ROL_2016-02-12_16k_Hr1-2.timecode
[00:00.000 --> 00:05.840] The following news flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing the jelly
[00:05.840 --> 00:13.440] bulletins for the commodities market, today in history, news updates, and the inside scoop
[00:13.440 --> 00:21.200] into the tides of the alternative.
[00:21.200 --> 00:25.320] Markets for Thursday, the 11th of February, 2016, are currently treading with gold at
[00:25.320 --> 00:34.960] $1,246.26 an ounce, silver at $15.76 an ounce, Texas crude at $27.45 a barrel, and Bitcoin
[00:34.960 --> 00:43.600] is currently sitting at about 376 U.S. currency.
[00:43.600 --> 00:49.640] Today in history, Monday, February 11, 1929, Vatican City is made the enclave for a city
[00:49.640 --> 00:53.400] state within another state of Rome via the Lateran Treaty.
[00:53.400 --> 00:58.080] Fascist Prime Minister of Italy at the time, Benito Mussolini, agreed to giving the Catholic
[00:58.080 --> 01:06.840] Church financial support and returned for public support from the Pope at the time.
[01:06.840 --> 01:11.280] In recent news, the four remaining ranchers, Jeff Banta, Sean Anderson, Sandy Anderson,
[01:11.280 --> 01:15.360] and David Fry, at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, who took control of the
[01:15.360 --> 01:20.160] then empty refuge 250 miles from Portland on January 2nd, demanding the return of the
[01:20.160 --> 01:24.160] lands taken by the Bureau of Land Management and the pardoning of the two ranchers convicted
[01:24.160 --> 01:28.880] of terrorism for setting controlled fires which spread to BLM lands, finally surrendered
[01:28.880 --> 01:32.160] this morning after hours of negotiations with mediators.
[01:32.160 --> 01:36.440] The occupation came to an abrupt end as Fry, the last to leave, threatened suicide on a
[01:36.440 --> 01:41.000] livestreamed conversation with Liberty activist Gavin Siem and conservative radio host Chris
[01:41.000 --> 01:42.000] Ann Hall.
[01:42.000 --> 01:46.560] A phone call Wednesday night between the protesters and the negotiators was also livestreamed
[01:46.560 --> 01:52.480] and is available online.
[01:52.480 --> 01:57.200] A jury in Nassau County, New York convicted James Ryan today on 10 of 13 counts of vehicular
[01:57.200 --> 02:01.520] manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and other charges and acquitted him of the
[02:01.520 --> 02:04.400] top charge of aggravated vehicular homicide.
[02:04.400 --> 02:08.280] He now faces up to 15 years in prison when he is sentenced next month because his reckless
[02:08.280 --> 02:12.120] driving, prosecutors say, caused a chain reaction crash.
[02:12.120 --> 02:17.520] Ryan's Toyota hit a BMW on the Long Island Expressway and then was hit by another car
[02:17.520 --> 02:21.920] a few minutes later in an SUV smashed into Ryan's car before fatally hitting a New York
[02:21.920 --> 02:27.320] police officer.
[02:27.320 --> 02:30.040] The results for the New Hampshire primary are as follows.
[02:30.040 --> 02:34.360] For the Republicans, Donald Trump won with 10 delegates or 35.3% of the vote.
[02:34.360 --> 02:38.000] Doug Kasich was next with four delegates and 15.8% of the vote.
[02:38.000 --> 02:42.400] Etta Cruz, three delegates and 11.7% of the vote, followed finally by George Bush with
[02:42.400 --> 02:47.480] three delegates, 11% and Mark Rubio with three delegates, 10.6%.
[02:47.480 --> 02:52.640] For the Democrats, Bernie Sanders won 60.4% or 15 delegates, while Hillary Clinton only
[02:52.640 --> 02:55.040] got 38% or nine delegates.
[02:55.040 --> 03:11.960] This is your lowdown for February 11th, 2016.
[03:11.960 --> 03:35.520] The
[03:35.520 --> 03:38.020] Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[03:38.020 --> 03:40.820] When you were eight and you had bad dreams
[03:40.820 --> 03:43.520] You'd go to school and learn the golden rules
[03:43.520 --> 03:46.320] So why are you acting like a bloody fool?
[03:46.320 --> 03:48.920] If you get fucked then you must get cooed
[03:48.920 --> 03:50.520] Bad boys, bad boys
[03:50.520 --> 03:51.820] Whatcha gonna do?
[03:51.820 --> 03:54.320] Oh, whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[03:54.320 --> 03:56.020] Bad boys, bad boys
[03:56.020 --> 03:57.320] Whatcha gonna do?
[03:57.320 --> 04:00.020] Oh, whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[04:00.020 --> 04:01.420] You chuck it on that one
[04:01.420 --> 04:02.820] You chuck it on this one
[04:02.820 --> 04:04.020] You chuck it on your mother
[04:04.020 --> 04:05.520] And you chuck it on your father
[04:05.520 --> 04:06.720] You chuck it on your brother
[04:06.720 --> 04:08.220] And you chuck it on your sister
[04:08.220 --> 04:09.520] You chuck it on that one
[04:09.520 --> 04:10.820] And you chuck it on me
[04:10.820 --> 04:12.520] Bad boys, bad boys
[04:12.520 --> 04:13.820] Whatcha gonna do?
[04:13.820 --> 04:16.220] Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[04:16.220 --> 04:17.920] Bad boys, bad boys
[04:17.920 --> 04:37.420] Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[04:48.220 --> 04:49.920] Go back into some of this
[04:49.920 --> 04:59.320] And I'm trying to develop a cogent presentation
[04:59.320 --> 05:06.420] Now, I will be presenting a lot of issues
[05:06.420 --> 05:07.820] Don't try to memorize them all
[05:07.820 --> 05:09.020] Don't try to...
[05:09.020 --> 05:14.420] It's not even necessary to try to understand them all
[05:14.420 --> 05:15.720] I'll go through them
[05:15.720 --> 05:19.420] And try to go through them in a way such that
[05:19.420 --> 05:22.620] When you come across them
[05:22.620 --> 05:26.720] They will be something that you recognize
[05:26.720 --> 05:30.720] Especially when you're writing a document
[05:30.720 --> 05:33.520] For a specific purpose
[05:33.520 --> 05:37.020] These will help you to make the document
[05:37.020 --> 05:40.220] More readable and more effective
[05:40.220 --> 05:45.220] Now, here we're speaking to writing legal documents
[05:45.220 --> 05:50.020] Now, when you write documents in particular
[05:50.020 --> 05:50.720] You're always...
[05:50.720 --> 05:56.620] Your purpose is to affect the mind of the reader
[05:56.620 --> 06:02.520] And bring the reader to a specific state of mind
[06:02.520 --> 06:03.920] If it's an adventure story
[06:03.920 --> 06:07.020] If it's a mystery
[06:07.020 --> 06:09.020] Those are different states of mind
[06:09.020 --> 06:10.720] When you're writing legal documents
[06:10.720 --> 06:16.320] You want to bring the person to your position
[06:16.320 --> 06:20.820] And one of the first things to understand about
[06:20.820 --> 06:25.420] How to effectively write a legal document
[06:25.420 --> 06:27.520] Is flow
[06:27.520 --> 06:29.720] The concept of mental flow
[06:29.720 --> 06:37.020] Now, this actually goes to anything that you write
[06:37.020 --> 06:41.720] Reading is probably the most hypnotic thing
[06:41.720 --> 06:44.320] Anyone will ever do
[06:44.320 --> 06:45.520] And the better the writing
[06:45.520 --> 06:46.620] The more hypnotic it is
[06:46.620 --> 06:53.820] Everybody's had the experience of reading a novel or a story
[06:53.820 --> 06:57.320] And just falling into the storyline
[06:57.320 --> 06:59.220] And then a couple hours later
[06:59.220 --> 07:02.420] You come back up for air
[07:02.420 --> 07:07.620] Those are documents that the writer has taken great care
[07:07.620 --> 07:11.520] Not to knock the reader out of flow
[07:11.520 --> 07:13.920] And anytime you...
[07:13.920 --> 07:15.520] When you're reading something
[07:15.520 --> 07:20.320] If you notice the writer as opposed to the content
[07:20.320 --> 07:23.920] Then the writer's main mistake is screwed up
[07:23.920 --> 07:27.520] A lot of times writers will put in a really fancy
[07:27.520 --> 07:29.020] Nice turn of phrase
[07:29.020 --> 07:32.020] Because they think the language really sounds cool
[07:32.020 --> 07:35.620] And it makes them feel smart and professional
[07:35.620 --> 07:38.320] Well, it may make them feel good
[07:38.320 --> 07:41.320] But if it kicks the reader out of flow
[07:41.320 --> 07:45.420] If the reader notices the turn of phrase
[07:45.420 --> 07:47.720] Then he's done the reader a disservice
[07:47.720 --> 07:52.120] And he's also done his intended outcome a disservice
[07:52.120 --> 07:53.520] Because when you drop out of flow
[07:53.520 --> 07:57.220] You tend to lose where you're at
[07:57.220 --> 08:03.520] I'm going to go first through some things to avoid
[08:03.520 --> 08:05.420] There are certain structures
[08:05.420 --> 08:10.720] That human beings tend to strip over
[08:10.720 --> 08:14.720] And when you're writing a document
[08:14.720 --> 08:18.720] For a specific purpose
[08:18.720 --> 08:23.020] You want your reader focused on the purpose
[08:23.020 --> 08:28.720] You don't want them having questions in their mind
[08:28.720 --> 08:30.020] That aren't answered
[08:30.020 --> 08:32.220] You don't want them having to read a sentence
[08:32.220 --> 08:36.120] Two or three times to understand what it means
[08:36.120 --> 08:39.220] You don't want anything that will trip them up
[08:39.220 --> 08:42.420] Or cause a pattern interruption
[08:42.420 --> 08:46.120] So one of the first things that we try to avoid
[08:46.120 --> 08:48.120] One of the more common things that we do
[08:48.120 --> 08:51.820] When we're writing this kind of document
[08:51.820 --> 08:53.620] Are conjunctions
[08:53.620 --> 08:56.620] We overuse conjunctions
[08:56.620 --> 09:02.420] We have this point we're trying to lead our reader to
[09:02.420 --> 09:08.420] And we start putting in these statements, facts and law
[09:08.420 --> 09:12.120] That will lead the reader to this particular point
[09:12.120 --> 09:16.820] And we have a tendency not to trust our reader
[09:16.820 --> 09:18.820] So we say this is the case
[09:18.820 --> 09:19.820] And this is the case
[09:19.820 --> 09:21.020] And this is the case
[09:21.020 --> 09:22.020] And this is the case
[09:22.020 --> 09:23.020] And this is the case
[09:23.020 --> 09:24.820] And therefore that's the case
[09:24.820 --> 09:30.520] The reader does not have a clue as to what you are talking about
[09:30.520 --> 09:34.020] Because each time you use a conjunction
[09:34.020 --> 09:40.320] That implies that this first independent clause
[09:40.320 --> 09:45.020] Is intrinsically connected to the second independent clause
[09:45.020 --> 09:49.020] If you have two independent clauses
[09:49.020 --> 09:52.820] You want to put them in separate sentences
[09:52.820 --> 09:57.220] Because the reader will get it much better if you say this is a fact
[09:57.220 --> 10:01.420] And then you say this here is a fact
[10:01.420 --> 10:04.020] And this is a fact
[10:04.020 --> 10:07.620] Therefore with this fact, this fact and this fact
[10:07.620 --> 10:10.820] You must come to this conclusion
[10:10.820 --> 10:17.020] If you break your sentences in your clauses into separate sentences
[10:17.020 --> 10:19.620] Instead of connecting together with conjunctions
[10:19.620 --> 10:25.820] The reader will be able to develop an understanding much better
[10:25.820 --> 10:29.420] I'm guilty of this myself because I really want the reader to get this point
[10:29.420 --> 10:33.320] And I'm kind of afraid to put a period in there
[10:33.320 --> 10:35.720] And stop the train of thought
[10:35.720 --> 10:37.820] So that I can move to the next piece
[10:37.820 --> 10:40.020] I want to make sure that the reader understands
[10:40.020 --> 10:42.420] That they're intrinsically connected together
[10:42.420 --> 10:44.520] And sometimes I make my reader nuts
[10:44.520 --> 10:49.020] I was reading a document the other day that had a huge paragraph
[10:49.020 --> 10:50.820] One sentence
[10:50.820 --> 10:53.520] No human being can make sense of that
[10:53.520 --> 10:56.720] Too many pieces to try to put together
[10:56.720 --> 11:00.820] A human being can only hold in their conscious awareness
[11:00.820 --> 11:07.620] Seven plus or minus two discrete pieces of information at one time
[11:07.620 --> 11:12.420] We try to stuff more than that in there without giving them a break
[11:12.420 --> 11:16.020] They're going to start losing information
[11:16.020 --> 11:20.620] Conjunctions, avoid conjunctions whenever you can
[11:20.620 --> 11:23.320] Or the overuse of conjunctions
[11:23.320 --> 11:27.320] Pronouns in a legal document
[11:27.320 --> 11:32.220] Avoid pronouns like the plague
[11:32.220 --> 11:36.020] When you write a document for legal consumption
[11:36.020 --> 11:43.420] You have an opposing counsel whose job it is to misconstrue everything you say
[11:43.420 --> 11:48.320] To tear your document apart and make it as ineffective as possible
[11:48.320 --> 11:51.120] So if you use pronouns
[11:51.120 --> 11:59.120] And there's any way that the referential index to that pronoun
[11:59.120 --> 12:04.820] Can be misconstrued, the lawyer will deliberately misconstrue it
[12:04.820 --> 12:07.920] Okay, maybe he won't
[12:07.920 --> 12:11.620] But you should conduct yourself when preparing legal documents
[12:11.620 --> 12:20.720] As if the lawyer on the other side will do everything in his power to trash your document
[12:20.720 --> 12:26.720] So exercise caution and one thing that will eliminate a lot of problems
[12:26.720 --> 12:30.220] Is the elimination of pronouns
[12:30.220 --> 12:37.720] And then there are two specific terms that we tend to use a lot in language
[12:37.720 --> 12:41.520] And one is a term we misuse
[12:41.520 --> 12:45.720] The other one is a term that we don't always need
[12:45.720 --> 12:55.520] The, for the most part if you can't define a word don't use it
[12:55.520 --> 12:59.120] As you're writing a document, documents
[12:59.120 --> 13:06.220] Every once in a while you should look at words you think you know and look them up
[13:06.220 --> 13:11.720] Ask yourself, the, one of the most common terms we use in writing
[13:11.720 --> 13:17.020] What does it mean?
