ROL_2016-02-26_16k_Hr1-2.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:05.840]  The following newsflash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing your jelly
[00:05.840 --> 00:08.360]  bulletins for the commodities market.
[00:08.360 --> 00:21.480]  Today in history, news updates and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative.
[00:21.480 --> 00:27.640]  Markets for Wednesday the 24th of February 2016 are currently treading with gold at $1,238.20
[00:27.640 --> 00:34.920]  an ounce, silver $15.28 an ounce, Texas crude $31.87 a barrel, and Bitcoin is currently
[00:34.920 --> 00:43.400]  sitting at about $423 U.S. currency.
[00:43.400 --> 00:47.600]  Today in history, the year 303, the great persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire
[00:47.600 --> 00:52.240]  signed into edict by Emperor Diocletian, in effect stripping the legal rights of Christians
[00:52.240 --> 01:00.600]  and demanding that they comply with the traditional Roman religious practices of the day.
[01:00.600 --> 01:04.840]  In recent news, the state-stop criminal court dismissed criminal charges against Rick Perry
[01:04.840 --> 01:09.480]  for his 2003 threat to veto state funds to the Travis County prosecutors.
[01:09.480 --> 01:13.720]  The charge itself that was ruled 6-2 violated the Texas Constitution's separation of power
[01:13.720 --> 01:17.120]  provision by limiting the governor's veto authority.
[01:17.120 --> 01:21.280]  Presiding Judge Sharon Keller stated that the governor's power to exercise a veto may
[01:21.280 --> 01:25.000]  not be circumscribed by the legislator, the courts, or the district attorneys.
[01:25.000 --> 01:29.360]  When the only act that is being prosecuted is the veto, then the prosecution itself violates
[01:29.360 --> 01:31.080]  the separation of powers.
[01:31.080 --> 01:35.960]  The court has also dropped a secondary felony charge of coercion of a public official as
[01:35.960 --> 01:41.960]  a violation of free speech rights.
[01:41.960 --> 01:45.720]  The International Monetary Fund stated today that the global economy is highly vulnerable
[01:45.720 --> 01:49.700]  to adverse shocks and is calling on the United States and other major governments to prepare
[01:49.700 --> 01:52.880]  contingency plans that could be used to stimulate and boost growth.
[01:52.880 --> 01:57.000]  IMF is strongly suggesting that the world's 20 largest economies should keep pursuing
[01:57.000 --> 02:01.060]  strategies for growth, though they did suggest that they should develop additional measures
[02:01.060 --> 02:05.180]  that could be implemented immediately if economic growth continues to slump.
[02:05.180 --> 02:09.040]  With the IMF suggesting governmental spending as a means of stimulus, it's hard to take
[02:09.040 --> 02:13.360]  the Treasury Secretary Jacob Lewis's statement serious when he stated that it's not the
[02:13.360 --> 02:18.440]  job of the finance ministers and central banks and governors to accelerate a crisis, it's
[02:18.440 --> 02:20.280]  their job to avoid one.
[02:20.280 --> 02:25.760]  Yeah, sure.
[02:25.760 --> 02:29.360]  MasterCard has announced plans to introduce SelfiePay to more than a dozen countries,
[02:29.360 --> 02:33.760]  a program that is part of MasterCard's plan to implement biometrics as a form of security
[02:33.760 --> 02:34.760]  authentication.
[02:34.760 --> 02:39.400]  The idea is simple, users will take selfies through their app and the images will be stored
[02:39.400 --> 02:43.880]  into a company's server every time anyone will want to make an online purchase with
[02:43.880 --> 02:45.080]  their credit or debit card.
[02:45.080 --> 02:48.720]  It will be prompted to look into the phone's camera so that the image can be digitally
[02:48.720 --> 02:53.760]  matched and compared against the selfie on file, effectively changing the selfie for
[02:53.760 --> 02:54.760]  the traditional password.
[02:54.760 --> 02:55.760]  This is your Lowdown for February 24th, 2016.
[02:55.760 --> 03:22.400]  This is your Lowdown for February 24th, 2016.
[03:22.400 --> 03:51.680]  Howdy, howdy, Randy Kelkin, Rue La Radio, on this Friday, the 26th day of February 2015.
[03:51.680 --> 03:55.280]  Now we'll have the call-in lines open all night.
[03:55.280 --> 04:06.400]  Our call-in number is 512-646-1984, give us a call, I said any subject, but any subject
[04:06.400 --> 04:11.120]  the type of which we tend to cover.
[04:11.120 --> 04:19.760]  Now I'm going to start out going back to some of the things I was talking about last week
[04:19.760 --> 04:25.840]  about how to write legal documents.
[04:25.840 --> 04:36.960]  Last week I went over primarily the concept of flow and in thinking of a document from
[04:36.960 --> 04:49.840]  the perspective of how you affect the mind of your reader, it essentially dictates a
[04:49.840 --> 05:00.680]  method of writing, creating documents that for the most part is the method that most
[05:00.680 --> 05:08.440]  people who teach this kind of thing suggest that you create documents in that you don't
[05:08.440 --> 05:17.400]  start with the introduction, you start with the writing the order and then from the order
[05:17.400 --> 05:29.560]  you write the prayer or the heretofore as Jeff Sedgwick calls it, you ask the court
[05:29.560 --> 05:37.280]  for what you want, but you do that early on, you do that essentially first.
[05:37.280 --> 05:43.400]  This lays the groundwork of the structure for the rest of the document.
[05:43.400 --> 05:52.440]  A lot of times when we look at pro se pleadings they are not clear into the point, they tend
[05:52.440 --> 05:59.360]  to ramble and they argue one issue and as they're arguing that issue they drift into
[05:59.360 --> 06:04.240]  another issue and then drift into another issue and then they realize where they're
[06:04.240 --> 06:11.400]  at and come back and they drift around again, it's really hard for a third party, someone
[06:11.400 --> 06:17.160]  else other than the writer to understand what they're trying to communicate.
[06:17.160 --> 06:27.160]  If you create your closing first, you start at the end first, then you tend not to have
[06:27.160 --> 06:35.320]  those kinds of problems and you always keep your document moving from the front to the
[06:35.320 --> 06:40.320]  back in a predictable order.
[06:40.320 --> 06:51.040]  When you write things from the back to the front, you start out by writing by the reader
[06:51.040 --> 06:56.920]  when he reads it, he starts out by reading an introduction and when you write the introduction
[06:56.920 --> 07:02.360]  you've already written the document, so now you know what's going to be in the document.
[07:02.360 --> 07:08.760]  If you do it the other way around you're really not sure, there's often times documents kind
[07:08.760 --> 07:15.240]  of develop themselves and if you start out with an introduction you're actually telling
[07:15.240 --> 07:21.320]  the reader what you intend to put in the document, it doesn't necessarily mean that's what's
[07:21.320 --> 07:35.560]  going to wind up in it, but if you've already written the prayer, the conclusion, the statement
[07:35.560 --> 07:46.920]  of the factual accusation or the points and authorities and the statement of facts, then
[07:46.920 --> 07:50.080]  you know exactly what's going to be in there, you know exactly what order it's going to
[07:50.080 --> 07:54.960]  come in, so you tell the reader basically what's going to be in there and the order
[07:54.960 --> 08:03.520]  it's going to be in, this creates an expectation in the mind of the reader, the reader will
[08:03.520 --> 08:13.000]  expect to find your issues and arguments in the order that you stated in your introduction,
[08:13.000 --> 08:19.880]  so you give your reader a set of expectations, a road map and then you begin to follow that
[08:19.880 --> 08:25.080]  road map and the reader will expect you to move from one subject to another and when
[08:25.080 --> 08:33.360]  you move exactly the way the reader expects you to, that establishes a thing we call rapport,
[08:33.360 --> 08:38.840]  so the reader connects better with your writing, okay I didn't want to go into a lot on that
[08:38.840 --> 08:50.720]  today, just kind of a brief overview, then we get to the document styling and most people
[08:50.720 --> 09:02.280]  these days use Microsoft Word or something very similar, OpenOffice, Libre, for a while
[09:02.280 --> 09:16.720]  there back in the 90s and late 80s, early during the 90s as these softwares were developing,
[09:16.720 --> 09:23.200]  Word Perfect was the rule of thumb for lawyers, Word Perfect is more lawyer friendly than
[09:23.200 --> 09:30.600]  Microsoft Word but because of Microsoft's marketing strategies, they've pretty well
[09:30.600 --> 09:40.320]  taken over the industry, so last week I went over some of the styling conventions and one
[09:40.320 --> 09:49.800]  convention if you're creating a document, especially a complex, a long complex document,
[09:49.800 --> 10:01.840]  is put a heading on every paragraph and you can use the styles that are already written
[10:01.840 --> 10:10.200]  into Microsoft Word and every word processing software has a set of styles and including
[10:10.200 --> 10:20.080]  in those styles are a set of heading styles, if you use the heading styles and you'll find
[10:20.080 --> 10:29.120]  heading styles in Microsoft Word if you click the home tab on the very top ribbon, then
[10:29.120 --> 10:36.440]  on the second ribbon below that over to the right hand side of the page you'll see a wide
[10:36.440 --> 10:45.080]  box, the bottom of that box is titled styles, if you go to the bottom right hand corner
[10:45.080 --> 10:52.560]  of that box, this box is a down arrow, you can click and it'll open up a styles page
[10:52.560 --> 10:59.560]  for whatever document you're in and you can scroll up and down it and find your heading
[10:59.560 --> 11:10.800]  styles, put a heading on every paragraph, if you use the styles menu to do it, then
[11:10.800 --> 11:23.960]  you can go to, in Word you can go to view, I can get word to come up, okay, if you go
[11:23.960 --> 11:32.080]  to view and when you click view on the very top ribbon, then in the second ribbon the
[11:32.080 --> 11:39.960]  second box over is a box that says router, I'm sorry, ruler, guidelines, navigation
[11:39.960 --> 11:48.480]  pane, now I'm looking at Microsoft Office to 2010, sometimes it's slightly different
[11:48.480 --> 11:58.040]  in 20.07 and 2013, I'm not sure what 2013 looks like but it'll be very similar, what
[11:58.040 --> 12:07.600]  I want to look at is navigation pane, when you use the styles menu then Word will create
[12:07.600 --> 12:15.440]  what looks like a table of contents, you click to open the navigation pane and it will give
[12:15.440 --> 12:21.960]  you a listing of all the headings that are hyperlinked inside the document, so if you've
[12:21.960 --> 12:29.520]  got a 50 page document and you've got it, headings on, regular headings if not every
[12:29.520 --> 12:41.120]  paragraph then close, then you have a synopsis of what's in the document and more importantly
[12:41.120 --> 12:49.760]  is if you have covered an issue more than once by looking at the headings you've put
[12:49.760 --> 12:59.680]  on the paragraphs you'll be able to tell very quickly and in this way really for me always
[12:59.680 --> 13:07.600]  the hardest part of structuring a large complex document has been ordering my arguments in
[13:07.600 --> 13:14.720]  a clear and concise way, I generally wind up arguing the same thing two or three different
[13:14.720 --> 13:22.600]  times, by putting headings on all your paragraphs you won't have that problem, that problem
[13:22.600 --> 13:26.960]  does take care of itself and a lot of the things we talked about last week and we're
[13:26.960 --> 13:34.840]  talking about today, they're just some methods that if you use them they will eliminate a
[13:34.840 --> 13:42.920]  lot of problems that we normally have when trying to construct a large document, they
[13:42.920 --> 13:54.280]  will just not occur and starting at the end of your document, starting with the pattern
[13:54.280 --> 14:00.720]  jury charges and working backwards from there will eliminate a large number of problems
[14:00.720 --> 14:08.080]  we often have in creating large documents and the other thing are headings, you will
[14:08.080 --> 14:18.160]  be surprised at how much headings will improve not only the style of your document but the
[14:18.160 --> 14:27.520]  ease with which you can create one and there's also citations, there's a tool in most every
[14:27.520 --> 14:39.320]  word processor for citations and it's just a word when you put in, if you put a statute
[14:39.320 --> 14:45.240]  in a document and we have the rule never make a proactive statement of law out of your own
[14:45.240 --> 14:58.520]  mouth, so always cite, if you're stating the officer must do this, you always say according
[14:58.520 --> 15:05.040]  to statute so and so or case law so and so, the officer must do this, when you put in
[15:05.040 --> 15:19.480]  that citation if you highlight it and in Microsoft Word if you'll go to, which one is it, I always
[15:19.480 --> 15:26.480]  have to look for references, in the top ribbon click references, right under that you'll
[15:26.480 --> 15:34.000]  see table of contents, if you have used the styles menu to put headings on all of your
[15:34.000 --> 15:43.280]  sections then you click the table of contents and you can tell Microsoft Word to put in
[15:43.280 --> 15:48.400]  a table of contents and it will create the whole table of contents for you automatically,
[15:48.400 --> 15:55.520]  you won't have to mess with it at all and that's just by using the style sheet headings,
[15:55.520 --> 16:06.120]  if you put in citations, if you mark each citation when you open the section references
[16:06.120 --> 16:14.640]  you go all the way to the right hand side and there's a box for citations and in that
[16:14.640 --> 16:23.120]  one you can, you select whatever the citation is and you click mark a citation and it opens
[16:23.120 --> 16:31.400]  a box where you can tell it if it's a statute, case law, treatise and there's several options
[16:31.400 --> 16:38.080]  and then when you click off of it, it just goes away but it puts code in the background
[16:38.080 --> 16:42.040]  that it can use later to create your table of authorities for you and that will save
[16:42.040 --> 16:51.600]  you major work especially if you're doing a Supreme Court, I lost my word, hang on,
[16:51.600 --> 16:57.000]  we're about to go to break and my tongue got tangled, Randy Kelton, we'll be right
[16:57.000 --> 17:00.000]  back.
