --> 11:24.360]  So that's very true. It's very deceptive. And when I had my credit reports looked at, and me and
[11:24.360 --> 11:32.280]  Michael have looked at them for numerous times now, the credit card account number is attached to all
[11:32.280 --> 11:40.520]  the, is attached to this central trust bank, the central trust bank, and in three other banks have
[11:40.520 --> 11:46.360]  their name attached to it that are called central bank to that one credit card account number.
[11:47.960 --> 11:49.480]  And that they cannot do.
[11:49.480 --> 11:52.520]  What specifically prevents them from doing that?
[11:56.040 --> 12:00.680]  I don't know. I'd have to go back and look at the exact section of the fair credit reporting act.
[12:02.200 --> 12:09.480]  But it's based on the actual creditor that's on the card holder agreement.
[12:10.520 --> 12:14.360]  And there's three sections in the fair credit reporting act now.
[12:14.360 --> 12:21.640]  And there's three sections in the fair credit reporting act, the duty section that clearly state
[12:22.360 --> 12:30.440]  at one address and one address only, one bank name and one creditor name only, no more and no emissions.
[12:31.960 --> 12:35.400]  So that you know who to write to and know exactly who you're dealing with.
[12:37.800 --> 12:40.120]  Okay. So where are we at at the moment?
[12:40.120 --> 12:47.240]  Yes, sir. To bring you up to date earlier this week, I filed a motion to strike the perjurious
[12:47.240 --> 12:53.960]  document, which was an affidavit submitted by the attorney on behalf of one of the bank owners.
[12:54.840 --> 13:02.120]  And the court has not stricken that. It's still sitting there.
[13:02.120 --> 13:08.520]  He has stricken or he has denied my motion for a more definite statement.
[13:08.520 --> 13:13.960]  I put in another motion after that. Randy, for another most for definite statement,
[13:13.960 --> 13:18.120]  he denied that. And I got a motion for reconsideration.
[13:19.240 --> 13:26.760]  And also to kind of bring you up to speed or the people up to speed here,
[13:27.480 --> 13:33.960]  is that we had an oral argument. And that oral argument was just done about a week and a half ago.
[13:33.960 --> 13:42.840]  And it was to talk about various motions that were filed, which were of course my motion for summary
[13:42.840 --> 13:50.840]  judgment, my motion for default judgment, my motion to leave to amend to add the other defendants
[13:50.840 --> 13:57.800]  to find out who truly owns who. And the other motion, of course, was the defendant's motion for
[13:57.800 --> 14:05.560]  summary judgment. And they also submitted a motion under 41B. And if you recall, I told you they never
[14:05.560 --> 14:12.200]  served me, they never signed and dated that, and that violates rule 11C4. And of course,
[14:14.040 --> 14:19.240]  we were supposed to have clarification and summarize on those six pending motions.
[14:19.240 --> 14:25.560]  And that did not occur in front of that judge, because all he was there to do was belittle me.
[14:25.560 --> 14:29.720]  And of course, I told you, I've got my, got everything recorded.
[14:30.600 --> 14:34.200]  Did you, did you file a judicial conduct complaint against him?
[14:34.920 --> 14:40.120]  No, I did not know how to do that yet. And I was a little busy. I got everything else accomplished.
[14:40.120 --> 14:45.880]  And then tomorrow I have to file my motion for reconsideration. And then I'm going to do that.
[14:47.160 --> 14:53.880]  I'm very quick to remind a judge that he's a public servant, and I am the master,
[14:53.880 --> 14:59.640]  and I am the master, and I'm not here to be belittled by him. If he has a personal opinion,
[15:00.280 --> 15:05.000]  then he needs to get down off the bench and have himself replaced with the fair, honest,
[15:05.000 --> 15:10.760]  and competent jurist I have a right to in the first instance. And I really hate that.
[15:11.960 --> 15:17.640]  I hated it too, and I certainly agree. And if there's anything I can do to get this disgusting
[15:17.640 --> 15:22.360]  thing removed off the bench, I'm certainly going to do that because I've done everything else.
[15:22.360 --> 15:27.320]  And they can't dismiss the complaint other than some type of a frivolous order,
[15:27.320 --> 15:32.440]  which will get reviewed on appeal and sent right back. And I really, to be honest with you, Randy,
[15:32.440 --> 15:36.040]  I want to go back and have this set in front of the judge and make him eat crow.
[15:36.840 --> 15:40.920]  That would be great fun. Judges hate to be overturned.
[15:43.000 --> 15:44.200]  Well, but I could-
[15:44.200 --> 15:49.480]  But then they also hate to rule in a pro se's favor against a lawyer.
[15:49.480 --> 15:57.480]  Of course. So the good judicial conduct
[15:57.480 --> 16:03.320]  complainer too, that'll get his attention. Is he a district judge or a magistrate?
[16:04.040 --> 16:09.880]  He's a district court judge in Springfield, Missouri. He got in there from the other judge
[16:09.880 --> 16:14.600]  who had passed away of a heart attack. Oh, he is going to be real unhappy
[16:14.600 --> 16:21.720]  if he gets a judicial conduct complaint early on. You know, every one of these judges, these federal
[16:21.720 --> 16:30.520]  judges, they aspire to the appeals court. And you file a judicial conduct complaint,
[16:30.520 --> 16:38.040]  it doesn't make any difference what you file. It's a mark on his record and he'll stay there forever.
[16:38.760 --> 16:42.520]  And if he's competing against somebody who don't have marks on their record,
[16:42.520 --> 16:47.800]  he's going to look like more of a liability and the other guy get picked. Hang on, Randy Kelton,
[16:47.800 --> 17:17.160]  Deborah Stevens, Rural Law Radio, I'll call it number 512-646-1984. We'll be right back.
[17:17.800 --> 17:21.800]  The world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated.
[17:22.360 --> 17:28.520]  Young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need. Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse
[17:28.520 --> 17:34.520]  all sorts of products, most of which we reject. We have come to trust Young Jevity so much we
[17:34.520 --> 17:40.680]  became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others. When you order
[17:40.680 --> 17:47.880]  from LogosRadioNetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio. As you
[17:47.880 --> 17:53.960]  realize the benefits of Young Jevity, you may want to join us. As a distributor, you can experience
[17:53.960 --> 18:01.240]  improved health, help your friends and family, and increase your income. Order now. Are you being
[18:01.240 --> 18:06.760]  harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits? Stop debt collectors
[18:06.760 --> 18:12.360]  now with the Michael Mears Proven Method. Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against
[18:12.360 --> 18:17.640]  debt collectors, and now you can win too. You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English
[18:17.640 --> 18:23.320]  on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes, what to do when contacted by phone,
[18:23.320 --> 18:28.200]  mail, or court summons, how to answer letters and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of
[18:28.200 --> 18:34.040]  your credit report, how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[18:34.040 --> 18:39.320]  The Michael Mears Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. Personal
[18:39.320 --> 18:44.680]  consultation is available as well. For more information, please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com
[18:44.680 --> 18:50.040]  and click on the blue Michael Mears banner, or email MichaelMears at Yahoo.com. That's
[18:50.040 --> 18:59.000]  RuleOfLawRadio.com, or email M-I-C-H-A-E-L-M-I-R-R-A-S at Yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt
[18:59.000 --> 19:08.280]  collectors now. You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[19:29.000 --> 19:56.840]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking to Terry in
[19:56.840 --> 20:04.440]  Missouri. Okay, Terry, where were we? We were talking about beating up on the judge.
[20:05.240 --> 20:11.480]  Yes, sir. And I had a question for you. Can you also put bar grievances on a judge
[20:12.200 --> 20:15.880]  along with doing the judicial conduct complaint?
[20:16.840 --> 20:21.080]  No. Once they become a federal judge, they no longer maintain a bar card.
[20:21.080 --> 20:27.960]  Okay. Well, that's okay. We'll take care of him. And I just don't understand what these guys are
[20:27.960 --> 20:33.240]  up to. We're supposed to have them in the oral argument. We're supposed to discuss
[20:34.360 --> 20:41.000]  the issues laid out in the six motions. Well, that certainly did not occur. And so now I have
[20:41.000 --> 20:48.440]  an order. And in the order the judge actually writes, the parties may submit post-hearing briefs
[20:48.440 --> 20:53.960]  on a DBA company and not anybody else. Makes no sense whatsoever.
[20:55.400 --> 20:58.600]  Is that something you asked for clarification on?
[20:59.320 --> 21:02.760]  Absolutely. Two motions in a row, he denied that.
[21:04.760 --> 21:08.760]  Well, good. He's giving you good grounds for appeal.
[21:09.560 --> 21:14.520]  Oh, absolutely. And then tomorrow I'm going to file my motion for reconsideration so that
[21:14.520 --> 21:18.520]  the three panel judges can see that I've been after him for clarification.
[21:23.800 --> 21:26.200]  How long has this case been going on?
[21:26.920 --> 21:32.520]  Well, I actually been on it for a little over a year, but as I said previously on your other show,
[21:33.000 --> 21:38.360]  it actually got going in October when I was finally able to figure out how to properly
[21:38.360 --> 21:45.880]  plead a complaint, Randy. Okay. I wasn't very good in the beginning, but boy, I've sure come around now.
[21:46.680 --> 21:48.200]  That's the best part.
[21:48.200 --> 21:52.600]  They thought I was going to die or something and they thought it would go away because
[21:53.240 --> 21:59.000]  the other reason, Randy, this judge wants me smoked out of there. He doesn't want the thing in his court
[21:59.000 --> 22:06.120]  or in that court is because I said to you last week, and again, everything I've submitted, me and
[22:06.120 --> 22:12.760]  Mears have looked at, it's worth over a hundred million dollars. And I'm not lying. I'm not making
[22:12.760 --> 22:15.640]  it up. We've looked at it multiple ways.
[22:17.160 --> 22:17.640]  Wow.
[22:18.680 --> 22:26.520]  Yes, sir. I'm not making it up. There's numerous entities. They've been in there since 4-13 of 2010.
[22:27.080 --> 22:33.320]  The bank director was notified by me in writing after I went through the three credit reporting
[22:33.320 --> 22:39.640]  agencies, which you must do. You'll have to follow that procedure. I followed it to the T.
[22:40.680 --> 22:47.320]  They never reopened it and did a reinvestigation, which they're supposed to do. Furthermore, I
[22:47.320 --> 22:54.280]  notified them in the complaint that because of health reasons, I was either out of the country,
[22:54.920 --> 23:01.080]  I was laying in a bed and I'm not making this up either for nearly two years where I couldn't very
[23:01.080 --> 23:08.360]  well get around at all. And I didn't even know what was going on. So that's why this case came
[23:08.360 --> 23:14.600]  about in the manner in which it did, Randy. So how did you get to a hundred million?
[23:15.320 --> 23:16.120]  Yes, sir.
[23:18.200 --> 23:20.600]  No, no. How did you get to a hundred million?
[23:21.400 --> 23:29.640]  Okay. You take four defendants minimum that are named in the complaint. They were in my credit
[23:29.640 --> 23:37.160]  file starting on 4-13 of 2010. You take that figure times the three credit reports times all
[23:37.160 --> 23:49.000]  the violations. Each violation under 1681 P, which is the tolling section, add up per day and they
[23:49.000 --> 23:57.160]  continue to toll. And actually I'm very fortunate. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals from Minnesota,
[23:57.160 --> 24:06.840]  the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals heard a pro se case. It was against board credit,
[24:06.840 --> 24:12.520]  which he prevailed on. And so I cited that along with a handful of others. So it's nothing new.
[24:15.080 --> 24:15.640]  Wonderful.
[24:16.520 --> 24:22.280]  Yes, sir. So guess what, Randy, when the case is over, I can throw a few nickels down to Texas.
[24:23.240 --> 24:26.440]  Oh, my beer fund will appreciate that.
[24:26.440 --> 24:34.520]  Oh, yeah, mine too. I love beer, man. But I'm after them. I don't take any crap and they know
[24:34.520 --> 24:41.320]  it. And I've gotten a lot better at reading the rules, laying out, addressing the issues,
[24:41.320 --> 24:48.280]  clarifying it. And they can't believe that I submitted a 23 page motion for sanctions,
[24:48.280 --> 24:54.520]  which they see if I could do that, that they knew now that all they could do is just play dirty.
[24:54.520 --> 25:00.040]  So that's where we're at. And I don't know why they even had this oral argument other
[25:00.040 --> 25:02.200]  than to belittle me and try to get rid of the case.
[25:04.120 --> 25:08.920]  What did the judge say where he belittled you?
[25:11.800 --> 25:17.480]  I objected. All I did was object because he was asking, he was discussing issues well out
[25:17.480 --> 25:23.080]  of the parameters of the complaint, talking about private issues, you know, where I was,
[25:23.080 --> 25:26.120]  well, didn't you have any money? Was there other reasons why
[25:28.360 --> 25:30.920]  you were damaged that didn't involve the defendant?
[25:32.520 --> 25:38.120]  And so I kind of started putting him down a little bit and started to object. And he says,
[25:38.120 --> 25:43.000]  well, I'm the judge and I can dismiss your case. Randy, I came back and I says, well,
[25:43.000 --> 25:46.440]  what's the basis for that, judge? Well, have you read their,
[25:46.440 --> 25:51.320]  let me think, their affidavits? I says, yeah, I submitted one to the court that was perjured.
[25:51.320 --> 25:56.120]  Is that the one you want to discuss? And boy, he got read in the face and we're not doing
[25:56.120 --> 26:03.400]  sanctions right now. Okay. That's the kind of judge this guy turned out to be. He flipped and
[26:03.400 --> 26:08.200]  he did a 180. Well, that's where you need a judicial
[26:08.200 --> 26:12.360]  conduct complaint because they're not used to being kicked in their professional teeth.
[26:12.360 --> 26:20.040]  They're used to being able to push the lawyers around and treat them like crap.