[13:17.020 --> 13:22.120] I have crashed my system, it seems like I had the definition of it here
[13:22.120 --> 13:31.220] The essentially means one previously mentioned
[13:31.220 --> 13:33.820] So when we're writing a document
[13:33.820 --> 13:40.320] If we're speaking to an issue that we haven't referenced earlier
[13:40.320 --> 13:45.120] And we use the term the, the lacks referential index
[13:45.120 --> 13:50.120] It lacks something specific that it's referring to
[13:50.120 --> 13:54.120] And if you're writing it as a legal document
[13:54.120 --> 14:00.520] The lawyer on the other side is going to get that and twist it out of shape as much as he possibly can
[14:00.520 --> 14:08.920] He's going to deliberately assume that the term the refers to something previously mentioned
[14:08.920 --> 14:12.420] That you did not intend, so avoid it if you can
[14:12.420 --> 14:16.020] The other term is that
[14:16.020 --> 14:23.120] Now that is a word we, it's a directive word
[14:23.120 --> 14:32.720] It's a word that directs a listener and it's most effectively used in spoken language
[14:32.720 --> 14:37.220] It's because we talk, we speak approximately 300 words a minute
[14:37.220 --> 14:45.620] Unless you're from New England or something then you probably speak 350 to 400
[14:45.620 --> 14:52.520] I have trouble, you hear me on the air sometimes telling people they're talking faster than I can listen
[14:52.520 --> 14:57.220] But we speak quickly so we need directing terms
[14:57.220 --> 15:07.120] Brady, President Reagan's press secretary, the one that was shot when they, in the assassination attempt on Reagan
[15:07.120 --> 15:10.920] He would get an article from one of his press attaches
[15:10.920 --> 15:17.320] And go through the article and strike out the word that every time he came across it and give it back to him
[15:17.320 --> 15:19.720] And have them rewrite it to take it out
[15:19.720 --> 15:23.520] I found in my own writing that very often
[15:23.520 --> 15:29.020] If I take out the word that and do nothing else
[15:29.020 --> 15:31.520] The reader will put it right back
[15:31.520 --> 15:36.120] This is what I'll speak to later if we have time
[15:36.120 --> 15:44.020] What I refer to as a conversational ellipsis
[15:44.020 --> 15:49.120] Conversational ellipsis is where you leave out part of a sentence
[15:49.120 --> 15:51.320] You leave out a phrase
[15:51.320 --> 15:57.320] We have these pat phrases we regularly use in language
[15:57.320 --> 16:01.620] And in the spoken language we need them
[16:01.620 --> 16:03.920] Primarily to give us direction
[16:03.920 --> 16:06.520] Often in the written language
[16:06.520 --> 16:09.820] If you leave it out the mind will put it right back
[16:09.820 --> 16:13.320] And that is one of those terms
[16:13.320 --> 16:16.820] Where if you leave it out the mind will put it right back
[16:16.820 --> 16:19.820] Won't even notice it wasn't there
[16:19.820 --> 16:28.820] And when that inner part of the mind becomes engaged in the process
[16:28.820 --> 16:33.620] Becomes engaged by putting that word back
[16:33.620 --> 16:35.920] Without alerting your conscious awareness
[16:35.920 --> 16:39.320] That creates a phenomenon we call rapport
[16:39.320 --> 16:42.220] And I'll speak to rapport when we come back on the other side
[16:42.220 --> 16:45.520] This is Randy Kelton, Wulffa Radio
[16:45.520 --> 16:50.320] Our call-in number 512-646-1984
[16:50.320 --> 17:04.320] We'll be right back
[17:50.320 --> 17:55.620] Go to NonGMOsolutions.com today and get 10% off with promo code LOGOS
[17:55.620 --> 18:02.620] That's NonGMOsolutions.com with promo code LOGOS
[18:02.620 --> 18:04.320] They took our guns
[18:04.320 --> 18:07.720] And get them back and support the LOGOS radio network at the same time
[18:07.720 --> 18:11.020] The following sponsors have stepped up to help keep this network on air
[18:11.020 --> 18:12.620] With a fundraising contest
[18:12.620 --> 18:14.620] Thanks to Central Texas Gunworks
[18:14.620 --> 18:15.820] With the first prize
[18:15.820 --> 18:17.920] The Spike Skull Lower Receiver
[18:17.920 --> 18:18.920] Second prize
[18:18.920 --> 18:20.520] The Taurus Curve Handgun
[18:20.520 --> 18:23.520] Every $25 donation gets a chance to win
[18:23.520 --> 18:24.720] Enter as often as you like
[18:24.720 --> 18:27.020] Check out CentralTexasGunworks.com
[18:27.020 --> 18:29.520] Thanks also to MyMagicMud.com
[18:29.520 --> 18:33.920] The first 40 people to donate $25 get a jar of My Magic Mud
[18:33.920 --> 18:35.620] Valued at $25
[18:35.620 --> 18:37.420] Thanks also to All About Vapor
[18:37.420 --> 18:39.820] At 4631 Airport Boulevard
[18:39.820 --> 18:43.720] The 10 third place winners will get a $25 gift card
[18:43.720 --> 18:46.920] Stop smelling like a putt at AllAboutVapor.com
[18:46.920 --> 18:48.620] Also thanks to Eddie Craig
[18:48.620 --> 18:51.320] Folks who buy the Rule of Law Traffic Seminar
[18:51.320 --> 18:53.120] Get 10 entries into the contest
[18:53.120 --> 18:55.620] Check out the contest rules and details
[18:55.620 --> 18:57.720] At LogosRadioNetwork.com
[18:57.720 --> 19:00.720] Peristates or hipsters may not actually be eligible to win
[19:02.720 --> 19:05.720] You are listening to the LOGOS Radio Network
[19:05.720 --> 19:33.720] LogosRadioNetwork.com
[19:33.720 --> 19:36.820] Okay, we are back, Graham DeKelton, Rule of Law Radio
[19:36.820 --> 19:39.020] And we're talking about how to write legal documents
[19:39.020 --> 19:45.220] At this point I'm talking about how to maintain mental flow
[19:45.220 --> 19:50.720] And here we're at the area of things to avoid
[19:50.720 --> 19:53.720] Avoid pronouns, avoid conjunctions
[19:53.720 --> 19:57.020] Avoid orientation terms
[19:57.020 --> 20:01.420] Specifically the and that, wherever you can
[20:01.420 --> 20:03.720] The next one, acronyms
[20:03.720 --> 20:09.220] Avoid acronyms at all costs
[20:09.220 --> 20:13.720] No matter if you know what the initials mean
[20:13.720 --> 20:19.720] Unless the term is so synonymous with
[20:19.720 --> 20:24.020] Unless the acronym is so synonymous with the actual name
[20:24.020 --> 20:27.720] That everybody on the planet will know what it means
[20:27.720 --> 20:33.320] Like USA, no one will trip over USA or USSR
[20:33.320 --> 20:40.320] But they will trip over Respa Tla Hopa
[20:40.320 --> 20:44.220] FDCPA, FCRA
[20:44.220 --> 20:47.220] Every time you hear these, the mind has to stop
[20:47.220 --> 20:49.420] And run through those letters
[20:49.420 --> 20:53.620] And go in and do a transderivational search
[20:53.620 --> 20:57.620] And pull out what those letters in that particular
[20:57.620 --> 21:00.820] String refer to
[21:00.820 --> 21:04.320] And that always causes them to drop out of flow
[21:04.320 --> 21:06.120] It always trips them up in the reading
[21:06.120 --> 21:11.020] So if you're trying to make a complex point
[21:11.020 --> 21:13.320] And you use an acronym in there
[21:13.320 --> 21:16.020] You get them halfway through the explanation
[21:16.020 --> 21:18.120] And drop them out of flow
[21:18.120 --> 21:20.120] They got to figure out what that acronym means
[21:20.120 --> 21:23.420] And then they got to go back and try to recap
[21:23.420 --> 21:25.820] And re-put together where they were
[21:25.820 --> 21:28.320] When you dropped them out of flow
[21:28.320 --> 21:30.920] Avoid acronyms
[21:30.920 --> 21:35.020] Read Estate Settlement Procedures Act
[21:35.020 --> 21:37.420] That's a lot of words
[21:37.420 --> 21:40.420] However, when the reader sees
[21:40.420 --> 21:43.820] Read Estate Settlement Procedures Act
[21:43.820 --> 21:46.820] The first time they have to read it
[21:46.820 --> 21:49.220] The second time they'll recognize it
[21:49.220 --> 21:52.620] Like they recognize a Chevrolet
[21:52.620 --> 21:56.220] One eye fixation and they got it
[21:56.220 --> 21:58.120] They don't have to read it
[21:58.120 --> 21:59.620] They recognize it
[21:59.620 --> 22:01.220] When we read
[22:01.220 --> 22:03.020] We don't look at a letter
[22:03.020 --> 22:04.520] Elements
[22:04.520 --> 22:06.620] E-L-E-M-E
[22:06.620 --> 22:08.720] No, we don't do that
[22:08.720 --> 22:10.820] I look and I see elements on the screen
[22:10.820 --> 22:13.420] And I recognize it
[22:13.420 --> 22:17.220] Everybody's had the experience of seeing a word
[22:17.220 --> 22:19.620] And this little red flag pops up
[22:19.620 --> 22:22.120] That says, wait a minute, wait a minute
[22:22.120 --> 22:24.620] There's something wrong with that
[22:24.620 --> 22:26.920] I'm just not sure exactly what it is
[22:26.920 --> 22:31.920] You have to look at it a bit to figure out where it's misspelled
[22:31.920 --> 22:34.320] The reason you knew something was wrong with it
[22:34.320 --> 22:36.720] Is because you had this picture in your head
[22:36.720 --> 22:38.920] Of what that word looked like
[22:38.920 --> 22:40.120] And then you saw this word
[22:40.120 --> 22:42.420] And it looked a whole lot like the picture
[22:42.420 --> 22:44.720] But your inner mind that does the comparison
[22:44.720 --> 22:47.520] Said, wait a minute, there's something doesn't match here
[22:47.520 --> 22:49.620] And that always trips you out of flow
[22:49.620 --> 22:53.920] Always run spell check on your documents
[22:53.920 --> 22:56.720] Misspelled words is a really big problem
[22:56.720 --> 22:58.920] I used to have a big problem with that
[22:58.920 --> 23:02.120] And I got untold grief about that
[23:02.120 --> 23:05.920] Now I am extremely careful about misspelled words
[23:05.920 --> 23:09.520] Because they kick you out of flow
[23:09.520 --> 23:11.320] Long sentences
[23:11.320 --> 23:14.420] Avoid long sentences
[23:14.420 --> 23:17.520] The mind just can't keep up with all those facts
[23:17.520 --> 23:20.020] If you have a sentence that takes more than two lines
[23:20.020 --> 23:22.320] It is way too long
[23:22.320 --> 23:25.820] Break that thing into two or three bite-sized pieces
[23:25.820 --> 23:31.420] You always want to write your document for an eighth grader
[23:31.420 --> 23:34.420] And it's not because your reader is not intelligent
[23:34.420 --> 23:37.620] We're writing legal documents here
[23:37.620 --> 23:39.620] And when we write legal documents
[23:39.620 --> 23:44.620] We tend to get into legal arguments
[23:44.620 --> 23:51.020] That are necessarily complex
[23:51.020 --> 23:54.720] So it behooves us to eliminate
[23:54.720 --> 24:00.220] All of the unnecessary complexity that we can
[24:00.220 --> 24:05.920] If we use a term that is industry specific
[24:05.920 --> 24:10.620] Or legally specific
[24:10.620 --> 24:13.620] Those we call terms of art
[24:13.620 --> 24:15.420] Always define it
[24:15.420 --> 24:19.220] If there is a reasonable chance
[24:19.220 --> 24:27.320] That this term can cause what we call a complex equivalent
[24:27.320 --> 24:29.220] Driver
[24:29.220 --> 24:32.520] When most people hear the term driver
[24:32.520 --> 24:35.120] It creates a meaning in their mind
[24:35.120 --> 24:38.320] They have developed this meaning for that term
[24:38.320 --> 24:41.020] When the term is used in common language
[24:41.020 --> 24:45.920] But in law, in court, they don't speak English
[24:45.920 --> 24:48.020] They speak legalese
[24:48.020 --> 24:51.320] And when the prosecutor uses the term driver
[24:51.320 --> 24:56.620] Or the arresting officer, the police officer uses the term driver
[24:56.620 --> 24:59.820] He has a different meaning than the one you have
[24:59.820 --> 25:04.920] His meaning is a term of art that is specifically defined in code
[25:04.920 --> 25:08.720] So what we wind up with is a complex equivalent
[25:08.720 --> 25:12.820] We both think we're talking about the same things
[25:12.820 --> 25:14.020] But we're not
[25:14.020 --> 25:20.220] So anytime you use a term that has a special meaning
[25:20.220 --> 25:22.820] In the context in which you're using it
[25:22.820 --> 25:25.420] Make sure you put in parentheses behind it
[25:25.420 --> 25:33.520] Just a real short what this term means in this context
[25:33.520 --> 25:36.520] This goes to another issue
[25:36.520 --> 25:39.520] One concerning flow
[25:39.520 --> 25:42.820] When you start writing a document
[25:42.820 --> 25:48.320] If you create a question in the mind of your reader
[25:48.320 --> 25:52.820] And you did not know you were going to create that question
[25:52.820 --> 25:54.520] In the mind of the reader
[25:54.520 --> 25:58.720] Your technology is not sophisticated enough
[25:58.720 --> 26:02.420] You need to go back and rewrite your document
[26:02.420 --> 26:05.420] So that you can anticipate the questions
[26:05.420 --> 26:08.320] You'll create in the mind of your reader
[26:08.320 --> 26:13.020] This gets a lot simpler if you write for an eighth graded level
[26:13.020 --> 26:18.120] You don't assume someone already has a sophisticated knowledge
[26:18.120 --> 26:20.420] Because they may have a sophisticated knowledge
[26:20.420 --> 26:22.820] That doesn't always help
[26:22.820 --> 26:27.620] When you're speaking to a specific area of law
[26:27.620 --> 26:33.120] Because legal terminology can get so complex
[26:33.120 --> 26:35.620] In the passion of the moment
[26:35.620 --> 26:39.420] We can very easily misconstrue terms of art
[26:39.420 --> 26:44.720] Always define them if you use the same term over and over
[26:44.720 --> 26:46.320] RESPA
[26:46.320 --> 26:47.420] If I'm going to use RESPA
[26:47.420 --> 26:49.420] And I'm writing a document
[26:49.420 --> 26:52.520] Primarily about the Reader State Settlement Procedures Act
[26:52.520 --> 26:54.120] First time I put in RESPA
[26:54.120 --> 26:55.620] Reader State Settlement Procedures Act
[26:55.620 --> 26:58.320] I'll put quotations behind it, RESPA
[26:58.320 --> 27:02.920] And I will probably do that three or four times
[27:02.920 --> 27:05.520] After I've done it three or four times
[27:05.520 --> 27:09.420] Now the reader has seen it enough times
[27:09.420 --> 27:12.120] That he will make the connection
[27:12.120 --> 27:13.520] And not have to stop and say
[27:13.520 --> 27:14.920] Now wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute
[27:14.920 --> 27:16.920] Am I getting this right?
[27:16.920 --> 27:18.920] And go back up the document
[27:18.920 --> 27:21.920] And look to make sure what he's seeing here
[27:21.920 --> 27:27.520] There is not some minor variation on what he expects to see
[27:27.520 --> 27:29.020] Once he's seen it three or four times
[27:29.020 --> 27:31.820] Then you can start flipping RESPA in there
[27:31.820 --> 27:35.920] If you want to train your reader to understand RESPA
[27:35.920 --> 27:40.520] But in a legal document it is never ever necessary
[27:40.520 --> 27:44.420] To use an acronym
[27:44.420 --> 27:48.120] It appears to save you a little typing
[27:48.120 --> 27:52.220] But in the end it costs you flow
[27:52.220 --> 27:54.520] Okay
[27:54.520 --> 27:57.120] Never make a proactive statement
[27:57.120 --> 28:02.220] Of fact or law from your own mouth
[28:02.220 --> 28:04.820] This may not be a right place to put this
[28:04.820 --> 28:08.320] But it kind of falls in line
[28:08.320 --> 28:12.620] When you, if you have a perceptive reader
[28:12.620 --> 28:14.720] Like a judge
[28:14.720 --> 28:16.720] When you make a proactive statement of law
[28:16.720 --> 28:19.020] Out of your own mouth
[28:19.020 --> 28:23.120] The law is, the judge is going to trip over that
[28:23.120 --> 28:29.620] Because he expects to hear law or read law
[28:29.620 --> 28:35.020] In the language of the statute or the language of the case law
[28:35.020 --> 28:37.920] He doesn't expect you to say
[28:37.920 --> 28:41.920] The other side, the law requires him to do this
[28:41.920 --> 28:43.420] Or requires him to do that
[28:43.420 --> 28:48.120] Or the courts have said he must act in this way or that way
[28:48.120 --> 28:55.620] He expects to see the court said in screws VUS the following
[28:55.620 --> 28:59.320] And you make your statement of fact or law
[28:59.320 --> 29:02.020] Using the verbiage of the court
[29:02.020 --> 29:05.120] So that you don't make that statement out of your own mouth
[29:05.120 --> 29:08.320] The judge will trip over that every time
[29:08.320 --> 29:11.320] And that's probably one of the biggest mistakes
[29:11.320 --> 29:15.820] Procese make when they write legal documents
[29:15.820 --> 29:19.120] Procese tend to think
[29:19.120 --> 29:24.120] That you, all you have to do is make a convincing argument
[29:24.120 --> 29:26.820] And you'll win your case
[29:26.820 --> 29:30.220] Not how it works in law
[29:30.220 --> 29:32.420] In law, the judge has two primary duties
[29:32.420 --> 29:35.220] He must determine the facts in accordance with the rules of evidence
[29:35.220 --> 29:40.120] And apply the law as it comes to him to the facts in the case
[29:40.120 --> 29:42.520] If you don't give him facts in law
[29:42.520 --> 29:45.420] He cannot rule in your favor
[29:45.420 --> 29:48.520] This is Randy Kelton, Wheel of Law Radio
[29:48.520 --> 29:52.720] Our call in number 512-646-1984
[29:52.720 --> 29:53.920] This is a little longer break
[29:53.920 --> 29:56.320] So good time to go look at our sponsor page
[29:56.320 --> 29:58.720] And help support this network
[29:58.720 --> 30:16.320] Music
[30:16.320 --> 30:18.420] Privacy is under attack
[30:18.420 --> 30:20.320] When you give up data about yourself
[30:20.320 --> 30:22.020] You'll never get it back again
[30:22.020 --> 30:23.820] And once your privacy is gone
[30:23.820 --> 30:27.020] You'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too
[30:27.020 --> 30:30.020] So protect your rights, say no to surveillance
[30:30.020 --> 30:32.320] And keep your information to yourself
[30:32.320 --> 30:34.820] Privacy, it's worth hanging on to
[30:34.820 --> 30:37.920] This message is brought to you by StartPage.com
[30:37.920 --> 30:41.920] The private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing
[30:41.920 --> 30:45.820] Start over with StartPage
[30:45.820 --> 30:50.420] In Mississippi, low-income parents are getting an ultimatum at daycare centers
[30:50.420 --> 30:54.220] Give up your biometric data or do without daycare
[30:54.220 --> 30:58.320] Under Mississippi's program, parents who receive state subsidies for child care
[30:58.320 --> 31:02.620] Must have all 10 of their fingerprints scanned with no exceptions
[31:02.620 --> 31:06.720] Wealthier parents who can afford to pay for daycare don't have to do this
[31:06.720 --> 31:09.220] State officials are trying to justify this policy
[31:09.220 --> 31:12.320] By saying that poor parents could be committing fraud
[31:12.320 --> 31:15.920] But they're applying the policy to the innocent as well, of course
[31:15.920 --> 31:18.720] So when did the working poor become suspects?