[17:00.000 --> 17:29.160]  Non-gmo solutions.com is now a proud sponsor of the Logos Radio Network with promo code
[17:29.160 --> 17:34.200]  five years storable food for an uncertain future, then Non-GMOSolutions.com is your
[17:34.200 --> 17:39.760]  common sense answer. Take advantage of a 10% discount with Promo Code Logos. No longer
[17:39.760 --> 17:44.600]  will you compromise taste and quality for full term shelf life or eat poor quality food
[17:44.600 --> 17:49.760]  due to cost. Check out our FlexPay options and design a no contract plan to satisfy your
[17:49.760 --> 17:55.960]  needs. Go to Non-GMOSolutions.com today and get 10% off with Promo Code Logos. That's
[17:55.960 --> 18:02.400]  Non-GMOSolutions.com with Promo Code Logos. Did you know that the Logos Radio Network
[18:02.400 --> 18:07.680]  is a truly listener supported radio network? On top of the on air talents, producers and
[18:07.680 --> 18:11.880]  other hard working individuals working behind the scenes, Logos Radio Network is kept on
[18:11.880 --> 18:16.240]  the air by the generous support of listeners like you. And we appreciate our loyal listeners
[18:16.240 --> 18:20.760]  making contributions every year in our annual fundraisers, which help keep the lights on
[18:20.760 --> 18:26.080]  and Logos Radio Network on the air. The 2016 fundraiser has been extended to March 17th.
[18:26.080 --> 18:31.200]  Head on over to LogosRadio Network.com to make your contribution. Every $25 donation
[18:31.200 --> 18:35.680]  enters you for a chance to win prizes from Central Texas Cow Works. First prize being
[18:35.680 --> 18:40.400]  a Spikes Skull Lower Receiver, second prize being a Taurus Curve. And if you donate your
[18:40.400 --> 18:45.520]  $25 contribution early enough, you will also receive a complimentary jar of My Magic Mud.
[18:45.520 --> 18:50.720]  Donations by all major credit cards are accepted as well as contributions by Bitcoin. The Logos
[18:50.720 --> 18:56.160]  Radio Network fundraiser now through March 17th. Head on over to LogosRadioNetwork.com
[18:56.160 --> 19:22.800]  for more information and to donate to keep the Logos Radio Network on the air.
[19:26.760 --> 19:39.600]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Blue Law Radio. Excuse me there. Excuse me there, I
[19:39.600 --> 19:47.920]  think I swallowed a bug. Okay, there's a section on style I would like to go over here. I'm
[19:47.920 --> 19:55.680]  not sure how many of the listeners will find a great amount of value in it. For me, it's
[19:55.680 --> 20:06.240]  been tremendously important, but it's a little bit more sophisticated. And I got some feedback
[20:06.240 --> 20:21.280]  about presenting things that were not at an eighth grade level. Well, excuse me, I'm having
[20:21.280 --> 20:40.720]  a little voice issue. Okay, I think I've got that bug out of my throat. Or maybe not. I
[20:40.720 --> 21:02.640]  wanted to talk about, excuse me just a second. Not sure what this issue is, but I'm having
[21:02.640 --> 21:07.280]  a little bit of a voice issue today. I'll try to struggle through it. Okay, I wanted
[21:07.280 --> 21:18.320]  to talk about some underlying structures that for the most part, if they're used well, the
[21:18.320 --> 21:26.800]  reader won't really notice them. Things like pacing, leading, pattern interruption. Pattern
[21:26.800 --> 21:35.280]  interruption is really the opposite of flow. But if we have time, we'll get to how you
[21:35.280 --> 21:45.120]  use an interruption intentionally to deepen the attention of the reader. I'll start out
[21:45.120 --> 21:53.360]  with pacing and leading. The whole structure we talked about in flow about telling your
[21:53.360 --> 21:58.960]  reader what you're going to tell them and then tell them and then tell them what you
[21:58.960 --> 22:10.400]  told them. By doing that consistently, you pace and lead. You give the reader a direction
[22:10.400 --> 22:17.280]  for him to expect you to go in. You go in that direction and lead your reader along
[22:17.280 --> 22:30.560]  in a way, a direction he expects to go and then you extend on a regular basis from one
[22:30.560 --> 22:38.640]  point to the next. You pace what you've already stated and then you lead to something else
[22:38.640 --> 22:47.280]  on a more sophisticated level of pacing and leading. When you speak to the reader, you
[22:47.280 --> 22:56.320]  want to speak to the reader in terms that the reader will associate with. I was doing
[22:56.320 --> 23:05.040]  some research on some linguistic structures a couple of days ago and I pulled up an article
[23:05.040 --> 23:13.360]  on a certain type of preposition use. It was a white paper by some professor. I read the
[23:13.360 --> 23:23.440]  first three sentences and it was clear no human being on the planet could make any sense
[23:23.440 --> 23:30.560]  of those three sentences. I don't know who he wrote them for, but he certainly did not
[23:30.560 --> 23:38.960]  rewrite them for other human beings to read because almost every word he used was a term
[23:38.960 --> 23:50.080]  of art, was a specific, I want to say industry specific, but was a term specific to the study
[23:50.080 --> 23:55.760]  of that subject matter and it had a special meaning in that subject matter and nowhere
[23:55.760 --> 24:03.680]  else. Someone trying to read this is going to have to have a dictionary with him, a dictionary
[24:03.680 --> 24:12.640]  specific to this area of study and look up the meaning of every word he said to try to
[24:12.640 --> 24:22.720]  figure out what the heck he was talking about. Now this is someone who's doing a PhD in English
[24:22.720 --> 24:31.840]  and he writes in a way that no native speaker of English could understand. When we write
[24:31.840 --> 24:45.880]  to develop flow, we use terms and we use linguistic structures that a human being naturally understands.
[24:45.880 --> 24:55.600]  We talk about things in the person's environment that will make sense to them. Like if I wanted
[24:55.600 --> 25:03.880]  to pay someone about how someone looks, I would use structures that things that everybody
[25:03.880 --> 25:10.840]  paid attention to. I once, someone once asked me to hypnotize them to help them lose weight.
[25:10.840 --> 25:16.720]  Well, I told them that I don't do normal hypnosis. I only do secret hypnosis. So you got to agree
[25:16.720 --> 25:22.000]  to let me hypnotize you without you knowing it. Well, she laughed and thought I was joking
[25:22.000 --> 25:30.120]  and I told her she had to agree to it and she said, sure, go ahead. So I looked at her,
[25:30.120 --> 25:38.240]  I looked at her body confirmation and she was in her fifties or so and I tried to get
[25:38.240 --> 25:45.480]  a good idea of what she looked like when she was in her twenties. And I told her a story
[25:45.480 --> 25:53.680]  about this person and I described what I thought she looked like when she was in her twenties.
[25:53.680 --> 25:58.840]  And each time I would make a statement, I said she was, this woman was a big old woman
[25:58.840 --> 26:05.520]  with big breasts and a big belly. Well, this particular woman happened to be barrel chested.
[26:05.520 --> 26:10.240]  If you're barrel chested, especially for a woman, it's a problem because your diaphragm
[26:10.240 --> 26:14.680]  is rounded and it pulls out your stomach. You never can get a flat stomach, no matter
[26:14.680 --> 26:20.440]  what you do. I have a niece that is barrel chested. It drives her crazy. She can't get
[26:20.440 --> 26:27.640]  a flat stomach. And it was clear that this woman had a pronounced barrel chest. She always
[26:27.640 --> 26:33.440]  had a somewhat of a stomach she couldn't get rid of no matter how skinny she got. And I
[26:33.440 --> 26:38.960]  know women pay attention to that. So I described what was in her environment that she would
[26:38.960 --> 26:46.560]  recognize and associate with. So I paced her. I paced what she looked like 20 years ago
[26:46.560 --> 26:56.400]  and each, in each characteristic I referenced, she gave a soft, a slight nod. When you're
[26:56.400 --> 27:07.800]  writing for a reader to understand, you want the reader to read a portion and nod and agree
[27:07.800 --> 27:15.000]  or fully recognize it. They can fully understand and recognize what you're saying. That's basic.
[27:15.000 --> 27:20.080]  Once you put together a set of structures that a person, an ordinary person would understand,
[27:20.080 --> 27:27.960]  then you can lead from those structures to some they may not necessarily associate with
[27:27.960 --> 27:35.040]  what you were just presenting. I'm listening to myself tell you this and I'm confusing
[27:35.040 --> 27:42.200]  myself. I need to work up a better way to present pacing and leading. So I won't waste
[27:42.200 --> 27:50.160]  any more of your time with that for the moment. I was going to speak to some two other primary
[27:50.160 --> 27:58.040]  structures that anyone who studied poetry will understand. I am not by any means a poet,
[27:58.040 --> 28:05.160]  but in studying writing this one place you have to look and everybody even if you don't
[28:05.160 --> 28:11.960]  like poetry, you should study poetry. There are two primary things in poetry beyond rhyming
[28:11.960 --> 28:25.040]  sentences. It's meter and alliteration. Meter. Meter is an extremely powerful tool to speak
[28:25.040 --> 28:35.360]  to rhythms that go on essentially out of the direct awareness. I once wrote a letter to
[28:35.360 --> 28:42.040]  a sheriff that I really wanted to have effect. There was to the tarot card. I'm a sheriff.
[28:42.040 --> 28:52.040]  I wrote out the whole letter and that's the time I was studying meter. Meter goes to the
[28:52.040 --> 29:01.120]  number of syllable sounds in a sentence or a stanza like iambic pentameter. Iambic pentameter
[29:01.120 --> 29:12.720]  is all about meter. Iambic pentameter goes da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da.
[29:12.720 --> 29:21.640]  So you write a set of lines that the entire sentence has exactly that number of syllable
[29:21.640 --> 29:32.320]  sounds. You can see with these short stanzas, they're noticeable. They ring in the mind
[29:32.320 --> 29:39.960]  and the writing becomes kind of sing song. But if you take a document, like in this case,
[29:39.960 --> 29:46.120]  I took the document and I counted all the syllable sounds in each sentence. Then I looked
[29:46.120 --> 29:54.560]  at it and got a developed a high average and a low average. High average was 15, low average
[29:54.560 --> 29:59.640]  was it's time to go to work. I'll pick this up on the other side. Randy Kelton moves on.
[29:59.640 --> 30:07.680]  Do you have trouble selling your ideas and winning people over to your point of view?
[30:07.680 --> 30:12.520]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and if you'd like to speak more influentially, I've got an easy
[30:12.520 --> 30:17.880]  tip that can make you look and sound more persuasive right after this. Privacy is under
[30:17.880 --> 30:22.920]  attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. And once your
[30:22.920 --> 30:28.240]  privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. So protect your
[30:28.240 --> 30:34.120]  rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy, it's worth
[30:34.120 --> 30:39.440]  hanging on to. This message is brought to you by Startpage.com, the private search engine
[30:39.440 --> 30:47.560]  alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing. Start over with Startpage. Negotiating, it's an
[30:47.560 --> 30:52.720]  art few of us ever master. If you have trouble convincing others to come around to your viewpoint,
[30:52.720 --> 30:57.720]  you may need to change the way you speak. Eric Barker, a blogger on human behavior says
[30:57.720 --> 31:03.280]  one key to influencing others is consistency of tone. Stuttering, long pauses and varying
[31:03.280 --> 31:09.080]  pitch in your voice do not inspire confidence. A consistently narrow tonal range, he says,
[31:09.080 --> 31:14.720]  conveys control and certainty. Whether giving a presentation or negotiating a salary increase
[31:14.720 --> 31:20.360]  with your boss, it can give you an edge. It signals focus and determination, qualities
[31:20.360 --> 31:25.760]  people associate with winners. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for Startpage.com, the world's most
[31:25.760 --> 31:51.840]  private search engine.