[26:22.520 --> 26:30.360]  And so we'll get that done too, Randy. Good, good. Okay. Well, keep us up to date
[26:30.360 --> 26:36.680]  on what happens. Oh, I will, Randy. Your beer fund will get a huge bonus.
[26:36.680 --> 26:42.840]  All righty. Thank you. Well, it don't need a lot of bonus. I'm,
[26:45.080 --> 26:51.640]  Deborah considers me a lightweight. Oh boy. Well, we'll just send some Bud Light down there.
[26:56.200 --> 27:02.040]  Thank you. They don't call me old two beer Randy for nothing. Okay. Thank you. We do need to move
[27:02.040 --> 27:11.720]  along. We got a lot of college tonight, but keep us up to date. Did I lose you, Terry?
[27:14.040 --> 27:19.960]  It seems like we lost sound. Okay. Now we're going to go to Jeff in Mississippi. Hello, Jeff.
[27:21.480 --> 27:29.720]  Hey, Randy. Thank you for having me. I'm glad to have you. We had something we wanted to discuss
[27:29.720 --> 27:43.800]  tonight. Yes. Okay. So what was it? I forgot. Well, I just had my hearing and there were some
[27:43.800 --> 27:50.600]  things, there were some things that I wanted to run through. And so anyway, I just wanted to lay
[27:50.600 --> 27:57.240]  it out. And there's, there's actually one question that I wanted. I don't want to walk into court and
[27:57.240 --> 28:05.640]  state something that I'm not a hundred percent sure about. And so when I state things, if I say
[28:05.640 --> 28:11.720]  something, if I say case law or something, the judge has been trying to corner me by saying under
[28:11.720 --> 28:17.720]  what authority do you have to say that and all state case law or something, but then he'll go,
[28:17.720 --> 28:23.320]  no, no, no, no. What authority do you have? What kind of, I guess he wants to know the code or
[28:23.320 --> 28:31.560]  something that was confusing. And so I have heard many a times that if you go in and claim to be the
[28:31.560 --> 28:39.240]  executor and the beneficiary and he is the trustee and this and that, however, if I say that he's
[28:39.240 --> 28:43.720]  going to immediately jump on me and say under what authority and I won't be able to answer him. So
[28:43.720 --> 28:49.560]  I'm kind of hesitant about saying something like that. What do you think? I would be hesitant about
[28:49.560 --> 29:00.680]  saying something like that. Okay. Never give fair warning. If he is the, if you are the executor
[29:00.680 --> 29:08.440]  and he is the trustee, you don't need to tell him. You need to, you simply get to hold him responsible
[29:08.440 --> 29:17.880]  for it. Got it. So I, you know, I have, it's, it's common for proceeds to, to say, well, I've got my
[29:17.880 --> 29:23.640]  rights and you're supposed to do this and you're supposed to do that. I have found that a bad
[29:23.640 --> 29:32.680]  strategy because it opens up the door for argument. Got it. I go in and I say, this is what you are to
[29:32.680 --> 29:43.080]  do. And when they don't do it, then I already have something I can do in another tribunal.
[29:43.080 --> 29:50.920]  And primarily if it goes to my rule, never ask a public official to do anything you actually want
[29:50.920 --> 29:55.960]  them to do. Hang on, we're about to go to break. This is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, rule of
[29:55.960 --> 30:03.000]  law radio. I call it number for two legs with bread. Everyone knows eating broccoli is good for
[30:03.000 --> 30:07.480]  you, but would you wear it to the beach? You just might want to when you hear the latest research.
[30:07.480 --> 30:11.800]  I've got your Catherine Albrecht and I'll share a surprising new use for this vegetable in just a
[30:11.800 --> 30:18.280]  moment. Your search engine is watching you recording all your searches and creating a massive database
[30:18.280 --> 30:24.280]  of your personal information. That's creepy, but it doesn't have to be that way. Startpage.com is
[30:24.280 --> 30:29.160]  the world's most private search engine. Startpage doesn't store your IP address, make a record of
[30:29.160 --> 30:33.880]  your searches or use tracking cookies and their third party certified. If you don't like big
[30:33.880 --> 30:39.560]  brother spying on you, start over with Startpage, great search results and total privacy.
[30:39.560 --> 30:44.840]  Startpage.com, the world's most private search engine. Broccoli is loaded with vitamins,
[30:44.840 --> 30:50.440]  minerals and fiber and it tastes great in so many ways. Personally, I love mine sauteed with garlic
[30:50.440 --> 30:55.480]  and soy sauce, but now scientists say we might want to slather its juice on our bodies. I'm not
[30:55.480 --> 31:00.680]  joking. Researchers at Johns Hopkins University found that broccoli juice provides better defense
[31:00.680 --> 31:05.960]  against the sun's ultraviolet rays than name brand sunscreens. Broccoli juice works differently
[31:05.960 --> 31:10.840]  than sunscreen. It doesn't prevent rays from entering the skin. Rather, it prompts the body
[31:10.840 --> 31:15.880]  to produce enzymes that protect the skin against cell damage that ages the skin and can lead to
[31:15.880 --> 31:21.240]  cancer. As a bonus, the juice continues working for several days, even after it's been washed away.
[31:21.800 --> 31:26.200]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[31:30.680 --> 31:35.240]  Did you know there are 3 million edible food plants on earth and none have the nutritional
[31:35.240 --> 31:40.520]  value of the hemp plant? HempUSA.org offers you hemp protein powder. It does not contain
[31:40.520 --> 31:47.160]  chemicals or THC, is non-GMO and is 100% gluten free. Hemp protein powder burns fat, builds
[31:47.160 --> 31:54.760]  muscle, contains 53% protein and feeds the body the nutrients it needs. Call 888-910-4367 and
[31:54.760 --> 32:00.120]  see what our powder, seeds and oil can do for you. Only at HempUSA.org.
[32:00.120 --> 32:06.280]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law Traffic Seminar. In today's America,
[32:06.280 --> 32:10.040]  we live in an us-against-them society and if we the people are ever going to have a free society,
[32:10.040 --> 32:14.200]  then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights. Among those rights are the right to
[32:14.200 --> 32:18.200]  travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity and most importantly,
[32:18.200 --> 32:22.840]  the right to due process of law. Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn
[32:22.840 --> 32:27.320]  how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process. Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig,
[32:27.320 --> 32:30.920]  in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool
[32:30.920 --> 32:35.000]  available that will help you understand what due process is and how to hold courts to the Rule of
[32:35.000 --> 32:39.640]  Law. You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and
[32:39.640 --> 32:43.320]  ordering your copy today. By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas
[32:43.320 --> 32:47.880]  Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar,
[32:47.880 --> 32:51.800]  hundreds of research documents and other useful resource material. Learn how to fight for your
[32:51.800 --> 32:55.880]  rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. Order your copy today and
[32:55.880 --> 33:06.600]  together we can have free society we all want and deserve. Live free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[33:26.200 --> 33:34.600]  Good job is to protect our service. Happy Be Arabians. Happy Serves.
[33:34.600 --> 33:45.640]  When you're gonna stop abuse, you're power. When you're gonna stop abuse, you're power.
[33:45.640 --> 33:56.520]  When you're gonna stop abuse, you're power. When you're gonna stop abuse, you're power.
[33:56.520 --> 34:04.840]  So please Mr. Michael and each officer, you have to abuse the power. Send a request to the leader,
[34:04.840 --> 34:12.360]  the captain of all officers. Tell them to uphold the law, or please don't abuse the power.
[34:12.360 --> 34:18.200]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking to Jeff
[34:18.200 --> 34:25.080]  in Mississippi. And we were talking on the break and Jeff had a question about the transcripts.
[34:26.520 --> 34:32.840]  Jeff, you want to? Yeah, guys. Okay, yeah, sure. I've had some serious problems with
[34:32.840 --> 34:39.320]  transcript issues in the past. When I went to one of the hearings, I demanded the transcripts from
[34:39.320 --> 34:44.760]  my grand jury. And they said they didn't have any transcripts from the grand jury. They didn't need
[34:44.760 --> 34:52.040]  any. And that was too bad. And so I argued. So my question is, is I really don't trust these people.
[34:52.040 --> 34:59.640]  When I walk into court, what is a good way to guarantee that I can get some good minutes
[35:01.640 --> 35:07.240]  from this court hearing for my trial? Deborah, you want to answer that one?
[35:07.240 --> 35:12.760]  Yes, I do. But first, before I answer the question, let me go to this issue about minutes of a grand
[35:12.760 --> 35:19.560]  jury. Minutes are different from a transcript. A transcript is a word for word verbatim,
[35:20.200 --> 35:29.640]  what people said exactly. Minutes are just notes of what happened. Okay, so typically in this state,
[35:29.640 --> 35:37.240]  minutes of a grand jury will be things like such and such charge was considered against so and so
[35:38.040 --> 35:44.440]  no build or indicted or something like that. And it's just real simple, basic, doesn't get into what
[35:44.440 --> 35:51.240]  people said or how they considered it or witnesses or anything like that. It's just basically like
[35:51.240 --> 35:58.440]  minutes of a meeting. Okay, so that is far different from a transcript. A transcript is a word for word
[35:58.440 --> 36:08.440]  verbatim, you know, printed piece of paper that verbatim has what every everything that everybody
[36:08.440 --> 36:15.240]  said in the court that day or in the meeting that day. Okay, so now, regarding how to make sure
[36:15.240 --> 36:21.000]  you're not going to get hosed on a transcript. All right, of course, there's no 100% way to make
[36:21.000 --> 36:27.240]  sure of that. Now, in very important cases, very important civil cases and criminal cases,
[36:27.240 --> 36:32.760]  you're going to be dealing with a court of record. Okay, that means the court is going to have their
[36:32.760 --> 36:41.400]  own official court reporter that is going to transcribe what happens in the trial in the hearing.
[36:41.400 --> 36:47.880]  And then if a party in the trial doesn't like the outcome of the trial and wants to appeal,
[36:48.440 --> 36:55.480]  then they can pay the court reporter for to transcribe the notes that the court reporter
[36:55.480 --> 37:02.280]  will take on whatever kind of mechanical device or electronic device they use. Generally, they have
[37:02.280 --> 37:08.040]  something that, you know, is like an old school kind of a shorthand machine that's only got a few
[37:08.040 --> 37:13.320]  keys on it. And they'll take shorthand notes like an old school secretary. Sometimes they have this
[37:13.320 --> 37:20.200]  bizarre thing that they speak into, like, you know, something that a guitar player would use to make
[37:20.200 --> 37:27.560]  a vox sound with a guitar. It looks really stupid. But anyway, whatever device they use to take notes
[37:27.560 --> 37:34.840]  with, to take shorthand notes with, they generally also will have an audio recording device as a
[37:34.840 --> 37:39.480]  backup, you know, in case their notes are not clear to themselves when they go back later.
[37:41.480 --> 37:45.480]  That thing over their mouth, that's called a muzzle. Yeah, okay, I figured.
[37:45.480 --> 37:50.680]  Anyways, so the point being, how do you ensure that the transcript is going to be accurate?
[37:50.680 --> 37:57.720]  Well, there's no way to really ensure that the court reporter, that the court's court reporter
[37:57.720 --> 38:04.760]  is going to accurately transcribe unless you have something else that can rebut
[38:04.760 --> 38:10.920]  the official court reporter's transcript if you feel it's an error. Okay, now how are you going
[38:10.920 --> 38:17.560]  to do that when most courts now will not allow you to bring in a recording device? And I think
[38:17.560 --> 38:25.480]  that there have been cases in federal court in other states where basically that court rule has
[38:25.480 --> 38:30.360]  been shot down. But this is something that, this is another fight that you have to get into. You
[38:30.360 --> 38:36.040]  have to try to take in a recording device, get busted for it, and then fight that case and have
[38:36.040 --> 38:40.280]  to sue them over it and all kinds of things. And I don't think that that issue has actually
[38:40.280 --> 38:45.800]  been decided by like the appellate federal system yet or the Supreme Court. I think there have been
[38:45.800 --> 38:51.480]  decisions at the district court level in some states that they cannot prevent you from doing
[38:51.480 --> 38:56.600]  that because it's a public place. But anyways, if that's not a fight that you want to take up,
[38:56.600 --> 39:02.440]  and besides, your audio recording, if you made one, you could not submit that into the record
[39:02.440 --> 39:07.480]  anyway. You would have to transcribe it yourself and then submit an affidavit along with a transcript
[39:07.480 --> 39:14.680]  saying, this is what I recorded. So it may not be worth the risk, but I have a better idea.
[39:15.800 --> 39:23.880]  I got not really hosed in a case. It wasn't a material, the difference in the transcript
[39:23.880 --> 39:30.120]  from what the court reporter transcribed and what actually happened wasn't enough of a material
[39:30.120 --> 39:35.960]  difference in the case that would have really swayed the outcome. But there were some pretty
[39:35.960 --> 39:46.120]  important interchanges between the attorney of my opponent and the judge that really, if it had gone
[39:46.120 --> 39:53.400]  in the transcript, it could have set some sort of precedent for people in the future that came
[39:53.400 --> 39:56.760]  after me in this particular case. I'm not going to get into the details of the case right now.
[39:56.760 --> 40:03.640]  It was a civil case. Anyways, I didn't take a recording device into the federal court.
[40:03.640 --> 40:11.080]  It wasn't prohibited, but I just felt that it could have caused a problem. And so I just decided,
[40:11.080 --> 40:14.600]  well, I'm just going to go with whatever the transcript says. And so when I saw that,
[40:14.600 --> 40:18.520]  I was like, man, you know what? I really wish I had recorded this because there was nothing,
[40:18.520 --> 40:22.760]  there was no sign saying you can't do it. I just figured it wouldn't really make that
[40:22.760 --> 40:27.240]  much of a difference because I couldn't submit the recording anyway. I'd have to submit an
[40:27.240 --> 40:33.160]  affidavit. And yeah, your affidavit will stand until it's rebutted, but now it would get into
[40:33.160 --> 40:39.720]  a situation of my affidavit and my transcript is challenging the affidavit and the transcript of
[40:39.720 --> 40:46.280]  the official court reporter. And so who's going to prevail? Which affidavit is going to prevail?