[31:18.720 --> 31:23.320] No parent in America should be treated like a criminal just to get child care
[31:23.320 --> 31:28.020] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine
[31:53.320 --> 31:58.420] Call 810-910-4367 and see what our powder, seeds and oil can do for you
[31:58.420 --> 32:01.220] Only at SQSA.org
[32:01.220 --> 32:06.020] Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the rule of law traffic seminar
[32:06.020 --> 32:08.520] In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society
[32:08.520 --> 32:10.820] And if we, the people, are ever going to have a free society
[32:10.820 --> 32:13.520] Then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights
[32:13.520 --> 32:16.320] Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place
[32:16.320 --> 32:18.120] The right to act in our own private capacity
[32:18.120 --> 32:20.520] And most importantly, the right to due process of law
[32:20.520 --> 32:23.520] Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn
[32:23.520 --> 32:26.320] How to enforce and preserve our rights through due process
[32:26.320 --> 32:29.420] Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio
[32:29.420 --> 32:31.920] Has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available
[32:31.920 --> 32:34.220] That will help you understand what due process is
[32:34.220 --> 32:36.120] And how to hold the courts to the rule of law
[32:36.120 --> 32:38.320] You can get your own copy of this invaluable material
[32:38.320 --> 32:41.520] By going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today
[32:41.520 --> 32:43.520] By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book
[32:43.520 --> 32:46.020] The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie
[32:46.020 --> 32:48.520] Video and audio of the original 2009 seminar
[32:48.520 --> 32:51.520] Hundreds of research documents and other useful resource material
[32:51.520 --> 32:55.520] Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com
[32:55.520 --> 33:00.520] Order your copy today and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve
[33:04.520 --> 33:07.520] You're listening to the Logos Radio Network
[33:07.520 --> 33:11.520] At logosradionetwork.com
[33:11.520 --> 33:16.520] Yeah, I got a warrant
[33:16.520 --> 33:19.520] And I'm gonna solve them
[33:19.520 --> 33:22.520] To the head of government then
[33:22.520 --> 33:24.520] Proceed with it
[33:24.520 --> 33:27.520] Okay, we are back, Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio
[33:27.520 --> 33:30.520] And we're getting a lot of callers early on
[33:30.520 --> 33:36.520] So, I will only do this first portion
[33:36.520 --> 33:43.520] It'll take two more segments to go through the don't do section
[33:43.520 --> 33:47.520] And since it'll take two more segments
[33:47.520 --> 33:50.520] That means I'm not gonna get to the do-do section
[33:53.520 --> 33:55.520] Don't misconstrue that
[33:55.520 --> 33:57.520] But I couldn't help saying that
[33:57.520 --> 34:00.520] So, I'm gonna finish up on the things to avoid
[34:00.520 --> 34:07.520] And then next time I'll do how to establish rapport
[34:07.520 --> 34:15.520] Here I'm gonna finish up talking about mixing elements, emphasis, linguistic structures
[34:15.520 --> 34:18.520] Let me just get on into them
[34:18.520 --> 34:21.520] The next thing to look for is mixing elements
[34:21.520 --> 34:25.520] A real problem I see with pro se documents
[34:25.520 --> 34:33.520] We mix statements of fact and statements of law with arguments and conclusions
[34:33.520 --> 34:39.520] For a non-professional
[34:39.520 --> 34:46.520] They can misconstrue what you're presenting
[34:46.520 --> 34:54.520] And a lot of these legal gurus who promote these various ideas
[34:54.520 --> 34:56.520] They tend to do this all the time
[34:56.520 --> 35:00.520] They will state their opinion as if it were fact or law
[35:00.520 --> 35:03.520] And they don't make clear distinctions
[35:03.520 --> 35:07.520] When you're writing for a professional reader
[35:07.520 --> 35:09.520] You have to be very careful
[35:09.520 --> 35:18.520] If you make a statement that is an argument or an opinion or a conclusion
[35:18.520 --> 35:21.520] And you present it as a statement
[35:21.520 --> 35:23.520] They'll trip over that every time
[35:23.520 --> 35:27.520] Most of the time lawyers won't bring that out
[35:27.520 --> 35:31.520] Because they know the judge is gonna see it and pay no attention to what you put in there
[35:31.520 --> 35:32.520] He'll ignore it
[35:32.520 --> 35:39.520] So, be careful about statement of facts, arguments and conclusions
[35:39.520 --> 35:42.520] And the way to keep those apart
[35:42.520 --> 35:48.520] Is if you write a statement and put behind it
[35:48.520 --> 35:52.520] So saith the legislature or so saith the courts
[35:52.520 --> 35:56.520] And the sentence makes sense
[35:56.520 --> 35:59.520] Then it's a statement of law
[35:59.520 --> 36:01.520] If it doesn't make sense
[36:01.520 --> 36:05.520] You need to take that out of there or rewrite it so that it is a statement of law
[36:05.520 --> 36:09.520] If you write a statement of fact
[36:09.520 --> 36:13.520] And you put behind it in my opinion
[36:13.520 --> 36:16.520] And you read the sentence and it makes sense
[36:16.520 --> 36:18.520] Then it's not a statement of fact
[36:18.520 --> 36:20.520] It's an argument or a conclusion
[36:20.520 --> 36:24.520] Take it out
[36:24.520 --> 36:26.520] Okay, enough with mixing elements
[36:26.520 --> 36:28.520] Emphasis
[36:28.520 --> 36:33.520] Big issue with Jose writers
[36:33.520 --> 36:36.520] Is they want you to make
[36:36.520 --> 36:38.520] They want to make sure you get it
[36:38.520 --> 36:43.520] And I have, I struggle myself with it
[36:43.520 --> 36:45.520] I want to emphasize this word
[36:45.520 --> 36:49.520] Because hey guy, you're too dumb to get this
[36:49.520 --> 36:53.520] You need to understand this is the most important part of the sentence
[36:53.520 --> 36:58.520] When I read material that I'm already familiar with
[36:58.520 --> 37:01.520] And someone has emphasized these things
[37:01.520 --> 37:04.520] It's horribly distracting
[37:04.520 --> 37:07.520] I see the emphasis and I have to ask myself
[37:07.520 --> 37:12.520] Why did he emphasize this particular section?
[37:12.520 --> 37:16.520] And then I look at it and I figure out why he emphasized it
[37:16.520 --> 37:19.520] And I think well I already got that
[37:19.520 --> 37:24.520] So he stopped me to figure out why he emphasized it
[37:24.520 --> 37:27.520] And knocked me out of flow
[37:27.520 --> 37:32.520] Judges really don't like italics
[37:32.520 --> 37:41.520] And all cap sections or both sections in prose
[37:41.520 --> 37:45.520] If you're concerned with whether or not
[37:45.520 --> 37:49.520] The reader will get the specific point
[37:49.520 --> 37:54.520] Then you haven't constructed your presentation well
[37:54.520 --> 37:56.520] Go back and rewrite it so he can't miss it
[37:56.520 --> 37:58.520] But avoid emphasis
[37:58.520 --> 38:01.520] The only time I tend to use emphasis
[38:01.520 --> 38:04.520] Is where I have a quotation of a statute
[38:04.520 --> 38:07.520] Or a quotation of case law
[38:07.520 --> 38:10.520] That has a bunch of information in it
[38:10.520 --> 38:14.520] That doesn't have anything to do with what I need
[38:14.520 --> 38:17.520] But I can't take out everything
[38:17.520 --> 38:21.520] Because it takes the portion I need out of context
[38:21.520 --> 38:26.520] Or if I have a statute and I have section A, B, C, D, E, F
[38:26.520 --> 38:28.520] And the only one I care about is C
[38:28.520 --> 38:32.520] I'll emphasize C but only slightly
[38:32.520 --> 38:35.520] Generally I'll put it in italics
[38:35.520 --> 38:38.520] So that the reader doesn't have to read all these others
[38:38.520 --> 38:41.520] It's clear that this is the one I'm referring to
[38:41.520 --> 38:44.520] So the only time I tend to use emphasis
[38:44.520 --> 38:48.520] Is to help the reader get to the point
[38:48.520 --> 38:53.520] And not to help convince the reader of what I'm trying to present
[38:53.520 --> 38:58.520] Okay, now we're going to go to linguistic structures
[38:58.520 --> 39:01.520] This is one I could probably spend two days on
[39:01.520 --> 39:03.520] But I'll try to bring this down
[39:03.520 --> 39:06.520] I'm going to mention these structures
[39:06.520 --> 39:10.520] Not so that you'll fully understand them
[39:10.520 --> 39:14.520] But just so you'll be aware that they exist
[39:14.520 --> 39:17.520] A lot of times you'll read your writing
[39:17.520 --> 39:20.520] And something doesn't look right
[39:20.520 --> 39:26.520] And if you don't have a lot of structures in your mind to work from
[39:26.520 --> 39:30.520] It'd be hard to figure out what's wrong with it
[39:30.520 --> 39:33.520] And having some familiarity with these linguistic structures
[39:33.520 --> 39:38.520] Would be very helpful in not only correcting your writing
[39:38.520 --> 39:41.520] But better understanding other people's writings
[39:41.520 --> 39:44.520] Especially when you get a document from a lawyer
[39:44.520 --> 39:47.520] That's a piece of garbage and I get lots of garbage from lawyers
[39:47.520 --> 39:50.520] First thing I'm going to go to is complex equivalence
[39:50.520 --> 39:55.520] And I've spoke to complex equivalences earlier
[39:55.520 --> 40:01.520] Be very careful of the terms of art that you use
[40:01.520 --> 40:08.520] Even when a term is not necessarily a term of art
[40:08.520 --> 40:12.520] When we have a term that is a nominalization
[40:12.520 --> 40:17.520] A nominalization is where you take an action
[40:17.520 --> 40:22.520] A verb or a verb phrase and you turn it into a noun
[40:22.520 --> 40:33.520] He really makes me feel agitated or upset or unhappy
[40:33.520 --> 40:37.520] And we take that and we turn it into mad
[40:37.520 --> 40:42.520] And we put this word mad in there, he makes me mad
[40:42.520 --> 40:46.520] Well actually he causes you to feel in a certain way
[40:46.520 --> 40:49.520] And that's an action
[40:49.520 --> 40:52.520] And you turn it into something that has reality
[40:52.520 --> 40:56.520] Like it's actually did something specifically to you
[40:56.520 --> 41:05.520] Be very careful about terms that take an action or an idea
[41:05.520 --> 41:08.520] And turn it into a noun
[41:08.520 --> 41:12.520] Because that tends to create a complex equivalent
[41:12.520 --> 41:18.520] When you take all these details that you've left out
[41:18.520 --> 41:23.520] Take the details, turn it into a specific word you can refer to it to
[41:23.520 --> 41:27.520] Then you have a surface structure that says mad
[41:27.520 --> 41:33.520] And you have a deep structure that has a definition for you
[41:33.520 --> 41:37.520] Somebody else may have that same definition and they may not
[41:37.520 --> 41:41.520] So you wind up using a lot of terms
[41:41.520 --> 41:44.520] You put the terms down and they mean one thing to you
[41:44.520 --> 41:48.520] And another person reads it and they think they fully understand it
[41:48.520 --> 41:52.520] But they've got different definitions than you had
[41:52.520 --> 41:58.520] So be careful about terms that people can define differently than you
[41:58.520 --> 42:07.520] If you use a term that you need to use for the flow of the document
[42:07.520 --> 42:10.520] But it can be misinterpreted
[42:10.520 --> 42:16.520] Then you won't lose reader flow if you put parentheses behind it
[42:16.520 --> 42:24.520] And put in a small explanation of what you mean by this term
[42:24.520 --> 42:27.520] One of the things you see a lot in documents is
[42:27.520 --> 42:31.520] And I always start my documents this way
[42:31.520 --> 42:39.520] I, Randall Kelton, comma, here and after referred to as petitioner
[42:39.520 --> 42:41.520] And then I go on
[42:41.520 --> 42:47.520] Well, in the document I will often
[42:47.520 --> 42:53.520] The first three or four times I refer to myself
[42:53.520 --> 42:56.520] I'll refer to myself as Randall Kelton petitioner
[42:56.520 --> 43:01.520] About the third time, about three times I'll put in petitioner
[43:01.520 --> 43:03.520] And then I'll stop using petitioner
[43:03.520 --> 43:06.520] So that now the readers saw it enough times
[43:06.520 --> 43:11.520] And when he sees petitioner he actually hears in his mind Randall Kelton
[43:11.520 --> 43:14.520] And we don't get these complex equivalents
[43:14.520 --> 43:17.520] Now that one's an obvious example
[43:17.520 --> 43:20.520] There are a lot more subtle examples of complex equivalences
[43:20.520 --> 43:22.520] And I spent a little time on complex equivalents
[43:22.520 --> 43:28.520] Because they are a big problem in writing cogent prose
[43:28.520 --> 43:35.520] Okay, lack of specification
[43:35.520 --> 43:41.520] One of the things we use a lot are unspecified breaks
[43:41.520 --> 43:43.520] We're about to go to a specified break
[43:43.520 --> 43:45.520] We'll pick this up on the other side
[43:45.520 --> 43:48.520] This is Randall Kelton, root of our radio
[43:48.520 --> 43:51.520] I'll call it number 512-646-1984
[43:51.520 --> 43:53.520] We've got a full board there
[43:53.520 --> 43:56.520] And I will finish up
[43:56.520 --> 43:58.520] I've only got about four or five more
[44:02.520 --> 44:04.520] Hello, my name is Stuart Smith
[44:04.520 --> 44:06.520] I'm from naturespureorganics.com
[44:06.520 --> 44:08.520] And I would like to invite you to come by our store
[44:08.520 --> 44:12.520] At 1904 Guadalupe Street, Suite D here in Austin, Texas
[44:12.520 --> 44:14.520] Behind Brave New Books and Chase Bank
[44:14.520 --> 44:16.520] To see all our fantastic health and wellness products
[44:16.520 --> 44:18.520] With your very own eyes
[44:18.520 --> 44:20.520] Have a look at our Miracle Healing Clay
