ROL_2016-03-04_16k_Hr3-4.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:08.000]  The following news flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing the jelly
[00:08.000 --> 00:10.000]  bulletins for the commodities market.
[00:10.000 --> 00:23.000]  Today in history, news updates and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative.
[00:23.000 --> 00:28.000]  Markets for Wednesday, March 2, 2016, are currently treading with gold at $1,240 an
[00:28.000 --> 00:35.000]  ounce, silver at $14.98 an ounce, Texas crude at $34.40 a barrel, and Bitcoin is currently
[00:35.000 --> 00:44.000]  sitting at about $429 U.S. currency.
[00:44.000 --> 00:49.000]  Today in history, the year 1807, the U.S. Congress passes an act to prohibit the importation
[00:49.000 --> 00:53.000]  of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States.
[00:53.000 --> 00:57.000]  However, the widespread trade of slaves within the South was not prohibited since the children
[00:57.000 --> 00:59.000]  of slaves automatically became slaves themselves.
[00:59.000 --> 01:05.000]  The act prohibiting importation of slaves of 1807 went into effect January 1, 1808.
[01:05.000 --> 01:12.000]  The beginning of U.S. abolition was today in history.
[01:12.000 --> 01:16.000]  In recent news, President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama will both appear later
[01:16.000 --> 01:18.000]  this month at South by Southwest.
[01:18.000 --> 01:22.000]  The president is scheduled to take part in a discussion on March 11 with Evan Smith,
[01:22.000 --> 01:27.000]  editor of the Texas Tribune, on civic engagement and the role of innovative technology in increasing
[01:27.000 --> 01:31.000]  participation in politics and even solving major problems like climate change.
[01:31.000 --> 01:36.000]  On March 16, the First Lady will be discussing her Let Girls Learn initiative, which aims
[01:36.000 --> 01:41.000]  to help an estimated 62 million girls around the world have access to basic higher education.
[01:41.000 --> 01:46.000]  This will make the Obamas the first president and First Lady to appear at South by Southwest
[01:46.000 --> 01:52.000]  in its 30-year history.
[01:52.000 --> 01:57.000]  Lawyer Jose Refugio Rodriguez said today that his client, drug lord Joaquin El Chapo Guzman,
[01:57.000 --> 02:01.000]  said he wants to be extradited as soon as possible to the United States because guards
[02:01.000 --> 02:05.000]  at the Mexican maximum security prison aren't letting him sleep.
[02:05.000 --> 02:09.000]  Mr. Rodriguez is wanting to negotiate with the U.S. authorities for a lighter sentence
[02:09.000 --> 02:11.000]  and a state and medium security prison.
[02:11.000 --> 02:15.000]  Instead, Radio Formula reported El Chapo fears that his health will worsen because of the
[02:15.000 --> 02:19.000]  isolated conditions in the Mexican prison and the possibility that the lack of sleep
[02:19.000 --> 02:22.000]  could cause a heart attack or a stroke.
[02:22.000 --> 02:30.000]  The process of extradition may take up to a year.
[02:30.000 --> 02:34.000]  The world's biggest seller of corn and soybean seeds and the maker of Roundup weed killer
[02:34.000 --> 02:37.000]  Monsanto Corporation issued a profit warning today.
[02:37.000 --> 02:42.000]  They are forecasting a cut to the midpoint of its fiscal 2006 profit by at least 11 percent.
[02:42.000 --> 02:47.000]  This is after they announced laying off 3,600 employees, roughly 16 percent, of its global
[02:47.000 --> 02:48.000]  workforce.
[02:48.000 --> 02:52.000]  Monsanto shares recently went down 7.5 percent and have shed a total of 29 percent during
[02:52.000 --> 02:54.000]  the past year.
[02:54.000 --> 03:21.000]  This was Brody with your Lowdown for March 2, 2016.
[03:21.000 --> 03:26.000]  We are back, Randy Kelton, Rudovar Radio, and we're talking to Mark in Texas.
[03:26.000 --> 03:28.000]  Okay, Mark.
[03:28.000 --> 03:29.000]  Yeah.
[03:29.000 --> 03:30.000]  I'm sorry.
[03:30.000 --> 03:33.000]  I wasn't really formulating a good question.
[03:33.000 --> 03:37.000]  I was just writing that down as I was listening to that.
[03:37.000 --> 03:46.000]  But all said, basically in this case, as I have described it to a few attorneys who might
[03:46.000 --> 03:54.000]  potentially help with an FDCPA suit, I basically tell them that there was a servicer that filed
[03:54.000 --> 04:01.000]  an assignment which is fraught on its face based on Arkansas statutes which prevent MERS
[04:01.000 --> 04:03.000]  from making the assignment.
[04:03.000 --> 04:10.000]  And when you see mention of Fremont Financial, a company that was out of business in 2008
[04:10.000 --> 04:16.000]  and couldn't have made the assignment in 2013, there's no party here which could have told
[04:16.000 --> 04:21.000]  the servicer to create this assignment in the first place.
[04:21.000 --> 04:22.000]  Okay.
[04:22.000 --> 04:27.000]  Are you familiar with the Innova case out of California?
[04:27.000 --> 04:28.000]  Yes.
[04:28.000 --> 04:29.000]  Just very recently.
[04:29.000 --> 04:30.000]  Sure.
[04:30.000 --> 04:33.000]  We were mentioning it last week.
[04:33.000 --> 04:36.000]  Have you looked at it?
[04:36.000 --> 04:39.000]  No, I haven't.
[04:39.000 --> 04:46.000]  Here's the gist of what the California Supreme said.
[04:46.000 --> 04:51.000]  And they quoted Texas case law and Massachusetts case law.
[04:51.000 --> 04:52.000]  Okay.
[04:52.000 --> 05:03.000]  They said only the reason they went to the distinction that they did saying that a borrower
[05:03.000 --> 05:14.000]  has a right to challenge the assignment is because only the bona fide holder can direct
[05:14.000 --> 05:17.000]  the trustee to initiate foreclosure.
[05:17.000 --> 05:20.000]  They said that over and over again.
[05:20.000 --> 05:29.000]  And this was the rationale behind stating that you could challenge the assignment.
[05:29.000 --> 05:36.000]  So you are dead on what Innova just adjudicated.
[05:36.000 --> 05:42.000]  So you might want to bring up that case because it's only a couple of weeks up.
[05:42.000 --> 05:45.000]  I promise you I would.
[05:45.000 --> 05:47.000]  I would definitely do that.
[05:47.000 --> 05:52.000]  Whenever I had my hearing, I got the common line craft that people get.
[05:52.000 --> 05:54.000]  I hope I can say that on the radio.
[05:54.000 --> 05:56.000]  We know what it is.
[05:56.000 --> 06:02.000]  Basically, the plaintiff's attorney said, your honor, the defendant was not a party
[06:02.000 --> 06:08.000]  to that transaction and thus cannot challenge it or something to that effect.
[06:08.000 --> 06:17.000]  And I think I probably even said this document is the document filed in the county record
[06:17.000 --> 06:24.000]  that the plaintiff would put before the court as something which establishes standing in
[06:24.000 --> 06:27.000]  order to bring the suit.
[06:27.000 --> 06:34.000]  What I had failed to do and I wasn't prepared to do is whenever I made my initial response,
[06:34.000 --> 06:36.000]  I brought up the issue of standing.