[40:46.280 --> 40:50.920]  And we all know the answer to that question. The affidavit and the transcript of the court
[40:50.920 --> 40:56.440]  reporter is going to prevail because she has a professional reputation and all of that.
[40:56.440 --> 41:01.160]  So here's the deal with court reporters. Most of them, they have to be bonded. They have to be
[41:01.160 --> 41:10.280]  licensed. They have to have some history that they are credible witnesses, credible individuals.
[41:10.280 --> 41:16.360]  They have to have high credit scores, okay? All this kind of thing, background checks,
[41:16.360 --> 41:20.920]  I mean, you name it. And so they have a professional reputation that they have to
[41:20.920 --> 41:27.480]  maintain if they want to keep their job. Now, yes, a lot of times court reporters will alter
[41:27.480 --> 41:34.200]  the transcript behind the scenes as they're pressured by the judge because the court is
[41:34.200 --> 41:39.800]  hiring the court reporter, okay? And if things are said that the judge doesn't want the transcript,
[41:39.800 --> 41:44.440]  they're not going to go in the transcript, okay? Or if the court reporter feels that it might
[41:45.000 --> 41:51.000]  slight the judge's reputation or make a judge look bad to put something in the transcript,
[41:51.720 --> 41:55.560]  they'll just leave it out on their own. Or sometimes even in the middle of a hearing,
[41:55.560 --> 42:02.440]  a judge will say, okay, off the record here, and then he'll say something. And then the court
[42:02.440 --> 42:06.600]  reporter just stops taking notes. Well, that's totally illegal, but it happens all the time.
[42:06.600 --> 42:12.280]  So how do you deal with the situation? This is how I decided I'm going to deal with that situation
[42:12.280 --> 42:18.840]  from now on. If it's a really important case, all right, like a criminal case or like a really
[42:18.840 --> 42:25.080]  important civil case, I'm not taking any chances. I'm going to hire my own court reporter, okay? You
[42:25.080 --> 42:31.480]  can hire your own court reporter to sit next to you at the table, at the defendant's table,
[42:31.480 --> 42:40.120]  and take notes on their little machine, whatever it is, and she'll probably audio record it too
[42:40.120 --> 42:47.480]  because she's the court reporter. Now, the judge may tell the court reporter that you hire
[42:47.480 --> 42:52.840]  that she cannot or he cannot bring an audio recording device in because they're not the
[42:52.840 --> 42:59.080]  official court reporter. But I don't think that they can tell that court reporter that you would
[42:59.080 --> 43:04.520]  hire that they can't bring in their little note-taking device. I mean, worse comes to worse,
[43:04.520 --> 43:10.760]  they could bring in an old-school mechanical, what do you call it, shorthand machine,
[43:10.760 --> 43:15.080]  like blind people use. It only has like a few keys on it because it's a mechanical device.
[43:15.080 --> 43:19.720]  It's not an electronic device. It's not a recording device. I mean, and if they're really
[43:19.720 --> 43:25.080]  worth their salt, they'd be able to take shorthand notes anyway with a pen and paper without a
[43:25.080 --> 43:29.800]  shorthand machine. So you may want to look for a court reporter that actually knows how to take
[43:29.800 --> 43:34.040]  real shorthand notes, old-school style. All right, we're about to go to break, and I'm going to
[43:34.040 --> 43:42.280]  finish up on the other side why this is such a crucial move here in a case like this. We are
[43:42.280 --> 43:47.240]  going to break. We've got callers on the line, Doug, Leslie, and Mike. We're speaking with Jeff in
[43:47.240 --> 43:52.280]  Mississippi right now. This is the rule of law on the Logos Radio Network. I'm Deborah Stevens
[43:52.280 --> 44:04.280]  here with Randy Kelton. You would like to call in 512-646-1984. Hello, my name is Stuart Smith
[44:04.280 --> 44:08.680]  from naturespureorganics.com, and I would like to invite you to come by our store at
[44:08.680 --> 44:13.960]  1904 Guadalupe Street, Suite D, here in Austin, Texas, behind Brave New Books and Chase Bank,
[44:13.960 --> 44:18.520]  to see all our fantastic health and wellness products with your very own eyes. Have a look
[44:18.520 --> 44:22.920]  at our Miracle Healing Clay that started our adventure in alternative medicine. Take a peek
[44:22.920 --> 44:28.040]  at some of our other wonderful products, including our Australian Eme oil, lotion candles, olive oil,
[44:28.040 --> 44:37.240]  soaps, and colloidal silver and gold. Call 512-264-4043 or find us online at naturespureorganics.com.
[44:37.240 --> 44:45.000]  That's 512-264-4043, naturespureorganics.com. Don't forget to like us on Facebook for information
[44:45.000 --> 44:48.840]  on events and our products, naturespureorganics.com.
[45:01.000 --> 45:05.880]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney
[45:05.880 --> 45:12.280]  with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course that will show you how
[45:12.280 --> 45:19.480]  in 24 hours, step by step. If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you
[45:19.480 --> 45:25.320]  don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step by step
[45:25.320 --> 45:32.440]  course, and now you can too. Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of
[45:32.440 --> 45:38.200]  case winning experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should
[45:38.200 --> 45:43.960]  understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive
[45:43.960 --> 45:51.640]  our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much
[45:51.640 --> 46:02.920]  more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[46:51.640 --> 47:04.040]  Okay, folks, we're back. This is Rule of Law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens. We're speaking
[47:04.040 --> 47:10.600]  with Jeff in Mississippi, and I'm explaining the strategy of bringing your own court reporter in
[47:10.600 --> 47:15.560]  to sit next to you at the defendant's table or the plaintiff's table, whatever the case may be,
[47:15.560 --> 47:23.480]  and why that is so important in a very critical case and how the strategy works. Okay, so again,
[47:25.000 --> 47:32.680]  you want to look for a court reporter that can take old school shorthand notes with a pen and
[47:32.680 --> 47:38.520]  paper. Most of them probably have had training in that, but maybe they're out of practice.
[47:38.520 --> 47:44.600]  Practice, I mean, they should be able to do that. They should be able to take accurate transcript
[47:45.560 --> 47:53.080]  just with pen and paper, old school shorthand, and also use machines like the mechanical device,
[47:53.080 --> 47:58.360]  not the kind that you have this weird thing on your face, because that is kind of cheating.
[47:58.360 --> 48:03.480]  You're actually talking into something. Okay, so anyways, look for a good court reporter
[48:03.480 --> 48:10.520]  that is trained in multiple methods of taking notes for their shorthand, and you bring in your
[48:10.520 --> 48:17.320]  own court reporter. And then if the judge says, okay, fine, Miss Auxiliary Court Reporter over
[48:17.320 --> 48:22.280]  there next to Jeff, you can't use a recording device because you're not the official court
[48:22.280 --> 48:26.600]  reporter here of the court, and no recording devices are allowed in this court. Fine,
[48:26.600 --> 48:33.320]  she's got her machine. And if worst case scenario, they say you cannot use your machine either,
[48:33.320 --> 48:38.120]  well, then ultimate backup, she knows how to take accurate shorthand notes with pen and paper.
[48:38.120 --> 48:45.000]  The bottom line is that she's an official court reporter, that court's hire. All right,
[48:45.000 --> 48:48.200]  she's bonded, she's licensed, she's got a professional reputation on the line.
[48:48.760 --> 48:58.120]  She has to have background checks and an 800 credit score and whatnot. And so then what happens
[48:58.120 --> 49:04.920]  is after the fact, what that does is now you're pitting one court reporter against another.
[49:04.920 --> 49:12.840]  And when the court's official court reporter is seeing the other court reporter who's your
[49:12.840 --> 49:20.040]  court reporter sitting at the table, that is going to put her in a very, let's just say,
[49:20.040 --> 49:27.000]  delicate situation because now she's going to have to decide how much of her professional
[49:27.000 --> 49:34.200]  reputation she's willing to put on the line to fudge the transcript because your court
[49:34.200 --> 49:41.640]  reporter is probably going to be 100% accurate. I mean, she's got no dog in the hunt. She or
[49:41.640 --> 49:47.080]  he doesn't. He or she is not the official court reporter for that particular trial.
[49:47.080 --> 49:53.480]  And I would suggest bringing a court reporter that is licensed and bonded in that state,
[49:53.480 --> 50:00.280]  but maybe from another venue, okay? Like the federal courts have different venues, okay?
[50:00.280 --> 50:07.720]  And so bringing a court reporter from out of town who is licensed and everything to be a
[50:07.720 --> 50:14.280]  court reporter in a district court criminal case, but bring one from 100 miles away. She
[50:14.280 --> 50:17.880]  ain't going to have, or he ain't going to have no dog in the hunt. They're not going to be afraid
[50:17.880 --> 50:22.120]  of this judge, okay? They're going to take notes. They're going to be more likely to take
[50:22.120 --> 50:30.280]  accurate notes and not try to cover up to protect this particular judge's reputation or to make him
[50:30.280 --> 50:36.760]  look good, you know? Or if the judge says such and such off the record, she's going to just keep on
[50:36.760 --> 50:43.880]  taking notes, okay? Now, what does this do? This puts the official court reporter, okay?
[50:43.880 --> 50:54.040]  Court reporter on the spot because if she fudges the transcript, now she's got her, the official
[50:54.040 --> 51:04.280]  court reporter has her notes, her transcript, and her affidavit is going to be in conflict
[51:04.280 --> 51:10.440]  with your court reporter's transcript and affidavit. And so now you've got these two
[51:10.440 --> 51:17.080]  court reporters and basically each one of them has their own professional reputation on the line.
[51:17.080 --> 51:23.960]  Now, of course, what's going to happen in the case is that the court's official court reporter
[51:23.960 --> 51:30.200]  transcript is always going to prevail as the official transcript, but you file your court
[51:30.200 --> 51:35.320]  reporter's transcript and your court reporter's affidavit in the case for the, you know, when it
[51:35.320 --> 51:40.840]  comes time for appeal and that is going to weigh heavily in the eyes of the appellate court,
[51:40.840 --> 51:47.640]  that it's not just your affidavit of your word against the official court's court reporter.
[51:47.640 --> 51:51.960]  Now, you've got your own court reporter and like I said, the idea is that you're,
[51:51.960 --> 51:57.960]  just by having your court reporter there next to you taking notes, that in and of itself is going
[51:57.960 --> 52:04.040]  to do a lot to pressure the official court's court reporter to take accurate notes, okay?
[52:04.040 --> 52:09.640]  And that to me is going to be about the best strategy that I've been able to come up with
[52:09.640 --> 52:14.440]  talking with other people of how to ensure that your transcript is going to be as accurate as
[52:14.440 --> 52:22.120]  possible. And if it's not accurate, you have a lot of arsenal to rebut the official transcript
[52:22.120 --> 52:27.880]  other than, well, I had a friend taking notes or I was taking notes and I just don't remember it that
[52:27.880 --> 52:32.840]  way, okay, because you all won't be able to have audio recordings. And even if you can have audio
[52:32.840 --> 52:38.200]  recordings, it's still going to be your word against the official court reporter's word because
[52:38.200 --> 52:43.720]  you can never enter that audio recording into the record. You can only enter your own transcript
[52:43.720 --> 52:48.920]  and your affidavit. So does that make sense, Jeff? Sure does. I mean, I know it's going to be
[52:48.920 --> 52:53.640]  expensive. I know it's a lot because you're going to have to pay your court reporter an hourly wage
[52:53.640 --> 52:59.160]  and you're going to have to pay her to transcribe her notes and you're going to have to pay for the
[52:59.160 --> 53:04.440]  official transcript also. So you're looking at double the cost of the transcripts, but if
[53:04.440 --> 53:09.560]  you're looking at facing jail time, it's worth it. Or if you're looking at an extremely important
[53:09.560 --> 53:16.760]  civil case, it's worth it. Okay, go ahead, Rand. Jeff, quick court reporter story from recent.
[53:16.760 --> 53:22.600]  Go ahead. Ken Magnuson's helping someone in a civil trial. The court reporter doesn't show up
[53:22.600 --> 53:29.960]  at a hearing. The judge had directed Ann Diamond as the head of the civil section
[53:29.960 --> 53:35.080]  for the Tarrant County District Attorney's Office. He told Ann Diamond to tell her to show up.
[53:36.680 --> 53:40.360]  The court reporter said Ann Diamond didn't tell her. Ann Diamond said she did.
[53:41.480 --> 53:45.880]  They filed a complaint against the court reporter. Court reporter had to go to Austin
[53:45.880 --> 53:53.400]  for a hearing. And if she didn't agree with the ruling of the profession,
[53:55.960 --> 54:01.240]  she was going to be prosecuted criminally. Wait, Randi, you cut out right at a critical
[54:01.240 --> 54:08.040]  point. If she didn't agree what? Then the next procedure would be a criminal
[54:08.040 --> 54:11.480]  trial against the court reporter. Okay, if she didn't agree with what?
[54:11.480 --> 54:19.160]  With the administration's ruling. This was an administrative ruling in lieu of criminal
[54:19.160 --> 54:25.880]  prosecution. Now, they may take care of judges and lawyers, but they'll throw everybody else
[54:25.880 --> 54:30.440]  under the bus. Yeah, they'll throw everybody else under the bus. And so that's why I'm saying
[54:31.720 --> 54:40.040]  you want to bring in a court reporter that's licensed in that state and has everything
[54:40.040 --> 54:46.680]  that is necessary to operate in that state, but bring one in from another venue. You don't want
[54:46.680 --> 54:52.200]  to bring one in that's hired by that same court all the time because she's going to be in a
[54:52.200 --> 54:57.720]  compromised situation. She's going to pull the same tricks she always does when she's in that
[54:57.720 --> 55:05.240]  courtroom of doing whatever the judge wants or even on her own, taking notes and covering up
[55:05.240 --> 55:10.600]  for things that even if it wouldn't hurt the judge's reputation, this might make him look bad.