[31:55.760 --> 32:19.720]  the right to act in our own private capacity and most importantly, the right to due process
[32:19.720 --> 32:33.240]  of law.
[32:33.240 --> 32:59.200]  The right to act in our own private capacity and most importantly, the right to due process
[32:59.200 --> 33:04.360]  of law.
[33:04.360 --> 33:32.920]  The right to act in our own private capacity and most importantly, the right to due process
[33:32.920 --> 33:36.000]  of law.
[33:36.000 --> 33:43.120]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Rue of La Radio. And I was talking about meter. I took
[33:43.120 --> 33:50.360]  a letter that I had written to a sheriff. I counted all the syllable sounds in each
[33:50.360 --> 33:59.480]  sentence, did a high average and low average. The high average was 15, low average was 11.
[33:59.480 --> 34:08.320]  So then I went back and rewrote the letter so that the first sentence would have 15 syllable
[34:08.320 --> 34:17.680]  sounds in it. Second sentence would have 11 and so forth down the document. Meter, when
[34:17.680 --> 34:24.080]  done well, is so subtle that the conscious part of the mind of the reader will never
[34:24.080 --> 34:30.160]  pick it up. Conscious mind of the readers paying attention to the details and the concepts
[34:30.160 --> 34:35.600]  and they're trying to string all the concepts together. But the inner mind, the inner mind
[34:35.600 --> 34:45.760]  pays attention to rhythm and meter. That's why music is so compelling for human beings.
[34:45.760 --> 34:54.320]  The conscious mind listens to the lyrics. The inner mind, the peripheral awareness pays
[34:54.320 --> 35:01.960]  attention to the meter or the beat. When you're reading a document and you read a sentence
[35:01.960 --> 35:11.600]  and it has a beat in it. And you read the next one and it has a similar beat, maybe
[35:11.600 --> 35:24.000]  a little shorter, a little longer. Next sentence has the same as the first and cycling that
[35:24.000 --> 35:33.080]  way. The inner mind will detect the beat and expect the sentence to end right on the beat.
[35:33.080 --> 35:42.080]  If it does end right on the beat, the reader will have the experience of rapport. Why it
[35:42.080 --> 35:49.000]  works that way, there's probably some folks that's got some real sophisticated explanations.
[35:49.000 --> 35:55.840]  But the point is human beings are very good at detecting rhythm and they detect rhythm
[35:55.840 --> 36:04.280]  not with the conscious aspect of the mind but with another aspect. And when the writing
[36:04.280 --> 36:15.280]  creates an expectation of meter, then the reader experiences that expectation. It causes
[36:15.280 --> 36:22.640]  an experience of rapport or connection with the writer. I don't expect you to do that.
[36:22.640 --> 36:28.120]  Meter is really hard to do. It's time consuming and no one would want to meter their whole
[36:28.120 --> 36:38.760]  document. But if you have an understanding of the concept of meter, that will tend to
[36:38.760 --> 36:46.360]  protect you from writing run-on sentences. It will protect you from writing sentences
[36:46.360 --> 36:56.800]  that are too short and sing songs. Once you kind of get a feel for it, you begin to notice
[36:56.800 --> 37:03.640]  the rhythm of the writing as well as the content. You'll produce a much more readable document.
[37:03.640 --> 37:12.280]  And another tool that's just one of these interesting little aspects of how human beings
[37:12.280 --> 37:23.480]  do what they do goes to alliteration. In poetry, for the most part, we rhyme. And rhyming
[37:23.480 --> 37:32.800]  is where you have similar consonant sounds at the end of a sentence or phrase. Alliteration
[37:32.800 --> 37:41.440]  is where you rhyme a consonant sound at the front of the word or the middle of a word.
[37:41.440 --> 37:47.760]  And instead, I'm sorry, I've stated rhyming wrong. Rhyming is we rhyme consonant sounds
[37:47.760 --> 37:54.600]  at the end of a word. In alliteration, we rhyme consonant sounds at the front or in
[37:54.600 --> 38:03.680]  the middle. Am I confusing everyone? I'm confusing myself. In rhyming, we always rhyme the end
[38:03.680 --> 38:10.040]  of the word, period. This is the first time I've tried to present this on the air. And
[38:10.040 --> 38:18.000]  frankly, I'm struggling with it. I hope to get better at it. Alliteration, you rhyme
[38:18.000 --> 38:24.720]  a syllable sound at the front or in the middle of a word instead of the end. I have some
[38:24.720 --> 38:34.680]  classic phrases that I tend to use in my documents. One of them is a carefully crafted criminal
[38:34.680 --> 38:42.520]  connivance. Now that's very obvious alliteration and it would be hard to miss if anyone knows
[38:42.520 --> 38:51.040]  anything about alliteration, they'll pick that up immediately. But often, we come across
[38:51.040 --> 38:59.340]  less obvious forms of alliteration. You can use the syllable sounds at the front or middle
[38:59.340 --> 39:07.880]  of a sentence. And the reader will stitch those two together and it adds to the rhythm
[39:07.880 --> 39:17.180]  of the reading. The mind is really good at detecting alliteration. And alliteration rings
[39:17.180 --> 39:26.520]  in the mind. If you look at advertising signs, you will find that all over the place where
[39:26.520 --> 39:36.360]  the words rhyme somewhere other than the end of the word. Anyway, just something to look
[39:36.360 --> 39:41.760]  for and once you're aware that it exists, you don't have to really understand alliteration
[39:41.760 --> 39:48.160]  or meter. But once you're aware they exist, then when you read, you'll begin to notice
[39:48.160 --> 39:56.280]  them. And when you write in your own writing, you'll begin to notice where you can use it
[39:56.280 --> 40:04.120]  to increase the experience of the reading. So I'm going to get away from that and I'll
[40:04.120 --> 40:09.760]  try to work up a better way of presenting this before I go to that part of this presentation
[40:09.760 --> 40:17.520]  again. A couple of things I do want to go to. I want to go to some things to avoid.
[40:17.520 --> 40:25.040]  Things to avoid when writing a document that you want people to understand. I had someone
[40:25.040 --> 40:35.440]  call me today and question about my using a rather sophisticated term when I'm talking
[40:35.440 --> 40:41.600]  about writing a document for eighth graders. Well, writing a document for eighth graders
[40:41.600 --> 40:53.200]  is not something simple. It's easy to write a document that's very complex. Humans stink
[40:53.200 --> 41:00.560]  in complex structures. But if we write in complex structures, the reader's not going
[41:00.560 --> 41:05.640]  to have any idea what we're talking about. So we have to take our complex thinking structures
[41:05.640 --> 41:13.840]  and convert them into a presentation that an eighth grader could understand. That way,
[41:13.840 --> 41:20.000]  a very intelligent, very sophisticated person can read our document, read through it one
[41:20.000 --> 41:27.600]  time and understand it. Not get tripped up, not get lost, but flow through the document
[41:27.600 --> 41:41.360]  and some things that really get in the way of flow. First one are acronyms. FDCPA. Now,
[41:41.360 --> 41:48.240]  Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. I know what that means. But if I see that in the
[41:48.240 --> 41:58.760]  middle of a document, I always have to stop and make sure that I'm seeing Fair Debt Collection
[41:58.760 --> 42:06.160]  Practices Act. I got to make sure all of those letters are in the right order to make sure
[42:06.160 --> 42:13.240]  I'm not mixing it up with Fair Credit Reporting Act or some other possible acronym that could
[42:13.240 --> 42:22.840]  be there. Always acronyms cause pattern interruption. They knock you right out of flow. You're moving
[42:22.840 --> 42:28.000]  along an argument and you're collecting up the information and all of a sudden you hit
[42:28.000 --> 42:33.760]  this speed bump. You stumble over this acronym. You got to check and make sure it's what you
[42:33.760 --> 42:41.200]  thought it would, what you expect it to be. If you put in Fair Debt Collections Practices
[42:41.200 --> 42:48.040]  Act, the reader will look at that and they won't read, after the first time they've read
[42:48.040 --> 42:57.000]  it, they won't read Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. They will look at that whole name and
[42:57.000 --> 43:05.080]  recognize it like you recognize a Chevrolet. Bam. In an instant, they recognize the whole
[43:05.080 --> 43:12.560]  thing. Yes, it uses more words than are absolutely necessary. Generally in writing, they tell
[43:12.560 --> 43:21.240]  you if a word's not working, take it out. When you use words in a proper noun or title
[43:21.240 --> 43:29.440]  of this nature, those words are working. They're working to make the reading much more fluid
[43:29.440 --> 43:33.880]  and simple. It looks like you're adding more words, but the mind would jump right over
[43:33.880 --> 43:40.360]  them and never stumble out of flow. So, avoid acronyms. We're about to go to break again.
[43:40.360 --> 43:44.320]  When we come back on the other side, we're going to talk about avoiding pronouns and
[43:44.320 --> 43:53.640]  why pronouns are such a problem and how I'm alliterating pronouns. I'm Randy Kelton,
[43:53.640 --> 44:04.160]  radio at call-in number 512-646-1984. We'll be right back.
[44:04.160 --> 44:30.480]  I'm Randy Kelton, radio at call-in number 512-646-1984. I'm Randy Kelton, radio at
[44:30.480 --> 44:41.280]  call-in number 512-264-4043 or find us online at naturespureorganics.com. That's 512-264-4043,
[44:41.280 --> 44:45.920]  naturespureorganics.com. Don't forget to like us on Facebook for information on events and
[44:45.920 --> 45:04.600]  email products, naturespureorganics.com. Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[45:04.600 --> 45:09.840]  Win your case without an attorney with Juris Dictionary, the affordable, easy to understand
[45:09.840 --> 45:17.560]  4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step. If you have a lawyer, know what
[45:17.560 --> 45:22.720]  your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for
[45:22.720 --> 45:29.080]  yourself. Thousands have won with our step-by-step course and now you can too. Juris Dictionary
[45:29.080 --> 45:35.120]  was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience. Even if
[45:35.120 --> 45:40.200]  you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles
[45:40.200 --> 45:46.080]  and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio classroom, video
[45:46.080 --> 45:53.280]  seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics and much more. Please visit
[45:53.280 --> 46:09.640]  ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[46:09.640 --> 46:35.320]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, rule of law radio and I'm going to present some problems
[46:35.320 --> 46:44.320]  peculiar to pronouns. I just couldn't help myself. Pronouns. Pronouns go to referential
[46:44.320 --> 47:00.560]  index. The human beings are incredibly sophisticated mammals. We're able to do some incredibly
[47:00.560 --> 47:11.200]  sophisticated things mentally. I really need a better way to phrase that but the way human
[47:11.200 --> 47:21.120]  beings are able to become so sophisticated is that we learn very simple and simplistic
[47:21.120 --> 47:37.400]  ideas and concepts and we cluster those together into various contexts. Hunting, cooking, gathering,
[47:37.400 --> 47:42.040]  all the things we learn about hunting we put together into one context so that when we
[47:42.040 --> 47:47.720]  go hunting and we look in our mind for how to hunt, it first goes to the hunting context
[47:47.720 --> 47:53.160]  and then we see tracks that indicate a certain kind of creature so we go to how to hunt this
[47:53.160 --> 48:03.880]  particular creature and we break down the plethora of possibilities into finer and finer
[48:03.880 --> 48:09.960]  distinctions and we do this with referential index. That's one way of stating. We do it
[48:09.960 --> 48:19.600]  with context. We have a way of mining down through these massive amounts of information
[48:19.600 --> 48:28.880]  we have from the general to the more specific. When you're trying to present a concept to
[48:28.880 --> 48:40.440]  someone, you must always give them referential index. You have to be very careful to let
[48:40.440 --> 48:51.320]  them know the context in which you need to address this particular issue. If you're not
[48:51.320 --> 48:58.760]  careful in framing the context, you may get back to this issue we spoke to earlier of
[48:58.760 --> 49:06.840]  complex equivalence where you say something and you mean one thing by it but the reader
[49:06.840 --> 49:12.560]  has a different model of the world. We each have our own internal model of the world we
[49:12.560 --> 49:22.080]  live in and they all look alike but none of them are the same. So you use a string of
[49:22.080 --> 49:28.680]  verbiage and it means something to you. It could mean something totally different to
[49:28.680 --> 49:36.840]  the other person or you could use a word or a statement and you know exactly what you
[49:36.840 --> 49:44.600]  mean by it but your reader doesn't have a clue. You always want to avoid creating a
[49:44.600 --> 49:54.440]  question in the mind of your reader unless you create that question on purpose and immediately
[49:54.440 --> 50:00.600]  answer the question. If you create a question in the mind of your reader and you don't immediately
[50:00.600 --> 50:06.820]  answer it or you haven't set up an expectation that it will be answered, you've lost your
[50:06.820 --> 50:15.560]  reader. I mean who here hasn't been in a seminar and had the speaker say something and you
[50:15.560 --> 50:23.360]  think what? What did he mean by that? And the speaker just goes on at two to three hundred
[50:23.360 --> 50:28.120]  words a minute just to move and write down his presentation and he doesn't know he lost
[50:28.120 --> 50:36.320]  you and by the time you find connection, by the time you locate referential index so that
[50:36.320 --> 50:41.480]  you can make sense of what he said, he's already gone away from you. Now you've got to struggle
[50:41.480 --> 50:48.200]  to try to catch up. If you're writing a document that you want someone to understand, if you're
[50:48.200 --> 50:55.160]  writing a document for an eighth grade reader, make sure you always give that reader referential
[50:55.160 --> 51:06.160]  index and probably next to acronyms, the biggest defender as to referential index are programs
[51:06.160 --> 51:18.840]  he, she, her, they, it. You know what you mean by it and it may or may not be the same
[51:18.840 --> 51:29.040]  thing your reader attaches to it. You know what the referential index is. Lawyers, it
[51:29.040 --> 51:37.320]  is their job. Opposing counsel, it is their job to misconstrue your document any way they
[51:37.320 --> 51:48.880]  can. So when you're writing, especially a legal document, avoid pronouns like the plague.