[06:36.000 --> 06:42.000]  I had a really vague idea of it, but I still brought it out clearly enough.
[06:42.000 --> 06:44.000]  But then I never went back to it.
[06:44.000 --> 06:48.000]  I had a friend who's an attorney but who doesn't fight this and doesn't really know what he's
[06:48.000 --> 06:52.000]  doing in that sense who just looked at this and said on the face value of your complaint,
[06:52.000 --> 06:54.000]  it's filed past the statute of limitations.
[06:54.000 --> 06:56.000]  That's all you need to attack.
[06:56.000 --> 06:57.000]  Keep it simple.
[06:57.000 --> 06:59.000]  And I'm like, okay, it works for me.
[06:59.000 --> 07:06.000]  And as you know, we've spoken about that many times, but I go down the road.
[07:06.000 --> 07:12.000]  I win with a motion sitting on the judge's desk for over 90 days and the judge finally
[07:12.000 --> 07:14.000]  signs that.
[07:14.000 --> 07:18.000]  As you were just instructing someone earlier, service, you want to make sure you do it by
[07:18.000 --> 07:20.000]  certified mail?
[07:20.000 --> 07:26.000]  I did it by certified mail and I submitted the evidence that I had served that.
[07:26.000 --> 07:33.000]  And then shortly after I win within the timeframe they're required, the plaintiff's attorneys
[07:33.000 --> 07:38.000]  perjures themselves and they say the first date of acceleration is different than that,
[07:38.000 --> 07:40.000]  which is on the original complaint.
[07:40.000 --> 07:47.000]  And they also say that they never received my motion for summary judgment, which I had
[07:47.000 --> 07:49.000]  essentially proven to the court.
[07:49.000 --> 07:51.000]  I made an effort to serve.
[07:51.000 --> 07:54.000]  I mean, it doesn't prove that anybody accepted it.
[07:54.000 --> 08:00.000]  But from what I got from the United States Post Office, it does say that they made an
[08:00.000 --> 08:05.000]  attempt to deliver it and they made that attempt during business hours.
[08:05.000 --> 08:10.000]  And according to a statute, at least in the state where this case is, it says that in
[08:10.000 --> 08:15.000]  order to officially be a law firm or something to that effect, they have to be open during
[08:15.000 --> 08:17.000]  regular business hours.
[08:17.000 --> 08:19.000]  I assume that's enough.
[08:19.000 --> 08:21.000]  I think they even brought that up.
[08:21.000 --> 08:29.000]  But I'm just blown away in that I have attorneys as I speak to them who seem to think this
[08:29.000 --> 08:36.000]  is a real stinker of a case and they don't want to touch it because there was a plaintiff's
[08:36.000 --> 08:41.000]  that brought a suit after this assignment, which I want to attack in my discovery by
[08:41.000 --> 08:43.000]  the FTCPA.
[08:43.000 --> 08:50.000]  And for whatever reason, maybe they're worried about there being some kind of issue between
[08:50.000 --> 08:58.000]  the two or something which I guess they're basically worried that this fraudulent assignment,
[08:58.000 --> 09:03.000]  which I questioned but which the court didn't address and the plaintiff's attorneys didn't
[09:03.000 --> 09:08.000]  address, and then they awarded summary judgment anyway to the plaintiffs.
[09:08.000 --> 09:16.000]  But I suppose at some level they're thinking that this satisfies that or that they can't
[09:16.000 --> 09:21.000]  challenge it or that that's not going to be relevant in an FTCPA case.
[09:21.000 --> 09:24.000]  Does that make any sense?
[09:24.000 --> 09:29.000]  How can I go about attacking that or would that be a challenge?
[09:29.000 --> 09:30.000]  I have no clue.
[09:30.000 --> 09:32.000]  Do you have any thoughts on that?
[09:32.000 --> 09:39.000]  Okay, were you given notice of the assignment?
[09:39.000 --> 09:42.000]  Was I given notice of the assignment?
[09:42.000 --> 09:44.000]  Yes.
[09:44.000 --> 09:53.000]  I wasn't given notice of the assignment from one party to any other.
[09:53.000 --> 09:58.000]  I was given notice that SPS was going to be the servicer.
[09:58.000 --> 10:06.000]  I was given this by Chase and then shortly thereafter this was filed and then I got a
[10:06.000 --> 10:08.000]  notice that I'm being sued.
[10:08.000 --> 10:15.000]  Okay, the reason I ask that question is it goes to clear and concise notice.
[10:15.000 --> 10:23.000]  The notice must be clear and concise so that the least sophisticated consumer can understand
[10:23.000 --> 10:30.000]  the notice and you're looking for a way to get at the assignment.
[10:30.000 --> 10:38.000]  If you were sent notice of the assignment and the authority of the parties to make the
[10:38.000 --> 10:44.000]  assignment is not clear to the point that the least sophisticated consumer would understand
[10:44.000 --> 10:51.000]  the document then that would be something you could at least raise the issue with whether
[10:51.000 --> 10:59.000]  or not you'd get an adjudication is iffy but I'm looking for a way that you could turn
[10:59.000 --> 11:04.000]  an assignment into an FDCPA claim.
[11:04.000 --> 11:06.000]  That's interesting.
[11:06.000 --> 11:12.000]  My FDCPA claim I thought based on reading it is simply that there's false and misleading
[11:12.000 --> 11:19.000]  information in letters I have received from the servicer during the time this was in litigation
[11:19.000 --> 11:27.000]  within the last year and that false and misleading information would be something that would
[11:27.000 --> 11:36.000]  cause them to owe me a thousand bucks, attorney's fees and actual damages since this false and
[11:36.000 --> 11:45.000]  misleading information led up to a suit being filed that caused me actual damages in excess
[11:45.000 --> 11:50.000]  of $200,000 plus the property.
[11:50.000 --> 11:53.000]  Does that seem to make any sense?
[11:53.000 --> 12:01.000]  Yeah, that does and the $1,000 fine is seldom ever enough for the lawyers to even care about.
[12:01.000 --> 12:05.000]  It's the backside damages you're most worried about.
[12:05.000 --> 12:12.000]  Sure but I don't understand why the attorneys on the other end are not getting more excited
[12:12.000 --> 12:14.000]  about the idea of taking this case.
[12:14.000 --> 12:19.000]  I've read cases where attorney's fees of $10,000 to $15,000 are awarded.
[12:19.000 --> 12:24.000]  There's definitely enough to read in my case to warrant such a fee.
[12:24.000 --> 12:30.000]  Okay, I can probably tell you why the lawyers don't want to take it.
[12:30.000 --> 12:32.000]  What do you think?
[12:32.000 --> 12:33.000]  I'm curious.
[12:33.000 --> 12:37.000]  You know too much.
[12:37.000 --> 12:41.000]  Lawyers do not like informed clients.
[12:41.000 --> 12:51.000]  Lawyers want to collect from you the down payment, what do you call it?
[12:51.000 --> 12:53.000]  The retainer.
[12:53.000 --> 12:55.000]  The retainer.
[12:55.000 --> 12:56.000]  Yeah.
[12:56.000 --> 13:02.000]  I said in a restaurant once and looked at this little green and yellow slices and I
[13:02.000 --> 13:07.000]  knew exactly what it was but avocado just would not come out of my mouth.