[44:20.520 --> 44:22.520] That started our adventure in alternative medicine
[44:22.520 --> 44:24.520] Take a peek at some of our other wonderful products
[44:24.520 --> 44:26.520] Including our Australian Emu oil
[44:26.520 --> 44:28.520] Lotion candles, olive oil soaps
[44:28.520 --> 44:30.520] And colloidal silver and gold
[44:30.520 --> 44:37.520] 512-264-4043 or find us online at naturespureorganics.com
[44:37.520 --> 44:42.520] That's 512-264-4043 naturespureorganics.com
[44:42.520 --> 44:44.520] Don't forget to like us on Facebook
[44:44.520 --> 44:46.520] For information on events and our products
[44:46.520 --> 45:00.520] naturespureorganics.com
[45:00.520 --> 45:03.520] Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[45:03.520 --> 45:05.520] Win your case without an attorney
[45:05.520 --> 45:07.520] With Jurisdictionary
[45:07.520 --> 45:10.520] The affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course
[45:10.520 --> 45:13.520] That will show you how in 24 hours
[45:13.520 --> 45:15.520] Step by step
[45:15.520 --> 45:17.520] If you have a lawyer
[45:17.520 --> 45:19.520] Know what your lawyer should be doing
[45:19.520 --> 45:21.520] If you don't have a lawyer
[45:21.520 --> 45:23.520] Know what you should do for yourself
[45:23.520 --> 45:26.520] Thousands have won with our step by step course
[45:26.520 --> 45:28.520] And now you can too
[45:28.520 --> 45:31.520] Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney
[45:31.520 --> 45:34.520] With 22 years of case winning experience
[45:34.520 --> 45:36.520] Even if you're not in a lawsuit
[45:36.520 --> 45:39.520] You can learn what everyone should understand
[45:39.520 --> 45:41.520] About the principles and practices
[45:41.520 --> 45:43.520] That control our American courts
[45:43.520 --> 45:45.520] You'll receive our audio classroom
[45:45.520 --> 45:46.520] Video seminar
[45:46.520 --> 45:47.520] Tutorials
[45:47.520 --> 45:49.520] Forms for civil cases
[45:49.520 --> 45:51.520] Pro se tactics
[45:51.520 --> 45:52.520] And much more
[45:52.520 --> 45:55.520] Please visit ruleoflawradio.com
[45:55.520 --> 45:56.520] And click on the banner
[45:56.520 --> 46:25.520] Or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ
[46:25.520 --> 46:26.520] Okay, we are back
[46:26.520 --> 46:28.520] Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio
[46:28.520 --> 46:31.520] And I'll finish this up, this segment
[46:31.520 --> 46:35.520] And next Thursday or Friday
[46:35.520 --> 46:40.520] I'll talk about building rapport
[46:40.520 --> 46:42.520] Okay, unspecified
[46:42.520 --> 46:46.520] We'll start out with unspecified comparisons
[46:46.520 --> 46:50.520] In an unspecified comparison
[46:50.520 --> 46:53.520] A statement will use words to imply something
[46:53.520 --> 46:56.520] And relies on the mind being too busy
[46:56.520 --> 46:59.520] Listening to the next words to really question
[46:59.520 --> 47:04.520] The truth or logic of what was just heard
[47:04.520 --> 47:06.520] A comparison is made
[47:06.520 --> 47:12.520] But does not specify what is being compared with
[47:12.520 --> 47:15.520] You may find you are much more ruthless
[47:15.520 --> 47:17.520] I don't like that one
[47:17.520 --> 47:19.520] Every day in every way
[47:19.520 --> 47:22.520] You are getting better and better
[47:22.520 --> 47:25.520] Now that really sounds meaningful
[47:25.520 --> 47:27.520] But it really doesn't say anything
[47:27.520 --> 47:30.520] It doesn't say how you are getting better
[47:30.520 --> 47:37.520] Or why you are getting better
[47:37.520 --> 47:43.520] Okay, and the way to identify an unspecified comparison
[47:43.520 --> 47:46.520] Is by asking
[47:46.520 --> 47:49.520] For better than what
[47:49.520 --> 47:53.520] More relaxed than what, faster than what
[47:53.520 --> 48:01.520] You ask for more specificity on the quantifier
[48:01.520 --> 48:03.520] I need to find a better way to explain this one
[48:03.520 --> 48:04.520] I'll go on to the next one
[48:04.520 --> 48:06.520] Unspecified object
[48:06.520 --> 48:12.520] These are words that sound good but are actually quite vague
[48:12.520 --> 48:16.520] Words like learnings, outcomes, resources
[48:16.520 --> 48:19.520] Findings, consideration
[48:19.520 --> 48:21.520] They can be used to ground almost anything
[48:21.520 --> 48:23.520] Which makes the suggestion bulletproof
[48:23.520 --> 48:28.520] By using inclusive words
[48:28.520 --> 48:31.520] A person can find closure from their own resources
[48:31.520 --> 48:34.520] And later on we'll talk about artful vagueness
[48:34.520 --> 48:40.520] And how we use unspecified objects
[48:40.520 --> 48:43.520] To send the listener into their own mind
[48:43.520 --> 48:47.520] To fill in the details that we leave out
[48:47.520 --> 48:50.520] Now it's okay to do that
[48:50.520 --> 48:54.520] So long as you are consciously aware that you are doing it
[48:54.520 --> 48:57.520] So we need to pay close attention to what we leave out
[48:57.520 --> 48:59.520] Of a presentation
[48:59.520 --> 49:01.520] You can get away with a whole lot more
[49:01.520 --> 49:04.520] When you are just doing prose
[49:04.520 --> 49:06.520] When you are writing a story
[49:06.520 --> 49:08.520] Or just telling a story
[49:08.520 --> 49:11.520] But when you are writing a legal document
[49:11.520 --> 49:16.520] You have to be very conscious of what you put in
[49:16.520 --> 49:18.520] And what you leave out
[49:18.520 --> 49:21.520] Unspecified verb
[49:21.520 --> 49:26.520] Verbs, these are verbs that sound good but are hard to pin down
[49:26.520 --> 49:30.520] The unconscious mind accepts the word in context
[49:30.520 --> 49:32.520] And supplies its own meaning
[49:32.520 --> 49:36.520] Words such as wonder, change, understand, think
[49:36.520 --> 49:40.520] And for the most part these terms are nominalizations
[49:40.520 --> 49:48.520] Where wonder is a term we made up to describe a state of mind
[49:48.520 --> 49:50.520] A way of thinking
[49:50.520 --> 49:55.520] And if we use these unintentionally
[49:55.520 --> 50:04.520] We can create a situation where our reader can come up with different meanings and understandings
[50:04.520 --> 50:06.520] And we intended that then too
[50:06.520 --> 50:10.520] So especially in legal writing
[50:10.520 --> 50:12.520] Be very specific
[50:12.520 --> 50:16.520] And this is a primary reason I suggest do not use adverbs
[50:16.520 --> 50:19.520] I mean, I'm sorry, do not use pronouns
[50:19.520 --> 50:22.520] You use pronouns in front of a verb
[50:22.520 --> 50:26.520] It becomes essentially an unspecified verb
[50:26.520 --> 50:32.520] Because you are not exactly clear what that action refers to
[50:32.520 --> 50:38.520] The reader can misconstrue who he, she, they, them refers to
[50:38.520 --> 50:41.520] Okay, applied cause and effect
[50:41.520 --> 50:51.520] This I see a lot in the patriot movement writings
[50:51.520 --> 50:55.520] You hear these
[50:55.520 --> 51:00.520] There was a bankruptcy in 1931
[51:00.520 --> 51:07.520] Therefore you cannot pay your debts
[51:07.520 --> 51:10.520] You can only extinguish a debt
[51:10.520 --> 51:15.520] I've probably heard that 500 times
[51:15.520 --> 51:19.520] And I always think, what on earth are you talking about?
[51:19.520 --> 51:23.520] And they state these as if they were facts
[51:23.520 --> 51:33.520] As if that bankruptcy necessarily led to the fact that I can't pay off a debt
[51:33.520 --> 51:35.520] I have no idea what that means
[51:35.520 --> 51:40.520] Every time I see that, it trips me up and I'm stopped
[51:40.520 --> 51:44.520] If they wanted me to understand what they're talking about
[51:44.520 --> 51:48.520] They need to feel in those spaces and say, this is how
[51:48.520 --> 51:51.520] And I kind of understand it
[51:51.520 --> 51:55.520] They go on to say you can't pay off a debt
[51:55.520 --> 51:58.520] You can only extinguish a debt because you don't have real money
[51:58.520 --> 52:00.520] Which has real value
[52:00.520 --> 52:04.520] You only have these pieces of paper which don't actually have any value
[52:04.520 --> 52:07.520] And are supposedly backed by the government
[52:07.520 --> 52:09.520] It's a complex argument
[52:09.520 --> 52:14.520] But they make the statement as if it were a fact
[52:14.520 --> 52:18.520] That one thing leads directly to the next leads directly to the next
[52:18.520 --> 52:21.520] If you're reading Keating's page, if it's still up
[52:21.520 --> 52:26.520] On the first page, he has six of these in a row
[52:26.520 --> 52:29.520] This happened and because this happened, this is the case
[52:29.520 --> 52:31.520] And because this is the case, this is the case
[52:31.520 --> 52:33.520] And because this is the case, this is the case
[52:33.520 --> 52:35.520] I didn't buy the first one
[52:35.520 --> 52:40.520] And he's six unstated presuppositions down
[52:40.520 --> 52:43.520] I have no idea what he's talking about
[52:43.520 --> 52:47.520] I certainly can't accept his proposition
[52:47.520 --> 52:54.520] Because it's based on these assertions of fact
[52:54.520 --> 52:57.520] And implied causes and effect
[52:57.520 --> 53:04.520] That I don't have the details to make sure that they all fit in place
[53:04.520 --> 53:09.520] Anyway, I need to work out how to present that better
[53:09.520 --> 53:12.520] I'm sure I've got everybody thoroughly confused now
[53:12.520 --> 53:17.520] Let's go back to loss performatives
[53:17.520 --> 53:21.520] In a loss performative, you state that something happened
[53:21.520 --> 53:23.520] And you don't state how
[53:23.520 --> 53:27.520] A suggestion is presented stating that some opinion is true
[53:27.520 --> 53:31.520] But does not say how it is known to be true
[53:31.520 --> 53:32.520] Or who is saying it
[53:32.520 --> 53:37.520] Speaker expects the individual will accept the statement
[53:37.520 --> 53:41.520] As being self-evident and not ask for proof for examples
[53:41.520 --> 53:44.520] This I get a lot from prosecutors
[53:44.520 --> 53:49.520] Prosecutors make statements to juries all of the time
[53:49.520 --> 53:55.520] About what the law says and what the law means
[53:55.520 --> 53:59.520] Without showing how they got to these meanings
[53:59.520 --> 54:02.520] And those should always be objected to
[54:02.520 --> 54:08.520] And, okay, then a loss performative
[54:08.520 --> 54:13.520] Can test a loss performative by taking their statement
[54:13.520 --> 54:16.520] And put behind it says who
[54:16.520 --> 54:19.520] If somebody states that something is so
[54:19.520 --> 54:23.520] And it makes sense for you to put says who behind it
[54:23.520 --> 54:26.520] Then it has a loss performative
[54:26.520 --> 54:30.520] Next one is a non sequitur
[54:30.520 --> 54:37.520] Non sequitur is a big problem in pro se writings
[54:37.520 --> 54:48.520] A non sequitur means that in a logical syllogism
[54:48.520 --> 54:54.520] You tend to have one fact that follows from the other
[54:54.520 --> 54:59.520] If A equals B and B equals C then C equals A
[54:59.520 --> 55:03.520] Well, what if A doesn't equal to B?
[55:03.520 --> 55:06.520] If you do this it will cause this effect
[55:06.520 --> 55:09.520] And if you have this effect it will cause this effect
[55:09.520 --> 55:14.520] Therefore if you have the first effect you'll have the third effect
[55:14.520 --> 55:22.520] Maybe if your logic does not lead necessarily to your conclusion
[55:22.520 --> 55:25.520] It's a non sequitur
[55:25.520 --> 55:28.520] Pro se's do this all the time
[55:28.520 --> 55:31.520] Where they say because of this that happened
[55:31.520 --> 55:33.520] Because of this this happened
[55:33.520 --> 55:36.520] Therefore if this never happened this third thing wouldn't happen
[55:36.520 --> 55:43.520] So we need to go back here and fix this problem that never was a problem
[55:43.520 --> 55:48.520] Okay, I gotta get a better way to explain non sequitur
[55:48.520 --> 55:54.520] I'm going to finish this off I'm not going to go into extended quotations
[55:54.520 --> 56:03.520] There are a number of other somewhat more minor don'ts
[56:03.520 --> 56:05.520] Don't do so
[56:05.520 --> 56:10.520] But I could probably spend another hour stumbling around here trying to explain stuff
[56:10.520 --> 56:12.520] And I can explain it very well
[56:12.520 --> 56:16.520] I'm doing this because each time I do this I get a little better at presenting it
[56:16.520 --> 56:20.520] And I'm going to turn this into an e-book
[56:20.520 --> 56:24.520] That you can download and go through these pieces
[56:24.520 --> 56:31.520] And I'm hoping that I'm structuring it in a way that you can find what you need when you need it
[56:31.520 --> 56:36.520] In process of doing this I'm developing a somewhat different technology
[56:36.520 --> 56:45.520] That should adapt more to the way human beings do what human beings do
[56:45.520 --> 56:52.520] So that you can mine through all of this information you don't need to find what you do need
[56:52.520 --> 56:56.520] Okay, well I'm going to stop stumbling around for the moment
[56:56.520 --> 57:03.520] Next Thursday I will go into building rapport
[57:03.520 --> 57:07.520] And from that we'll go to artful vagueness
[57:07.520 --> 57:17.520] And then we'll go to where to start, where to end, how to actually build a document
[57:17.520 --> 57:22.520] So maybe I'll get through that next Thursday
[57:22.520 --> 57:25.520] It should take probably two hours to go through that part
[57:25.520 --> 57:30.520] Okay, I'm going to stop babbling for the moment and go to our callers
[57:30.520 --> 57:33.520] I'm going to go to Andrew in Pennsylvania
[57:33.520 --> 57:39.520] Hello Andrew, have I thoroughly confused everybody?
[57:39.520 --> 57:44.520] What? Did you confuse everybody? No, you didn't
[57:44.520 --> 57:49.520] Well I confused me, so I guess that's enough
[57:49.520 --> 57:51.520] Okay, what do you have for us tonight?