[51:48.880 --> 51:57.860]  Use proper names. The only time I'll use a pronoun is if I've already used the proper
[51:57.860 --> 52:06.480]  name in the sentence or maybe in the sentence just above and the reference is so absolutely
[52:06.480 --> 52:13.820]  crystal clear, no reasonable person could construe a reference other than the one I
[52:13.820 --> 52:24.040]  intended. This is one of the biggest and one of the most subtle offenders to the concept
[52:24.040 --> 52:34.000]  of flow. You use this, you know, my wife is always doing this to me and it frustrates
[52:34.000 --> 52:41.240]  her and it frustrates me. Did you see that? Huh? What? Which? I have no idea what she's
[52:41.240 --> 52:46.160]  talking about, but she knows exactly what she's referring to. And then when I ask her
[52:46.160 --> 52:51.760]  for referential index, I have struggled with doing it in a way that doesn't annoy her,
[52:51.760 --> 52:59.360]  but you know how his wives are. They're always a noisier. So avoid pronouns.
[52:59.360 --> 53:09.680]  Another thing that will protect you from run on sentences is to avoid the overuse of conjunctions.
[53:09.680 --> 53:21.560]  Often when we're deep in a subject matter and we're trying to explain a complex idea,
[53:21.560 --> 53:31.560]  we don't want to lose our reader. So we're concerned that if we put in a period, a period
[53:31.560 --> 53:39.960]  is a place where the reader mentally stops. It finishes a statement, but we're tying all
[53:39.960 --> 53:45.400]  these pieces together. So we don't want to stop. We want to make sure that they tie all
[53:45.400 --> 53:52.440]  these pieces together. So we put in an and instead of a period. And then we wind up with
[53:52.440 --> 53:57.680]  a sentence that's a whole paragraph long. You want to see how hard that is to read,
[53:57.680 --> 54:04.360]  go to Texas code of criminal procedure, 15.17 and try to read that page long paragraph
[54:04.360 --> 54:11.160]  and make sense of it. No human being on planet earth can read that paragraph and make sense
[54:11.160 --> 54:20.080]  of it. In order to understand what was in that paragraph, I had to outline it first
[54:20.080 --> 54:26.960]  up, put a carriage return at every period in the whole thing and made it separate sentences.
[54:26.960 --> 54:36.320]  And then I outlined those sentences by subject matter reference and it took about an hour,
[54:36.320 --> 54:39.520]  but then you could read it and understand it because it's broken up where human beings
[54:39.520 --> 54:46.080]  could put it together. Avoid conjunctions. I'm not saying don't use conjunctions, but
[54:46.080 --> 54:52.360]  try not to use more than one conjunction in a sentence. If you have more than one consumption,
[54:52.360 --> 55:00.680]  you want to separate sections with commas and be sparing with those short sentences
[55:00.680 --> 55:08.240]  are wonderful. And when you have a series of short sentences following one another,
[55:08.240 --> 55:14.280]  you don't lose your reader. You, what you do is you allow the reader to kind of take
[55:14.280 --> 55:21.080]  a mental breath. You give him a piece of information, you put a period there and now he can take
[55:21.080 --> 55:27.760]  that piece of information and he's got a period. It gives him a second to attach referential
[55:27.760 --> 55:33.980]  index to it. And then he reads the next sentence and he gets a second to attach this sentence
[55:33.980 --> 55:40.960]  to the one in front of it. If you connect these with conjunctions, it tends to move
[55:40.960 --> 55:47.120]  the argument or the explanation too quickly and people don't have time to stitch these
[55:47.120 --> 55:55.760]  together as effectively as they would if you put periods in place. Okay, enough said about
[55:55.760 --> 56:07.480]  that. Conjunction, mixing elements, mixing elements for unsophisticated writers, pro
[56:07.480 --> 56:14.760]  says writing legal documents. You may be a professional writer, but if you're not a
[56:14.760 --> 56:21.400]  legal professional, then when you start writing legal documents, you're not a sophisticated
[56:21.400 --> 56:28.640]  writer because legal documents are a different kind of writing. And one of the way is one
[56:28.640 --> 56:37.880]  of the primary things that we mess up in legal writing. I apologize for that term. I couldn't
[56:37.880 --> 56:43.240]  find one that sounded better at the moment, but one of the primary problems we have are
[56:43.240 --> 56:54.520]  mixing up elements. When we start arguing an issue, we start explaining an issue, we'll
[56:54.520 --> 57:05.520]  get halfway through the explanation and then an important associated point comes to mind.
[57:05.520 --> 57:12.040]  And we want to make sure that the reader, the listener or the reader, the listener understands
[57:12.040 --> 57:17.880]  this point. So we add that point in there. And then we add that point and that leads
[57:17.880 --> 57:21.600]  to another one. We add another point in it before we know what we don't know where we're
[57:21.600 --> 57:26.800]  at. We wind up moving from one element to another and not realizing we're doing it.
[57:26.800 --> 57:36.480]  We argue two or three things at one time. The exercise mental discipline and only argue
[57:36.480 --> 57:43.320]  one element of time. And this is primarily the reason that I suggest that you put a heading
[57:43.320 --> 57:52.000]  on every paragraph. Headings on every paragraph will help you to discipline yourself when
[57:52.000 --> 58:00.720]  you're writing so that you stay on a single point. At the end of the paragraph, you can
[58:00.720 --> 58:05.840]  address those issues you would have put in for clarity. But if you try to do it all at
[58:05.840 --> 58:11.560]  once, you mix the elements together and it makes absolutely no sense to your reader.
[58:11.560 --> 58:18.160]  Okay, we're going to, we have the phone lines on. I apologize. I didn't realize why I wasn't
[58:18.160 --> 58:21.760]  getting any call or anything. It's because I didn't have the phone lines turned on. We
[58:21.760 --> 58:27.840]  have them turned on. We'll try to keep them on for the rest of the night. This is Randy
[58:27.840 --> 58:33.920]  Kelton rule of our radio and we still have our fundraiser going on and it's not going
[58:33.920 --> 58:40.880]  as well as we would had really hoped. We are kind of struggling here to keep this network
[58:40.880 --> 58:46.320]  on the air. So during this long break, you might check out Logos radio network and help
[58:46.320 --> 58:52.560]  us support this station. We'll be right back. Would you like to make more definite progress
[58:52.560 --> 58:58.520]  in your walk with God? Bibles for America is offering a free study Bible and a set of
[58:58.520 --> 59:02.920]  free Christian books that can really help. The New Testament recovery version is one
[59:02.920 --> 59:07.920]  of the most comprehensive study Bibles available today. It's an accurate translation and it
[59:07.920 --> 59:12.320]  contains thousands of footnotes that will help you to know God and to know the meaning
[59:12.320 --> 59:17.600]  of life. The free books are a three volume set called basic elements of the Christian
[59:17.600 --> 59:22.700]  life chapter by chapter, basic elements of the Christian life clearly presents God's
[59:22.700 --> 59:28.780]  plan of salvation growing in Christ and how to build up the church to order your free
[59:28.780 --> 59:35.400]  New Testament recovery version and basic elements of the Christian life. Call Bibles for America
[59:35.400 --> 01:00:00.760]  toll free at 888-551-0102. That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:00:00.760 --> 01:00:05.940]  The following these flashes brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing the deli
[01:00:05.940 --> 01:00:13.580]  bulletins for the commodities market. Today in history, news updates and the inside scoop
[01:00:13.580 --> 01:00:24.140]  into the tides of the alternatives. Markets for Wednesday the 24th of February 2016 are
[01:00:24.140 --> 01:00:31.500]  currently treading with gold at $1238.20 an ounce, silver $15.28 an ounce, Texas crude
[01:00:31.500 --> 01:00:43.620]  $31.87 a barrel and Bitcoin is currently sitting at about $423 U.S. currency.
[01:00:43.620 --> 01:00:47.700]  Today in history, the year 303, the great persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire
[01:00:47.700 --> 01:00:52.300]  signed into Edict by Emperor Diocletian in effect stripping the legal rights of Christians
[01:00:52.300 --> 01:01:00.660]  and demanding that they comply with the traditional Roman religious practices of the day.
[01:01:00.660 --> 01:01:04.900]  In recent news, the state stop criminal court dismissed criminal charges against Rick Perry
[01:01:04.900 --> 01:01:09.820]  for his 2003 threat to veto state funds to the Travis County prosecutors. The charge
[01:01:09.820 --> 01:01:14.500]  itself that was ruled 62 violated the Texas constitution separation of power provision
[01:01:14.500 --> 01:01:19.060]  by limiting the governor's veto authority. Presiding judge Sharon Keller stated that
[01:01:19.060 --> 01:01:23.660]  the governor's power to exercise a veto may not be circumscribed by the legislator, the
[01:01:23.660 --> 01:01:27.620]  courts or the district attorneys. When the only act that is being prosecuted is the veto,
[01:01:27.620 --> 01:01:32.940]  then the prosecution itself violates the separation of powers. The court has also dropped a secondary
[01:01:32.940 --> 01:01:42.060]  felony charge of coercion of a public official as a violation of free speech right.
[01:01:42.060 --> 01:01:45.800]  The International Monetary Fund stated today that the global economy is highly vulnerable
[01:01:45.800 --> 01:01:49.740]  to adverse shocks and is calling on the United States and other major governments to prepare
[01:01:49.740 --> 01:01:54.340]  contingency plans that could be used to stimulate and boost growth. IMF is strongly suggesting
[01:01:54.340 --> 01:01:58.680]  that the world's 20 largest economies should keep pursuing strategies for growth. Though
[01:01:58.680 --> 01:02:02.020]  they did suggest that they should develop additional measures that could be implemented
[01:02:02.020 --> 01:02:06.600]  immediately if economic growth continues to slump. With the IMF suggesting governmental
[01:02:06.600 --> 01:02:10.980]  spending as a means of stimulus, it's hard to take the treasury secretary Jacob Lewis's
[01:02:10.980 --> 01:02:15.220]  statement serious when he stated that it's not the job of the finance ministers and central
[01:02:15.220 --> 01:02:25.740]  banks and governors to accelerate a crisis, it's their job to avoid one. Yeah, sure.
[01:02:25.740 --> 01:02:29.420]  MasterCard has announced plans to introduce SelfiePay to more than a dozen countries,
[01:02:29.420 --> 01:02:33.700]  a program that is part of MasterCard's plan to implement biometrics as a form of security
[01:02:33.700 --> 01:02:38.220]  authentication. The idea is simple, users will take selfies through their app and the
[01:02:38.220 --> 01:02:43.220]  images will be stored into a company server every time anyone will want to make an online
[01:02:43.220 --> 01:02:47.140]  purchase with or credit or debit card. They will be prompted to look into the phone's
[01:02:47.140 --> 01:02:51.140]  camera so that the image can be digitally matched and compared against the selfie on
[01:02:51.140 --> 01:02:57.260]  file, effectively changing the selfie for the traditional password. This is your lowdown
[01:02:57.260 --> 01:03:13.740]  for February 24th, 2016.