[13:07.000 --> 13:08.000]  Okay.
[13:08.000 --> 13:09.000]  I understand.
[13:09.000 --> 13:12.000]  They want to collect the retainer.
[13:12.000 --> 13:17.000]  They're going to feed you this song and dance and sell it down your pants so they can
[13:17.000 --> 13:19.000]  collect the retainer.
[13:19.000 --> 13:25.000]  Then they're going to do their standard back and forth motions that lawyers do until
[13:25.000 --> 13:28.000]  they use up the retainer.
[13:28.000 --> 13:33.000]  Once they use up the retainer, now they really look at the case.
[13:33.000 --> 13:39.000]  Now they have to come back and sell your reason to give them more money but initially
[13:39.000 --> 13:47.000]  they want to be able to grab that retainer and just bill it out doing next to nothing.
[13:47.000 --> 13:49.000]  I know what you mean.
[13:49.000 --> 13:51.000]  I do.
[13:51.000 --> 13:58.000]  To just share some insight for anybody listening, I ended up losing a case when I
[13:58.000 --> 14:00.000]  shouldn't have.
[14:00.000 --> 14:03.000]  The case was filed past the statute of limitations.
[14:03.000 --> 14:06.000]  It was dismissed in my favor once.
[14:06.000 --> 14:07.000]  It was reopened.
[14:07.000 --> 14:08.000]  It shouldn't have been reopened.
[14:08.000 --> 14:12.000]  I don't want to go over all that again I guess but in the end I looked at that and I
[14:12.000 --> 14:19.000]  thought this is completely, this judgment is completely void and as far as this is
[14:19.000 --> 14:22.000]  concerned I looked at the rules of civil procedure.
[14:22.000 --> 14:24.000]  I thought what in the heck am I going to do?
[14:24.000 --> 14:29.000]  I've just been bamboozled in this court and I looked and I'm like okay, I've got
[14:29.000 --> 14:35.000]  30 days to file some kind of an appeal.
[14:35.000 --> 14:38.000]  I spoke to a few people that handled those.
[14:38.000 --> 14:45.000]  We're looking at $10,000 plus and I heard you many times and you say very aptly when
[14:45.000 --> 14:48.000]  you're in the district court or the first level court, whatever it is, you're pretty
[14:48.000 --> 14:51.000]  much just preparing the record for appeal.
[14:51.000 --> 14:56.000]  I heard an attorney say this very recently too knowing that's how it's going to work
[14:56.000 --> 15:01.000]  and it's ridiculous and it's a shame but that's how it is.
[15:01.000 --> 15:07.000]  Well, I couldn't afford that and I thought I can't do this myself.
[15:07.000 --> 15:08.000]  I've got 30 days.
[15:08.000 --> 15:11.000]  I can't quit my job and focus on this.
[15:11.000 --> 15:13.000]  What am I going to do?
[15:13.000 --> 15:18.000]  As I looked at the rules of civil procedure and read those, this was very interesting.
[15:18.000 --> 15:27.000]  It said okay, I've got 60 days roughly to make a motion to reopen the case, if you will,
[15:27.000 --> 15:29.000]  to vacate the judgment, whatever.
[15:29.000 --> 15:34.000]  I thought all right, well if I do that and the judge doesn't allow that, then I can
[15:34.000 --> 15:40.000]  appeal that and then I looked a little further and I thought it also says in cases of fraud
[15:40.000 --> 15:46.000]  upon the court, that time frame is extended indefinitely.
[15:46.000 --> 15:51.000]  A fraud upon the court gives you the ability to come back whenever you discover fraud.
[15:51.000 --> 15:55.000]  At this point, of course, I'm not sure there was a fraud upon the court but I do really
[15:55.000 --> 16:02.000]  believe that and I told a guy as I was asking someone about quiet title this week because
[16:02.000 --> 16:08.000]  you'd mentioned I might attack that fraudulent assignment by quiet title and I'm not sure
[16:08.000 --> 16:14.000]  if there's any potential for that to be res judicata or collateral to stop based on the
[16:14.000 --> 16:18.000]  judgment that's already been given and the fact that I raised it even though the court
[16:18.000 --> 16:21.000]  didn't really do anything with it or there was no discussion.
[16:21.000 --> 16:24.000]  The plaintiff didn't have to affirm that we plead standing at all.
[16:24.000 --> 16:26.000]  They said I couldn't challenge it and we cruised on.
[16:26.000 --> 16:29.000]  That was the end of it.
[16:29.000 --> 16:34.000]  So that's a curiosity.
[16:34.000 --> 16:36.000]  Anyway.
[16:36.000 --> 16:37.000]  Wait a minute.
[16:37.000 --> 16:43.000]  You said standing but you didn't specify that standing as relates to what?
[16:43.000 --> 16:44.000]  Hang on.
[16:44.000 --> 16:45.000]  We'll pick this up on the other side.
[16:45.000 --> 16:47.000]  Randy Kelton, we'll move our radio.
[16:47.000 --> 16:50.000]  I'll call it number 512-646-1984.
[16:50.000 --> 17:00.000]  We'll be right back.
[17:00.000 --> 17:04.000]  Did you know that the Logos Radio Network is a truly listener-supported radio network?
[17:04.000 --> 17:09.000]  On top of the on-air talents, producers and other hardworking individuals working behind
[17:09.000 --> 17:12.000]  the scenes, Logos Radio Network is kept on the air by the generous support of listeners,
[17:12.000 --> 17:14.000]  like you.
[17:14.000 --> 17:18.000]  And we appreciate our loyal listeners making contributions every year on our annual fundraisers,
[17:18.000 --> 17:22.000]  which help keep the lights on and Logos Radio Network on the air.
[17:22.000 --> 17:25.000]  The 2016 fundraiser has been extended to March 17th.
[17:25.000 --> 17:29.000]  Head on over to logosradionetwork.com to make your contribution.
[17:29.000 --> 17:34.000]  Every $25 donation enters you for a chance to win prizes from Central Texas Gunworks.
[17:34.000 --> 17:37.000]  First prize being a Spikes skull lower receiver.
[17:37.000 --> 17:39.000]  Second prize being a Taurus curve.
[17:39.000 --> 17:45.000]  And if you donate your $25 contribution early enough, you will also receive a complimentary jar of My Magic Mud.
[17:45.000 --> 17:50.000]  Donations by all major credit cards are accepted, as well as contributions by Bitcoin.
[17:50.000 --> 17:53.000]  The Logos Radio Network fundraiser now through March 17th.
[17:53.000 --> 18:00.000]  Head on over to logosradionetwork.com for more information and to donate to keep the Logos Radio Network on the air.
[18:00.000 --> 18:06.000]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area of nutrition.
[18:06.000 --> 18:11.000]  People feed their pets better than they feed themselves, and it's time we changed all that.
[18:11.000 --> 18:17.000]  Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[18:17.000 --> 18:22.000]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated,
[18:22.000 --> 18:25.000]  young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need.
[18:25.000 --> 18:31.000]  Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject.
[18:31.000 --> 18:40.000]  We have come to trust young Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[18:40.000 --> 18:47.000]  When you order from logosradionetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio.
[18:47.000 --> 18:52.000]  As you realize the benefits of young Jevity, you may want to join us.
[18:52.000 --> 18:59.000]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and increase your income.