[57:51.520 --> 57:55.520] Yeah, well first of all, we're about to go to break
[57:55.520 --> 57:59.520] Well, I'll quickly point this out, maybe we can talk about the other side
[57:59.520 --> 58:04.520] The thing with Arizona, lawyers say you can get one charge drop
[58:04.520 --> 58:08.520] Get it down to criminal speed, but you'll try to get it down to more
[58:08.520 --> 58:12.520] Well I just want to point that out because I've talked about that the last couple shows
[58:12.520 --> 58:15.520] I do actually have a little bit of a question for you, Randy
[58:15.520 --> 58:18.520] Okay, okay, we'll have to go to break
[58:18.520 --> 58:20.520] We'll pick this up on the other side
[58:20.520 --> 58:23.520] This is Randy Kelton, Wheel of Law Radio
[58:23.520 --> 58:26.520] I call it number 512-646-1984
[58:26.520 --> 58:29.520] This is a long top of the hour break, so it's a good time to go to
[58:29.520 --> 58:35.520] LogosRadioNetwork.com or to WheelofLawRadio.com
[58:35.520 --> 58:41.520] And check out our sponsors, the patronizer sponsors
[58:41.520 --> 58:43.520] It'll help support this network
[58:43.520 --> 58:47.520] And right now we need all the income we can get to keep things on the air
[58:47.520 --> 59:13.520] We'll be right back
[59:13.520 --> 59:18.520] The free books are a three volume set called Basic Elements of the Christian Life
[59:18.520 --> 59:21.520] Chapter by chapter, Basic Elements of the Christian Life
[59:21.520 --> 59:24.520] Clearly presents God's plan of salvation
[59:24.520 --> 59:27.520] Growing in Christ and how to build up the church
[59:27.520 --> 59:30.520] To order your free New Testament Recovery Version
[59:30.520 --> 59:33.520] And Basic Elements of the Christian Life
[59:33.520 --> 59:40.520] Call Bibles for America toll free at 888-551-0102
[59:40.520 --> 59:44.520] That's 888-551-0102
[59:44.520 --> 59:49.520] Or visit us online at BFA.org
[59:49.520 --> 59:59.520] Live, free speech radio, LogosRadioNetwork.com
[59:59.520 --> 01:00:02.520] The following use flash is brought to you by
[01:00:02.520 --> 01:00:04.520] The Lone Star Lowdown
[01:00:04.520 --> 01:00:07.520] Provided with deli bulletins for the commodity market
[01:00:07.520 --> 01:00:11.520] Today in history, news updates
[01:00:11.520 --> 01:00:20.520] And the inside scoop into the tides of the alternatives
[01:00:20.520 --> 01:00:23.520] Markets for Thursday the 11th of February 2016
[01:00:23.520 --> 01:00:28.520] Are currently treading with gold at $1,246.26 an ounce
[01:00:28.520 --> 01:00:30.520] Silver $15.76 an ounce
[01:00:30.520 --> 01:00:33.520] Texas crude $27.45 a barrel
[01:00:33.520 --> 01:00:38.520] And Bitcoin is currently sitting at about $376 U.S. currency
[01:00:38.520 --> 01:00:46.520] Today in history, Monday, February 11, 1929
[01:00:46.520 --> 01:00:49.520] Vatican City is made the enclave for a city state
[01:00:49.520 --> 01:00:52.520] Within another state of Rome via the Lateran Treaty
[01:00:52.520 --> 01:00:56.520] The Prime Minister of Italy at the time, Benito Mussolini
[01:00:56.520 --> 01:00:59.520] Agreed to giving the Catholic Church financial support
[01:00:59.520 --> 01:01:06.520] And returned for public support from the Pope at the time
[01:01:06.520 --> 01:01:08.520] In recent news, the four remaining ranchers
[01:01:08.520 --> 01:01:11.520] Jeff Banta, Sean Anderson, Sandy Anderson, and David Fry
[01:01:11.520 --> 01:01:14.520] At the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon
[01:01:14.520 --> 01:01:18.520] Who took control of the then empty refuge 250 miles from Portland on January 2nd
[01:01:18.520 --> 01:01:21.520] Demanding the return of the lands taken by the Bureau of Land Management
[01:01:21.520 --> 01:01:24.520] And the pardoning of the two ranchers convicted of terrorism
[01:01:24.520 --> 01:01:27.520] For setting controlled fires which spread to BLM lands
[01:01:27.520 --> 01:01:31.520] Finally surrendered this morning after hours of negotiations with mediators
[01:01:31.520 --> 01:01:35.520] The occupation came to an abrupt end as Fry, the last to leave
[01:01:35.520 --> 01:01:39.520] Threatened suicide on a livestreamed conversation with Liberty activist Gavin Siem
[01:01:39.520 --> 01:01:41.520] And conservative radio host Chris Ann Hall
[01:01:41.520 --> 01:01:45.520] A phone call Wednesday night between the protesters and the negotiators
[01:01:45.520 --> 01:01:47.520] Was also livestreamed and is available online
[01:01:52.520 --> 01:01:55.520] A jury in Estowell County, New York convicted James Ryan today
[01:01:55.520 --> 01:02:00.520] On 10 of 13 counts of vehicular manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and other charges
[01:02:00.520 --> 01:02:04.520] And acquitted him of the top charge of aggravated vehicular homicide
[01:02:04.520 --> 01:02:07.520] He now faces up to 15 years in prison when he is sentenced next month
[01:02:07.520 --> 01:02:11.520] Because his reckless driving, prosecutors say, caused a chain reaction crash
[01:02:11.520 --> 01:02:15.520] Apparently Ryan's Toyota hit a BMW on the Long Island Expressway
[01:02:15.520 --> 01:02:18.520] And then was hit by another car a few minutes later
[01:02:18.520 --> 01:02:26.520] And SUV smashed into Ryan's car before fatally hitting a New York police officer
[01:02:26.520 --> 01:02:29.520] The results for the New Hampshire primary are as follows
[01:02:29.520 --> 01:02:34.520] For the Republicans, Donald Trump won with 10 delegates or 35.3% of the vote
[01:02:34.520 --> 01:02:37.520] Doug Kasich was next with 4 delegates and 15.8% of the vote
[01:02:37.520 --> 01:02:40.520] Ted Cruz, 3 delegates and 11.7% of the vote
[01:02:40.520 --> 01:02:43.520] Followed finally by George Bush with 3 delegates, 11%
[01:02:43.520 --> 01:02:47.520] And Mark Rubio with 3 delegates, 10.6%
[01:02:47.520 --> 01:02:51.520] For the Democrats, Bernie Sanders won 60.4% or 15 delegates
[01:02:51.520 --> 01:02:55.520] While Hillary Clinton only got 38% or 9 delegates
[01:02:55.520 --> 01:03:24.520] This is your Lowdown for February 11, 2016
[01:03:24.520 --> 01:03:27.520] Okay, we are back, Randy Kelton, LulaVla Radio
[01:03:27.520 --> 01:03:29.520] And we're talking to Andrew in Pennsylvania
[01:03:29.520 --> 01:03:34.520] Okay, Andrew, you had a question
[01:03:34.520 --> 01:03:37.520] Yeah, just one more quick point about the Arizona thing
[01:03:37.520 --> 01:03:40.520] Lawyers still going to fight it, trying to maybe get it down to a simple thing
[01:03:40.520 --> 01:03:44.520] I almost lost my lawyer actually when I did something he didn't approve of
[01:03:44.520 --> 01:03:46.520] While he was at the pretrial conference
[01:03:46.520 --> 01:03:51.520] I filed a motion for removal to federal court on grounds of diversity jurisdiction papers
[01:03:51.520 --> 01:03:55.520] And after I told him, by the way I did that, he didn't seem to approve of it
[01:03:55.520 --> 01:03:57.520] And he threatened to leave me
[01:03:57.520 --> 01:04:00.520] And that's how I learned that when you have a lawyer it's really not a good idea
[01:04:00.520 --> 01:04:04.520] To try to make it two heads or better than one thing out of it
[01:04:04.520 --> 01:04:05.520] And try to fight it at your end
[01:04:05.520 --> 01:04:08.520] You better just let your lawyer do his thing
[01:04:08.520 --> 01:04:11.520] Is that a good way of looking at it, Randy, first of all?
[01:04:11.520 --> 01:04:13.520] You shouldn't do it
[01:04:13.520 --> 01:04:17.520] And that's right, if you want something filed
[01:04:17.520 --> 01:04:23.520] You go to your lawyer first and try to get him to file it
[01:04:23.520 --> 01:04:27.520] If he refuses to file it and you're sure it needs to be filed
[01:04:27.520 --> 01:04:32.520] Then if necessary you can file it yourself
[01:04:32.520 --> 01:04:37.520] Or you can tell the bar, you know, one thing about your attorney, once he's your attorney
[01:04:37.520 --> 01:04:42.520] It's not so easy for him to just walk away
[01:04:42.520 --> 01:04:48.520] Now they're used to being able to walk away but they're not accustomed to litigants
[01:04:48.520 --> 01:04:54.520] Objecting to their motion for withdrawal
[01:04:54.520 --> 01:05:00.520] We just had someone in a bankruptcy case object to the lawyer's motion to withdraw
[01:05:00.520 --> 01:05:07.520] And the judge said, well, Ms. Ortiz, it seems that you're unhappy with your lawyer
[01:05:07.520 --> 01:05:10.520] It doesn't make any difference how unhappy with my lawyer
[01:05:10.520 --> 01:05:14.520] I paid him, he has a job to do
[01:05:14.520 --> 01:05:21.520] And the judge told the lawyer, well, counselor, you're going to have to work this out with your client
[01:05:21.520 --> 01:05:24.520] The judge got it, the lawyer's under contract
[01:05:24.520 --> 01:05:30.520] And the judge has no power to interfere with a private contract
[01:05:30.520 --> 01:05:33.520] Anyway, go ahead, you had a question
[01:05:33.520 --> 01:05:41.520] Yeah, the other question I wanted to ask is why would it be a bad idea to try to invoke God at trial
[01:05:41.520 --> 01:05:48.520] When you can't prove what God is and what God does exist
[01:05:48.520 --> 01:05:52.520] What does that have to do with the case?
[01:05:52.520 --> 01:05:55.520] No, no, no, it's a completely unrelated issue
[01:05:55.520 --> 01:06:02.520] Okay, that's one of the things that I'll talk about in building documents
[01:06:02.520 --> 01:06:05.520] Now, you may have a really great argument
[01:06:05.520 --> 01:06:12.520] But if it doesn't go to the jury charge
[01:06:12.520 --> 01:06:18.520] When you, like in this case you have a criminal accusation
[01:06:18.520 --> 01:06:24.520] You need to read the pattern jury charge for that criminal accusation
[01:06:24.520 --> 01:06:34.520] The pattern jury charge is what is the judge going to say to the jury before he sends them out to deliberate
[01:06:34.520 --> 01:06:42.520] He's going to say you must find this element and this element and this element
[01:06:42.520 --> 01:06:48.520] If you fail to find all three elements, you must acquit
[01:06:48.520 --> 01:06:51.520] So you need to know what those are
[01:06:51.520 --> 01:06:55.520] And then when you write any kind of argument into a document
[01:06:55.520 --> 01:07:00.520] If it does not go to disproving one of those elements
[01:07:00.520 --> 01:07:02.520] Or if you're the plaintiff in the civil action
[01:07:02.520 --> 01:07:06.520] If it doesn't go to proving one of those elements, take it out
[01:07:06.520 --> 01:07:10.520] There's no business in there
[01:07:10.520 --> 01:07:17.520] Okay, so I think maybe I've misconstrued where that came from
[01:07:17.520 --> 01:07:22.520] You weren't saying that that had anything to do with your case, were you?
[01:07:22.520 --> 01:07:24.520] Or did I misunderstand?
[01:07:24.520 --> 01:07:26.520] Randy, can you hear me?
[01:07:26.520 --> 01:07:27.520] Yes
[01:07:27.520 --> 01:07:35.520] Okay, that whole question about God and why you can invoke it during trial
[01:07:35.520 --> 01:07:40.520] Came from way back in the day when I asked you about the one people's public trust thing
[01:07:40.520 --> 01:07:45.520] Where these people claim to have foreclosed against the government, the banks and everything
[01:07:45.520 --> 01:07:50.520] And their assertion is based on the fact that the states of people are the creator
[01:07:50.520 --> 01:07:53.520] Lawfully speaking, there's nothing higher than the one people's public trust, except the creator
[01:07:53.520 --> 01:07:57.520] And then you said the first problem is you can't invoke God
[01:07:57.520 --> 01:08:02.520] Well, I think if you can prove what God is and that God actually exists
[01:08:02.520 --> 01:08:05.520] And if you don't want me to argue this on your show
[01:08:05.520 --> 01:08:08.520] Because it might make the Christians unhappy or whatever, then I won't do that
[01:08:08.520 --> 01:08:12.520] Oh no, I don't have a problem with that
[01:08:12.520 --> 01:08:20.520] It's just I don't want people to misconstrue how you fight a legal argument
[01:08:20.520 --> 01:08:31.520] And we've had people come on the show and say that they're using God's law
[01:08:31.520 --> 01:08:37.520] And I want to remind them what God said about that or what Jesus said about that
[01:08:37.520 --> 01:08:44.520] He said, render under Caesar, in court, we're not under God's law
[01:08:44.520 --> 01:08:51.520] We're under the law that we as human beings created
[01:08:51.520 --> 01:08:54.520] And that law is our law
[01:08:54.520 --> 01:08:57.520] And God don't have anything to do with that
[01:08:57.520 --> 01:09:06.520] He stepped back and he let us use that power of divination he gave us to create restrictions on ourselves
[01:09:06.520 --> 01:09:16.520] And when we go into court, we are in court under a set of statutes
[01:09:16.520 --> 01:09:23.520] That we have in one way or another bound ourselves to
[01:09:23.520 --> 01:09:30.520] The penal statutes we bind ourselves to by virtue of our citizenship and our presence within the jurisdiction
[01:09:30.520 --> 01:09:42.520] There are other statutes that we bind ourselves to like any license that you get binds yourself to a set of rules
[01:09:42.520 --> 01:09:49.520] And once you've bound yourself to those rules, you can't go in and argue a different set of rules
[01:09:49.520 --> 01:09:52.520] Does that make sense?
[01:09:52.520 --> 01:10:00.520] Yeah, and you know, getting back to the thing with Arizona, I never showed the license that I had
[01:10:00.520 --> 01:10:06.520] I wasn't in a commercial capacity, so that's the key, you got to be in a capacity, it's not just possessing a license
[01:10:06.520 --> 01:10:12.520] And I said I wasn't going to show it, but the officer when I was in cuffs against my will took the license out of my wallet
[01:10:12.520 --> 01:10:18.520] And got the number down on the paper and my lawyer told me that my lawyer did that against my will
[01:10:18.520 --> 01:10:23.520] And I can't actually really prove that because my camera stopped rolling after the compliment
[01:10:23.520 --> 01:10:26.520] Okay, hold on, question
[01:10:26.520 --> 01:10:33.520] This is the question you should always ask after you state a claim
[01:10:33.520 --> 01:10:38.520] And this is what the judge is going to say, okay, so what?
[01:10:38.520 --> 01:10:45.520] And that means how were you harmed by this act?
[01:10:45.520 --> 01:10:52.520] Well, when the officer yanked me out of the car, didn't he commit aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, which would be 20 years to life?
[01:10:52.520 --> 01:10:55.520] Separate issue, separate issue
[01:10:55.520 --> 01:10:56.520] Okay
[01:10:56.520 --> 01:11:05.520] You raised the issue of him taking, you wouldn't give him your license, and he took your license once he arrested you
[01:11:05.520 --> 01:11:09.520] How were you harmed by that?
[01:11:09.520 --> 01:11:12.520] Rights violated
[01:11:12.520 --> 01:11:20.520] How? Harm is not necessary, that's a term of art
[01:11:20.520 --> 01:11:30.520] Harm means harmed in a legal capacity, harmed in a way for which you have a right to remedy
[01:11:30.520 --> 01:11:37.520] And all your rights to remedy are defined by causes of action
[01:11:37.520 --> 01:11:46.520] When you violate a penal statute, the violation of the penal statute is a cause of action that the state has
[01:11:46.520 --> 01:11:52.520] Any civil claim, you can't just say he did something wrong and harmed me
[01:11:52.520 --> 01:11:58.520] You have to state your claim in terms of a defined cause of action
[01:11:58.520 --> 01:12:02.520] So what would be your cause of action?
[01:12:02.520 --> 01:12:13.520] I'm thinking due process, but nah, he really didn't deny you any specific right
[01:12:13.520 --> 01:12:18.520] He didn't incarcerate you because of that
[01:12:18.520 --> 01:12:22.520] He didn't write you a separate citation
[01:12:22.520 --> 01:12:35.520] Now if he took that license when he had no authority to do so, and then found say that your license was expired
[01:12:35.520 --> 01:12:38.520] Then that goes to fruit of the poison tree
[01:12:38.520 --> 01:12:42.520] Then you could challenge the evidence
[01:12:42.520 --> 01:12:46.520] But in this case where you didn't want him to see your license
[01:12:46.520 --> 01:12:55.520] And he arrested you and once he arrested you then he has a right to search and in the process of search he comes across this license
[01:12:55.520 --> 01:13:00.520] And he looks at it, how are you harmed?
[01:13:00.520 --> 01:13:05.520] Okay, well I see you kind of lost me to be honest with you when you said he has a right to search
[01:13:05.520 --> 01:13:09.520] What about the whole thing about needing to get a probable cause and a warrant?
[01:13:09.520 --> 01:13:11.520] That's a different issue
[01:13:11.520 --> 01:13:18.520] And that's one of the things we have to be very careful about mixing up issues
[01:13:18.520 --> 01:13:21.520] Now arrest without a warrant, that's an issue
[01:13:21.520 --> 01:13:25.520] Arrest without probable cause, that's an issue
[01:13:25.520 --> 01:13:30.520] That doesn't go to him looking at your license
[01:13:30.520 --> 01:13:40.520] Am I making sense? It's all about making sure we make the right argument
[01:13:40.520 --> 01:13:47.520] Okay, so how was I harmed when he took the license out of me against my will?
[01:13:47.520 --> 01:13:55.520] Well I was harmed because I, well it's a good thing I ordered jurisdictionary yesterday
[01:13:55.520 --> 01:14:01.520] Oh wonderful, wonderful, because jurisdictionary, it's not that you can't show that you were harmed
[01:14:01.520 --> 01:14:07.520] I was denied access to a court recently when the prosecutor asked if I was a witness
[01:14:07.520 --> 01:14:13.520] And I said I have no personal knowledge of anything that went on on this traffic situation
[01:14:13.520 --> 01:14:20.520] Well if you were called to as a witness would you be willing to testify?