[55:10.600 --> 55:18.360]  I mean, for example, in the case that I was involved in, the judge was clearly aggravated
[55:18.360 --> 55:24.920]  with the attorney that represented my opponent. Clearly aggravated. And he was yelling at him.
[55:24.920 --> 55:31.080]  And he was telling him things like, look, counselor, next time you come into my courtroom,
[55:31.080 --> 55:36.520]  don't be reading from a piece of paper for your opening statement, okay? I mean,
[55:36.520 --> 55:43.640]  that didn't go on the record. I mean, it's not a material fact. It's not something that would
[55:43.640 --> 55:49.560]  sway the case, you know, but still that sort of thing should be in the record because it shows
[55:49.560 --> 55:56.440]  that my opponent is flaky, okay? And there were other things like that. And, you know, here,
[55:56.440 --> 56:00.680]  there, I mean, I won't get into the whole thing, but there were little things that it would have
[56:00.680 --> 56:06.280]  been good if it had been in the official transcript. And I don't know if the judge
[56:07.320 --> 56:13.640]  had the court reporter omit those kinds of things, or it seems to me most likely she just did it on
[56:13.640 --> 56:21.640]  her own anyway. She just did it on her own accord just so that it wouldn't, you know, make the judge
[56:21.640 --> 56:26.920]  look like he's a tyrant, okay? One of those professional courtesies.
[56:26.920 --> 56:34.200]  One of those professional courtesies, exactly, okay? And so when the judges see that court
[56:34.200 --> 56:40.040]  reporters are going to, you know, stroke their feathers, so to speak, and give these little
[56:40.040 --> 56:47.000]  professional courtesies to make them look good, or even protect their reputation if necessary,
[56:47.000 --> 56:54.840]  then they get hired back, okay? They get work. They get to come into the next case. You know what
[56:54.840 --> 56:58.600]  I'm saying? And so that's why I'm saying bring in a court reporter from a different venue that
[56:58.600 --> 57:04.440]  doesn't have anything to do with that judge, or that district, or that jurisdiction. She
[57:04.440 --> 57:08.280]  ain't got no dog in the hunt. And now you're looking at an additional expense because you
[57:08.280 --> 57:13.240]  may have to pay her travel expenses and stuff like that, but I'm telling you, if it's a really
[57:13.240 --> 57:19.800]  important case, especially if you're representing yourself or being pro se, being pro se is different
[57:19.800 --> 57:23.400]  from representing yourself. I'm not going to get into that difference. It's kind of semantical,
[57:23.400 --> 57:28.920]  but anyways, if you're looking at a criminal case, and you're pro se, and you're looking at
[57:28.920 --> 57:34.280]  jail time, okay, or an important appeal, like what's happening with you, I mean, you're not
[57:34.280 --> 57:37.800]  going to go to jail again, even if you lose the appeal, because you've already served your time.
[57:37.800 --> 57:42.200]  All right, the worst that will happen is, you know, you'll lose the appeal. All right, but you want
[57:42.200 --> 57:48.440]  to win the appeal. If somebody is going in for the first trial, I mean, I would say by hook or by
[57:48.440 --> 57:56.040]  crook, quote unquote, not really committing any crime here, but I would do whatever it took to
[57:56.040 --> 58:01.000]  hire my own court reporter and make sure it's one that can take accurate shorthand notes with pen
[58:01.000 --> 58:06.200]  and paper if necessary, and bring them in from another jurisdiction, as long as they're licensed
[58:06.200 --> 58:12.040]  in that same state. It's worth it. It may cost several thousand dollars. You may end up spending
[58:12.040 --> 58:15.720]  three or four thousand dollars to do it that way, especially if you have to pay travel expense,
[58:15.720 --> 58:21.720]  but it will be worth it in the long run. It's the only thing that I can come up with that is
[58:21.720 --> 58:30.760]  really feasible in order to seriously challenge a transcript that is an error, okay, and to pressure
[58:30.760 --> 58:36.840]  the official court reporter that's on the spot into taking accurate notes, because don't get,
[58:36.840 --> 58:40.360]  like Randy said, don't get thrown in the bus. The court reporter will get thrown in the bus,
[58:40.360 --> 58:46.200]  you know, criminally. All right, we are going to break now, again, at the top of the hour.
[58:46.200 --> 58:53.800]  This is the rule of law. We'll be right back. The Bible remains the most popular book in the world,
[58:53.800 --> 58:59.480]  yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it. Some new translations
[58:59.480 --> 59:05.240]  try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of
[59:05.240 --> 59:12.520]  the scripture. Enter the recovery version. First, this new translation is extremely faithful and
[59:12.520 --> 59:19.400]  accurate, but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes. Difficult and profound
[59:19.400 --> 59:24.920]  passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance into the riches of the word
[59:24.920 --> 59:30.600]  beyond which you've ever experienced before. Bibles for America would like to give you a free
[59:30.600 --> 59:36.680]  recovery version simply for the asking. This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours
[59:36.680 --> 59:47.640]  just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102 or by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[59:47.640 --> 01:00:04.760]  That's freestudybible.com. You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:04.760 --> 01:00:09.800]  This news flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing your daily
[01:00:09.800 --> 01:00:16.680]  bulletins for the commodities market. Today in history, news updates and the inside scoop
[01:00:16.680 --> 01:00:28.040]  into the tides of the alternative. Marks today opened up with gold at $1,188.93 an ounce,
[01:00:28.600 --> 01:00:37.880]  silver $15.86 an ounce, Texas crude $56.16 a barrel, and Bitcoin is currently sitting at 235
[01:00:37.880 --> 01:00:50.120]  U.S. currency. Today in history, Thursday, April 23, 2009, gamma ray burst GRB 090423
[01:00:50.120 --> 01:00:55.000]  is detected by the Swift gamma ray burst mission satellite. The afterglow of the gamma ray was
[01:00:55.000 --> 01:00:59.880]  detected in infrared and allowed for astronomers to determine that it was the most distant object
[01:00:59.880 --> 01:01:11.000]  to ever been seen to date with the spectroscopic redshift method. In recent news, former CIA
[01:01:11.000 --> 01:01:15.480]  director David Petraeus is expected to be sentenced today in federal court for giving out classified
[01:01:15.480 --> 01:01:20.120]  material. He agreed to plead guilty several months ago to the misdemeanor count of unauthorized
[01:01:20.120 --> 01:01:26.200]  removal and retention of sensitive information. He was giving the classified data to his biographer
[01:01:26.200 --> 01:01:31.880]  Paula Broadwell, with whom he was caught having an extramarital affair. The plea agreement carries
[01:01:31.880 --> 01:01:36.840]  a possible sentence of up to a year in prison, two years probation, and a $40,000 fine.
[01:01:42.680 --> 01:01:47.480]  According to new U.S. census figures, legal and illegal immigrants will hit record high of $51
[01:01:47.480 --> 01:01:52.280]  million in just eight years and eventually account for an astounding 82 percent of all
[01:01:52.280 --> 01:01:57.000]  population growth in America. A report from the Center of Immigration Studies, which analyzed
[01:01:57.000 --> 01:02:03.160]  the census statistics, said that by 2023, one in seven U.S. residents will be an immigrant,
[01:02:03.160 --> 01:02:14.040]  rising to about one in five by 2060. The American Enterprise Institute released 18
[01:02:14.040 --> 01:02:19.560]  spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970.
[01:02:19.560 --> 01:02:25.640]  Expect more this year. This article is written by AEI scholar Mark J. Perry. It outlines the
[01:02:25.640 --> 01:02:30.440]  hysteria being promoted in the 1970s from the environmentalist community, everything from
[01:02:30.440 --> 01:02:35.880]  predicting that billions would be dying off in the 80s due to lack of adequate food and water
[01:02:35.880 --> 01:02:40.920]  to the eventual collapse of civilization in 30 years. Slightly hysterical, to say the least.
[01:02:40.920 --> 01:02:49.960]  The One Star Lowdown is currently looking for sponsors. If you have a product or service that
[01:02:49.960 --> 01:02:55.960]  you would like to advertise in the Lowdown, feel free to give us a call at 210-863-5617.
[01:02:55.960 --> 01:03:15.080]  This has been the Lowdown for April 23, 2015. Okay, we are back. This is the rule of law,
[01:03:15.080 --> 01:03:20.760]  Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens. It is April 23. And I'm going to finish up quickly on this court
[01:03:20.760 --> 01:03:26.280]  reporter thing because we do have more callers that have been waiting. But just quickly,
[01:03:26.280 --> 01:03:33.560]  talking about the expense, the most expensive part of this strategy, if necessary, is going to be
[01:03:33.560 --> 01:03:38.600]  paying your own court reporter for the transcript because you're looking at double transcript
[01:03:38.600 --> 01:03:43.400]  expenses. You're going to have to pay for the official transcript and then you may have to pay
[01:03:43.400 --> 01:03:49.000]  your own court reporter for that transcript in order to challenge the official transcript if
[01:03:49.000 --> 01:03:54.920]  necessary. But it may not be necessary. It may not be necessary to pay your own court reporter
[01:03:54.920 --> 01:04:01.640]  for a transcript because if the strategy works as intended, which is to pressure the official court
[01:04:01.640 --> 01:04:09.240]  reporter at the trial to take accurate notes and to transcribe them accurately, then when the trial
[01:04:09.240 --> 01:04:14.760]  is done, if you need to even appeal, you may not even need to pay for the official transcript.
[01:04:14.760 --> 01:04:21.560]  It could change the entire outcome of the case. But if you do need to appeal, then you get the
[01:04:21.560 --> 01:04:27.560]  official transcript first and you carefully read through it. And if there's anything material that
[01:04:27.560 --> 01:04:33.080]  you need to challenge, I'm not talking about a court reporter giving professional courtesy to make
[01:04:33.080 --> 01:04:39.240]  a judge look good or whatever, but if there's something material to the case that is omitted
[01:04:39.240 --> 01:04:45.880]  or isn't accurate, then at that point, you can pay for the second transcript. But as Randy was
[01:04:45.880 --> 01:04:52.520]  saying on the break, he had a friend who did this and the court reporter charged $200 a day to come
[01:04:52.520 --> 01:04:58.120]  in and do the case. So that's not that much. The only other immediate expense could be that you
[01:04:58.120 --> 01:05:02.360]  may need to pay for travel expenses to bring it and you would have to pay for travel expenses to
[01:05:02.360 --> 01:05:07.400]  bring in a court reporter from another jurisdiction, another venue. So anyways, just looking at the
[01:05:07.400 --> 01:05:13.160]  financial strategy, don't get too upset about the transcript is always going to be the most
[01:05:13.160 --> 01:05:19.960]  expensive thing. I mean, I know of somebody who is in a criminal case here in Texas and an all day
[01:05:19.960 --> 01:05:26.360]  trial, the transcript is like $3,000. Okay, that is pretty steep, but that's a state case. I've been
[01:05:26.360 --> 01:05:31.080]  involved in federal cases before, transcripts are much cheaper. All day trial, the transcript
[01:05:31.080 --> 01:05:37.800]  was like $600. Okay, so it's going to vary from venue to venue, from state to state, but don't
[01:05:37.800 --> 01:05:42.280]  stress too much about having to pay for two transcripts right off the bat because you may
[01:05:42.280 --> 01:05:47.080]  not need to pay for the second transcript. You may not need to pay for any of it. And Randy,
[01:05:47.080 --> 01:05:51.720]  you were saying one time you knew somebody who brought in their own court reporter and the judge
[01:05:51.720 --> 01:05:57.880]  just ended the hearing, just got up and left hearing over. Yes, I'm trying to remember who it
[01:05:57.880 --> 01:06:02.280]  was. It was on the air, so they talked about it on the air. They said the judge got up and walked
[01:06:02.280 --> 01:06:08.120]  out of the courtroom. It might've been Ken Magnuson. Yeah, Randy was saying on the break that bring in
[01:06:08.120 --> 01:06:12.840]  your own court reporter's great theater. Okay, so I guess that's about all I have to say about that.
[01:06:12.840 --> 01:06:22.520]  Does that make sense, Jeff? Well, I just wanted to hammer in what you'd said. Don't get a court
[01:06:22.520 --> 01:06:27.400]  reporter that's from the same county, in other words, that's from the same friendship circle
[01:06:27.400 --> 01:06:34.120]  as all the other court reporters. You want to bring in one from a different county or city?
[01:06:34.120 --> 01:06:39.400]  Yep, yep. You want one that doesn't have his snout in the same trough with the rest of them.
[01:06:39.400 --> 01:06:45.800]  Yep, yep. You want one that can't really be pressured by that particular judge because again,
[01:06:45.800 --> 01:06:52.360]  I mean, they're looking for work and they don't want to make the boss mad. And so they want to
[01:06:52.360 --> 01:06:57.640]  keep getting hired back. So yeah, you got it. All right. I'll let you guys move on to the next call.
[01:06:57.640 --> 01:07:01.400]  Thank you. Okay. Good luck, Jeff. Please call back in and let us know how it goes.
[01:07:02.440 --> 01:07:08.680]  All right. Thanks. All right. Great. Okay. We are going to go now to Doug in Indiana.
[01:07:08.680 --> 01:07:11.960]  Okay, Doug, thanks for calling in. Where's your question or comment for us tonight?
[01:07:11.960 --> 01:07:25.080]  Well, I'm an Indiana State bail bondman and the courts in a lot of counties in Indiana have gone
[01:07:25.080 --> 01:07:31.720]  through the use of cash bonds payable to the court and they're cutting out the bail bondman.