[18:59.000 --> 19:01.000]  Order now.
[19:01.000 --> 19:10.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network. Logosradionetwork.com.
[19:10.000 --> 19:17.000]  Well, don't let them get to you. Only the father can do it by you.
[19:17.000 --> 19:24.000]  Don't let bad-minded people hurt you. Until they say something, get behind them.
[19:24.000 --> 19:33.000]  Okay, we are back, Randy Kelton. We've got a video of my talk with Mark in Texas.
[19:33.000 --> 19:36.000]  Where were you, Mark?
[19:36.000 --> 19:44.000]  Oh, well, we were talking about standing, and I was just saying I had a conversation that was fun to have,
[19:44.000 --> 19:51.000]  but it was still unproductive and not very satisfactory because I spoke to this guy who was a law school professor.
[19:51.000 --> 19:56.000]  I described this case, and he's supposed to be an expert on quiet title.
[19:56.000 --> 20:05.000]  I told him I would like to consider a suit to quiet title because there's a fraudulent assignment document.
[20:05.000 --> 20:13.000]  I told him, I said, I raised the question of standing because this assignment can't convey standing.
[20:13.000 --> 20:20.000]  I'm sure of that, and I raised it in court, but I didn't raise it as eloquently as I can now.
[20:20.000 --> 20:27.000]  I actually just simply said as I was having this hearing, and I was afraid that I was about to have something handed to me.
[20:27.000 --> 20:38.000]  I didn't want to have it to me. I said, Your Honor, I pray to the court that you consider the motion that I have written,
[20:38.000 --> 20:46.000]  and I pretty much went over it, and then I said, in addition to this, if this is not sufficient before the court,
[20:46.000 --> 20:55.000]  I absolutely want to argue that there are material facts that have been yet to have been brought out here.
[20:55.000 --> 21:02.000]  I haven't done discovery relative to the issue of standing here because I thought this was very simple,
[21:02.000 --> 21:09.000]  and I had been advised to keep it simple in front of the court, and there we were.
[21:09.000 --> 21:12.000]  I don't know if...
[21:12.000 --> 21:24.000]  That keep it simple advice is not very good advice because you're setting the record for appeal.
[21:24.000 --> 21:31.000]  So you want all the appealable items you can get.
[21:31.000 --> 21:35.000]  Before you have even one hearing, I guess.
[21:35.000 --> 21:43.000]  Yeah, you want all that in your original pleadings and in your affidavits, your statement of fact,
[21:43.000 --> 21:48.000]  because you want to get all the facts in you can, all the issues in, you want everything on the record.
[21:48.000 --> 21:57.000]  So if they have a special term in law called any alternative, you argue this issue,
[21:57.000 --> 22:01.000]  and then any alternative, you argue this next issue.
[22:01.000 --> 22:02.000]  Right.
[22:02.000 --> 22:07.000]  So you don't depend on one winning your case.
[22:07.000 --> 22:13.000]  I brought it up, and I didn't think that it was substantial enough at that point,
[22:13.000 --> 22:16.000]  and I thought I needed to bring it out a little more.
[22:16.000 --> 22:23.000]  I had read discovery pieces on some foreclosure fighters websites that are actually pretty good,
[22:23.000 --> 22:30.000]  and I hadn't done any discovery at all at that point, and I hadn't actually asked,
[22:30.000 --> 22:38.000]  okay, who did this party who signed this assignment actually work for on this date?
[22:38.000 --> 22:41.000]  And I didn't go into any of that.
[22:41.000 --> 22:47.000]  Okay, the thing about standing, standing goes to subject matter jurisdiction.
[22:47.000 --> 22:49.000]  Okay.
[22:49.000 --> 22:51.000]  That should ring some bells.
[22:51.000 --> 22:55.000]  Subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, no matter how remote in history.
[22:55.000 --> 23:02.000]  So if you can go in and show that the assignment by a quiet title action,
[23:02.000 --> 23:09.000]  show that the assignment was void when it was filed,
[23:09.000 --> 23:14.000]  then you can go back under subject matter jurisdiction
[23:14.000 --> 23:22.000]  and challenge the capacity of the plaintiff to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court,
[23:22.000 --> 23:28.000]  and jurisdiction can be challenged no matter how remote in history.
[23:28.000 --> 23:30.000]  That's a nice way.
[23:30.000 --> 23:37.000]  Honestly, from what I had read, I thought it could be challenged at any time, even upon appeal,
[23:37.000 --> 23:41.000]  and as I even read it like that, at least that's what my piece said,
[23:41.000 --> 23:45.000]  and I think I got a little bit from a document that you had given me
[23:45.000 --> 23:49.000]  and that I'd gotten from Steve Skidmore also.
[23:49.000 --> 23:51.000]  Both were good.
[23:51.000 --> 23:55.000]  I racked my brain for a few months trying to find Arkansas case law,
[23:55.000 --> 23:59.000]  and in the state of Arkansas where this case took place,
[23:59.000 --> 24:03.000]  they don't have anything relative to subject matter jurisdiction,
[24:03.000 --> 24:05.000]  the likes of which we have here in Texas.
[24:05.000 --> 24:08.000]  I went to the University of Texas Law Library,
[24:08.000 --> 24:11.000]  and I read a really nice presentation that had been given there
[24:11.000 --> 24:15.000]  about subject matter jurisdiction by some attorney in Houston,
[24:15.000 --> 24:19.000]  and it helped me understand what was being said,
[24:19.000 --> 24:24.000]  but as far as I can tell, as I've mentioned this to some attorneys in Arkansas,
[24:24.000 --> 24:27.000]  definitely in front of the judge and in front of the plaintiff's attorney,
[24:27.000 --> 24:31.000]  they think, and I would ask you to help me clearly understand this,
[24:31.000 --> 24:33.000]  maybe even a little better, because I'm not sure I get it,
[24:33.000 --> 24:38.000]  but they think that subject matter jurisdiction is something that's established
[24:38.000 --> 24:42.000]  by some kind of statutory definition,
[24:42.000 --> 24:47.000]  like the district court has jurisdiction over foreclosures.
[24:47.000 --> 24:51.000]  What you're going to is competence.
[24:51.000 --> 24:53.000]  Yeah.
[24:53.000 --> 24:56.000]  It's not that the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction
[24:56.000 --> 24:59.000]  over the particular subject matter,
[24:59.000 --> 25:07.000]  but the plaintiff was unable to invoke the authority of the court,
[25:07.000 --> 25:14.000]  so the court is not competent to hear the issues.
[25:14.000 --> 25:19.000]  I found a real good argument on competence in a Michigan case
[25:19.000 --> 25:22.000]  that went to that really well.
[25:22.000 --> 25:26.000]  So we're saying that there is no competence to hear it.
[25:26.000 --> 25:33.000]  There's insufficient capacity to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court
[25:33.000 --> 25:38.000]  to involve the court because the assignment doesn't give standing
[25:38.000 --> 25:44.000]  and because they don't have something that is within the statute of limitations,
[25:44.000 --> 25:49.000]  essentially time barred matter, so the court shouldn't hear it.
[25:49.000 --> 25:52.000]  Yeah, the court had no jurisdiction to hear this,
[25:52.000 --> 25:58.000]  no competence to hear it because there was no controversy.
[25:58.000 --> 26:00.000]  Okay.