[01:03:13.740 --> 01:03:42.740]  Okay, we are back, Randy Kelsey on the Radio. And when I'm going through these different
[01:03:42.740 --> 01:03:48.820]  aspects of writing, I'm not doing this so that everybody will fully understand everything
[01:03:48.820 --> 01:03:58.020]  I'm talking about. I'm going through these primarily just so that you can have some familiarity
[01:03:58.020 --> 01:04:04.380]  with the concepts and with the structures of these issues so that when you come across
[01:04:04.380 --> 01:04:12.140]  something that doesn't look right, there's a good chance that you will begin to recognize
[01:04:12.140 --> 01:04:18.980]  that this fits into one of these categories. And once you can put a label on what you see,
[01:04:18.980 --> 01:04:26.020]  it makes it a lot easier to quickly understand. I'm trying to give you a tool for referential
[01:04:26.020 --> 01:04:34.420]  index to linguistic structures. I hope that makes sense. And please excuse me, this is
[01:04:34.420 --> 01:04:41.540]  my first time trying to present these. These are structures that I've worked with for a
[01:04:41.540 --> 01:04:46.780]  long time, but I've never tried to present them before. And I'm hoping to be able to
[01:04:46.780 --> 01:04:56.500]  get them out so we can get some pro se writers out there that begin to produce better documents
[01:04:56.500 --> 01:04:59.940]  that are more effectively structured.
[01:04:59.940 --> 01:05:12.660]  Okay, enough with mixing elements. Emphasis, common problem with pro se writers. Very big
[01:05:12.660 --> 01:05:20.940]  problem in the legal reform movement is you see all of these documents these guys are
[01:05:20.940 --> 01:05:32.780]  producing and they've got capitalized words or phrases. It's the biggest, well the worst
[01:05:32.780 --> 01:05:43.300]  abuse is bold print. We set sentences or portions of sentences out in bold print because we
[01:05:43.300 --> 01:05:50.980]  want to make sure that the reader picks up on those. Well, it's a misconception of how
[01:05:50.980 --> 01:06:01.780]  that works. If I'm looking for a phrase that I put in a document and I don't have it highlighted
[01:06:01.780 --> 01:06:08.060]  in some way, either bold print or italics or underlined or something, then I have to
[01:06:08.060 --> 01:06:14.020]  dig through the document to find it. I tend to get this idea that since I'm having trouble
[01:06:14.020 --> 01:06:20.260]  finding what I know is in there, other readers won't see it at all even when they get to
[01:06:20.260 --> 01:06:25.420]  it in the course of reading. That's not the case. What happens when I'm reading someone
[01:06:25.420 --> 01:06:34.500]  else's document and I come across a section that's highlighted that always trips me and
[01:06:34.500 --> 01:06:40.740]  I'm moving through the flow of the argument and all of a sudden something stands out here
[01:06:40.740 --> 01:06:53.220]  and I have to stop and figure out why I did that. Always bumps me out of flow. If your
[01:06:53.220 --> 01:07:03.180]  idea or your argument is not standing out in the mind of your reader, better to reconstruct
[01:07:03.180 --> 01:07:12.260]  the argument rather than do something to artificially highlight it. If you have a sophisticated
[01:07:12.260 --> 01:07:19.220]  reader, he's going to be insulted by it, especially if it's a judge and you've highlighted something
[01:07:19.220 --> 01:07:24.780]  for the judge, he is not going to be happy. Do you really think I am so stupid that I
[01:07:24.780 --> 01:07:30.860]  would miss that point? You have to highlight it or put it in all caps to make sure this
[01:07:30.860 --> 01:07:41.060]  moron here reading it gets it. Avoid emphasis, artificial emphasis at all costs. Now linguistic
[01:07:41.060 --> 01:07:48.740]  emphasis, that's a different thing. Write your prose so that it provides the emphasis
[01:07:48.740 --> 01:07:56.500]  you need and avoid these artificial external pointers for your reader. Enough said on that
[01:07:56.500 --> 01:08:06.300]  one. Now we're getting to some structures that I'm not sure where to put them. I'm
[01:08:06.300 --> 01:08:13.300]  not sure if I should put these in a section of things you should avoid or things you should
[01:08:13.300 --> 01:08:21.060]  use in order to be artfully vague. I'll start out with complex equivalence and we've talked
[01:08:21.060 --> 01:08:29.700]  about complex equivalences before and a complex equivalent is simply where I use a term and
[01:08:29.700 --> 01:08:37.800]  I have a meaning for it and the meaning you have for that term may or may not be the same.
[01:08:37.800 --> 01:08:45.820]  This can be especially problematic in legal writing because in court they don't speak
[01:08:45.820 --> 01:08:54.580]  English. I know it sounds like they speak English. They use words that a natural speaker
[01:08:54.580 --> 01:09:01.980]  of the language recognized, they've heard before, is very familiar to them and that
[01:09:01.980 --> 01:09:10.340]  has a tendency to lull the listener into the misconception that the terms they're hearing
[01:09:10.340 --> 01:09:19.780]  in court are the same terms they hear out on the street. Not so. For the most part,
[01:09:19.780 --> 01:09:29.740]  a large portion of the terms used in court are terms of art. In that, in the context
[01:09:29.740 --> 01:09:38.220]  in which they are used, they have a special meaning. One of the most obvious in common
[01:09:38.220 --> 01:09:48.100]  that everybody will recognize is person. Out here in the civil world, I'm a person. You're
[01:09:48.100 --> 01:09:55.140]  a person. We don't think of the car as a person or that company across the street is a person.
[01:09:55.140 --> 01:10:03.300]  I'm a person. We essentially we use the term person as a living, breathing human being.
[01:10:03.300 --> 01:10:10.700]  That's not what it means in law. In law, it can mean a living, breathing human being,
[01:10:10.700 --> 01:10:21.060]  but it also can mean a legal fiction. A legal fiction that say company, corporation, trust,
[01:10:21.060 --> 01:10:32.780]  LLC. These are legal fictions. These are artificial entities created under law. But a corporation
[01:10:32.780 --> 01:10:42.700]  in its own right has certain rights. It essentially has the rights that a person would have. And
[01:10:42.700 --> 01:10:50.260]  in court, when they say person, doesn't necessarily restrict itself to a living, breathing human
[01:10:50.260 --> 01:10:59.100]  being. But if you're pro se and you're not aware of that, you can think you understand
[01:10:59.100 --> 01:11:07.500]  what is being talked about when you don't have a clue. You know, Deborah warns us regularly
[01:11:07.500 --> 01:11:18.820]  about how we have to be extremely careful so as not to enter into a contractual agreement
[01:11:18.820 --> 01:11:31.260]  with a governing agency. And that's because laws different than ordinary civil intercourse.
[01:11:31.260 --> 01:11:37.140]  If you and I out here in the real world are going to enter into an agreement with one
[01:11:37.140 --> 01:11:45.180]  another, we tend to specify the agreement. We tend not to enter into a binding agreement
[01:11:45.180 --> 01:11:57.020]  with one another by acquiescence or by taking an action that would be taken in furtherance
[01:11:57.020 --> 01:12:03.260]  of the agreement. Sometimes we take actions just because we're polite and we're trying
[01:12:03.260 --> 01:12:16.260]  to get along. But in law, if the FCC sends you a letter telling you that you're in violation
[01:12:16.260 --> 01:12:28.120]  of their statutory governing rules and you respond within the scope of those rules you
[01:12:28.120 --> 01:12:37.420]  have acquiesced to the governance of those rules, you may not know that. So they have
[01:12:37.420 --> 01:12:49.460]  in sending you this letter, they have failed to fully explain what the letter meant. So
[01:12:49.460 --> 01:12:55.140]  you had one idea, you thought it was just a letter, them trying to let you know that
[01:12:55.140 --> 01:13:07.180]  you were, they felt you were in variance with their statutory structures. What it really
[01:13:07.180 --> 01:13:15.660]  was was an opportunity for you to agree to participate in their statutory structures.
[01:13:15.660 --> 01:13:24.100]  This goes to complex equivalence. You don't need you to understand complex equivalence.
[01:13:24.100 --> 01:13:32.700]  Not completely, just to be aware that when you're reading a document, look closely at
[01:13:32.700 --> 01:13:41.100]  the terms, especially a legal document, and make sure that the term means what you think
[01:13:41.100 --> 01:13:47.980]  it does. And often you can tell that from the context you find it. You see a term and
[01:13:47.980 --> 01:13:56.940]  it tells you, wait a minute, wait a minute, this may not be what I'm thinking it is. And
[01:13:56.940 --> 01:14:06.700]  it's perfectly all right in the legal context to request that another party define the term
[01:14:06.700 --> 01:14:15.780]  they're using. If you're in a traffic court and a police officer states that he observed
[01:14:15.780 --> 01:14:28.940]  the defendant driving a motor vehicle, objection, please define driving. I have a meaning for
[01:14:28.940 --> 01:14:35.780]  driving. I'm sure this police officer has a meaning for driving and there's a very good
[01:14:35.780 --> 01:14:41.620]  chance they are not the same. And if you listen to Eddie's show, you know exactly what I'm
[01:14:41.620 --> 01:14:53.060]  going to. We're speaking to the difference between driving an automobile and operating
[01:14:53.060 --> 01:15:03.280]  a conveyance or traveling in a conveyance. Driving an automobile are specific terms that
[01:15:03.280 --> 01:15:10.100]  have a specific legal meaning that if you agree that you were driving an automobile,
[01:15:10.100 --> 01:15:17.980]  you agree that you fall under the commercial nexus. So try to be very careful in accepting
[01:15:17.980 --> 01:15:25.220]  the meanings of terms. If you are not absolutely sure what something means, ask. If you're
[01:15:25.220 --> 01:15:31.500]  reading a legal document that you received from another party, you can write a separate
[01:15:31.500 --> 01:15:38.820]  motion requesting clarification. Every term you're not certain of, ask the other side
[01:15:38.820 --> 01:15:46.820]  to clarify. Tell me what meaning you have for that word in this context. And you will
[01:15:46.820 --> 01:15:53.260]  be surprised at how different the meanings you get back are from the meanings you felt
[01:15:53.260 --> 01:15:57.300]  were attached to it. Okay, enough on complex equivalence. You don't have to understand
[01:15:57.300 --> 01:16:04.540]  it. Just when you see it, once you understand and there is this kind of structure, you'll
[01:16:04.540 --> 01:16:10.420]  begin to notice it. I'm just trying to heighten your sensitivity to these kinds of things.
[01:16:10.420 --> 01:16:13.660]  And we're going to another break. When we come back on the other side, I'm going to
[01:16:13.660 --> 01:16:21.780]  go to lack of specification. These are one of the tools that I'm not sure where to put
[01:16:21.780 --> 01:16:30.140]  it. Do I put it on the side of things to avoid because it tends to leave out information?
[01:16:30.140 --> 01:16:36.860]  Or do I put it in the section on artful vagueness, which we'll talk to later, which is a method
[01:16:36.860 --> 01:16:45.220]  for creating internal rapport. Hang on. I'll try to make all of this make sense when we
[01:16:45.220 --> 01:16:50.300]  come back on the other side. This is Randy Kelton, we have our radio, our call in number
[01:16:50.300 --> 01:17:00.540]  512-646-1984. Give us a call. We'll be taking your calls all night. We'll be right back.
[01:17:00.540 --> 01:17:04.940]  Did you know that the Logos Radio Network is a truly listener-supported radio network?