[01:07:31.720 --> 01:07:44.120]  You guys still there? Yeah, we're here in Austin. It is almost a standard practice.
[01:07:45.240 --> 01:07:53.000]  Unless it's a first degree felony, they will initially release you on your own recognizance.
[01:07:53.000 --> 01:08:01.400]  So that is kind of a problem. It seems the courts are trying to find a way to cash in
[01:08:01.400 --> 01:08:10.680]  on this right to bail and cut the bondsman out. Well, I personally think it's a bad idea.
[01:08:12.920 --> 01:08:18.440]  Well, what I'm looking at is I've looked through a lot of case law here and
[01:08:18.440 --> 01:08:22.760]  they always end up saying that the bail bondsman had no standing.
[01:08:24.680 --> 01:08:30.360]  But they actually, none of the bail bondsmen in any of these cases have actually challenged our
[01:08:30.360 --> 01:08:36.280]  Indiana statute as being in conflict with our Indiana state constitution.
[01:08:40.120 --> 01:08:49.480]  Okay, hold on, hold on. That is an interesting approach. How would, okay, are you saying there
[01:08:49.480 --> 01:08:54.760]  is a statute that authorizes the judge to do this? Yes.
[01:08:54.760 --> 01:09:02.440]  Yes. So how is the statute in conflict with constitution?
[01:09:03.880 --> 01:09:10.920]  Because in article one, section 17, our Indiana constitution says,
[01:09:12.040 --> 01:09:19.320]  offenses other than murder or treason shall be bailable by sufficient sureties. Murder or treason
[01:09:19.320 --> 01:09:26.280]  shall not be bailable when proof is evident or the presumption is strong. That's it. It does not
[01:09:26.280 --> 01:09:33.720]  mention cash bonds. Okay, but cash, okay, this bonds, bail.
[01:09:34.520 --> 01:09:41.480]  So this is an argument that I have made. I was once held on a cash bond and it was my argument
[01:09:41.480 --> 01:09:51.480]  that the court had no power to require a cash bond because a bond was something that could be
[01:09:51.480 --> 01:10:01.480]  issued in lieu of bail. A bail involved no money. It was a written agreement between the parties
[01:10:01.480 --> 01:10:10.120]  wherein the parties put up collateral as surety. If I didn't have any collateral or I couldn't get
[01:10:10.120 --> 01:10:16.920]  anybody to put up any collateral, but I did have some change in my pocket, I could post a bond
[01:10:16.920 --> 01:10:23.800]  in lieu of bail, but bail was the right. I know that's kind of all subject. Okay, what I don't
[01:10:23.800 --> 01:10:32.440]  understand is how this gets to a constitutional issue wherein you would have standing to raise it.
[01:10:33.800 --> 01:10:38.200]  Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I'm trying to figure out how I can gain standing on this because
[01:10:38.200 --> 01:10:43.640]  they say the bail bondsman's rights haven't been injured. It's only the defendant's rights that
[01:10:43.640 --> 01:10:48.760]  might have been injured. And I would tend to agree with that assessment.
[01:10:49.640 --> 01:10:56.360]  Yes. And that's the problem. Before you could invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court,
[01:10:56.360 --> 01:11:07.160]  you must be able to bring a bona fide issue. And while the individual has a right to bail,
[01:11:07.160 --> 01:11:14.520]  you don't have a right to bail someone out. No.
[01:11:14.520 --> 01:11:21.720]  Then since you're licensed, that's a privilege. Yes. I understand that.
[01:11:23.160 --> 01:11:30.600]  But what I'm getting at is all the other states surrounding Indiana, their language and their
[01:11:30.600 --> 01:11:37.160]  constitutions are very similar to the Indiana constitution, that it says they're available by
[01:11:37.160 --> 01:11:44.360]  sufficient assurity. And they've all ruled the use of cash bonds are unconstitutional because the
[01:11:44.360 --> 01:11:52.520]  language in the constitution does not mention cash bonds. But Indiana just says, nope, you don't
[01:11:52.520 --> 01:11:57.880]  have standing from what I'm going to listen to. Okay. Okay. What I'm trying to get is, okay,
[01:11:57.880 --> 01:12:08.360]  what is the nature of the statute that author, what does the tax bond explain how that works?
[01:12:10.040 --> 01:12:15.960]  The statute gives two choices. It says you can use a bail bondsman
[01:12:17.000 --> 01:12:21.480]  or the court can issue an order saying that it's a cash bond.
[01:12:21.480 --> 01:12:32.200]  Now if a cash bond is, oh, okay. So it's not something I thought had something to do with
[01:12:32.200 --> 01:12:37.640]  taxes. So he's saying the court can demand a cash bond? Yes.
[01:12:38.920 --> 01:12:45.080]  No. Okay. Now that's something that is adjudicatable. Let's think of how to do it.
[01:12:45.080 --> 01:12:52.200]  Right. Yeah. That's what I'm trying to get. I've got a good constitutional argument because
[01:12:54.280 --> 01:13:01.800]  Marbury versus Madison basically since a few other things. Marbury, Madison, that's going to be a
[01:13:01.800 --> 01:13:10.360]  federal case. Yeah. How's that going to bring you back to a state constitution? What I'm looking at
[01:13:10.360 --> 01:13:21.320]  is the angle. Okay. Wait, wait. Let me ask a question first. The statute authorizes the judge,
[01:13:21.320 --> 01:13:29.320]  authorizes the person to use a bail bondsman. It has to authorize them to put up their own security.
[01:13:31.080 --> 01:13:35.800]  Is it an option to ask the court to set a cash bond?
[01:13:35.800 --> 01:13:42.840]  No. The first section says that they can use a security bondman. And then the second says that
[01:13:42.840 --> 01:13:51.000]  the courts can also order a cash bond payable to the court clerk. Now that's the one that would
[01:13:52.840 --> 01:13:58.200]  seem unconstitutional. And that would give you direct standing. That's restraint of trade.
[01:13:58.200 --> 01:14:07.240]  Since the state took it upon itself to license bondsman, they took on a responsibility to those
[01:14:07.240 --> 01:14:14.920]  bondsman. When you come to the state and you go to the trouble and expense of meeting their
[01:14:14.920 --> 01:14:26.760]  requirements, if they now issue what would be an illegal cash bond, then they would be able to
[01:14:26.760 --> 01:14:33.880]  then that would constitute restraint of trade to you. And you would be harmed by not getting the
[01:14:33.880 --> 01:14:43.080]  business that they issued a cash bond on, which was unconstitutional. I would think that would
[01:14:43.080 --> 01:14:51.400]  give you standing. Okay. I understand where your approach is coming from there. Never look at it
[01:14:51.400 --> 01:14:58.120]  that way. Well, it was the state who took it upon themselves to license you.
[01:14:59.160 --> 01:15:02.520]  Yeah. And then they said, before you can participate in this business,
[01:15:02.520 --> 01:15:09.320]  you got to jump to all of our hoops. Yeah. Well, when they went to a class and paid for them and
[01:15:09.320 --> 01:15:16.200]  licensed their $650 and got that state test for a hundred dollars and cost you that thousand dollars
[01:15:16.200 --> 01:15:24.120]  to do it. Yeah. So they do all that stuff. Then they have a duty to you. So they have you do all
[01:15:24.120 --> 01:15:29.720]  that stuff. And then they go, they circle around you and do something that's unconstitutional
[01:15:29.720 --> 01:15:39.720]  and deny you in benefit of the bargain. They perpetrate restraint of trade. Okay. And you
[01:15:39.720 --> 01:15:47.320]  bring the state and civil court on that because maybe thinking wrong, but I've also looked at our
[01:15:47.320 --> 01:15:54.040]  Indiana state right to work law. I don't know if I could get an angle on that one or not.
[01:15:54.680 --> 01:16:00.200]  No, this won't go to right to work because you're not an employee of the state. This
[01:16:00.200 --> 01:16:12.600]  goes to restraint of trade. This is a trade that the state created. They created this trade by
[01:16:12.600 --> 01:16:22.520]  licensing bondsmen. Now they have an obligation. They can't license bondsmen and then create a
[01:16:22.520 --> 01:16:31.880]  statute that denies the bondsman in the ability to do their business, especially when the provision
[01:16:31.880 --> 01:16:38.520]  is unconstitutional. I think you have a good claim, a claim for standing under restraint of trade.
[01:16:39.880 --> 01:16:47.560]  Okay. I'll restrict that angle then. Okay. Let us know how this turns out. When we get back,
[01:16:47.560 --> 01:16:54.520]  we're going to pick up Leslie from Pennsylvania. She has something great for us. Randy Kelton,
[01:16:54.520 --> 01:16:57.000]  Deborah Stevens, Real World Radio. We'll be right back.
[01:17:00.680 --> 01:17:05.720]  Chances are you've heard of My Magic Mud, but have you used it? Thousands of people are blown away
[01:17:05.720 --> 01:17:10.600]  by the clean and healthy feeling they experience after just one use. Here's what Harlan Dietrich,
[01:17:10.600 --> 01:17:14.920]  owner of Brave New Books, has to say about the product. Hey everybody. This is Harlan Dietrich,
[01:17:14.920 --> 01:17:19.000]  owner of Brave New Books. Just want to tell everybody about My Magic Mud. I use the product
[01:17:19.000 --> 01:17:23.480]  and it makes my teeth feel clean and healthy. I think it makes them stronger and I got lots
[01:17:23.480 --> 01:17:27.400]  of customers that come in and say the same thing. You can pick yours up at Brave New Books.
[01:17:27.400 --> 01:17:32.040]  If that wasn't enough, Dr. Griffin Cole, DDS, who's been featured on the Alex Jones show,
[01:17:32.040 --> 01:17:37.080]  loves it too. Hi, I'm Dr. Griffin Cole and I got to tell you, I really love this Magic Mud product.
[01:17:37.080 --> 01:17:41.400]  Because charcoal is so absorbent, it's very effective at taking off all the sticky plaque
[01:17:41.400 --> 01:17:45.480]  and debris that gets stuck on our teeth every day. I highly recommend My Magic Mud. If you haven't
[01:17:45.480 --> 01:17:51.000]  yet experienced My Magic Mud, it's never too late to brighten your smile and strengthen your teeth.
[01:17:51.000 --> 01:17:56.120]  Get your jar of My Magic Mud today at Brave New Books, located at 1904 Guadalupe Street
[01:17:56.120 --> 01:18:03.640]  or order online today at MyMagicMud.com. At Capital Coin and Bullion, our mission is to be
[01:18:03.640 --> 01:18:07.960]  your preferred shopping destination by delivering excellent customer service and outstanding value
[01:18:07.960 --> 01:18:12.120]  at an affordable price. We provide a wide assortment of favorite products featuring a
[01:18:12.120 --> 01:18:16.760]  great selection of high quality coins and precious metals. We cater to beginners in coin collecting
[01:18:16.760 --> 01:18:21.720]  as well as large transactions for investors. We believe in educating our customers with resources
[01:18:21.720 --> 01:18:26.360]  from top accredited metals dealers and journalists. If we don't have what you're looking for,
[01:18:26.360 --> 01:18:31.160]  we can find it. In addition, we carry popular young Jeopardy products such as Beyond Tangy
[01:18:31.160 --> 01:18:35.960]  Tangerine and Pollenburks. We also offer One World Way, Mountain House Storable Foods,
[01:18:35.960 --> 01:18:41.400]  Berkey Water Products, ammunition at 10% above wholesale and more. We broker metals IRA accounts
[01:18:41.400 --> 01:18:49.000]  and we also accept Bitcoins as payment. Call us at 512-646-6440. We're located at 7304 Burnet
[01:18:49.000 --> 01:18:53.640]  Road, Suite A, about a half mile south of Anderson. We're open Monday through Friday 10 to 6,
[01:18:53.640 --> 01:19:10.120]  Saturdays 10 to 2. Visit us at capitalcoinandbullying.com or call 512-646-6440.
[01:19:23.640 --> 01:19:45.480]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Debra Stevens, Rue La Radio and we're going to Ms. Leslie
[01:19:45.480 --> 01:19:53.160]  and Ms. Leslie has a bomb for us. Jeff, I see you there on the line. Listen closely. You're
[01:19:53.160 --> 01:20:01.240]  going to like this. Okay, go ahead, Ms. Leslie. I was doing some tweaking of my RICO complaint
[01:20:02.120 --> 01:20:08.840]  and I was double checking all of the sites of the law itself. And I thought, well, I'll check the
[01:20:08.840 --> 01:20:17.000]  federal as I do the state law. And I came across conspiracy in the federal law. I said, you know,
[01:20:17.000 --> 01:20:23.320]  I hadn't checked that out yet. And it says this, conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the
[01:20:23.320 --> 01:20:29.880]  United States. If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United
[01:20:29.880 --> 01:20:39.560]  States or to defraud the United States or any agency thereof in any manner for any purpose,
[01:20:39.560 --> 01:20:46.600]  and one or more of such persons do any act to affect the object of the conspiracy, each shall
[01:20:46.600 --> 01:20:55.720]  be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years or both. Now, in my case,
[01:20:56.680 --> 01:21:04.760]  I have had, we have had rescission. We rescinded our mortgage five years ago. We have filed for
[01:21:04.760 --> 01:21:10.440]  a quiet title and that's in court of appeals and we're in foreclosure currently. Now, I'm filing
[01:21:10.440 --> 01:21:17.080]  this RICO complaint as soon as I find out whether I have to file it as a response to the foreclosure
[01:21:17.080 --> 01:21:24.440]  complaint or as I separate, what do you call it, separate pleading in the federal court.