[26:00.000 --> 26:03.000]  The plaintiff has to be able to bring a controversy,
[26:03.000 --> 26:08.000]  and if they don't have an interest in the issue,
[26:08.000 --> 26:13.000]  they can't bring a controversy.
[26:13.000 --> 26:17.000]  I couldn't go sue in your behalf.
[26:17.000 --> 26:20.000]  I'd like standing.
[26:20.000 --> 26:24.000]  I got it.
[26:24.000 --> 26:26.000]  That I get.
[26:26.000 --> 26:28.000]  So as far as the...
[26:28.000 --> 26:29.000]  Oh, wait, hold on.
[26:29.000 --> 26:35.000]  Before I lose this thought, you mentioned you found some good documentation
[26:35.000 --> 26:39.000]  on subject matter jurisdiction in Texas and found nothing in Arkansas.
[26:39.000 --> 26:45.000]  Under full faith and credit, you can bring Texas case law to Arkansas.
[26:45.000 --> 26:47.000]  Under full faith and credit?
[26:47.000 --> 26:49.000]  What do you mean by that?
[26:49.000 --> 26:52.000]  The state...
[26:52.000 --> 26:58.000]  The legislatures of all the states trust the legislatures of all the other states.
[26:58.000 --> 27:03.000]  So if there is an issue that has not been addressed in this state,
[27:03.000 --> 27:11.000]  but the legislature or the court that's in another state have addressed this issue,
[27:11.000 --> 27:18.000]  then under full faith and credit, you can bring foreign law into this jurisdiction.
[27:18.000 --> 27:20.000]  It's not compelling.
[27:20.000 --> 27:22.000]  It's not controlling.
[27:22.000 --> 27:24.000]  It's advisory.
[27:24.000 --> 27:28.000]  But you can use that.
[27:28.000 --> 27:33.000]  Well, that means I could have just filled pages with case law.
[27:33.000 --> 27:40.000]  And in the future, if I get to the point where I can bring a lawsuit for fraud,
[27:40.000 --> 27:45.000]  which I certainly think I will, I'll be mentioning the Ivanova case.
[27:45.000 --> 27:52.000]  But I'm guessing the path still looks like I need to file quiet title.
[27:52.000 --> 27:57.000]  I need to do the FDCPA before the statute of limitations runs out.
[27:57.000 --> 28:03.000]  And if I attack the servicer and not the plaintiff in the foreclosure case,
[28:03.000 --> 28:08.000]  is that something that you would think would be a clear matter?
[28:08.000 --> 28:13.000]  Is there a conflict in doing that because there's already a case and it's relevant to...?
[28:13.000 --> 28:18.000]  I'm not sure what you mean by attacking the servicer.
[28:18.000 --> 28:26.000]  Oh, well, what I mean by that, to clearly explain, SBS servicing was the servicer.
[28:26.000 --> 28:29.000]  They are, for practical purposes, a debt buyer.
[28:29.000 --> 28:34.000]  When you look at the document that was filed, the assignment itself,
[28:34.000 --> 28:40.000]  it pretty much says they purchased it for $10 and a handshake or whatever.
[28:40.000 --> 28:46.000]  It's signed by an employee of SBS servicing, maybe the owner himself.
[28:46.000 --> 28:50.000]  It is something where it says assign or,
[28:50.000 --> 28:55.000]  MERS as a trustee for Fremont Financial with successors in the signs,
[28:55.000 --> 28:59.000]  that's pretty darn vague, but those are the only two parties mentioned.
[28:59.000 --> 29:02.000]  Neither of those parties could have made this assignment
[29:02.000 --> 29:07.000]  because MERS can't in Arkansas per Southwest Homes v. MERS, very plain language.
[29:07.000 --> 29:11.000]  And when we look at Fremont, they're out of business.
[29:11.000 --> 29:14.000]  That's declared in the Bretschler case in New York.
[29:14.000 --> 29:19.000]  And just obvious, they're out of business since 2008.
[29:19.000 --> 29:27.000]  Who knows where all that went or who the actual holder of the note would actually have been.
[29:27.000 --> 29:33.000]  I didn't do any kind of analysis on that or pay any of that.
[29:33.000 --> 29:42.000]  You really don't need to. If it's clear on the face, if Fremont didn't exist,
[29:42.000 --> 29:47.000]  it's clear that Fremont could not have directed MERS.
[29:47.000 --> 29:48.000]  Yeah, that's right.
[29:48.000 --> 29:53.000]  That's void on his face. Hold on, Randy Kelton, view of our radio.
[29:53.000 --> 30:00.000]  I'll call him number 512-646-1984. We'll be right back.
[30:00.000 --> 30:08.000]  There's a spooky new search engine on the Internet, and you've probably already been caught in its web.
[30:08.000 --> 30:11.000]  You'd be amazed when it knows and how it gets its information.
[30:11.000 --> 30:15.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll tell you more in just a moment.
[30:15.000 --> 30:20.000]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[30:20.000 --> 30:25.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish, too.
[30:25.000 --> 30:30.000]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[30:30.000 --> 30:33.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[30:33.000 --> 30:36.000]  This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com,
[30:36.000 --> 30:40.000]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[30:40.000 --> 30:44.000]  Start over with Startpage.
[30:44.000 --> 30:49.000]  Spokeo.com boasts that it's not your grandma's white pages. How true.
[30:49.000 --> 30:53.000]  Spokeo is a creepy website that specializes in digging up personal information
[30:53.000 --> 30:55.000]  about people and their families.
[30:55.000 --> 30:58.000]  It goes beyond public source information like tax records
[30:58.000 --> 31:02.000]  and delves into the deep Internet to dig up gems like the names of your children,
[31:02.000 --> 31:07.000]  your age, your home value, your income, hobbies, and even photographs.
[31:07.000 --> 31:09.000]  But it posts all this information on its website,
[31:09.000 --> 31:14.000]  making it available to every Tom, Dick, and Harry without your knowledge or consent.
[31:14.000 --> 31:18.000]  I highly recommend searching for your own name at Spokeo.com
[31:18.000 --> 31:21.000]  and following the procedure for removing your listing.
[31:21.000 --> 31:26.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for Startpage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[31:51.000 --> 31:58.000]  Visit me, call 888-910-4367, and see what our powder, seeds, and oil can do for you.
[31:58.000 --> 32:02.000]  Only at mqsa.org.
[32:02.000 --> 32:05.000]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law traffic seminar.
[32:05.000 --> 32:08.000]  In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society,
[32:08.000 --> 32:10.000]  and if we the people are ever going to have a free society,
[32:10.000 --> 32:13.000]  then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[32:13.000 --> 32:15.000]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place,
[32:15.000 --> 32:17.000]  the right to act in our own private capacity,
[32:17.000 --> 32:20.000]  and most importantly, the right to due process of law.
[32:20.000 --> 32:23.000]  The courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce
[32:23.000 --> 32:25.000]  and preserve our rights through due process.
[32:25.000 --> 32:28.000]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio,
[32:28.000 --> 32:31.000]  has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available
[32:31.000 --> 32:33.000]  that will help you understand what due process is
[32:33.000 --> 32:35.000]  and how to hold the courts to the rule of law.
[32:35.000 --> 32:37.000]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material
[32:37.000 --> 32:40.000]  by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today.