[01:14:20.520 --> 01:14:23.520] Of course, I'm not going to jail for contempt of court
[01:14:23.520 --> 01:14:27.520] So he said I evoked a rule, he threw us out
[01:14:27.520 --> 01:14:32.520] Denied me access to the court on false pretenses
[01:14:32.520 --> 01:14:40.520] Well I have a right to a public court, 1.27 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
[01:14:40.520 --> 01:14:48.520] And that right is protected by Article 1, paragraph 10, Texas Constitution
[01:14:48.520 --> 01:14:56.520] He denied me in a right to witness a court proceeding
[01:14:56.520 --> 01:15:00.520] Now maybe that's not a big deal for him
[01:15:00.520 --> 01:15:05.520] To me, it was a very big deal
[01:15:05.520 --> 01:15:09.520] Because I paid for that right
[01:15:09.520 --> 01:15:14.520] And I can tell you I paid heavy for that right
[01:15:14.520 --> 01:15:21.520] And for him to appreciate me and arbitrarily take away a right that I paid so much for
[01:15:21.520 --> 01:15:23.520] That is a big deal
[01:15:23.520 --> 01:15:28.520] So I am harmed by a denial of due process
[01:15:28.520 --> 01:15:31.520] Am I making sense?
[01:15:31.520 --> 01:15:35.520] And they can do something that don't mean much to them
[01:15:35.520 --> 01:15:45.520] When a policeman pulls me over and asks me for my proof of insurance and I tell him no
[01:15:45.520 --> 01:15:48.520] And he puts his hand on a pistol
[01:15:48.520 --> 01:15:53.520] That is a really, really big deal
[01:15:53.520 --> 01:15:59.520] I consider that assault with a deadly weapon
[01:15:59.520 --> 01:16:04.520] Now he may not think that's a big deal, he does that all the time
[01:16:04.520 --> 01:16:07.520] But I spent time on the sharp end of those things
[01:16:07.520 --> 01:16:10.520] Those things are a really big deal for me
[01:16:10.520 --> 01:16:15.520] So it's a great harm to me for a policeman to put his hand on his pistol
[01:16:15.520 --> 01:16:19.520] In a threatening gesture while he's prominently displaying a deadly weapon
[01:16:19.520 --> 01:16:21.520] There are a lot of good things we can get him for
[01:16:21.520 --> 01:16:26.520] But always you've got to think, how am I harmed by this?
[01:16:26.520 --> 01:16:32.520] Or how can I frame this so it has the appearance of harm?
[01:16:32.520 --> 01:16:37.520] Because in the end, appearance is everything
[01:16:37.520 --> 01:16:39.520] The perception is everything
[01:16:39.520 --> 01:16:43.520] Hang on, about to go to break, Randy Kelton, rule our radio
[01:16:43.520 --> 01:16:47.520] Or call in number 512-646-1984
[01:16:47.520 --> 01:16:51.520] And we'll get back to you on the other side and I'll try not to talk so much, Andrew
[01:16:51.520 --> 01:17:18.520] We'll be right back
[01:17:21.520 --> 01:17:25.520] We'll be right back
[01:17:51.520 --> 01:17:55.520] Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters or even lawsuits?
[01:17:55.520 --> 01:17:59.520] Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Maris proven method
[01:17:59.520 --> 01:18:04.520] Michael Maris has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win too
[01:18:04.520 --> 01:18:11.520] You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes
[01:18:11.520 --> 01:18:21.520] What to do when contacted by phone, mail or court summons
[01:18:21.520 --> 01:18:23.520] How to answer letters and phone calls
[01:18:23.520 --> 01:18:26.520] How to get debt collectors out of your credit report
[01:18:26.520 --> 01:18:31.520] How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away
[01:18:31.520 --> 01:18:35.520] The Michael Maris proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors
[01:18:35.520 --> 01:18:41.520] Personal consultation is available as well
[01:18:41.520 --> 01:18:46.520] For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Maris banner
[01:18:46.520 --> 01:18:49.520] Or email michaelmaris at yahoo.com
[01:18:49.520 --> 01:18:57.520] That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com
[01:18:57.520 --> 01:19:07.520] To learn how to stop debt collectors now
[01:19:27.520 --> 01:19:31.520] Well
[01:19:31.520 --> 01:19:36.520] Ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick again
[01:19:36.520 --> 01:19:41.520] I was blindsided but now I can see your plan
[01:19:41.520 --> 01:19:46.520] You put the fear in my pocket, took the money from my hand
[01:19:46.520 --> 01:19:48.520] Ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick again
[01:19:48.520 --> 01:19:53.520] Okay, we are back, Randy Kelton, rule of law radio, and we're talking to Andrew in Pennsylvania
[01:19:53.520 --> 01:19:56.520] Okay, Andrew, I'm gonna shut up and let you talk
[01:19:56.520 --> 01:19:59.520] Yeah, all right, completely unrelated issues as well
[01:19:59.520 --> 01:20:02.520] We'll have the question and then I'll call it a night with you
[01:20:02.520 --> 01:20:04.520] This is kind of fitting
[01:20:04.520 --> 01:20:09.520] One of the commercials during the break was about the Michael Maris debt collection thing
[01:20:09.520 --> 01:20:12.520] Because I want to ask you a question about how we should
[01:20:12.520 --> 01:20:16.520] Let's imagine for a moment that the dollar will crash this year
[01:20:16.520 --> 01:20:17.520] We'll totally lose its value
[01:20:17.520 --> 01:20:20.520] There's going to be some gold or silver back to currency relief
[01:20:20.520 --> 01:20:24.520] But let's imagine that how do you prepare for something like that?
[01:20:24.520 --> 01:20:29.520] Well, let's say if you could perfectly time when the dollar is going to be officially dead
[01:20:29.520 --> 01:20:30.520] And be replaced by currency
[01:20:30.520 --> 01:20:36.520] Is it a good idea for us to all max out all of our credit cards to buy as much gold and silver as possible
[01:20:36.520 --> 01:20:39.520] Take out as many loans from as many banks as possible
[01:20:39.520 --> 01:20:46.520] Use all that loan money that we got to buy gold, silver, and other economic collapsed survival supplies
[01:20:46.520 --> 01:20:49.520] And then when the dollar collapses, it'll all work out nicely
[01:20:49.520 --> 01:20:52.520] And we'll get to keep all that without paying that debt back
[01:20:52.520 --> 01:20:55.520] Because the dollar collapses so all debts are officially canceled
[01:20:55.520 --> 01:20:57.520] Is that a good or a bad idea?
[01:20:57.520 --> 01:21:00.520] I would say based on that premise
[01:21:00.520 --> 01:21:02.520] Yes, it would be a good idea
[01:21:02.520 --> 01:21:06.520] If the dollar collapses and you expect it to hyperinflate
[01:21:06.520 --> 01:21:12.520] Then you want to get your money out of those green dollars and into something hard
[01:21:12.520 --> 01:21:15.520] Something you can hold in your hand and touch
[01:21:15.520 --> 01:21:18.520] You know, I have this coffee cup here in my hand
[01:21:18.520 --> 01:21:26.520] And it takes a certain amount of material and a certain amount of labor to produce this coffee cup
[01:21:26.520 --> 01:21:29.520] No matter what happens to the dollar
[01:21:29.520 --> 01:21:34.520] It's going to take the same amount of material and labor to make this coffee cup
[01:21:34.520 --> 01:21:37.520] So this coffee cup is not going to change in value
[01:21:37.520 --> 01:21:41.520] Now it may take a whole lot more dollars to buy it
[01:21:41.520 --> 01:21:48.520] So if the dollar were about to go into hyperinflation
[01:21:48.520 --> 01:21:53.520] Then gold, silver, platinum, palladium, lead
[01:21:53.520 --> 01:21:56.520] There are a lot of things you could put it into
[01:21:56.520 --> 01:21:59.520] But primarily things that are hard
[01:21:59.520 --> 01:22:02.520] We had one guy that used to come on the show a lot
[01:22:02.520 --> 01:22:05.520] And he was buying up machinery
[01:22:05.520 --> 01:22:10.520] Because at the time it was right after NAFTA got put in
[01:22:10.520 --> 01:22:13.520] What Ross Perot said happened
[01:22:13.520 --> 01:22:15.520] He said if you pass NAFTA and listen real closely
[01:22:15.520 --> 01:22:17.520] You'll hear a large sucking sound
[01:22:17.520 --> 01:22:20.520] And that's all of the jobs being sucked out of this country
[01:22:20.520 --> 01:22:22.520] And that's exactly what happened
[01:22:22.520 --> 01:22:24.520] Well this guy's buying up all the machinery
[01:22:24.520 --> 01:22:26.520] He's selling for pennies on the dollar
[01:22:26.520 --> 01:22:28.520] Put them in warehouses
[01:22:28.520 --> 01:22:30.520] They're hard
[01:22:30.520 --> 01:22:31.520] Whatever happens to the dollar
[01:22:31.520 --> 01:22:34.520] These things are going to stay essentially the same value
[01:22:34.520 --> 01:22:36.520] And he bought them under value
[01:22:36.520 --> 01:22:39.520] So now he waits for the dollar to crash
[01:22:39.520 --> 01:22:45.520] Or in his case he's waiting for the manufacturing environment to turn around
[01:22:45.520 --> 01:22:48.520] And if the dollar crashes
[01:22:48.520 --> 01:22:53.520] Then it would make it much cheaper to buy our products
[01:22:53.520 --> 01:22:55.520] So manufacturing would start again
[01:22:55.520 --> 01:22:57.520] Everybody would buy his machinery
[01:22:57.520 --> 01:23:01.520] So yeah I would say that would be a great idea
[01:23:01.520 --> 01:23:04.520] All right so Max I have all our credit cards on gold
[01:23:04.520 --> 01:23:09.520] Okay hold on with that said
[01:23:09.520 --> 01:23:16.520] My son asked me a question about hyperinflation of the US dollar
[01:23:16.520 --> 01:23:20.520] One question really put it into perspective
[01:23:20.520 --> 01:23:29.520] What would the US dollar hyperinflate against?
[01:23:29.520 --> 01:23:32.520] In order for it to hyperinflate
[01:23:32.520 --> 01:23:37.520] It has to hyperinflate relative to another currency
[01:23:37.520 --> 01:23:40.520] What would it hyperinflate against?
[01:23:40.520 --> 01:23:42.520] The euro is in the toilet
[01:23:42.520 --> 01:23:48.520] The yuan, China, is about to go into a major economic crash
[01:23:48.520 --> 01:23:53.520] Ours is the only one stable
[01:23:53.520 --> 01:24:01.520] I can't see any way the dollar can hyperinflate
[01:24:01.520 --> 01:24:04.520] One of the good things about this country is
[01:24:04.520 --> 01:24:09.520] Countries all over the world have made major investments in the United States
[01:24:09.520 --> 01:24:12.520] Including China
[01:24:12.520 --> 01:24:17.520] So the last thing they want to happen is for our dollar to crash
[01:24:17.520 --> 01:24:20.520] So they lose all their investments
[01:24:20.520 --> 01:24:23.520] And in order for our dollar to crash
[01:24:23.520 --> 01:24:29.520] Some other dollar, some other currency is going to have to come up and take its place
[01:24:29.520 --> 01:24:33.520] And in about five to seven years
[01:24:33.520 --> 01:24:37.520] I expect the yuan to wind up
[01:24:37.520 --> 01:24:43.520] The universal currency is going to take place of the dollar
[01:24:43.520 --> 01:24:45.520] It's going to take five to seven years
[01:24:45.520 --> 01:24:48.520] China is going to have a major crash
[01:24:48.520 --> 01:24:52.520] But they subsidize so much of this growth
[01:24:52.520 --> 01:24:56.520] Now the same thing is happening to them that happened to Japan
[01:24:56.520 --> 01:25:00.520] It's catching up with them and they're beginning to crash
[01:25:00.520 --> 01:25:02.520] So they're going to crash
[01:25:02.520 --> 01:25:04.520] And they got all of this infrastructure they built
[01:25:04.520 --> 01:25:07.520] And then they're going to get busy
[01:25:07.520 --> 01:25:10.520] Fill up that infrastructure
[01:25:10.520 --> 01:25:15.520] Once their currency has crashed, it's not worth much
[01:25:15.520 --> 01:25:21.520] Companies can come in and invest in this infrastructure cheap
[01:25:21.520 --> 01:25:23.520] Get them all of this filled up
[01:25:23.520 --> 01:25:25.520] Get their production back in place
[01:25:25.520 --> 01:25:31.520] When they rise up, they will become by far the most powerful economic engine on the planet
[01:25:31.520 --> 01:25:35.520] But they've got a cycle they have to go through first
[01:25:35.520 --> 01:25:41.520] So next five to seven years, I can't see anything that would crash our dollar
[01:25:41.520 --> 01:25:44.520] Really? Well, someone on the Alex Jones show a couple years ago
[01:25:44.520 --> 01:25:47.520] Did say when the Federal Reserve raises interest rates
[01:25:47.520 --> 01:25:51.520] Watch out for like a Great Depression and the Federal Reserve recently
[01:25:51.520 --> 01:25:54.520] You know how long I've been hearing this stuff
[01:25:54.520 --> 01:25:57.520] Forty years I've been hearing it
[01:25:57.520 --> 01:26:04.520] This George Brown back in 71, 72 was saying
[01:26:04.520 --> 01:26:08.520] Convert all your money to gold, the dollars might crash
[01:26:08.520 --> 01:26:12.520] I've been hearing it since the 70s
[01:26:12.520 --> 01:26:15.520] Don't see, there's nothing for it to crash against
[01:26:15.520 --> 01:26:18.520] I can't see it happening now
[01:26:18.520 --> 01:26:20.520] In spite of the dire predictions
[01:26:20.520 --> 01:26:26.520] There's always somebody out there making these dire predictions
[01:26:26.520 --> 01:26:31.520] So I would definitely be careful about
[01:26:31.520 --> 01:26:35.520] Betting on running up all your credit cards now
[01:26:35.520 --> 01:26:40.520] We can't say this on the air because it would be inappropriate
[01:26:40.520 --> 01:26:44.520] But if your credit cards were all run up real high
[01:26:44.520 --> 01:26:52.520] And the debt collector didn't follow the rules in collecting the debt
[01:26:52.520 --> 01:26:57.520] And you sued the crapola out of him using Juris Dictionary and Mike Mears's methods
[01:26:57.520 --> 01:27:00.520] A good chance you could make all that debt go away
[01:27:00.520 --> 01:27:06.520] But I certainly wouldn't advocate anybody running up a credit card so they could do that
[01:27:06.520 --> 01:27:12.520] That would be so unfair to those poor debt collectors
[01:27:12.520 --> 01:27:15.520] And you know they've got to eat too
[01:27:15.520 --> 01:27:24.520] So using these tools, but that's totally separate from how the economy actually works
[01:27:24.520 --> 01:27:28.520] We have stuff we can throw out to debt collectors because they don't do anything right
[01:27:28.520 --> 01:27:30.520] But they don't have anything to do with the economy
[01:27:30.520 --> 01:27:38.520] I certainly wouldn't suggest that somebody take this gamble at this moment
[01:27:38.520 --> 01:27:45.520] Because with the interest you pay, you'd be assessed on the credit cards
[01:27:45.520 --> 01:27:50.520] It'd be five to seven years at least before they'd get that back
[01:27:50.520 --> 01:27:56.520] And by the end that you eat up with interest costs, I don't see it as a good investment
[01:27:56.520 --> 01:28:01.520] But then I'm not the economic guy either
[01:28:01.520 --> 01:28:08.520] Take my advice for what it's worth and not a whole lot
[01:28:08.520 --> 01:28:10.520] Thanks, Randy
[01:28:10.520 --> 01:28:13.520] All right, thanks, take my call
[01:28:13.520 --> 01:28:16.520] Okay, thank you, Andrew
[01:28:16.520 --> 01:28:22.520] Okay, now we're going to go to Chris in Pennsylvania
[01:28:22.520 --> 01:28:28.520] Hello, Chris, how are things going with your mortgage issue?
[01:28:28.520 --> 01:28:31.520] Um, all right, I guess
[01:28:31.520 --> 01:28:36.520] I don't know if you got a chance to look at the email I sent you
[01:28:36.520 --> 01:28:39.520] Oh, I didn't notice one from you
[01:28:39.520 --> 01:28:41.520] When did you send it?