[01:21:24.440 --> 01:21:31.880]  Because what I'll do is if the judge rules against me in the foreclosure dismissal,
[01:21:31.880 --> 01:21:38.680]  then I will move the whole foreclosure into the federal court and file all of this against bank
[01:21:38.680 --> 01:21:47.160]  and all the attorneys. But with the conspiracy here, this is what I added to the RICO complaint
[01:21:47.160 --> 01:21:54.600]  because I have a paragraph, I have a section on conspiracy to defraud. And I put plaintiffs
[01:21:54.600 --> 01:22:02.360]  avert the defendants conspired to defraud the United States of America as guarantor of Fannie Mae
[01:22:03.000 --> 01:22:13.880]  by failing to comply with the requirements of 15 USC 1635Z. That's the rescission requirements
[01:22:13.880 --> 01:22:20.520]  to the bank and timely settle the Orman account and cancel the note and mortgage, which would
[01:22:20.520 --> 01:22:27.080]  relieve the United States of all liability to Fannie Mae for this loan. Defendants instead
[01:22:27.080 --> 01:22:33.800]  conspired to foreclose on the Orman property, which upon success would have the United States
[01:22:33.800 --> 01:22:39.720]  liable for the mortgage loan as the guarantor of Fannie Mae, putting additional monies into
[01:22:39.720 --> 01:22:47.160]  defendant's coffers. Now, what else is interesting about this is if you have
[01:22:47.160 --> 01:22:54.120]  MERS in your mortgage, all of the assignments are forgeries in most states. And that when they file
[01:22:54.120 --> 01:23:06.120]  a foreclosure, they have to conspire to do that. And they have to because the government is an
[01:23:06.120 --> 01:23:16.120]  obligor of Fannie Mae or guarantor of Fannie Mae. They're obligated to do, to make a real
[01:23:16.120 --> 01:23:24.760]  attempt to salvage the mortgage. Or if there's fraud, you can just, you know, with the forgery,
[01:23:24.760 --> 01:23:31.560]  it shows fraud and you're showing they conspired to not only defraud you, but also the United
[01:23:31.560 --> 01:23:36.760]  States. Because if they foreclosed, then the United States is liable for this loan.
[01:23:36.760 --> 01:23:46.920]  In listening to this, I read your Skype message to me. This looks like the kind of thing that can
[01:23:46.920 --> 01:23:54.280]  swing the other way. You know, one of the things we'd like people to do is file a bankruptcy
[01:23:55.080 --> 01:24:01.560]  and claim the property is unsecured. Because what that did was put the trustee in a position
[01:24:01.560 --> 01:24:12.120]  to where he had a duty to protect the assets for the bona fide debtors, I'm sorry, bona fide
[01:24:12.120 --> 01:24:21.400]  creditors. So he had an obligation to ensure that the bank making the claim had standing to make
[01:24:21.400 --> 01:24:30.120]  the claim. This is similar. Now we put that federal general fund in place to make the claim.
[01:24:30.120 --> 01:24:36.600]  Now we put that federal judge in a position to where, although he doesn't want to rule for a
[01:24:37.160 --> 01:24:45.720]  pro se litigant, he also doesn't want to rule for the banks against the federal government.
[01:24:49.320 --> 01:24:55.960]  Change the politics. Now we have Jeff on the caller line. Jeff, are you there?
[01:24:55.960 --> 01:25:05.320]  Yes, I am. As a matter of fact, did you hear that? I heard it. And here's, do you really want my
[01:25:05.320 --> 01:25:13.880]  opinion on this? Yes, I do. It won't succeed as long as it agrees with my policy. It will not
[01:25:13.880 --> 01:25:21.080]  succeed because it goes against public policy. How does it go against public policy? They're
[01:25:21.080 --> 01:25:28.040]  there to protect the banks. Their retirements are tied up in the banks.
[01:25:30.920 --> 01:25:38.120]  Well, I've gotten to where I think of things more in terms of politics than in rule of law.
[01:25:38.840 --> 01:25:45.560]  How will this affect the politics? I'm not really sure how it necessarily would affect the politics,
[01:25:45.560 --> 01:25:53.480]  but since we had the finest Congress that money can buy, as well as executive and judicial.
[01:25:55.080 --> 01:26:00.600]  We had the finest Congress money bought and paid for. And people die.
[01:26:05.000 --> 01:26:11.960]  Wait a minute. People die. Was that saying that? Well, you know, it only took the Grace
[01:26:11.960 --> 01:26:19.480]  Commission report for there to be an attempt on Reagan. So you're saying that if we make a truly
[01:26:22.280 --> 01:26:26.680]  well-grounded argument that we run the risk of these people killing us.
[01:26:28.680 --> 01:26:36.200]  What I'm saying is, like the judge up in, I think it was Ohio, you make a decision
[01:26:36.200 --> 01:26:41.480]  that affects public policy and threatens the banks and people dying.
[01:26:44.280 --> 01:26:55.000]  Okay. I'm a combat veteran. And one thing I learned there is that there are those things that are
[01:26:55.000 --> 01:27:05.880]  concerns and those things that are considerations. It was always a concern that I could be harmed,
[01:27:07.800 --> 01:27:19.400]  but could not be a consideration. Since I got out and I do what I do, that is always a concern.
[01:27:19.400 --> 01:27:26.200]  And I've received some lumps over it, a number of broken bones and some time in jail.
[01:27:27.960 --> 01:27:32.040]  Still a concern, but it cannot be a consideration, at least at this level,
[01:27:33.480 --> 01:27:39.320]  in order to find something to take a shot at them. First, we find out what we can shoot with. Now
[01:27:39.320 --> 01:27:45.800]  we've got to find out how we can armor ourselves in the process. Randy, is there a question?
[01:27:45.800 --> 01:27:54.120]  Randy, the threat would not be against your caller. It would be those who decided in her favor.
[01:27:56.520 --> 01:28:00.840]  Okay. I'm an engineer and these are just parameters.
[01:28:01.720 --> 01:28:03.480]  Do you remember the Bitter Creek decision?
[01:28:05.720 --> 01:28:07.640]  I know of it. I don't remember it.
[01:28:07.640 --> 01:28:15.160]  15 Doisha foreclosures were overturned by one judge.
[01:28:17.480 --> 01:28:22.520]  Vaguely. I couldn't say. I remember Bitter Creek, but I don't remember the specifics.
[01:28:22.520 --> 01:28:25.480]  Six months later, he went over poison. That was Credit River.
[01:28:25.480 --> 01:28:27.160]  Credit River, right. That was Credit River.
[01:28:27.160 --> 01:28:37.000]  You know, and Ronald Reagan commissioned the grace report and JFK issued silver certificates.
[01:28:39.480 --> 01:28:44.440]  Okay. I've been warned about this stuff for a very long time
[01:28:46.440 --> 01:28:54.600]  with the things I do. And there's another way to do this. Once we find the weakness.
[01:28:54.600 --> 01:29:02.120]  Randy, Randy, she has to take a look at 1692. That keeps it on a personal level.
[01:29:02.920 --> 01:29:03.880]  Okay. Say that again.
[01:29:05.320 --> 01:29:11.160]  She needs to look at 18 U.S.C. 1962, I think.
[01:29:13.160 --> 01:29:16.440]  1962. Well, that's where she's at. She's in a Rico suit.
[01:29:17.480 --> 01:29:22.120]  That's 1962 is Rico. Okay. Yes. She's in a Rico.
[01:29:22.120 --> 01:29:28.280]  Reciting from is 1961. She needs to take a look at 1962. That keeps it on a personal level.
[01:29:30.360 --> 01:29:35.080]  No, I wasn't quoting from the Rico statute. I was quoting from the conspiracy.
[01:29:37.480 --> 01:29:41.480]  Okay. Okay. Hang on both. We're about to go to break. Randy Kelton,
[01:29:41.480 --> 01:29:52.920]  the receiver's rule of our radio. I call the number 512-646-1984. We'll be right back.
[01:30:02.920 --> 01:30:07.960]  Since 9-11, our government has used invasive measures like warrantless phone taps to keep
[01:30:07.960 --> 01:30:13.160]  us safe from terrorists. But too much government surveillance could actually put us at greater risk.
[01:30:13.160 --> 01:30:17.320]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be back with the unsettling truth in just a moment.
[01:30:18.200 --> 01:30:23.720]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:30:23.720 --> 01:30:28.520]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:30:28.520 --> 01:30:33.800]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:30:33.800 --> 01:30:38.360]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. This public service announcement is brought to you by
[01:30:38.360 --> 01:30:43.880]  startpage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[01:30:43.880 --> 01:30:49.080]  Start over with StartPage. Our greatest threat isn't terrorists,
[01:30:49.080 --> 01:30:54.200]  it's government. According to political science professor R.J. Rummel, 20th century governments
[01:30:54.200 --> 01:30:59.160]  murdered nearly 300 million of their own citizens, six times more than all the century's wars
[01:30:59.160 --> 01:31:04.440]  combined. And governments that kill have one thing in common, too much power. Surveillance
[01:31:04.440 --> 01:31:08.600]  is government power, and historically, governments have used surveillance to protect themselves
[01:31:08.600 --> 01:31:13.000]  rather than citizens. If you think such abuse couldn't happen in the U.S., just look back to
[01:31:13.000 --> 01:31:17.480]  Watergate. Join me in opposing the Patriot Act, and let's return to the best protection,
[01:31:17.480 --> 01:31:21.560]  a federal government with limited powers in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.
[01:31:21.560 --> 01:31:30.840]  I'm Dr. Katherine Albrecht. More news and information at KatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:31:30.840 --> 01:31:36.360]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11th.
[01:31:36.360 --> 01:31:41.880]  The government says that fire brought it down. However, 1,500 architects and engineers concluded
[01:31:41.880 --> 01:31:46.360]  it was a controlled demolition. Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives.
[01:31:46.360 --> 01:31:50.360]  Thousands of my fellow first responders are dying. I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[01:31:50.360 --> 01:31:52.760]  I'm a structural engineer. I'm a New York City correction office.
[01:31:52.760 --> 01:31:55.320]  I'm an Air Force pilot. I'm a father who lost his son.
[01:31:55.320 --> 01:32:00.680]  We're Americans, and we deserve the truth. Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[01:32:01.240 --> 01:32:07.800]  After work, I'm so tired that I want to be left alone to sleep. Hey, listen to me. Who are you?
[01:32:07.800 --> 01:32:11.880]  I'm you years ago, when you felt healthy and young and everything worked on your body.
[01:32:11.880 --> 01:32:15.080]  Do you remember that? Yes. I wish I felt like that now.
[01:32:15.080 --> 01:32:20.280]  You can feel like that again with the new micro-plant powder formulation called Iodide Now.
[01:32:20.280 --> 01:32:24.760]  It cleans the entire body from head to toe and feeds the body what it really needs.
[01:32:24.760 --> 01:32:28.440]  You'll be in a better mood, and you'll find more drive in your romantic life.
[01:32:28.440 --> 01:32:31.720]  Really? I gotta try iodine now and feel good again.
[01:32:31.720 --> 01:32:36.040]  It also protects you from radiation, heavy metals, four-eyed chlorine, and bromine,
[01:32:36.040 --> 01:32:40.600]  including cancer and most major diseases. You'll be amazed. You can be your own doctor.
[01:32:40.600 --> 01:32:43.880]  I want to keep you out of the hospital and off pharmaceuticals.
[01:32:43.880 --> 01:32:47.080]  Wow. Why are you so nice to me? Because I'm you.
[01:32:47.080 --> 01:32:49.960]  You're out of shape, and I need a better-looking future.
[01:32:49.960 --> 01:32:55.800]  Call 888-910-4367. That's 888-910-4367.
[01:32:55.800 --> 01:33:00.360]  Or visit www.microplantpowder.com. www.microplantpowder.com.
[01:33:02.200 --> 01:33:07.160]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network. www.logosradionetwork.com.
[01:33:07.160 --> 01:33:16.360]  Yeah, who you want to chip? Who you take me from? Free Tolley?
[01:33:16.360 --> 01:33:19.960]  What you want to chip? I'm not free Tolley. You can't chip me.
[01:33:19.960 --> 01:33:24.360]  Oh, my side. Don't let them chip you in the morning, chip you in the evening.
[01:33:24.360 --> 01:33:28.680]  Put a chip in your body, and then when you go computer reading,
[01:33:28.680 --> 01:33:33.960]  you can't hide me from nobody. When I say, chip in your mom, chip in your daddy,
[01:33:33.960 --> 01:33:38.760]  chip in your grandpa and the granny, chip in on me, chip in on your baby,
[01:33:38.760 --> 01:33:43.240]  chip in on your family, whole family, chip in on your dad and the cat around me.
[01:33:44.040 --> 01:33:47.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens,
[01:33:47.000 --> 01:33:52.680]  Wheel of Life Radio. We're talking to Leslie and Jeff, and Jeff.
[01:33:54.120 --> 01:33:54.440]  Yo.
[01:33:55.640 --> 01:34:02.280]  That you would have this concern tells me that we may have a great big hammer
[01:34:02.280 --> 01:34:09.080]  that if we use it very carefully, we'll never have to drop it.
[01:34:11.640 --> 01:34:15.560]  I'm fine. It took me a while to understand that everything's political.
[01:34:17.000 --> 01:34:22.280]  Yeah, I understand. So we hold this in the how do we use this in the background
[01:34:23.640 --> 01:34:29.160]  to get them to give us rulings in the foreground to keep us from having from
[01:34:29.160 --> 01:34:35.160]  going to that background ugly thing. That would call for somebody who has
[01:34:35.160 --> 01:34:41.400]  greater skill and strategy than I do. That's what I'm working on. You know,
[01:34:41.400 --> 01:34:47.000]  we have one in Texas that I'm working on. We have the e-filing statute.
[01:34:48.520 --> 01:34:52.360]  The state of Texas adopted the federal e-filing statute.