[32:40.000 --> 32:42.000]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book,
[32:42.000 --> 32:45.000]  The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie,
[32:45.000 --> 32:47.000]  video and audio of the original 2009 seminar,
[32:47.000 --> 32:50.000]  hundreds of research documents and other useful resource materials.
[32:50.000 --> 32:52.000]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material
[32:52.000 --> 32:54.000]  from ruleoflawradio.com.
[32:54.000 --> 32:59.000]  Order your copy today, and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[32:59.000 --> 33:19.000]  Live, free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[33:19.000 --> 33:30.000]  Yeah.
[33:30.000 --> 33:31.000]  Okay, we are back.
[33:31.000 --> 33:33.000]  Randy Shelton, Rule of Law Radio.
[33:33.000 --> 33:37.000]  It looks like a couple of callers dropped off.
[33:37.000 --> 33:42.000]  Sonny in Georgia, and I don't remember the other one.
[33:42.000 --> 33:44.000]  I knew both of you guys.
[33:44.000 --> 33:47.000]  If you'll call back, we will get to you.
[33:47.000 --> 33:49.000]  We've got another hour and a half.
[33:49.000 --> 33:52.000]  Okay, Mark?
[33:52.000 --> 33:54.000]  I'm sorry, I'm taking a while here.
[33:54.000 --> 34:01.000]  Anyway, I feel somewhat stupid as I look at a few of these things, but it helps.
[34:01.000 --> 34:07.000]  And I'll tell you, if Fremont didn't exist, then this assignment has to be void on its face
[34:07.000 --> 34:12.000]  because there's no party that could tell MERS, certainly no party that could tell SPS Servicing,
[34:12.000 --> 34:17.000]  which it states is the party that prepared the assignment
[34:17.000 --> 34:24.000]  and for whom the person signing the assignment actually works.
[34:24.000 --> 34:28.000]  It basically means the assignment is void on its face.
[34:28.000 --> 34:31.000]  Okay, this is more than void.
[34:31.000 --> 34:39.000]  This is the fraud on its face that you had to find in order to be able to go back to the court.
[34:39.000 --> 34:43.000]  Okay, so I don't have to really bring it out a whole lot more.
[34:43.000 --> 34:45.000]  This is obvious, would you say?
[34:45.000 --> 34:49.000]  This is pretty straightforward.
[34:49.000 --> 34:54.000]  The dead guy can't order anybody to do anything.
[34:54.000 --> 34:55.000]  Yeah.
[34:55.000 --> 35:03.000]  And Judge Shrek in New York called these guys vampire lenders.
[35:03.000 --> 35:04.000]  Yeah.
[35:04.000 --> 35:12.000]  They rise up from the dead and order their MERS to give away their beneficial interests.
[35:12.000 --> 35:13.000]  Right.
[35:13.000 --> 35:17.000]  I think I just need to make a compilation of cases where that's happened.
[35:17.000 --> 35:27.000]  And then, as you say, under full faith and credit, I'll slap those things in there so somebody has a clue
[35:27.000 --> 35:33.000]  because I'm worried that I still may yet have to come back and appeal something.
[35:33.000 --> 35:40.000]  Definitely, if I go back and ask the court to void that judgment or...
[35:40.000 --> 35:50.000]  If you can get that judgment rendered void, then you can come back and rest your decata.
[35:50.000 --> 35:54.000]  Once you get the ruling, you wait 30 days.
[35:54.000 --> 36:02.000]  If somebody doesn't appeal the ruling, after 30 days, the court loses plenary jurisdiction.
[36:02.000 --> 36:06.000]  They cannot revisit that issue.
[36:06.000 --> 36:07.000]  It's res judicata.
[36:07.000 --> 36:09.000]  It's a done deal.
[36:09.000 --> 36:19.000]  So now you can go back to the court and claim fraud, and you can claim the fraud as collateral estoppel.
[36:19.000 --> 36:27.000]  This other court has ruled it was fraudulent from the beginning, and you can't go back and revisit that issue.
[36:27.000 --> 36:30.000]  That's fixed in law now.
[36:30.000 --> 36:35.000]  I like quiet title because it's a bushwhack technique.
[36:35.000 --> 36:40.000]  And you said you talked to a lot of lawyers and they really didn't get it.
[36:40.000 --> 36:50.000]  Well, I'm dealing with these banks lawyers, and they definitely don't get it.
[36:50.000 --> 36:54.000]  I'm filing a quiet title action, and they're not getting it.
[36:54.000 --> 36:57.000]  This is a big, big deal.
[36:57.000 --> 37:02.000]  I win this case. My next case is a done deal.
[37:02.000 --> 37:05.000]  That's the wrong foreclosure.
[37:05.000 --> 37:09.000]  So I'd like to think of these as pawn moves.
[37:09.000 --> 37:19.000]  I filed this case and asked for no damages of any kind, only declaratory judgment.
[37:19.000 --> 37:20.000]  Right.
[37:20.000 --> 37:23.000]  So they have not asked for any money.
[37:23.000 --> 37:28.000]  They moved it to the federal court. I'll get it kicked back.
[37:28.000 --> 37:44.000]  One of the things that does is 28 U.S. Code 1441, the 2011 Venue and Removal Clarification Act.
[37:44.000 --> 37:47.000]  There was a split between circuits.
[37:47.000 --> 37:53.000]  One set of circuits said that if a case is removed to the Fed and it contains state issues,
[37:53.000 --> 38:00.000]  the Fed can hear both the state and federal issues under the Doctrine of Judicial Economy.
[38:00.000 --> 38:04.000]  Another set of circuits said, no, no, no, you can't hear the state issues.
[38:04.000 --> 38:09.000]  It's an undue intrusion on state sovereignty.
[38:09.000 --> 38:17.000]  So the legislature stepped in and in 2011 addressed this issue and fixed it.
[38:17.000 --> 38:23.000]  They said that while a case can be removed to the federal court,
[38:23.000 --> 38:29.000]  all of the state issues must be severed and remanded.
[38:29.000 --> 38:35.000]  Well, let's say this particular one was a trespass to try title.
[38:35.000 --> 38:40.000]  And what that is, it's peculiar to Texas.
[38:40.000 --> 38:47.000]  After there's been a foreclosure and a new deed has been filed in the record,
[38:47.000 --> 38:52.000]  then you can trespass to try title to challenge that deed.
[38:52.000 --> 38:58.000]  And before a foreclosure, you would file a quiet title action against the deed of trust.
[38:58.000 --> 39:00.000]  But after a trespass to try title.
[39:00.000 --> 39:07.000]  This trespass to try title, and we're merely saying that the deed of trust is void
[39:07.000 --> 39:12.000]  because we filed a notice of rescission, they didn't respond within the time limit.
[39:12.000 --> 39:17.000]  Now we filed it out of time, about three days out of time.
[39:17.000 --> 39:29.000]  But so they had an affirmative defense of statute of limitations, but they didn't bring it.
[39:29.000 --> 39:31.000]  They didn't respond at all.
[39:31.000 --> 39:36.000]  So after 20 days, it's a done deal.
[39:36.000 --> 39:40.000]  We wait to 20 days and we file a quiet title action.
[39:40.000 --> 39:44.000]  And their answer indicates they didn't get it.
[39:44.000 --> 39:48.000]  It doesn't look like they even read the pleadings.
[39:48.000 --> 39:52.000]  If they read them, they didn't understand them.