[01:28:41.520 --> 01:28:46.520] Probably this afternoon, earlier today
[01:28:46.520 --> 01:28:49.520] Okay, I probably didn't get to it
[01:28:49.520 --> 01:28:56.520] I was working on a very complex spreadsheet to give me a very big headache
[01:28:56.520 --> 01:28:59.520] So I probably didn't get to it
[01:28:59.520 --> 01:29:01.520] No, that's okay
[01:29:01.520 --> 01:29:06.520] We talked last week about the summary judgment they gave
[01:29:06.520 --> 01:29:11.520] And looking at the actual ruling the judge passed
[01:29:11.520 --> 01:29:13.520] Or the reason for the summary judgment
[01:29:13.520 --> 01:29:23.520] And it came down to the fact that my attorney failed to file a brief on time
[01:29:23.520 --> 01:29:30.520] So he filed a brief out of time
[01:29:30.520 --> 01:29:34.520] How did he manage to do that?
[01:29:34.520 --> 01:29:40.520] She actually filed an answer to the summary judgment
[01:29:40.520 --> 01:29:43.520] Okay, okay, hang on
[01:29:43.520 --> 01:29:45.520] Randy Kelton, Rubio Radio
[01:29:45.520 --> 01:29:49.520] I'll call it number 512-646-1984
[01:29:49.520 --> 01:29:53.520] We'll be right back
[01:30:03.520 --> 01:30:09.520] What do you do when a bird with a broken wing waddles into your oven and refuses to leave?
[01:30:09.520 --> 01:30:16.520] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht back with the tale of how one Austrian couple faced exactly that dilemma next
[01:30:16.520 --> 01:30:21.520] Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again
[01:30:21.520 --> 01:30:26.520] And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too
[01:30:26.520 --> 01:30:31.520] So protect your rights, say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself
[01:30:31.520 --> 01:30:34.520] Privacy, it's worth hanging on to
[01:30:34.520 --> 01:30:37.520] This message is brought to you by StartPage.com
[01:30:37.520 --> 01:30:41.520] The private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing
[01:30:41.520 --> 01:30:45.520] Start over with StartPage
[01:30:45.520 --> 01:30:52.520] Here's a love story from Austria that involves a taxidermist named Bertil Reiterer, his wife Ernie and a pigeon named Susie
[01:30:52.520 --> 01:30:56.520] It started the day Bertil found Susie with a broken wing by the side of the road
[01:30:56.520 --> 01:31:00.520] He took her to a vet, then home, then set the bird up in the garage
[01:31:00.520 --> 01:31:06.520] But on Christmas Day, Susie waddled into the kitchen, hopped into the oven and refused to come out
[01:31:06.520 --> 01:31:12.520] Rather than make pigeon stew, the couple adopted Susie and allowed the flightless bird to make a home in their oven
[01:31:12.520 --> 01:31:15.520] That was 17 years ago
[01:31:15.520 --> 01:31:19.520] Sure, it makes cooking tricky, they say, but their kitchen is all the warmer for it
[01:31:19.520 --> 01:31:24.520] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine
[01:31:30.520 --> 01:31:35.520] This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11
[01:31:35.520 --> 01:31:37.520] The government says that fire brought it down
[01:31:37.520 --> 01:31:42.520] However, 1,500 architects and engineers have concluded it was a controlled demolition
[01:31:42.520 --> 01:31:45.520] Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives
[01:31:45.520 --> 01:31:48.520] But thousands of my fellow force responders are dying
[01:31:48.520 --> 01:31:49.520] I'm not a conspiracy theorist
[01:31:49.520 --> 01:31:50.520] I'm a structural engineer
[01:31:50.520 --> 01:31:52.520] I'm a New York City correction officer
[01:31:52.520 --> 01:31:53.520] I'm an Air Force pilot
[01:31:53.520 --> 01:31:54.520] I'm a father who lost his son
[01:31:54.520 --> 01:31:57.520] We're Americans, and we deserve the truth
[01:31:57.520 --> 01:32:10.520] Go to RememberBuilding7.org today
[01:32:28.520 --> 01:32:31.520] to handle your claim and your roof right the first time
[01:32:31.520 --> 01:32:37.520] Just call 512-992-8745 or go to hillcountryhomeimprovements.com
[01:32:37.520 --> 01:32:40.520] Mention the crypto show and get $100 off
[01:32:40.520 --> 01:32:44.520] And we'll donate another $100 to the Logos Radio Network to help continue this programming
[01:32:44.520 --> 01:32:49.520] So if those out of town roofers come knocking, your door should be locking
[01:32:49.520 --> 01:32:55.520] That's 512-992-8745 or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com
[01:32:55.520 --> 01:32:58.520] Discounts are based on full roof replacement
[01:32:58.520 --> 01:33:01.520] May I actually be kidding about chemtrails?
[01:33:01.520 --> 01:33:05.520] Looking for some truth? You found it!
[01:33:05.520 --> 01:33:33.520] Logosradionetwork.com
[01:33:36.520 --> 01:33:40.520] Okay, we are back.
[01:33:40.520 --> 01:33:44.520] We're on the Kelton Roof Radio and we're talking to Chris in Pennsylvania.
[01:33:44.520 --> 01:33:48.520] Okay, go ahead, Chris.
[01:33:48.520 --> 01:33:58.520] She failed at sending a brief even though she sent in a response to the summary judgment.
[01:33:58.520 --> 01:34:04.520] The response was to the allegations they made for summary judgment
[01:34:04.520 --> 01:34:09.520] And she admitted, denied them and put in exhibits of evidence
[01:34:09.520 --> 01:34:16.520] And in the evidence said she was going to file the brief at the conclusion
[01:34:16.520 --> 01:34:19.520] And didn't get that in, I guess
[01:34:19.520 --> 01:34:26.520] So the judge decided for the bank on the summary judgment
[01:34:26.520 --> 01:34:29.520] Based on the fact that she didn't file a brief in time
[01:34:29.520 --> 01:34:35.520] And she's found that that is not in fact the case
[01:34:35.520 --> 01:34:38.520] A judgment can't be made on that conclusion
[01:34:38.520 --> 01:34:41.520] She can be sanctioned for that
[01:34:41.520 --> 01:34:45.520] But he cannot make the determination of summary judgment
[01:34:45.520 --> 01:34:47.520] Based on failing to file a brief
[01:34:47.520 --> 01:34:50.520] That was going to be my question
[01:34:50.520 --> 01:34:58.520] The first thing I would ask the judge is for findings of fact and conclusions at law
[01:34:58.520 --> 01:35:02.520] So what are the facts and law in which he based the ruling
[01:35:02.520 --> 01:35:05.520] And not filing a brief
[01:35:05.520 --> 01:35:08.520] Now this were an appeal that can happen
[01:35:08.520 --> 01:35:11.520] We just talked about that happening to someone last night
[01:35:11.520 --> 01:35:13.520] But this is not an appellate brief
[01:35:13.520 --> 01:35:15.520] This is a motion
[01:35:15.520 --> 01:35:21.520] And as far as I know, generally you file in opposition to the motion
[01:35:21.520 --> 01:35:28.520] And you don't necessarily file a brief unless the court asks for it
[01:35:28.520 --> 01:35:30.520] Or directs you to file a brief
[01:35:30.520 --> 01:35:38.520] I know I've responded to lots of summary judgment motions without a brief in support
[01:35:38.520 --> 01:35:43.520] And that's what she was figuring on as well
[01:35:43.520 --> 01:35:51.520] So her plan was to file a motion to strike the summary judgment based on that
[01:35:51.520 --> 01:35:56.520] And see where we go from there
[01:35:56.520 --> 01:35:59.520] Wait, motion to strike the ruling
[01:35:59.520 --> 01:36:01.520] The ruling, correct
[01:36:01.520 --> 01:36:03.520] No wait, hold on, hold on, that doesn't fit right
[01:36:03.520 --> 01:36:06.520] Motion for reconsideration
[01:36:06.520 --> 01:36:09.520] Okay, for reconsideration
[01:36:09.520 --> 01:36:12.520] Yeah, she wouldn't ask the judge to strike his own ruling
[01:36:12.520 --> 01:36:16.520] She would ask him to reconsider the ruling
[01:36:16.520 --> 01:36:22.520] If she asks the judge to strike his own ruling, he's likely to strike her
[01:36:22.520 --> 01:36:25.520] Right
[01:36:25.520 --> 01:36:28.520] It's just a protocol
[01:36:28.520 --> 01:36:34.520] And good chance he will overturn if she gives him good case law as to why
[01:36:34.520 --> 01:36:36.520] Yeah, and that's the other thing as well
[01:36:36.520 --> 01:36:39.520] She's basing this all on the case law
[01:36:39.520 --> 01:36:42.520] In Pennsylvania there just isn't any good case law
[01:36:42.520 --> 01:36:54.520] Pennsylvania is merely making conclusion that if a bank is holding a note or a mortgage rather
[01:36:54.520 --> 01:37:01.520] That they have just cause to foreclose whether it's good mortgage assignment or not
[01:37:01.520 --> 01:37:12.520] Even though we have in our appeal to the summary judgment the fact that the bank is stating
[01:37:12.520 --> 01:37:17.520] They are merely the servicer for the lender for any man
[01:37:17.520 --> 01:37:24.520] So couldn't quite get by how they even have subject matter to bring this foreclosure
[01:37:24.520 --> 01:37:32.520] Or even making these assumptions one that they have the note and mortgage in their name
[01:37:32.520 --> 01:37:39.520] And the other one that the bank is merely the servicer
[01:37:39.520 --> 01:37:46.520] So it's unclear who is the holder
[01:37:46.520 --> 01:37:50.520] As far as what the bank is saying, yes
[01:37:50.520 --> 01:37:56.520] Even though they purport to saying they have the note and the mortgage
[01:37:56.520 --> 01:37:58.520] Which it has taken during the bank
[01:37:58.520 --> 01:38:02.520] Did you ask to see the note?
[01:38:02.520 --> 01:38:08.520] We did and supposedly they brought the note to court
[01:38:08.520 --> 01:38:13.520] Did your lawyer examine it?
[01:38:13.520 --> 01:38:15.520] As far as I know she did
[01:38:15.520 --> 01:38:24.520] She said it was stamped original and it was the seven by fourteen size paper
[01:38:24.520 --> 01:38:28.520] Our copy appears to be like
[01:38:28.520 --> 01:38:31.520] Was it endorsed?
[01:38:31.520 --> 01:38:34.520] No, it was in blank
[01:38:34.520 --> 01:38:37.520] So were there any alleges?
[01:38:37.520 --> 01:38:39.520] None
[01:38:39.520 --> 01:38:48.520] Do you have reason to believe that the note was negotiated into a security?
[01:38:48.520 --> 01:38:51.520] Correct
[01:38:51.520 --> 01:38:55.520] Wait a minute, your original lender was Wachovia
[01:38:55.520 --> 01:38:57.520] Correct
[01:38:57.520 --> 01:39:02.520] Then nobody actually holds the note
[01:39:02.520 --> 01:39:05.520] Just whoever happens to have it in their hand
[01:39:05.520 --> 01:39:12.520] Is that what the position of, wait a minute, that note has been discharged in bankruptcy
[01:39:12.520 --> 01:39:15.520] Correct
[01:39:15.520 --> 01:39:21.520] So has your lawyer objected to any reference to the note?
[01:39:21.520 --> 01:39:22.520] Yes
[01:39:22.520 --> 01:39:23.520] It's irrelevant
[01:39:23.520 --> 01:39:28.520] She's made the claim that it was discharged in the bankruptcy
[01:39:28.520 --> 01:39:34.520] And it appears not to be an issue here
[01:39:34.520 --> 01:39:39.520] It appears that the judge, all case law that we run up against here
[01:39:39.520 --> 01:39:47.520] Is giving favor to the person holding the mortgage
[01:39:47.520 --> 01:39:55.520] Now that the underlying debt has been discharged
[01:39:55.520 --> 01:39:59.520] Then the mortgage contains no claim
[01:39:59.520 --> 01:40:01.520] Correct
[01:40:01.520 --> 01:40:07.520] Okay, so your position now is that you have filed a quiet title action against the mortgage?
[01:40:07.520 --> 01:40:09.520] Is that correct?
[01:40:09.520 --> 01:40:14.520] That's our plan, yes, that's what we're doing as we speak
[01:40:14.520 --> 01:40:20.520] Oh good, okay, so what is the case that's in court now?
[01:40:20.520 --> 01:40:23.520] The case that's in court now is just a foreclosure
[01:40:23.520 --> 01:40:28.520] We've gotten the summary judgment so we're attempting to ask
[01:40:28.520 --> 01:40:34.520] So you're appealing the summary, you're asking for a motion for reconsideration
[01:40:34.520 --> 01:40:36.520] And then you appeal that ruling
[01:40:36.520 --> 01:40:43.520] And in the meantime you're running the quiet title action against the deed of trust, the mortgage in the background
[01:40:43.520 --> 01:40:45.520] Correct
[01:40:45.520 --> 01:40:49.520] So if you get your quiet title ruling in your favor
[01:40:49.520 --> 01:40:58.520] Then you can go to the court and res judicata, move to dismiss or lack of a claim
[01:40:58.520 --> 01:41:00.520] Correct
[01:41:00.520 --> 01:41:06.520] Oh wonderful, so the fact, and the fact that, go ahead
[01:41:06.520 --> 01:41:10.520] The interesting part is there's no case law that shows that
[01:41:10.520 --> 01:41:14.520] We've looked at several instances where people have tried the same thing
[01:41:14.520 --> 01:41:24.520] For a reason I'm unsure, there are case law where given in the conclusion
[01:41:24.520 --> 01:41:30.520] The attorney speaking about the case or the judge who gives their
[01:41:30.520 --> 01:41:39.520] I forget the name, they call her demise at the end of a case
[01:41:39.520 --> 01:41:46.520] The attorney will tell them how the case went wrong or what they believe should have happened
[01:41:46.520 --> 01:41:49.520] In most case law they give that conclusion
[01:41:49.520 --> 01:41:55.520] Most of what we're reading is that these cases have failed
[01:41:55.520 --> 01:42:02.520] For the very reason that none of that was established and that case law clearly makes this statement
[01:42:02.520 --> 01:42:11.520] For the reason in Pennsylvania they're just not ruling that way
[01:42:11.520 --> 01:42:18.520] I don't understand how this stays in Pennsylvania
[01:42:18.520 --> 01:42:23.520] Since the prohibition is federal
[01:42:23.520 --> 01:42:24.520] Right
[01:42:24.520 --> 01:42:27.520] Okay, for those who are not familiar
[01:42:27.520 --> 01:42:37.520] Discharge in bankruptcy and the bankruptcy code forbids anyone from attempting to
[01:42:37.520 --> 01:42:44.520] Prosecute a security instrument for a death that was discharged in bankruptcy
[01:42:44.520 --> 01:42:49.520] Strictly forbids it, so that's federal
[01:42:49.520 --> 01:42:56.520] How is this even in the state court?
[01:42:56.520 --> 01:42:58.520] I'm not sure
[01:42:58.520 --> 01:43:01.520] Because of that federal prohibition
[01:43:01.520 --> 01:43:03.520] That should have bounced it out to the federal court
[01:43:03.520 --> 01:43:14.520] The federal court is more likely to favor their own law than the state court is
[01:43:14.520 --> 01:43:19.520] Okay, they filed
[01:43:19.520 --> 01:43:25.520] What was the timing? When did they file for foreclosure?
[01:43:25.520 --> 01:43:29.520] They filed for foreclosure, we got our Act 6 to notice
[01:43:29.520 --> 01:43:32.520] Okay, let me re-ask that question in context
[01:43:32.520 --> 01:43:40.520] When did they file for foreclosure relative to the bankruptcy discharge?
[01:43:40.520 --> 01:43:45.520] After the bankruptcy discharge they filed for foreclosure
[01:43:45.520 --> 01:43:59.520] Okay, hang on, Randy Kelton, we'll be right back
[01:43:59.520 --> 01:44:03.520] You feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics?
[01:44:03.520 --> 01:44:04.520] Sorry
[01:44:04.520 --> 01:44:07.520] Are you confused by words like the Constitution or the Federal Reserve?
[01:44:07.520 --> 01:44:08.520] What?