[01:34:52.360 --> 01:35:04.280]  Do you remember what it is? 10 USC 7001, I believe, but the e-filing statute
[01:35:05.480 --> 01:35:16.520]  specifically exempts e-filing of real property records, and the district clerk
[01:35:16.520 --> 01:35:23.880]  in Tarrant County set up the e-filing system, but he didn't have any property records.
[01:35:24.600 --> 01:35:30.520]  So he didn't make a provision for them. The county used the system set up by the
[01:35:30.520 --> 01:35:38.680]  district, and they're e-filing real property records. Every real property record filed in
[01:35:38.680 --> 01:35:49.160]  the state of Texas since 2001 is illegal for everyone that was e-filed. Now, that's something
[01:35:49.160 --> 01:35:55.400]  I would never get a ruling on, but I can hold it back there in the background and stick it in the
[01:35:55.400 --> 01:36:02.200]  case and then put all my other arguments in the case. And what's the court going to do?
[01:36:02.200 --> 01:36:10.200]  Are they going to risk me filing an appeal based on the violation of the e-filing act
[01:36:10.760 --> 01:36:17.160]  and render all of their records void for the last 15 years? How do they keep me from appealing
[01:36:17.160 --> 01:36:25.560]  that issue? They give me a ruling on a lesser issue, so I don't have to appeal.
[01:36:25.560 --> 01:36:33.960]  How could we use this issue? If your caller in Pennsylvania wants to incorporate RICO into her
[01:36:33.960 --> 01:36:40.600]  civil actions... Hold on, Jeff. She has actually filed a RICO suit, or is it in the process.
[01:36:41.880 --> 01:36:45.880]  Leslie, do you have the RICO suit filed, or are you preparing to file it?
[01:36:45.880 --> 01:36:49.080]  No, no, no. I have to wait until I get an answer.
[01:36:49.080 --> 01:36:55.800]  Leslie, do you have the RICO suit filed, or are you preparing to file it?
[01:36:55.800 --> 01:36:58.040]  No, no, no. I have to wait until I get an answer from the court on the foreclosure because I don't
[01:36:58.040 --> 01:37:03.640]  know if I'll have to answer the foreclosure and throw that in with that and move everything to
[01:37:03.640 --> 01:37:06.760]  the federal court. Okay, so she's preparing a RICO suit.
[01:37:08.120 --> 01:37:14.920]  Get yourself a pencil and paper, okay? And what I want you to do is to look up,
[01:37:14.920 --> 01:37:23.400]  you can Google this, every case that Leonard Bennett has filed. He's a consumer advocate out
[01:37:23.400 --> 01:37:27.320]  of Newport News. B-E-N-N-E-T-T.
[01:37:27.320 --> 01:37:29.800]  And he started putting... Pardon?
[01:37:31.560 --> 01:37:35.000]  Spell Bennett? B-E-N-N-E-T-T.
[01:37:35.000 --> 01:37:44.840]  B-E-N-N-E-T-T, good. Now, if you go to voidjudgments.com, scroll down to the bottom
[01:37:44.840 --> 01:37:52.040]  of the page and click on what's in the news. There's about three, maybe four of his cases
[01:37:53.080 --> 01:38:02.680]  that are there, one of which is BRMM, B-R-I-M-M, or I think it's M-M.
[01:38:03.640 --> 01:38:12.760]  And there's another case in there. And he incorporates RICO into his claims,
[01:38:12.760 --> 01:38:21.880]  or his complaints. And it's civil RICO. And I think it falls under 1962, which is extortion.
[01:38:25.880 --> 01:38:28.280]  Uh-oh. You may want to take a look at how he...
[01:38:28.280 --> 01:38:34.360]  You don't have fraud and forgery in mind. Well, here's the problem that you're going
[01:38:34.360 --> 01:38:39.880]  to have with fraud. You can't prove it. Oh, I can prove it.
[01:38:39.880 --> 01:38:45.000]  The best you can do is... No, wait, Jeff. She wasn't saying fraud.
[01:38:45.000 --> 01:38:49.960]  She was saying forged documents. She said fraud and forgery.
[01:38:51.240 --> 01:38:52.440]  Yeah, fraud... Forgery.
[01:38:52.440 --> 01:38:55.240]  Oh, my bad. You can prove false or misleading,
[01:38:55.240 --> 01:39:01.960]  but you can't prove fraud. Because that goes too intense.
[01:39:01.960 --> 01:39:09.560]  That's what they had in their mind when they did what they did.
[01:39:14.760 --> 01:39:17.160]  False and misleading... So what you're saying, you should
[01:39:17.160 --> 01:39:21.800]  change the... Instead of claiming fraud, you should claim false and misleading.
[01:39:23.160 --> 01:39:29.240]  Yes. That you can prove.
[01:39:29.240 --> 01:39:35.880]  Like I said, I'm tweaking this to beat the band. But look at his pleadings. He's got RICO in
[01:39:36.440 --> 01:39:48.520]  a number of his FDCPA and FCRA complaints. And this man, he's a Stradivarius.
[01:39:51.480 --> 01:39:52.680]  No two ways about it.
[01:39:52.680 --> 01:40:00.200]  Is he a lawyer or is he a pro se? He's a lawyer.
[01:40:01.400 --> 01:40:04.120]  Oh, a smart lawyer? The FCRA,
[01:40:04.120 --> 01:40:07.720]  like nobody you've ever come across before, except for one, possibly in Georgia.
[01:40:08.760 --> 01:40:12.200]  I thought smart and lawyer were a contradiction of terms.
[01:40:15.160 --> 01:40:19.400]  There are those. That's the exception
[01:40:19.400 --> 01:40:23.720]  that proves the rule. But it scares his instinct, but there are some out there.
[01:40:27.400 --> 01:40:29.720]  And he knows and understands the FCRA.
[01:40:33.000 --> 01:40:41.720]  Okay, wonderful. Leslie, I am going to be studying this from a political perspective.
[01:40:43.880 --> 01:40:47.960]  I'm thinking in terms of the lawyers and the litigants on the other side,
[01:40:47.960 --> 01:40:59.560]  when they get these claims, what is it likely to do to them and how am I best going to be able to
[01:40:59.560 --> 01:41:08.440]  take advantage, not of the outcome, but of the threat of an outcome? How can I use this to bring
[01:41:08.440 --> 01:41:12.200]  them to the table to give me a deal I absolutely cannot pass up?
[01:41:13.480 --> 01:41:15.160]  That's the object, isn't it?
[01:41:15.160 --> 01:41:17.720]  That is exactly the object.
[01:41:17.720 --> 01:41:21.960]  Okay. Now, was Leslie the one that sent you the main versus Citibank?
[01:41:22.760 --> 01:41:23.720]  Yes.
[01:41:23.720 --> 01:41:24.220]  Yes.
[01:41:25.720 --> 01:41:29.160]  Have you read that comprehensively, Leslie?
[01:41:30.360 --> 01:41:30.860]  Oh, yes.
[01:41:32.680 --> 01:41:35.160]  Do you understand it's a jurisdictional challenge?
[01:41:38.120 --> 01:41:38.620]  To whom?
[01:41:41.000 --> 01:41:42.520]  Citibank, Chase?
[01:41:42.520 --> 01:41:44.200]  Citibank, Chase.
[01:41:47.000 --> 01:41:49.160]  That they don't have jurisdiction? I mean,
[01:41:49.160 --> 01:41:51.320]  that the court doesn't have jurisdiction to hear them?
[01:41:52.600 --> 01:41:58.280]  No, they lack standing or capacity to invoke jurisdiction.
[01:42:01.080 --> 01:42:01.580]  Oh.
[01:42:02.120 --> 01:42:04.680]  Wait, say that again, Jeff. I kind of stepped on you there.
[01:42:05.800 --> 01:42:11.960]  Yeah. People tend to think of subject matter, jurisdiction and capacity and standing only
[01:42:11.960 --> 01:42:18.680]  from the position of being defendant. Mr. Maynes is plaintiff and he levied
[01:42:18.680 --> 01:42:21.640]  the accusations against them as defendants.
[01:42:22.680 --> 01:42:24.040]  Now, that's interesting.
[01:42:25.000 --> 01:42:28.280]  They do not have the capacity to do what they're trying to do.
[01:42:30.440 --> 01:42:35.240]  But how does that go to subject matter jurisdiction of a court?
[01:42:35.240 --> 01:42:43.720]  Yes. Well, in this case, he's not giving up jurisdiction in his U.S. District Court.
[01:42:43.720 --> 01:42:49.400]  He's pointing out to the U.S. District Court that they lack standing and jurisdiction to
[01:42:49.400 --> 01:42:51.480]  do the foreclosure they're attempting to do.
[01:42:54.120 --> 01:42:56.840]  And out of that, violating the FDCPA.
[01:42:56.840 --> 01:43:04.280]  Okay. I'm telling you, this case is benchmark.
[01:43:07.240 --> 01:43:09.640]  It warrants being followed step by step.
[01:43:10.920 --> 01:43:12.840]  Can you send me a link to that case?
[01:43:14.280 --> 01:43:15.880]  I'll send you the copy of the case.
[01:43:16.440 --> 01:43:17.560]  That would be even better.
[01:43:18.600 --> 01:43:20.520]  And I pulled it down off of a Pacer.
[01:43:20.520 --> 01:43:21.240]  You're trying to find mine again.
[01:43:21.240 --> 01:43:26.760]  I will forward it to you.
[01:43:30.440 --> 01:43:31.960]  I know I have a copy of it.
[01:43:31.960 --> 01:43:33.080]  I just have to find it.
[01:43:35.640 --> 01:43:36.040]  All right.
[01:43:37.720 --> 01:43:38.920]  Okay. Hang on.
[01:43:38.920 --> 01:43:40.920]  We're about to go to break my email address.
[01:43:42.040 --> 01:43:42.680]  Okay. Hang on.
[01:43:42.680 --> 01:43:45.000]  Randy Kelton, Debra Stevens, rule of our radio.
[01:43:45.880 --> 01:43:49.480]  I call the number 512-646-1984.
[01:43:49.480 --> 01:43:50.920]  Terry, I see you there.
[01:43:50.920 --> 01:43:51.800]  We'll get to you.
[01:43:51.800 --> 01:43:52.600]  I promise.
[01:43:54.600 --> 01:43:55.400]  We'll be back.
[01:43:59.640 --> 01:44:03.240]  You feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics?
[01:44:03.240 --> 01:44:03.720]  Sorry.
[01:44:03.720 --> 01:44:06.920]  Are you confused by words like the Constitution or the Federal Reserve?
[01:44:06.920 --> 01:44:07.400]  What?
[01:44:07.400 --> 01:44:12.040]  If so, you may be diagnosed with the deadliest disease known today, stupidity.
[01:44:12.040 --> 01:44:13.960]  Hi, my name is Steve Holt.
[01:44:13.960 --> 01:44:18.440]  And like millions of other Americans, I was diagnosed with stupidity at an early age.
[01:44:18.440 --> 01:44:24.440]  I had no idea that the number one cause of the disease is found in almost every home in America, the television.
[01:44:24.440 --> 01:44:28.440]  Unfortunately, that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity.
[01:44:28.440 --> 01:44:29.480]  But there is hope.
[01:44:29.480 --> 01:44:35.480]  The staff at Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other foxaholics suffering from sports zombieism recover.
[01:44:35.480 --> 01:44:42.440]  And because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading and watching educational documentaries without feeling tired or uninterested.
[01:44:42.440 --> 01:44:54.440]  So if you or anybody you know suffers from stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503 or visit them in 1904guadalupe or bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:44:54.440 --> 01:45:00.440]  Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include discernment and enlarged vocabulary and an overall increase in mental functioning.
[01:45:00.440 --> 01:45:04.440]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:04.440 --> 01:45:10.440]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand 4-CD course
[01:45:10.440 --> 01:45:14.440]  that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[01:45:14.440 --> 01:45:18.440]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:45:18.440 --> 01:45:22.440]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:22.440 --> 01:45:27.440]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:45:27.440 --> 01:45:33.440]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:45:33.440 --> 01:45:42.440]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:42.440 --> 01:45:51.440]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:45:51.440 --> 01:46:03.440]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:22.440 --> 01:46:26.440]  Some things in this world I will never understand.
[01:46:26.440 --> 01:46:30.440]  Some things I realize fully.
[01:46:30.440 --> 01:46:35.440]  Somebody's gonna police that policeman.
[01:46:35.440 --> 01:46:39.440]  Somebody's gonna police fully.
[01:46:39.440 --> 01:46:44.440]  There's always a room at the top of the hill.
[01:46:44.440 --> 01:46:48.440]  I hear through the grave my living's lonely left too.
[01:46:48.440 --> 01:46:52.440]  They're wishing it was more than I position to fail.
[01:46:52.440 --> 01:46:55.440]  They know that it ain't over.
[01:46:55.440 --> 01:47:05.440]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking to Leslie and Jeff in Pennsylvania and Maryland.
[01:47:05.440 --> 01:47:09.440]  Leslie, any chance you can call in tomorrow night?
[01:47:09.440 --> 01:47:13.440]  I'd like to go over this in a little more detail.
[01:47:13.440 --> 01:47:19.440]  Sure, and maybe you can Skype me Jeff's email address.
[01:47:19.440 --> 01:47:21.440]  Yes.
[01:47:21.440 --> 01:47:26.440]  Jeff, Leslie, if you'll send me, okay, I have some emails from you.
[01:47:26.440 --> 01:47:30.440]  I will forward an email to Jeff.
[01:47:30.440 --> 01:47:33.440]  I was hoping I could get you together.
[01:47:33.440 --> 01:47:39.440]  Leslie is changing the legal landscape in Pennsylvania.
[01:47:39.440 --> 01:47:42.440]  She is forced to be recognized.
[01:47:42.440 --> 01:47:47.440]  It's amazing that pro-says all over the country are doing that.
[01:47:47.440 --> 01:47:51.440]  That is wonderful.