[01:17:04.940 --> 01:17:09.340]  On top of the on-air talents, producers and other hardworking individuals working behind
[01:17:09.340 --> 01:17:13.620]  the scenes, Logos Radio Network is kept on the air by the generous support of listeners
[01:17:13.620 --> 01:17:18.140]  like you. And we appreciate our loyal listeners making contributions every year in our annual
[01:17:18.140 --> 01:17:23.140]  fundraisers, which help keep the lights on and Logos Radio Network on the air. The 2016
[01:17:23.140 --> 01:17:28.220]  fundraiser has been extended to March 17th. Head on over to LogosRadioNetwork.com to
[01:17:28.220 --> 01:17:32.940]  make your contribution. Every $25 donation enters you for a chance to win prizes from
[01:17:32.940 --> 01:17:37.940]  Central Texas Gunworks. First prize being a Spiked Skull Lower Receiver, second prize
[01:17:37.940 --> 01:17:42.660]  being a Taurus Curve. And if you donate your $25 contribution early enough, you will also
[01:17:42.660 --> 01:17:47.900]  receive a complimentary jar of My Magic Mud. Donations by all major credit cards are accepted
[01:17:47.900 --> 01:17:53.100]  as well as contributions by Bitcoin. The Logos Radio Network fundraiser now through March
[01:17:53.100 --> 01:17:57.780]  17th. Head on over to LogosRadioNetwork.com for more information and to donate to keep
[01:17:57.780 --> 01:18:02.740]  the Logos Radio Network on the air. Are you being harassed by debt collectors with
[01:18:02.740 --> 01:18:08.180]  phone calls, letters or even lawsuits? Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears
[01:18:08.180 --> 01:18:13.140]  Proven Method. Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and
[01:18:13.140 --> 01:18:18.220]  now you can win two. You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win
[01:18:18.220 --> 01:18:23.700]  in court using federal civil rights statutes, what to do when contacted by phone, mail or
[01:18:23.700 --> 01:18:28.260]  court summons, how to answer letters and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your
[01:18:28.260 --> 01:18:34.060]  credit report, how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[01:18:34.060 --> 01:18:39.180]  The Michael Mears Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. Personal
[01:18:39.180 --> 01:18:44.620]  consultation is available as well. For more information, please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com
[01:18:44.620 --> 01:18:49.900]  and click on the blue Michael Mears banner or email MichaelMears at yahoo.com. That's
[01:18:49.900 --> 01:18:59.380]  RuleOfLawRadio.com or email M-I-C-H-A-E-L-M-I-R-R-A-S at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors
[01:18:59.380 --> 01:19:10.380]  now.
[01:19:29.380 --> 01:19:46.380]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Rule Of Law Radio and we're getting to the portion that
[01:19:46.380 --> 01:19:56.620]  frankly I find very interesting, very powerful, but it is a bit more complex. So don't try
[01:19:56.620 --> 01:20:04.420]  to, there's no need to try to really understand all of this, but I want to be able to give
[01:20:04.420 --> 01:20:13.940]  you some familiarity that these kinds of things exist so that you're reading something and
[01:20:13.940 --> 01:20:18.860]  this still small voice in the back of your mind says, oh, wait a minute, hold on, something's
[01:20:18.860 --> 01:20:24.580]  wrong with this. Something's going on here and you're not sure what it is. This gives
[01:20:24.580 --> 01:20:32.540]  you some tools to help you sort of pigeonhole what's going on. For the most part, that's
[01:20:32.540 --> 01:20:39.060]  what this entire presentation is about, is just to give you some referential index for
[01:20:39.060 --> 01:20:44.500]  some sophisticated patterns that the bad guys use against you all the time and for the most
[01:20:44.500 --> 01:20:54.460]  part you have no clue and we're going to start with unspecified comparisons. Okay, unspecified
[01:20:54.460 --> 01:21:05.180]  comparisons. People will use words to imply something and rely, they'll state something
[01:21:05.180 --> 01:21:15.220]  that contains an unstated presupposition and rely on the mind of the reader or the listener
[01:21:15.220 --> 01:21:26.820]  to fill in the empty spaces, to find the presupposition or to fill in the missing information. We
[01:21:26.820 --> 01:21:33.620]  have a need to find referential index to connect pieces together. So when someone leaves a
[01:21:33.620 --> 01:21:43.580]  portion out, when they use a term that does a comparison, you know, I make this soap and
[01:21:43.580 --> 01:21:54.100]  this soap is, it's just better. Well, better than what? Well, if I keep talking, if I keep
[01:21:54.100 --> 01:22:06.500]  moving along, then you have to reference something to better and you'll go in your own mind and
[01:22:06.500 --> 01:22:17.380]  what I mean by better and you'll attach what you believe I mean by better to my term without
[01:22:17.380 --> 01:22:25.300]  realizing that I didn't tell you that and this can be on the one hand very misleading
[01:22:25.300 --> 01:22:35.980]  but on the other hand, it can be extremely hypnotic. It can suck you in without you realizing
[01:22:35.980 --> 01:22:45.740]  it. So when people start using general terms, terms that go like this, when every day in
[01:22:45.740 --> 01:22:57.580]  every way you are getting better and better, better and better than what? There's a lot
[01:22:57.580 --> 01:23:05.300]  of them. I need to deliver this more time so I get better at these examples. But enough
[01:23:05.300 --> 01:23:10.980]  on unspecified comparisons. If someone is not very specific on what they're comparing,
[01:23:10.980 --> 01:23:17.820]  on what terms you mean when they're referencing something else or comparing what they're
[01:23:17.820 --> 01:23:25.540]  doing to someone else, you need to ask for it. Unspecified objects. These are words that
[01:23:25.540 --> 01:23:34.380]  sound good but are actually quite vague. Words such as learnings, outcomes, resources, findings,
[01:23:34.380 --> 01:23:41.500]  information, they can be used to ground almost anything. By using inclusive words, the reader
[01:23:41.500 --> 01:23:49.700]  finds closure from their own internal resources. So I leave something out in order to make
[01:23:49.700 --> 01:23:58.500]  sense out of what I'm saying, you have to fill in the empty spaces. Now we can use that
[01:23:58.500 --> 01:24:05.900]  and I'll speak to that when we get to artful vagueness. But if you're reading a legal document
[01:24:05.900 --> 01:24:13.940]  trying to make sense of it, the oft times the lawyer will pretty well understand how
[01:24:13.940 --> 01:24:21.060]  the ordinary person, and for the lawyer for the most part they're speaking to a jury,
[01:24:21.060 --> 01:24:29.020]  how they will fill in these empty spaces. Whether they're true or not, it's relatively
[01:24:29.020 --> 01:24:36.340]  easy if you do this artfully to get someone to come to a conclusion that may or may not
[01:24:36.340 --> 01:24:43.100]  be true. But you can't be pinned down on it because you didn't specifically state that
[01:24:43.100 --> 01:24:50.020]  conclusion, you simply subtly led the other person to the conclusion by using unspecified
[01:24:50.020 --> 01:24:59.620]  objects or unspecified verbs. I won't spend much more time, we won't go to implied cause
[01:24:59.620 --> 01:25:05.540]  and effect, everybody's dealt with that at one time or another. And I'll present this
[01:25:05.540 --> 01:25:12.260]  again in another month or two and try to present it a little more artfully than I am this time.
[01:25:12.260 --> 01:25:16.900]  And loss performant, performatives, we won't get to loss performatives this time, we'll
[01:25:16.900 --> 01:25:26.780]  do that next time. I'll spend a little more time, all I'll do for this presentation I'll
[01:25:26.780 --> 01:25:33.500]  talk about artful vagueness because it has some really interesting structures and then
[01:25:33.500 --> 01:25:42.380]  we'll go to callers. And our call lines are open 512-646-1984. Okay, artful vagueness,
[01:25:42.380 --> 01:25:55.940]  one of my favorite tools to use to be artfully vague is what I call a conversational ellipsis.
[01:25:55.940 --> 01:26:06.820]  Conversational ellipsis is where you use a phrase that's very common and you just use
[01:26:06.820 --> 01:26:14.820]  part of the phrase and leave the back, leave a portion of it out. When we're speaking,
[01:26:14.820 --> 01:26:21.020]  we speak at two to three hundred words a minute, but when we're reading and when we're speaking
[01:26:21.020 --> 01:26:29.660]  because we're speaking this quickly, we have to give people directing terms. We have to
[01:26:29.660 --> 01:26:39.020]  give them words like that, that is a real common word that we need to use so that people
[01:26:39.020 --> 01:26:45.500]  will understand where we're going. For the most part, if you take that word out, the
[01:26:45.500 --> 01:26:52.740]  mind will put it right back, won't even notice it wasn't there. And when I'm writing a document
[01:26:52.740 --> 01:27:02.380]  that I want to create rapport in the mind of my reader, I will look for phrases or portions
[01:27:02.380 --> 01:27:11.980]  of phrases that are so common in the speech patterns that if you take it out, the reader
[01:27:11.980 --> 01:27:16.900]  won't even notice. The mind will just put it right back. Someone once sent me an email
[01:27:16.900 --> 01:27:26.220]  and asked me to count the number of times if occurred in the email. I never did get
[01:27:26.220 --> 01:27:33.420]  it right. Even after they explained it, I went back and reread it and still didn't get
[01:27:33.420 --> 01:27:42.380]  all of them. It's one of those if winds up in phrases in a way that is so generic and
[01:27:42.380 --> 01:27:48.940]  common to the linguistic patterns that when they leave it out, we don't even notice it's
[01:27:48.940 --> 01:27:53.620]  not there. We just put it right back. That's conversational ellipsis, very powerful for
[01:27:53.620 --> 01:28:08.900]  creating rapport and extended quotations. I can pretty well plant most anything in your
[01:28:08.900 --> 01:28:17.820]  mind without objection. If I attribute it to someone else, I told a sheriff's deputy
[01:28:17.820 --> 01:28:24.560]  that I happened to know in Wise County. I met him and he said, how's it going, Mr.
[01:28:24.560 --> 01:28:31.460]  Kelly? I said, it's going good. But you know, John, somebody told me the other day that
[01:28:31.460 --> 01:28:37.740]  you had gotten fat, old and ugly. Who told you that? I don't remember who told me that,
[01:28:37.740 --> 01:28:44.420]  but they told me you got fat and old and ugly. But John, you didn't get fat. And he stood
[01:28:44.420 --> 01:28:48.060]  there looking at me. He really wanted to get mad at me, but he didn't know how he could
[01:28:48.060 --> 01:28:55.340]  because I didn't say that. Somebody else said that. If you want to tell someone and something
[01:28:55.340 --> 01:29:07.180]  that you don't want them to consciously analyze, attribute to quotations by somebody else.
[01:29:07.180 --> 01:29:12.340]  And for the most part, we use an unspecified quotation. So we don't tell them who said
[01:29:12.340 --> 01:29:20.780]  it. We just tell them it has been said that, or I knew this guy once and this is what he
[01:29:20.780 --> 01:29:30.620]  believed. You can get people to accept things they otherwise wouldn't just by quoting someone
[01:29:30.620 --> 01:29:39.500]  else. Okay. I am out of time and I'm kind of struggling with this presentation. I hope
[01:29:39.500 --> 01:29:48.620]  the next time I do this, I will be more comfortable and have better examples of what I'm doing.
[01:29:48.620 --> 01:29:53.380]  Maybe I won't confuse everybody and put the rest of them to sleep. Chris, we'll pick you
[01:29:53.380 --> 01:30:02.060]  up when we come back on the other side. We'll be right back.
[01:30:02.060 --> 01:30:06.900]  Is Internet addiction for real? New research suggests it is. In fact, scientists may have
[01:30:06.900 --> 01:30:12.140]  isolated a gene responsible for compulsive web use. Look at Dr. Katharine Albrecht back
[01:30:12.140 --> 01:30:16.780]  with details on why the Internet can be addictive after this.
[01:30:16.780 --> 01:30:21.280]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back
[01:30:21.280 --> 01:30:27.100]  again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:30:27.100 --> 01:30:33.340]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy,
[01:30:33.340 --> 01:30:38.380]  it's worth hanging on to. This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private
[01:30:38.380 --> 01:30:43.940]  search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing. Start over with StartPage.
[01:30:43.940 --> 01:30:51.140]  Do you know somebody who's online nonstop, like a child, a friend or maybe even you?
[01:30:51.140 --> 01:30:56.180]  A new study suggests this compulsive behavior might actually be a sign of Internet addiction,
[01:30:56.180 --> 01:31:01.940]  a condition that may be exacerbated by a single gene. Researchers studied problem web users
[01:31:01.940 --> 01:31:06.700]  and matched their DNA samples with people in a control group. They found a variation
[01:31:06.700 --> 01:31:11.480]  in a gene that activates the brain's reward system. That's the same receptor that puts
[01:31:11.480 --> 01:31:16.780]  out feel-good chemicals like dopamine when we eat, sleep or smoke. The genetic variant
[01:31:16.780 --> 01:31:21.540]  was more prevalent in the Internet-obsessed group, particularly among women. But don't
[01:31:21.540 --> 01:31:26.500]  just blame your genes, there is some willpower involved too. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for
[01:31:26.500 --> 01:31:31.580]  StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:31:31.580 --> 01:31:36.940]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11th.