[01:44:08.520 --> 01:44:12.520] If so, you may be diagnosed with the deadliest disease known today, stupidity
[01:44:12.520 --> 01:44:18.520] Hi, my name is Steve Holt, and like millions of other Americans, I was diagnosed with stupidity at an early age
[01:44:18.520 --> 01:44:24.520] I had no idea that the number one cause of the disease is found in almost every home in America, the television
[01:44:24.520 --> 01:44:29.520] Unfortunately, that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity, but there is hope
[01:44:29.520 --> 01:44:35.520] The staff at Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other Foxaholics suffering from sports zombie-ism recover
[01:44:35.520 --> 01:44:40.520] And because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading and watching educational documentaries
[01:44:40.520 --> 01:44:45.520] without feeling tired or uninterested, so if you or anybody you know suffers from stupidity
[01:44:45.520 --> 01:44:54.520] then you need to call 512-480-2503 or visit them at 1904Guadalupe or bravenewbookstore.com
[01:44:54.520 --> 01:44:57.520] Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include discernment and enlarged vocabulary
[01:44:57.520 --> 01:45:00.520] and an overall increase in mental functioning
[01:45:00.520 --> 01:45:03.520] Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:03.520 --> 01:45:07.520] Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary
[01:45:07.520 --> 01:45:15.520] The affordable, easy-to-understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step
[01:45:15.520 --> 01:45:19.520] If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing
[01:45:19.520 --> 01:45:23.520] If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself
[01:45:23.520 --> 01:45:28.520] Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too
[01:45:28.520 --> 01:45:34.520] Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience
[01:45:34.520 --> 01:45:39.520] And even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[01:45:39.520 --> 01:45:43.520] about the principles and practices that control our American courts
[01:45:43.520 --> 01:45:49.520] You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[01:45:49.520 --> 01:45:52.520] pro se tactics, and much more
[01:45:52.520 --> 01:45:56.520] Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner
[01:45:56.520 --> 01:46:04.520] or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EASY
[01:46:04.520 --> 01:46:09.520] Well, you know, car makers love to come around the corner
[01:46:09.520 --> 01:46:12.520] You better watch your step-by-step
[01:46:12.520 --> 01:46:17.520] Because you can prove the problem to you
[01:46:17.520 --> 01:46:20.520] Okay, we are back, Randy Kelton, rule of law radio
[01:46:20.520 --> 01:46:24.520] We're talking to Christian, Pennsylvania
[01:46:24.520 --> 01:46:28.520] And in the end, it probably doesn't matter if it's in the state or federal court
[01:46:28.520 --> 01:46:31.520] Because the federal court will still govern that issue
[01:46:31.520 --> 01:46:34.520] And you do have the issue before the court
[01:46:34.520 --> 01:46:45.520] So all this other wrangling, it sounds like the other side probably knows they're going to lose
[01:46:45.520 --> 01:46:53.520] And they're hoping that they can out-maneuver you on the rules of court
[01:46:53.520 --> 01:46:59.520] A friend of mine lost in exactly that way, really subtle way
[01:46:59.520 --> 01:47:04.520] They filed for informal paupers
[01:47:04.520 --> 01:47:06.520] The other lawyer in the room wrangled back and forth
[01:47:06.520 --> 01:47:09.520] And finally they said, enough of this argument over that
[01:47:09.520 --> 01:47:15.520] We'll just go ahead and pay the filing fee and get this thing over with
[01:47:15.520 --> 01:47:19.520] So they paid the filing fee and the judge dismissed immediately
[01:47:19.520 --> 01:47:24.520] Because once they paid the filing fee, they dismissed the informal paupers
[01:47:24.520 --> 01:47:29.520] It was out of time to pay the filing fee
[01:47:29.520 --> 01:47:38.520] So they may be hoping they can get you on procedure, what they've lost otherwise
[01:47:38.520 --> 01:47:44.520] So be careful with procedure
[01:47:44.520 --> 01:47:49.520] The other part of this that I was looking at trying to make a point with
[01:47:49.520 --> 01:47:54.520] I don't know if it's a relevant point
[01:47:54.520 --> 01:47:58.520] Determining whether or not the bank
[01:47:58.520 --> 01:48:04.520] We looked at a few cases that had this 401 ruling on an Act 6
[01:48:04.520 --> 01:48:16.520] Where the bank was said to have made the Act 6 claim to us prior to being the lender
[01:48:16.520 --> 01:48:26.520] And we noted that even though 401 made it very clear that you couldn't come in
[01:48:26.520 --> 01:48:31.520] And give an Act 6 notice without being the lender
[01:48:31.520 --> 01:48:35.520] The rulings in this state have still negated that
[01:48:35.520 --> 01:48:41.520] And just went along with rulings in favor of the bank
[01:48:41.520 --> 01:48:45.520] It would seem you could appeal it even if they rule that way
[01:48:45.520 --> 01:48:49.520] You could still appeal it out to the Fed
[01:48:49.520 --> 01:49:00.520] Showing that the state was rendering rulings that were not comporting to federal law
[01:49:00.520 --> 01:49:07.520] So this sounds like you've got the facts and the law on your side
[01:49:07.520 --> 01:49:14.520] And the other side is just hoping they can get you to screw up on procedure
[01:49:14.520 --> 01:49:18.520] To be careful with procedure
[01:49:18.520 --> 01:49:21.520] Make sure you get all your filings in on time
[01:49:21.520 --> 01:49:28.520] They're hoping for something just like what they got here where the lawyer didn't get the brief in on time
[01:49:28.520 --> 01:49:34.520] And you might remind your lawyer that if she loses this case for you
[01:49:34.520 --> 01:49:37.520] Because of what she failed to do
[01:49:37.520 --> 01:49:47.520] Then she's liable for the whole amount in a malpractice suit
[01:49:47.520 --> 01:49:51.520] We were looking at another issue as well
[01:49:51.520 --> 01:49:58.520] Now I don't know if these things become pertinent to insurance claims
[01:49:58.520 --> 01:50:03.520] I discussed with you last weekend about Wells Fargo finally being sued by the government
[01:50:03.520 --> 01:50:11.520] Or finally coming to some fruition as to the cause of the collapse of the market
[01:50:11.520 --> 01:50:22.520] Which was to find them and other banks responsible for taking these fraudulent loans
[01:50:22.520 --> 01:50:29.520] And then taking out the insurance policy and claiming them on the FHA loans
[01:50:29.520 --> 01:50:36.520] And they just got sued for that and had to come forward with a $1.2 billion settlement
[01:50:36.520 --> 01:50:41.520] Does anything occurring with a settlement
[01:50:41.520 --> 01:50:45.520] Or not with a settlement but with an insurance claim
[01:50:45.520 --> 01:50:52.520] Predetermine that the bank has already been paid and they can't be paid twice by foreclosing?
[01:50:52.520 --> 01:50:56.520] No, not that I know of
[01:50:56.520 --> 01:51:00.520] An insurance claim is like playing poker
[01:51:00.520 --> 01:51:09.520] Years ago I had a business partner who had someone break in his house and steal his wheelie experience in a stereo set
[01:51:09.520 --> 01:51:14.520] Three or four days later the insurance company came and wrote him a check
[01:51:14.520 --> 01:51:18.520] He was just thrilled at how quick they were
[01:51:18.520 --> 01:51:22.520] And a couple weeks later the police recovered his stereo set
[01:51:22.520 --> 01:51:25.520] They brought it back to him
[01:51:25.520 --> 01:51:31.520] And he called the insurance company and he said, hey guys, I got your stereo set
[01:51:31.520 --> 01:51:33.520] They said, that's not ours, that's yours
[01:51:33.520 --> 01:51:34.520] He said, yeah, but you paid for it
[01:51:34.520 --> 01:51:37.520] They said, no we didn't
[01:51:37.520 --> 01:51:43.520] He said, you bought an insurance policy and you bet that it wouldn't get stowed
[01:51:43.520 --> 01:51:47.520] You bet that it would get stowed, we bet that it wouldn't get stowed
[01:51:47.520 --> 01:51:50.520] We lost
[01:51:50.520 --> 01:51:57.520] So we merely paid on our policy ensuring it against being stolen
[01:51:57.520 --> 01:51:59.520] We didn't buy it, so it's still yours
[01:51:59.520 --> 01:52:04.520] So the insurance paid off and he got to keep it
[01:52:04.520 --> 01:52:16.520] Point is, what was paid to Wells Fargo from the insurance company was between the insurance company and Wells Fargo
[01:52:16.520 --> 01:52:21.520] Wells Fargo took money it had and paid this insurance company for a policy
[01:52:21.520 --> 01:52:28.520] And made a bet that this note would default
[01:52:28.520 --> 01:52:31.520] The insurance company made a bet that it wouldn't
[01:52:31.520 --> 01:52:33.520] The insurance company lost the bet, you don't have it
[01:52:33.520 --> 01:52:38.520] As far as I know, it doesn't affect you in any way
[01:52:38.520 --> 01:52:41.520] Does that make sense?
[01:52:41.520 --> 01:52:43.520] Yeah, that makes sense
[01:52:43.520 --> 01:52:47.520] We were just looking at it, you know, some kind of ruling where the bank's already been paid
[01:52:47.520 --> 01:52:50.520] Or the debt's been paid through the insurance policy
[01:52:50.520 --> 01:52:56.520] And if the insurance company pays, kind of like if I have a car repossessed
[01:52:56.520 --> 01:52:59.520] Then the car goes to the insurance company
[01:52:59.520 --> 01:53:07.520] Or it goes back to whomever, you know, who held the insurance or the car is totaled
[01:53:07.520 --> 01:53:13.520] Okay, that's specific to automobile
[01:53:13.520 --> 01:53:19.520] The policy itself has that provision in it
[01:53:19.520 --> 01:53:22.520] And if they told the car and paid off, they keep the car
[01:53:22.520 --> 01:53:24.520] That's in the contract though
[01:53:24.520 --> 01:53:27.520] Right, okay
[01:53:27.520 --> 01:53:32.520] But even if it was in the contract with Wells Fargo
[01:53:32.520 --> 01:53:38.520] That contract is between Wells Fargo and the insurance company and you don't have anything to do with it
[01:53:38.520 --> 01:53:39.520] Okay
[01:53:39.520 --> 01:53:44.520] So whatever happens there, you can't get a claim
[01:53:44.520 --> 01:53:48.520] Because the mortgage wasn't paid
[01:53:48.520 --> 01:53:56.520] The insurance company paid off on the bet
[01:53:56.520 --> 01:53:59.520] So that won't help
[01:53:59.520 --> 01:54:06.520] So we're really looking at this thing as being a federal issue with the bankruptcy then
[01:54:06.520 --> 01:54:08.520] With this
[01:54:08.520 --> 01:54:12.520] I would have thought so
[01:54:12.520 --> 01:54:18.520] But your lawyer may have had a good reason to want to keep it in the state
[01:54:18.520 --> 01:54:22.520] At this point it sounds like not such a good reason
[01:54:22.520 --> 01:54:35.520] Because you're more likely to have gotten a positive reading on this bankruptcy statute prohibition in the federal court because it's a federal law
[01:54:35.520 --> 01:54:40.520] But in any case you'll be able to appeal it to the Fed
[01:54:40.520 --> 01:54:45.520] Since it's based on a federal question, you'll definitely be able to appeal to the Fed
[01:54:45.520 --> 01:54:47.520] Right
[01:54:47.520 --> 01:54:52.520] I probably need to explain this to those who don't understand how this works
[01:54:52.520 --> 01:55:00.520] In 2011 the legislature passed the Venue and Removal Clarification Act
[01:55:00.520 --> 01:55:05.520] Prior to this time there was a split between the circuits
[01:55:05.520 --> 01:55:11.520] Some of the circuits said that if a case has state and federal issues in it
[01:55:11.520 --> 01:55:14.520] And it is removed to the Fed
[01:55:14.520 --> 01:55:20.520] Then the Fed can hear both the state and federal issues under judicial economy
[01:55:20.520 --> 01:55:26.520] And then the other circuits said no, the Feds can't hear the state issue
[01:55:26.520 --> 01:55:31.520] That's an unwarranted preemption of state law, of state authority
[01:55:31.520 --> 01:55:37.520] So the legislature weighed in and passed the Venue and Removal Clarification Act
[01:55:37.520 --> 01:55:45.520] And said that while a case with state and federal issues can be removed to the federal court
[01:55:45.520 --> 01:55:51.520] The federal court must sever the state issues and remand
[01:55:51.520 --> 01:55:53.520] Okay
[01:55:53.520 --> 01:55:55.520] In this case
[01:55:55.520 --> 01:56:02.520] Okay, the state law doesn't address that issue
[01:56:02.520 --> 01:56:11.520] The state law doesn't necessarily say that a state judge cannot hear a federal issue
[01:56:11.520 --> 01:56:14.520] And that's the way it's always been, that's 200 years of law
[01:56:14.520 --> 01:56:19.520] This clarification by the legislature changed 200 years of law
[01:56:19.520 --> 01:56:25.520] It used to be if it's in the state court the state hears both, if it's in the federal court the Feds hear both
[01:56:25.520 --> 01:56:29.520] Now the Feds can't hear both, they have to send the state back down
[01:56:29.520 --> 01:56:36.520] But as far as I know there's nothing in the state that says we can't hear both state and federal issues
[01:56:36.520 --> 01:56:43.520] And the Feds don't care so long as the state rules in accordance with federal law
[01:56:43.520 --> 01:56:49.520] Because you get your remedy
[01:56:49.520 --> 01:56:57.520] But if they rule against you then you can definitely rule it to the Fed because that statute is a federal statute
[01:56:57.520 --> 01:57:01.520] Okay, did that make sense?
[01:57:01.520 --> 01:57:04.520] That made perfect sense
[01:57:04.520 --> 01:57:09.520] Okay, do we have any other questions or comments?
[01:57:09.520 --> 01:57:10.520] One more question
[01:57:10.520 --> 01:57:15.520] Based on our Wachovia experience with this and the bank not being
[01:57:15.520 --> 01:57:20.520] I've been doing a lot of kind of bickering back and forth with the attorney
[01:57:20.520 --> 01:57:27.520] But her thoughts are because Wachovia Mortgage Corporation still has a website up
[01:57:27.520 --> 01:57:31.520] That Wachovia Mortgage Corporation is still in existence
[01:57:31.520 --> 01:57:38.520] And to be able to fight the fact that Merz passing the assignment on as nominee for Wachovia
[01:57:38.520 --> 01:57:44.520] Wouldn't be a good thing because she thinks Wachovia Mortgage Corporation is still in existence
[01:57:44.520 --> 01:57:47.520] Now the website when you check it out has no
[01:57:47.520 --> 01:57:56.520] Administrators has no nothing to it. It is merely a hotline phone number to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage
[01:57:56.520 --> 01:57:59.520] She's probably right
[01:57:59.520 --> 01:58:02.520] Okay, let's pick this up on the other side but need to move quickly
[01:58:02.520 --> 01:58:04.520] We've got a full board of callers
[01:58:04.520 --> 01:58:11.520] This is going to the top of the hour break so this is our three minute break
[01:58:11.520 --> 01:58:17.520] Good time to go look at our gun giveaway. We have our fundraiser on
[01:58:17.520 --> 01:58:22.520] We have another special gun giveaway today
[01:58:22.520 --> 01:58:28.520] Look at Jurisdictionary and Mike Merz Method and our other sponsors
[01:58:28.520 --> 01:58:34.520] Anything you can use that we have available would greatly help us because we only
[01:58:34.520 --> 01:58:40.520] Get paid from those sponsors when one of our clients or customers or listener buys from them
[01:58:40.520 --> 01:58:47.520] And right now we need all the funds we can get. We're really struggling to keep this network on the air
[01:58:47.520 --> 01:58:49.520] We'll be right back
[01:58:49.520 --> 01:58:53.520] The Bible remains the most popular book in the world
[01:58:53.520 --> 01:58:57.520] Yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it
[01:58:57.520 --> 01:59:01.520] Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text
[01:59:01.520 --> 01:59:06.520] But in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the scripture
[01:59:06.520 --> 01:59:08.520] Enter the recovery version
[01:59:08.520 --> 01:59:12.520] First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate
[01:59:12.520 --> 01:59:17.520] But the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes
[01:59:17.520 --> 01:59:21.520] Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way
[01:59:21.520 --> 01:59:27.520] Providing an entrance into the riches of the word beyond which you've ever experienced before
[01:59:27.520 --> 01:59:32.520] Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking
[01:59:32.520 --> 01:59:43.520] This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102
[01:59:43.520 --> 01:59:47.520] Or by ordering online at freestudybible.com
[01:59:47.520 --> 01:59:50.520] That's freestudybible.com
[01:59:50.520 --> 01:59:53.520] You are listening to the Logos Radio Network
[01:59:53.520 --> 02:00:03.520] Logosradionetwork.com