[39:52.000 --> 39:58.000]  So I think these lawyers aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer.
[39:58.000 --> 40:01.000]  It's definitely the case in my case.
[40:01.000 --> 40:02.000]  And here's some fun.
[40:02.000 --> 40:08.000]  We talked about the idea of maybe suing the judges and the attorneys involved.
[40:08.000 --> 40:12.000]  I don't know if you've seen the case, I'd sent you a means to do it.
[40:12.000 --> 40:18.000]  But I'll tell you, there are actually two different law firms involved in this case
[40:18.000 --> 40:25.000]  that both affirmatively plead or, you know, something happens here
[40:25.000 --> 40:28.000]  where the plaintiff affirmatively pleads to both of them.
[40:28.000 --> 40:31.000]  And on the plaintiff's behalf, they put it in there.
[40:31.000 --> 40:36.000]  And they're saying that the original date of acceleration was 2010
[40:36.000 --> 40:40.000]  rather than 2007, which is in the original complaint.
[40:40.000 --> 40:44.000]  I've already looked at the law in the state and it very clearly says
[40:44.000 --> 40:51.000]  if an attorney ought to have known better, then it's their business to bring that up
[40:51.000 --> 40:55.000]  with their client rather than, you know, just go into court
[40:55.000 --> 40:57.000]  and throw down the perjurer's statement and then say,
[40:57.000 --> 41:00.000]  well, my client told me to say that.
[41:00.000 --> 41:04.000]  So they're in trouble with respect to that.
[41:04.000 --> 41:11.000]  We have case law in Texas that says that the lawyer may not rely on the veracity
[41:11.000 --> 41:17.000]  of his client, he must research the facts himself.
[41:17.000 --> 41:18.000]  Right.
[41:18.000 --> 41:19.000]  And that's reasonable.
[41:19.000 --> 41:21.000]  It's there too.
[41:21.000 --> 41:22.000]  Yeah.
[41:22.000 --> 41:27.000]  So in this case, I assume I've got an aggravated perjury action
[41:27.000 --> 41:32.000]  versus both of these law firms or the attorneys involved.
[41:32.000 --> 41:39.000]  And you might just sue the law firms for fraud.
[41:39.000 --> 41:41.000]  What's the difference?
[41:41.000 --> 41:42.000]  That's interesting.
[41:42.000 --> 41:47.000]  You would sue them in the federal court.
[41:47.000 --> 41:51.000]  That way when you file suit, you file in the district you live in,
[41:51.000 --> 41:53.000]  you bring them to you.
[41:53.000 --> 41:54.000]  Oh, yeah.
[41:54.000 --> 41:55.000]  Yeah.
[41:55.000 --> 41:56.000]  I remember you saying that.
[41:56.000 --> 41:57.000]  I didn't know I could do that.
[41:57.000 --> 42:01.000]  And I love that because I damn sure don't want to do it in the state.
[42:01.000 --> 42:02.000]  What's going to happen?
[42:02.000 --> 42:05.000]  What's going to happen if I go back to the same judge
[42:05.000 --> 42:11.000]  and ask that judge to dismiss his ruling?
[42:11.000 --> 42:13.000]  Not much.
[42:13.000 --> 42:19.000]  These lawyers denied you procedural due process.
[42:19.000 --> 42:21.000]  So sue them in the Fed.
[42:21.000 --> 42:25.000]  Bring them to Texas.
[42:25.000 --> 42:26.000]  Yeah.
[42:26.000 --> 42:28.000]  That I love.
[42:28.000 --> 42:32.000]  If you still have some interest and think that's fun, I'm interested.
[42:32.000 --> 42:35.000]  I think it would be wise.
[42:35.000 --> 42:44.000]  Well, you claim the amount of harm and you claim it treble because they committed fraud.
[42:44.000 --> 42:46.000]  Ah, okay.
[42:46.000 --> 42:48.000]  So here's a question.
[42:48.000 --> 42:55.000]  If I sue the law firms and we're looking at treble damages for the amount of harm,
[42:55.000 --> 42:57.000]  my judgment, let's say, is 200,000.
[42:57.000 --> 43:00.000]  We're asking for six.
[43:00.000 --> 43:05.000]  That's nice that somebody should pay something.
[43:05.000 --> 43:13.000]  But whenever we were to, if we were to sue the judge for violating my right to due process,
[43:13.000 --> 43:19.000]  which was clearly done here because in order to reopen a case once it's been dismissed,
[43:19.000 --> 43:24.000]  the plaintiff who reopened that has to have a valid cause of action,
[43:24.000 --> 43:26.000]  valid prima facie cause of action.
[43:26.000 --> 43:30.000]  They clearly do not where their complaints filed past the statute of limitations.
[43:30.000 --> 43:31.000]  Okay.
[43:31.000 --> 43:32.000]  Hang on.
[43:32.000 --> 43:33.000]  We're about to get a break.
[43:33.000 --> 43:36.000]  And you need to close this up on the next segment.
[43:36.000 --> 43:43.000]  But you might look at including the judge in the lawsuit against the lawyers
[43:43.000 --> 43:48.000]  so that they'll throw the lawyers under the bus to get the judge off the hook.
[43:48.000 --> 43:49.000]  Hang on.
[43:49.000 --> 44:02.000]  We'll be right back.
[44:02.000 --> 44:03.000]  Hello.
[44:02.000 --> 44:06.000]  My name is Stuart Smith from naturespureorganics.com.
[44:06.000 --> 44:10.000]  And I would like to invite you to come by our store at 1904 Guadalupe Street,
[44:10.000 --> 44:12.000]  Sweet D here in Austin, Texas.
[44:12.000 --> 44:16.000]  I'm Brave New Books and Jay Smith to see all our fantastic health and wellness products
[44:16.000 --> 44:18.000]  with your very own eyes.
[44:18.000 --> 44:22.000]  Have a look at our Miracle Healing Clay that started our adventure in alternative medicine.
[44:22.000 --> 44:24.000]  Take a peek at some of our other wonderful products,
[44:24.000 --> 44:28.000]  including our Australian Eme oil, lotion candles, olive oil, soaps,
[44:28.000 --> 44:30.000]  and colloidal silver and gold.
[44:30.000 --> 44:37.000]  Call 512-264-4043 or find us online at naturespureorganics.com.
[44:37.000 --> 44:43.000]  That's 512-264-4043, naturespureorganics.com.
[44:43.000 --> 44:47.000]  Don't forget to like us on Facebook for information on events and our products.
[44:47.000 --> 45:01.000]  Naturespureorganics.com.
[45:01.000 --> 45:04.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[45:04.000 --> 45:07.000]  Win your case without an attorney with Juris Dictionary,
[45:07.000 --> 45:12.000]  the affordable, easy-to-understand, core CD course that will show you how
[45:12.000 --> 45:15.000]  in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[45:15.000 --> 45:19.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[45:19.000 --> 45:23.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[45:23.000 --> 45:28.000]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[45:28.000 --> 45:34.000]  Juris Dictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[45:34.000 --> 45:39.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[45:39.000 --> 45:43.000]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[45:43.000 --> 45:49.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[45:49.000 --> 45:52.000]  pro se tactics, and much more.