[01:31:36.940 --> 01:31:41.620]  The government says that fire brought it down. However, 1,500 architects and engineers have
[01:31:41.620 --> 01:31:45.940]  concluded it was a controlled demolition. Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have
[01:31:45.940 --> 01:31:50.460]  given their lives. And thousands of my fellow first responders are dying. I'm not a conspiracy
[01:31:50.460 --> 01:31:53.460]  theorist. I'm a structural engineer. I'm a New York City correction officer. I'm an
[01:31:53.460 --> 01:31:58.540]  Air Force pilot. I'm a father who lost his son. We're Americans and we deserve the truth.
[01:31:58.540 --> 01:32:03.380]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today. Hey, it's Danny here for Hill Country Home
[01:32:03.380 --> 01:32:07.540]  Improvements. Did your home receive hail or wind damage from the recent storms? Come on,
[01:32:07.540 --> 01:32:10.940]  we all know the government caused it with their chemtrails, but good luck getting them
[01:32:10.940 --> 01:32:14.820]  to pay for it. Okay, I might be kidding about the chemtrails, but I'm serious about your
[01:32:14.820 --> 01:32:18.940]  roof. That's why you have insurance, and Hill Country Home Improvements can handle the claim
[01:32:18.940 --> 01:32:24.420]  for you with little to no out-of-pocket expense. And we accept Bitcoin as a multiyear A-plus
[01:32:24.420 --> 01:32:28.580]  member of the Better Business Bureau with zero complaints. You can trust Hill Country
[01:32:28.580 --> 01:32:33.420]  Home Improvements to handle your claim and your roof right the first time. Just call
[01:32:33.420 --> 01:32:41.660]  512-992-8745 or go to hillcountryhomeimprovements.com. Mention the crypto show and get $100 off.
[01:32:41.660 --> 01:32:46.260]  And we'll donate another $100 to the Logos Radio Network to help continue this programming.
[01:32:46.260 --> 01:32:55.300]  So if those out of town roofers come knocking, your door should be locking. That's 512-992-8745
[01:32:55.300 --> 01:32:59.780]  or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com. Discounts are based on full roof replacement. May I
[01:32:59.780 --> 01:33:27.500]  actually be kidding about chemtrails? Looking for some truth? You found it. LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:33:27.500 --> 01:33:40.060]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Wheel of Law Radio. And I will stop putting everybody
[01:33:40.060 --> 01:33:47.380]  to sleep for now. And we're going to go to Chris in Pennsylvania. But before we do, just
[01:33:47.380 --> 01:33:54.140]  one note about what I'm doing here. What I'm going through over the air is an ebook that
[01:33:54.140 --> 01:34:03.580]  I'm constructing. And it's one thing to think this out in your mind, but it's quite a bit
[01:34:03.580 --> 01:34:09.100]  different when you actually speak it. And especially when you're speaking it to an audience
[01:34:09.100 --> 01:34:18.740]  that you can't see. So I have to struggle to find a way to present this so that you
[01:34:18.740 --> 01:34:23.100]  will understand what I'm talking about when I can't look at you until when I'm confusing
[01:34:23.100 --> 01:34:30.820]  you. So it's a very good mental exercise. And if I sounded like I was struggling, it's
[01:34:30.820 --> 01:34:36.820]  because I absolutely was struggling. But I'll get better at this and I will combine it all
[01:34:36.820 --> 01:34:45.940]  together into an ebook that we'll make available on the network. Okay. Chris in Pennsylvania,
[01:34:45.940 --> 01:34:54.380]  do I have you thoroughly confused? No, not at all. You know, since we've had a discussion
[01:34:54.380 --> 01:35:02.980]  in the past year, I've read several of the books you recommended on the NLP process.
[01:35:02.980 --> 01:35:08.740]  And it makes very good sense. I love the artful vagueness. And that was kind of what I wanted
[01:35:08.740 --> 01:35:19.260]  to talk to you about. I love artful vagueness. On the one hand, it's very sophisticated.
[01:35:19.260 --> 01:35:29.660]  But on the other, it's relatively simple to use. Yeah, I was looking at a couple of case
[01:35:29.660 --> 01:35:34.900]  law things that just happened over the course of the last week. And it's just interesting
[01:35:34.900 --> 01:35:41.860]  that you brought that up because the topic that I was hoping would fall in conjunction
[01:35:41.860 --> 01:35:48.780]  with that is the Supreme Court case that just came through out of California.
[01:35:48.780 --> 01:35:57.420]  Yavonova. I'm saying it wrong. Jeff Sedgwick needs to call in and tell us how to pronounce
[01:35:57.420 --> 01:36:09.780]  that because she was a member of Jeff Sedgwick's group. This is Jeff's stuff. The Y is not
[01:36:09.780 --> 01:36:20.220]  pronounced. It's Yavonova. It starts with an N. Go ahead. I wasn't going to say it right
[01:36:20.220 --> 01:36:31.300]  there. But that court case, I mean, everything that was discussed about the rights of the
[01:36:31.300 --> 01:36:41.580]  mortgage for the borrower and your artful vagueness, I was wondering if maybe the contra
[01:36:41.580 --> 01:36:51.460]  preferentum ambiguity of things that are written in your mortgage, for example, where it states
[01:36:51.460 --> 01:36:59.220]  that everybody's mortgage or E tells you that the borrower lawfully has the right to warrants
[01:36:59.220 --> 01:37:03.780]  and will defend generally the title and property against all claims and demands subject to
[01:37:03.780 --> 01:37:12.980]  the encumbrance of the record. That's something when you go to court with these cases, if
[01:37:12.980 --> 01:37:19.740]  all case law is ruling or the bank is making the statement that you are not a party to
[01:37:19.740 --> 01:37:30.580]  this transaction and can't fight the fact that your mortgage may be assigned fraudulently,
[01:37:30.580 --> 01:37:38.420]  how do you get past that to have actual adjudication? You have a duty to protect this against a
[01:37:38.420 --> 01:37:47.340]  false claim. Right. And now they're saying you can't protect it against a false claim.
[01:37:47.340 --> 01:37:58.940]  But in this case, the rulings are actually well structured. I was talking to a friend
[01:37:58.940 --> 01:38:07.180]  of mine in Austin today about this issue and he sent me a case where he felt like the courts
[01:38:07.180 --> 01:38:13.940]  threw out all of our arguments. But when we looked at the case, the courts were saying
[01:38:13.940 --> 01:38:22.180]  that you can't challenge a contract between parties to which you are not involved. And
[01:38:22.180 --> 01:38:30.940]  yeah, that's true. And the problem that we've had is not that we're trying to challenge
[01:38:30.940 --> 01:38:39.700]  a contract to which we're not privy. What we're trying to do is claim that the contract
[01:38:39.700 --> 01:38:50.540]  itself is void on its face. And this is exactly what Jeff Sedgwick talks about all the time,
[01:38:50.540 --> 01:38:58.860]  the difference between void and voidable. Right. If a contract is voidable, say you
[01:38:58.860 --> 01:39:12.660]  and I enter into a contract and you don't properly affirm the contract. The contract,
[01:39:12.660 --> 01:39:18.300]  I could say this thing's void, you didn't affirm it. But if I'm the one that wants
[01:39:18.300 --> 01:39:26.060]  you to enter into the contract, I'm not going to raise that issue. If I don't raise the
[01:39:26.060 --> 01:39:35.180]  issue, it doesn't become an issue. The contract is voidable, but it's only voidable by one
[01:39:35.180 --> 01:39:54.940]  of the parties. So we have an assignment here where the assignment was not filed in a time
[01:39:54.940 --> 01:40:03.980]  limit that it was supposed to be filed in. So it affects the two parties, the assignee
[01:40:03.980 --> 01:40:11.500]  and the assignee. It doesn't really affect the borrower. Now, if one of those parties
[01:40:11.500 --> 01:40:18.020]  wants to raise an objection to an impropriety in the contract, they certainly can and could
[01:40:18.020 --> 01:40:28.100]  probably render it void. But if they don't want to, they don't care about the problem
[01:40:28.100 --> 01:40:35.700]  and they're willing to participate in a contract anyway, what business is that of mine? However,
[01:40:35.700 --> 01:40:46.460]  if they have filed in the public record a document that is void on its face, or if they
[01:40:46.460 --> 01:40:55.860]  attempt to exercise a claim based on a document that is void on its face, for instance, if
[01:40:55.860 --> 01:41:06.460]  it has an affirmation that it is fraudulent, if it is affirmed by someone who has no power
[01:41:06.460 --> 01:41:13.820]  of attorney to affirm the document, then the document is forged and a forged document is
[01:41:13.820 --> 01:41:25.820]  void as a matter of law. I just read a case where this guy Bly, one of the most well-known
[01:41:25.820 --> 01:41:33.620]  robo-signers next to Linda Green, had signed this document and Bly has testified in the
[01:41:33.620 --> 01:41:42.340]  court that people were putting his names on documents he didn't know anything about. So
[01:41:42.340 --> 01:41:51.940]  they argued that the foreclosure was improper because this Bly had robo-signed this document
[01:41:51.940 --> 01:41:58.860]  and the court ruled against him and rightfully so. And in one, in the dissenting opinion
[01:41:58.860 --> 01:42:05.540]  by one of the three Supreme Court, I mean, appeals court judges, he indicated that the
[01:42:05.540 --> 01:42:13.940]  document was void on its face, but the litigant didn't argue that it was void on its face.
[01:42:13.940 --> 01:42:21.220]  He merely argued that it was robo-signed. Had he argued that under, I forget the exact
[01:42:21.220 --> 01:42:29.020]  statute, but we have a statute that says that a void document is of no force and effect.
[01:42:29.020 --> 01:42:37.300]  Had he argued that in his pleadings, he would have won, but he didn't make the right argument.
[01:42:37.300 --> 01:42:44.420]  He had to argue that it is void on his face and then the court could rule in his favor.
[01:42:44.420 --> 01:42:54.740]  This is essentially what Inova, what that case goes to. They argued it correctly and
[01:42:54.740 --> 01:43:05.180]  they got a ruling in their favor. What it really says is, and Inova was, they picked
[01:43:05.180 --> 01:43:14.340]  it up to handle a difference between the circuits. The Southern circuit said that you don't have
[01:43:14.340 --> 01:43:20.980]  standing to challenge and assignment. That was the Jenkins case. Glasky said, you do
[01:43:20.980 --> 01:43:28.500]  have standing to challenge and assignment. So the Supreme picked up Inova, because that's
[01:43:28.500 --> 01:43:35.100]  exactly where he went to, in order to settle this difference between the circuits. And
[01:43:35.100 --> 01:43:40.500]  they settled it big time and we'll pick that up when we come back on the other side. And
[01:43:40.500 --> 01:43:46.460]  I know I hijacked you, Chris. I will get back to you. I promise. But this is an interesting
[01:43:46.460 --> 01:44:00.340]  case. Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio. I call it number 512-646-1984. We'll be right back.
[01:44:00.340 --> 01:44:05.060]  You feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics? Are you confused
[01:44:05.060 --> 01:44:09.700]  by words like the Constitution or the Federal Reserve? If so, you may be diagnosed with
[01:44:09.700 --> 01:44:15.340]  the deadliest disease known today, stupidity. Hi, my name is Steve Holt, and like millions
[01:44:15.340 --> 01:44:20.740]  of other Americans, I was diagnosed with stupidity at an early age. I had no idea that the number
[01:44:20.740 --> 01:44:26.220]  one cause of the disease is found in almost every home in America, the television. Unfortunately,
[01:44:26.220 --> 01:44:30.900]  that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity, but there is hope. The staff at
[01:44:30.900 --> 01:44:34.780]  Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other foxaholics suffering from sports
[01:44:34.780 --> 01:44:40.060]  zombieism recover. And because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading and watching educational
[01:44:40.060 --> 01:44:45.420]  documentaries without feeling tired or uninterested. So if you or anybody you know suffers from
[01:44:45.420 --> 01:44:53.500]  stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503 or visit them in 1904 Guadalupe or brave new
[01:44:53.500 --> 01:44:57.220]  bookstore dot com. Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include discernment
[01:44:57.220 --> 01:45:02.340]  and enlarged vocabulary and an overall increase in mental functioning. Are you the plaintiff
[01:45:02.340 --> 01:45:08.580]  or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Juris Dictionary, the affordable,
[01:45:08.580 --> 01:45:15.580]  easy to understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step. If
[01:45:15.580 --> 01:45:21.100]  you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know
[01:45:21.100 --> 01:45:26.420]  what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step by step course, and
[01:45:26.420 --> 01:45:32.940]  now you can too. Juris Dictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case
[01:45:32.940 --> 01:45:38.380]  winning experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should
[01:45:38.380 --> 01:45:44.140]  understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive
[01:45:44.140 --> 01:45:51.460]  our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics and
[01:45:51.460 --> 01:45:57.700]  much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free
[01:45:57.700 --> 01:46:24.860]  866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:24.860 --> 01:46:30.300]  We are back, Randy Felton, Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking to Chris in Pennsylvania.