[01:47:51.440 --> 01:47:59.440]  You know, I've spent 30 years trying to figure out how to fix the system, and this is what it came to.
[01:47:59.440 --> 01:48:06.440]  Pro-says, you and I, ordinary people standing up and kicking the crapola out of these guys.
[01:48:06.440 --> 01:48:07.440]  Right.
[01:48:07.440 --> 01:48:12.440]  Okay, Jeff, I kind of bushwhacked you.
[01:48:12.440 --> 01:48:16.440]  You called in with a question or a comment.
[01:48:16.440 --> 01:48:20.440]  Well, I called for a different reason, and it has nothing to do with Leslie.
[01:48:20.440 --> 01:48:21.440]  Okay.
[01:48:21.440 --> 01:48:25.440]  Okay, well, I'll let you go, and I'll call you tomorrow, Randy.
[01:48:25.440 --> 01:48:27.440]  Thank you, Leslie.
[01:48:27.440 --> 01:48:30.440]  Okay, go ahead, Jeff.
[01:48:30.440 --> 01:48:38.440]  I sent you a copy of a case that was being discussed earlier on. You better sit down and read it.
[01:48:38.440 --> 01:48:41.440]  Okay, name of the case?
[01:48:41.440 --> 01:48:43.440]  Uh-huh.
[01:48:43.440 --> 01:48:48.440]  No, what was the name of the case, the one you were referring to?
[01:48:48.440 --> 01:48:51.440]  It says, I recall I read the last case you sent me.
[01:48:51.440 --> 01:48:55.440]  Has it to do with Central Bank?
[01:48:55.440 --> 01:48:58.440]  Earlier discussion this evening?
[01:48:58.440 --> 01:49:00.440]  Yes.
[01:49:00.440 --> 01:49:02.440]  You better sit down and read it.
[01:49:02.440 --> 01:49:06.440]  Okay, when did you send me that case? Is it recent?
[01:49:06.440 --> 01:49:08.440]  About 10 or 15 minutes ago.
[01:49:08.440 --> 01:49:16.440]  Oh, oh, oh, okay, because the last case you sent me I read. Okay, I will definitely look at that.
[01:49:16.440 --> 01:49:20.440]  There are some very serious problems there.
[01:49:20.440 --> 01:49:32.440]  Oh, good. Terry in Indiana, if you're still listening, if you send me an email, Randy at ruleoflawradio.com, I'll forward that case to you.
[01:49:32.440 --> 01:49:36.440]  All right, now it's his case.
[01:49:36.440 --> 01:49:39.440]  Oh, okay.
[01:49:39.440 --> 01:49:41.440]  Serious problems.
[01:49:41.440 --> 01:49:43.440]  Oh, problems with the case?
[01:49:43.440 --> 01:49:51.440]  We'll amend that complaint immediately.
[01:49:51.440 --> 01:49:55.440]  Okay.
[01:49:55.440 --> 01:49:59.440]  Terry, if you're listening, call back in tomorrow.
[01:49:59.440 --> 01:50:07.440]  I will, okay, can you call in tomorrow, Jeff, and address some of these issues?
[01:50:07.440 --> 01:50:18.440]  Yes, but keep in mind, I only just scanned it. I have not studied it, but I found a very serious problem that not only can get him dismissed, but sanctioned.
[01:50:18.440 --> 01:50:21.440]  Oh, okay.
[01:50:21.440 --> 01:50:25.440]  Then I will try to get through it before we get to the show tomorrow.
[01:50:25.440 --> 01:50:31.440]  And I'm hoping he's listening, hoping he'll call back in tomorrow and we can discuss it.
[01:50:31.440 --> 01:50:33.440]  Yeah, okay.
[01:50:33.440 --> 01:50:38.440]  Okay, I take it you're not prepared yet to be specific on what you found.
[01:50:38.440 --> 01:50:41.440]  Well, I can tell you this.
[01:50:41.440 --> 01:50:50.440]  In one of his causes of action, which is his primary cause of action, there are two sections, A and B.
[01:50:50.440 --> 01:51:05.440]  B has to do with investigation, A has to do with reporting. Under A, he has no private right of action.
[01:51:05.440 --> 01:51:08.440]  Does A lead to B?
[01:51:08.440 --> 01:51:09.440]  No.
[01:51:09.440 --> 01:51:20.440]  I'm saying, so A doesn't support B. Okay, so he'll merely get A dismissed or the rule against him.
[01:51:20.440 --> 01:51:26.440]  Well, no, he could be sanctioned for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
[01:51:26.440 --> 01:51:33.440]  Well, does he have other claims that are not frivolous?
[01:51:33.440 --> 01:51:40.440]  I haven't studied those because when I was listening to what he was saying,
[01:51:40.440 --> 01:51:45.440]  what came up for me real quick was there's something here that doesn't sound right.
[01:51:45.440 --> 01:51:47.440]  It doesn't sound right. What is it?
[01:51:47.440 --> 01:51:51.440]  So I went and looked up the case.
[01:51:51.440 --> 01:51:56.440]  I got a little help from Mike, but I went and looked up the case.
[01:51:56.440 --> 01:52:06.440]  He's filing action under 1682 S2. That's insufficient.
[01:52:06.440 --> 01:52:13.440]  It has to be S2B, and that has to do with reasonable investigation.
[01:52:13.440 --> 01:52:18.440]  S2A has to do with what they're reporting, and he has no private right of action.
[01:52:18.440 --> 01:52:21.440]  He did not specify B. They will go for A.
[01:52:21.440 --> 01:52:30.440]  They will dismiss him, and they will sanction the hell out of him.
[01:52:30.440 --> 01:52:32.440]  Oh, yeah.
[01:52:32.440 --> 01:52:33.440]  Real quick.
[01:52:33.440 --> 01:52:38.440]  Okay, that sounds kind of scary if you.
[01:52:38.440 --> 01:52:49.440]  Well, it's, yeah, it's a mistake that is not uncommon.
[01:52:49.440 --> 01:52:51.440]  We definitely need to talk about that.
[01:52:51.440 --> 01:52:54.440]  I'm hoping he's listening and he'll call in tomorrow night.
[01:52:54.440 --> 01:52:59.440]  Then will you be around tomorrow night, Jeff?
[01:52:59.440 --> 01:53:02.440]  I'm planning on being, good Lord willing.
[01:53:02.440 --> 01:53:06.440]  Wonderful. Then I'm hoping he will call back.
[01:53:06.440 --> 01:53:12.440]  If you send it to me, I'll look at it and hope I can understand what you're talking about
[01:53:12.440 --> 01:53:15.440]  and hope you're not too far over my head.
[01:53:15.440 --> 01:53:16.440]  Okay.
[01:53:16.440 --> 01:53:20.440]  Because you are much older than me and much wiser.
[01:53:20.440 --> 01:53:24.440]  Well, I don't know about the wiser.
[01:53:24.440 --> 01:53:26.440]  Okay, thank you, Jeff.
[01:53:26.440 --> 01:53:27.440]  We do have Terry.
[01:53:27.440 --> 01:53:32.440]  I want to try to get to Terry before I'm completely out of time.
[01:53:32.440 --> 01:53:37.440]  Thank you, Jeff, and I'll talk to you tomorrow night.
[01:53:37.440 --> 01:53:39.440]  Okay, now we're going to Terry in Michigan.
[01:53:39.440 --> 01:53:41.440]  Hello, Terry.
[01:53:41.440 --> 01:53:43.440]  Hi, Randy.
[01:53:43.440 --> 01:53:50.440]  It just so happens I have a FCRA case also that I've been working with, Michael Miracent.
[01:53:50.440 --> 01:53:54.440]  Oh, FCRA or FDCPA?
[01:53:54.440 --> 01:53:57.440]  No, Fair Credit Reporting Act.
[01:53:57.440 --> 01:54:00.440]  Okay.
[01:54:00.440 --> 01:54:05.440]  And what I've got going right now is I filed the case
[01:54:05.440 --> 01:54:14.440]  and the defendant has a motion to dismiss and or compel arbitration with an arbitrator, not the court.
[01:54:14.440 --> 01:54:16.440]  I gave a response to that.
[01:54:16.440 --> 01:54:21.440]  The defendant gave a reply and I've been looking at case law
[01:54:21.440 --> 01:54:28.440]  and the case law seems to lean towards giving them the outside arbitration.
[01:54:28.440 --> 01:54:35.440]  I'm looking at right now at possibly doing a sur-reply motion to re-respond,
[01:54:35.440 --> 01:54:39.440]  and I have until Monday to do that.
[01:54:39.440 --> 01:54:42.440]  What I'm looking at is in their arbitration agreement,
[01:54:42.440 --> 01:54:47.440]  their arbitration agreement states that it's between a borrower and a lender,
[01:54:47.440 --> 01:54:55.440]  and I'm stating that the FCRA is between a consumer and a furnisher of information,
[01:54:55.440 --> 01:55:00.440]  which I don't think is within the scope of their arbitration agreement.
[01:55:00.440 --> 01:55:04.440]  Now, that's the definition that the Fair Credit Reporting Act gives.
[01:55:04.440 --> 01:55:08.440]  That's an interesting argument.
[01:55:08.440 --> 01:55:12.440]  Okay, can you clarify that a little more?
[01:55:12.440 --> 01:55:21.440]  Fair Credit Reporting Act, and you made a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
[01:55:21.440 --> 01:55:23.440]  Right.
[01:55:23.440 --> 01:55:29.440]  And you're claiming this because they're saying that there's an arbitration agreement,
[01:55:29.440 --> 01:55:33.440]  and it says all disputes are...
[01:55:33.440 --> 01:55:35.440]  Okay, hold on, hold on.
[01:55:35.440 --> 01:55:43.440]  Fair Credit Reporting Act, what contract would you be a party to
[01:55:43.440 --> 01:55:52.440]  that involved the process of making reports to credit agencies by the company?
[01:55:52.440 --> 01:55:55.440]  Well, that's my argument also.
[01:55:55.440 --> 01:55:58.440]  They're saying that in the loan agreement,
[01:55:58.440 --> 01:56:05.440]  that the loan agreement covers all disputes, and they're claiming that it even involves...
[01:56:05.440 --> 01:56:07.440]  Now, wait a minute.
[01:56:07.440 --> 01:56:14.440]  You want to raise a dispute about the lender stepping on your big toe.
[01:56:14.440 --> 01:56:17.440]  Is that also under the contract?
[01:56:17.440 --> 01:56:22.440]  That was some stuff that I was going to throw in there also, you know,
[01:56:22.440 --> 01:56:31.440]  if I can get it back in there to reply to it again.
[01:56:31.440 --> 01:56:38.440]  But in looking at case law, there's a lot of case law that states that
[01:56:38.440 --> 01:56:45.440]  lenders with arbitration agreements can go around the Fair Credit Reporting Act
[01:56:45.440 --> 01:56:48.440]  and go to an arbitrator.
[01:56:48.440 --> 01:56:51.440]  And that's what's got me nervous about it, except for, like I say,
[01:56:51.440 --> 01:56:55.440]  looking at this agreement that they're saying that they have,
[01:56:55.440 --> 01:57:02.440]  it states right at the very top of the agreement, this is between borrower and lender.
[01:57:02.440 --> 01:57:08.440]  And the Fair Credit Reporting Act states specifically that this entire thing is about information,
[01:57:08.440 --> 01:57:14.440]  and any dispute is between the consumer and the furnisher of information.
[01:57:14.440 --> 01:57:21.440]  It doesn't say anything about a borrower and a lender, which to me...
[01:57:21.440 --> 01:57:25.440]  Consumer and furnisher.
[01:57:25.440 --> 01:57:37.440]  Are you necessarily engaged in any kind of contract with a furnisher of information if you are a consumer?
[01:57:37.440 --> 01:57:41.440]  No, not that I know of.
[01:57:41.440 --> 01:57:48.440]  Okay, the furnisher of information, what kind of information are they furnishing?
[01:57:48.440 --> 01:57:52.440]  The information that's gone into the credit report.
[01:57:52.440 --> 01:58:03.440]  So they're furnishing information relative to a consumer contract.
[01:58:03.440 --> 01:58:07.440]  Okay, that's a connection.
[01:58:07.440 --> 01:58:12.440]  They're not isolated from you, and can you call back tomorrow night?
[01:58:12.440 --> 01:58:17.440]  I am sorry we are out of time, and this is an interesting subject.
[01:58:17.440 --> 01:58:19.440]  Okay.
[01:58:19.440 --> 01:58:23.440]  Thank you, and I'm sorry we ran out of time before we got to.
[01:58:23.440 --> 01:58:28.440]  This is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens with our radio.
[01:58:28.440 --> 01:58:34.440]  We will be back tomorrow night with our four-hour info marathon, so make sure you listen,
[01:58:34.440 --> 01:58:37.440]  and if you have a question or comment, give us a call.
[01:58:37.440 --> 01:58:42.440]  We'll have more time then to discuss these issues in detail.
[01:58:42.440 --> 01:58:50.440]  Thank you all for listening, and good night.
[01:58:50.440 --> 01:58:57.440]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study Bible called the New Testament Recovery Version.
[01:58:57.440 --> 01:59:04.440]  The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain what the Bible says verse by verse,
[01:59:04.440 --> 01:59:08.440]  helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[01:59:08.440 --> 01:59:11.440]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America.
[01:59:11.440 --> 01:59:20.440]  Call us toll free at 888-551-0102, or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:20.440 --> 01:59:25.440]  This translation is highly accurate, and it comes with over 13,000 cross references,
[01:59:25.440 --> 01:59:29.440]  plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:59:29.440 --> 01:59:32.440]  This is truly a Bible you can understand.
[01:59:32.440 --> 01:59:40.440]  To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:59:40.440 --> 01:59:52.440]  That's 888-551-0102, or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:52.440 --> 01:59:59.440]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com.