[01:46:30.300 --> 01:46:39.940]  Chris, before I hijack you, I probably should have backed up and asked, did you really want
[01:46:39.940 --> 01:46:43.100]  to address this issue or were you going somewhere else?
[01:46:43.100 --> 01:46:49.820]  No, I really wanted to address this issue. I wanted to address the issue of challenging
[01:46:49.820 --> 01:46:57.180]  the mortgage assignment because that's kind of where my issue stands with my assignment
[01:46:57.180 --> 01:47:03.660]  and the things that were written on it in order to get it void on its face as a forgery,
[01:47:03.660 --> 01:47:13.740]  which I hear so much talk about and I'm looking at my document and just trying to figure out
[01:47:13.740 --> 01:47:20.380]  how on the document of the assignment recorded in the recorder of deeds office, it states
[01:47:20.380 --> 01:47:34.660]  that it says executed by my wife to MERS, which is just a fallacy of anything because
[01:47:34.660 --> 01:47:43.580]  my wife can't execute the mortgage to MERS, only the bank could do that.
[01:47:43.580 --> 01:47:48.140]  Is MERS named on the note?
[01:47:48.140 --> 01:47:51.420]  No, no.
[01:47:51.420 --> 01:47:56.580]  Is MERS named in the security instrument?
[01:47:56.580 --> 01:47:59.580]  Yes.
[01:47:59.580 --> 01:48:09.340]  Okay. If yours is a Fannie Mae Freddie Manic uniform instrument, I'm not sure what it looks
[01:48:09.340 --> 01:48:19.700]  like in Pennsylvania, but if it's a standard deed of trust, the deed of trust doesn't convey
[01:48:19.700 --> 01:48:30.980]  anything to MERS because where MERS is mentioned is in the definition section and that's not
[01:48:30.980 --> 01:48:39.420]  a part of the contract. It names the parties and defines some terms, but it's not a part
[01:48:39.420 --> 01:48:51.300]  of the contract. The only part of the contract that references MERS at all will be the second
[01:48:51.300 --> 01:48:57.860]  paragraph of the contract. You have the first paragraph that transfers the property to the
[01:48:57.860 --> 01:49:08.500]  trustee and then the second paragraph addresses any additions to the property beyond what
[01:49:08.500 --> 01:49:16.100]  was initially part of the collateral and essentially as you add anything to this property, what
[01:49:16.100 --> 01:49:20.500]  you add becomes a part of the collateral. Right in the middle of that paragraph, they
[01:49:20.500 --> 01:49:25.660]  put this sentence in there that says you understand that MERS is not the beneficiary. It merely
[01:49:25.660 --> 01:49:37.060]  holds a legal title. That's the only reference to MERS. Now it doesn't state that you transferred
[01:49:37.060 --> 01:49:47.980]  legal title to MERS. It's one of those artfully vague terms. What does that mean? Mergers holds
[01:49:47.980 --> 01:49:53.380]  legal title. I thought the trustee held legal title.
[01:49:53.380 --> 01:50:00.940]  Right. Well, that's the interesting part when you read into that the vague, the artful vagueness
[01:50:00.940 --> 01:50:06.980]  of that is if the bank doesn't hold legal title and all beneficial interest was given
[01:50:06.980 --> 01:50:13.140]  to MERS, then the bank is no longer an entity in a transaction.
[01:50:13.140 --> 01:50:23.020]  And if that is the case, then what you have is not a deed of trust. What you have is a
[01:50:23.020 --> 01:50:25.420]  loan. Right.
[01:50:25.420 --> 01:50:34.820]  Okay. Yeah. And for those who don't understand the distinction there, in a judicial state,
[01:50:34.820 --> 01:50:43.540]  in order for the lender to grant you, to give you the warranty deed to this property on
[01:50:43.540 --> 01:50:48.500]  a promise that you will pay him in the future, he wants you to give him a promise or give
[01:50:48.500 --> 01:50:59.500]  him a privilege. Normally, if I loan you money and you don't pay it back and we have a contract
[01:50:59.500 --> 01:51:06.460]  where you agree to pay it back, I can sue you and then I can get a judgment against
[01:51:06.460 --> 01:51:12.220]  you and then I can use that judgment to get a claim against your property so we can liquidate
[01:51:12.220 --> 01:51:17.660]  your property to pay off my claim. Well, the banks don't want to go through that. So they
[01:51:17.660 --> 01:51:24.100]  say, okay, I loan you this money, but you have to give me a claim against your property.
[01:51:24.100 --> 01:51:30.780]  You have to grant me the privilege of a claim against your property so that I don't have
[01:51:30.780 --> 01:51:37.780]  to sue you first, get a judgment against you and then file against your property.
[01:51:37.780 --> 01:51:44.580]  If I have a claim against your property, now you can't sell that property because it would
[01:51:44.580 --> 01:51:52.940]  defeat my claim so I can protect my collateral. That's a mortgage. You technically in a mortgage,
[01:51:52.940 --> 01:52:04.780]  you transfer legal title to the property to the mortgagee. So you transfer legal title
[01:52:04.780 --> 01:52:15.260]  to them. We're in Texas and we have Deed of Trust. And our, it's not property code, it's,
[01:52:15.260 --> 01:52:25.020]  I forget the code. There's another code, the torts and remedies, torts and remedies. Specifically
[01:52:25.020 --> 01:52:33.980]  forbids a lender from requiring the borrower to transfer the property to the lender. There's
[01:52:33.980 --> 01:52:41.340]  a good chance you've got a similar statute in Pennsylvania. Business, I'm sorry, business
[01:52:41.340 --> 01:52:48.180]  and commerce code. Look in the business and commerce section of your code and see if there's
[01:52:48.180 --> 01:52:55.740]  a place there that forbids a lender from requiring the borrower to transfer title to the property
[01:52:55.740 --> 01:53:07.500]  to the borrower. So if this is supposed to be a Deed of Trust, then legal title should
[01:53:07.500 --> 01:53:14.500]  be transferred to the trustee, the whole point of the trust. But if you transferred it to
[01:53:14.500 --> 01:53:22.060]  the borrower, not only in Texas would it be in direct violation of law, but it's not a
[01:53:22.060 --> 01:53:30.060]  Deed of Trust anymore. Now it's a mortgage. Okay. Did that make sense?
[01:53:30.060 --> 01:53:43.700]  And if the, it's a mortgage with a extra privilege. The difference between a mortgage and a Deed
[01:53:43.700 --> 01:53:48.860]  of Trust is in a Deed of Trust, not only do you give them a claim against the property,
[01:53:48.860 --> 01:54:00.820]  you give them a confessed judgment. You confess that if there's a default, I grant you a judgment.
[01:54:00.820 --> 01:54:09.500]  But okay, and it sounds like with Merge, back to your original issue, your wife can't convey
[01:54:09.500 --> 01:54:14.780]  to Merge. Well, if you have that standard contract, there's nothing in there that grants
[01:54:14.780 --> 01:54:22.020]  anything to Merge. Not from my wife.
[01:54:22.020 --> 01:54:31.740]  Well, not from anybody. The contract doesn't say that, you know, you're the grantor. It
[01:54:31.740 --> 01:54:36.740]  doesn't say I grant legal title to Merge. It doesn't say that anywhere.
[01:54:36.740 --> 01:54:41.020]  Right. It says you grant the property to a trustee,
[01:54:41.020 --> 01:54:51.100]  to Merge. But then they have this vague statement in the middle of the paragraph that goes to
[01:54:51.100 --> 01:55:02.900]  added collateral and they stuck Merge in the middle of it. So what does that mean? I don't
[01:55:02.900 --> 01:55:12.220]  see anything in there that says that Merge was granted anything. Merge can be an agent
[01:55:12.220 --> 01:55:20.420]  for the lender, but that doesn't require a grant by the borrower.
[01:55:20.420 --> 01:55:28.660]  No. Anyway, what is your take?
[01:55:28.660 --> 01:55:38.980]  Well, my confusion lies within interest in the property. Who's conveying interest to
[01:55:38.980 --> 01:55:48.700]  whom? It appears as though the bank and Merge are solely the two parties in question there.
[01:55:48.700 --> 01:55:57.540]  The bank is giving Merge this ability, which it's really never assigning it to them since
[01:55:57.540 --> 01:56:00.740]  the bank nor Merge signed it.
[01:56:00.740 --> 01:56:10.500]  Okay. That raises a question. The bank is giving Merge. Where in that document? Okay.
[01:56:10.500 --> 01:56:16.780]  Where did they give Merge this? Are you saying that in the deed of trust, the bank is doing
[01:56:16.780 --> 01:56:19.740]  this or somewhere else?
[01:56:19.740 --> 01:56:24.860]  That's what it's implying or appears to imply.
[01:56:24.860 --> 01:56:29.420]  But then again, then the problem is the bank didn't sign that thing.
[01:56:29.420 --> 01:56:30.420]  No.
[01:56:30.420 --> 01:56:40.220]  They didn't affirm it. So it can't be construed that the borrower granted anything in the
[01:56:40.220 --> 01:56:47.100]  deed of trust. Deed of trust was a grant by the, I'm sorry, the lender didn't grant anything.
[01:56:47.100 --> 01:56:54.380]  The grant in the deed of trust was by the borrower to the lender. The borrower didn't
[01:56:54.380 --> 01:57:01.500]  grant anybody anything in there. If they did, they would have had to sign it. Then there's
[01:57:01.500 --> 01:57:07.660]  no verbiage in there saying that the borrower grants anything. There's a definition of Merge
[01:57:07.660 --> 01:57:18.020]  as an agent, but Merge is not made an agent by this document. I can't assign an agent
[01:57:18.020 --> 01:57:21.500]  for the borrower. I mean, for the lender.
[01:57:21.500 --> 01:57:22.500]  Right.
[01:57:22.500 --> 01:57:27.780]  I'm going to say, okay, look, look, look, you've got Merge over here as your agent.
[01:57:27.780 --> 01:57:32.940]  I don't like him. Those guys are scoundrels. I want to get rid of Merge as your agent and
[01:57:32.940 --> 01:57:38.980]  I want to appoint my brother-in-law. How's that going to work?
[01:57:38.980 --> 01:57:47.460]  Right. But it's a matter of interest as well. It's a matter of who's giving whom an interest
[01:57:47.460 --> 01:57:54.220]  in what and what Merge by Merge members definition say Merge County cannot do.
[01:57:54.220 --> 01:58:03.740]  Yeah. The Fannie Mae Freddie Mac uniform instrument with Merge. I think the guy who wrote that
[01:58:03.740 --> 01:58:12.500]  was high on coke. It doesn't make sense. If you read the contract carefully, it doesn't
[01:58:12.500 --> 01:58:17.980]  make any sense. Hang on. I like the subject because I do like to tear that particular
[01:58:17.980 --> 01:58:22.540]  contract apart. I don't see how it can be enforced the way it's written.
[01:58:22.540 --> 01:58:29.460]  This is Randy Kelton with Radio, our call in number 512-646-1984. This is the top of
[01:58:29.460 --> 01:58:34.580]  the hour break. So it's a good time to go to Logos Radio Network. We've still got the
[01:58:34.580 --> 01:58:40.780]  gun giveaway going on. And so far we haven't got enough donations to even cover the price
[01:58:40.780 --> 01:58:50.420]  of the gun. So we need some help here. We'll be right back.
[01:58:50.420 --> 01:58:55.860]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated
[01:58:55.860 --> 01:59:01.060]  because they struggle to understand it. Some new translations try to help by simplifying
[01:59:01.060 --> 01:59:07.540]  the text, but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the scripture. Enter
[01:59:07.540 --> 01:59:13.780]  the recovery version. First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the
[01:59:13.780 --> 01:59:20.100]  real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes. Difficult and profound passages
[01:59:20.100 --> 01:59:25.540]  are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance into the riches of the word beyond
[01:59:25.540 --> 01:59:30.260]  which you've ever experienced before. Bibles for America would like to give you
[01:59:30.260 --> 01:59:36.220]  a free recovery version simply for the asking. This comprehensive yet compact study Bible
[01:59:36.220 --> 01:59:48.060]  is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102 or by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[01:59:48.060 --> 02:00:10.060]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com.