[45:52.000 --> 46:02.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[46:02.000 --> 46:25.000]  MUSIC
[46:25.000 --> 46:30.000]  Always I must be careful what I'm wishing for
[46:30.000 --> 46:35.000]  When I'm hungry, I like to know just what I'm wishing for
[46:35.000 --> 46:36.000]  Okay, we are back.
[46:36.000 --> 46:40.000]  Randy Kelton rules our radio, and we're talking to Mark in Texas,
[46:40.000 --> 46:46.000]  and this all goes to everything is political.
[46:46.000 --> 46:49.000]  One of the things that it's hard to wrap your head around,
[46:49.000 --> 46:55.000]  because you're so used to applying law to the courts,
[46:55.000 --> 47:00.000]  it's hard to realize it's really not about law, but it's about politics.
[47:00.000 --> 47:06.000]  And in politics, all politics is local.
[47:06.000 --> 47:12.000]  It's always about the money, and perception is everything.
[47:12.000 --> 47:17.000]  So, you sue the judge, you sue the lawyers.
[47:17.000 --> 47:25.000]  Well, you know, they don't want it to seem like they're favoring judges,
[47:25.000 --> 47:30.000]  so they've got to give you something.
[47:30.000 --> 47:36.000]  What they're likely to do is you get a good claim against the judge for acting outside of scope,
[47:36.000 --> 47:39.000]  and here you can claim the judge lacks subject matter jurisdiction,
[47:39.000 --> 47:50.000]  lack the power to reopen the case because the other side failed to bring a viable claim.
[47:50.000 --> 47:55.000]  Then you sue the judge, you sue the lawyers.
[47:55.000 --> 48:04.000]  Good chance that they will throw the lawyers under the bus to cover the judge.
[48:04.000 --> 48:10.000]  Besides, it would be great fun suing the judge.
[48:10.000 --> 48:17.000]  Yeah, well, it sounds like some fun for me.
[48:17.000 --> 48:21.000]  I was just thinking, one of your show's sponsors is Michael Maris.
[48:21.000 --> 48:24.000]  I think you've actually had him on a few times.
[48:24.000 --> 48:28.000]  He surely would be an expert in FDCPA, I'm guessing.
[48:28.000 --> 48:29.000]  He is.
[48:29.000 --> 48:31.000]  I know he's here.
[48:31.000 --> 48:32.000]  What's that?
[48:32.000 --> 48:36.000]  He is, you should get a hold of him if you're doing FDCPA.
[48:36.000 --> 48:38.000]  Yeah, I'm...
[48:38.000 --> 48:40.000]  Well, he charges a couple hundred bucks,
[48:40.000 --> 48:46.000]  and Michael just makes himself available to you any time.
[48:46.000 --> 48:51.000]  He will show you how to kick their behinds.
[48:51.000 --> 48:53.000]  Well, that I need more than anything.
[48:53.000 --> 48:58.000]  Mark from Wisconsin that we talked to earlier,
[48:58.000 --> 49:01.000]  he used to have two Marks from Wisconsin.
[49:01.000 --> 49:04.000]  The other Mark, I haven't heard from him in a long time,
[49:04.000 --> 49:08.000]  but he used Michael Maris' method,
[49:08.000 --> 49:12.000]  and one of his credit cards paid him $3,500,
[49:12.000 --> 49:16.000]  and the other something similar, I think $2,500,
[49:16.000 --> 49:20.000]  just to get him to go away and leave him alone.
[49:20.000 --> 49:23.000]  And they retired the debt.
[49:23.000 --> 49:28.000]  So this worked, and it's all on FDCPA, so it really works well.
[49:28.000 --> 49:29.000]  I need it.
[49:29.000 --> 49:31.000]  Quick question on this.
[49:31.000 --> 49:33.000]  Help me if you can.
[49:33.000 --> 49:36.000]  The attorneys I've spoken to here in Texas,
[49:36.000 --> 49:38.000]  maybe not the sharpest bunch,
[49:38.000 --> 49:42.000]  maybe I'm describing this in the wrong way,
[49:42.000 --> 49:44.000]  as I try to put it all together and say,
[49:44.000 --> 49:48.000]  I want to use my FDCPA to do discovery that allows me to go back
[49:48.000 --> 49:52.000]  with absolutely whiz-bang discovery that shows fraud
[49:52.000 --> 49:53.000]  and then sue for fraud.
[49:53.000 --> 49:55.000]  It's the right thing to do.
[49:55.000 --> 50:01.000]  The problem is you know too much.
[50:01.000 --> 50:02.000]  And you know what?
[50:02.000 --> 50:04.000]  I feel like an idiot.
[50:04.000 --> 50:07.000]  Here I am.
[50:07.000 --> 50:10.000]  Lawyers want you totally ignorant.
[50:10.000 --> 50:14.000]  They don't want you to know when they screw up.
[50:14.000 --> 50:17.000]  Lawyers, they get out of law school,
[50:17.000 --> 50:19.000]  and they don't know anything,
[50:19.000 --> 50:22.000]  but they're learning counsel.
[50:22.000 --> 50:27.000]  So they have to always be learning counsel.
[50:27.000 --> 50:33.000]  So the worst thing for a lawyer is a knowledgeable client.
[50:33.000 --> 50:38.000]  You terrify lawyers.
[50:38.000 --> 50:42.000]  So I'm not surprised you're having problems finding a lawyer.
[50:42.000 --> 50:44.000]  I can't find lawyers.
[50:44.000 --> 50:48.000]  They don't want to touch me with a 10-foot pole.
[50:48.000 --> 50:49.000]  Yeah, I'm with you.
[50:49.000 --> 50:54.000]  Well, why would an attorney, if FDCPA is federal,
[50:54.000 --> 50:57.000]  why would an attorney in Texas not want to take this
[50:57.000 --> 51:00.000]  though it may have some bearing on a case
[51:00.000 --> 51:03.000]  that's already been decided in Arkansas?
[51:03.000 --> 51:06.000]  I don't know specifically what the big issue would be
[51:06.000 --> 51:10.000]  because it seems we could argue that there's some mutual exclusion.
[51:10.000 --> 51:14.000]  We're arguing the simplicity of false and misleading statements
[51:14.000 --> 51:17.000]  made in a dunning letter by a servicer.
[51:17.000 --> 51:20.000]  And if there's any false and misleading statements made
[51:20.000 --> 51:23.000]  and those things contribute to some outcome
[51:23.000 --> 51:27.000]  that results in damages for me, which would be this other case,
[51:27.000 --> 51:30.000]  then we're due actual damages too.
[51:30.000 --> 51:32.000]  The attorney walks away with $10,000.
[51:32.000 --> 51:37.000]  Okay, send me an email to remind me
[51:37.000 --> 51:40.000]  I've got an attorney in Dallas on refuge.
[51:40.000 --> 51:44.000]  I'll talk to anybody that's got some smarts.
[51:44.000 --> 51:45.000]  So, all good.
[51:45.000 --> 51:49.000]  The caller has taken up so much time and always appreciates.
[51:49.000 --> 51:54.000]  Well, it looks like we've lost all our callers.
[51:54.000 --> 51:57.000]  Well, I can keep talking a long time, I'm sure.
[51:57.000 --> 52:00.000]  We had a full board
[52:00.000 --> 52:04.000]  and I think we've talked them all off the air.
[52:04.000 --> 52:07.000]  Okay, I guess we can keep going
[52:07.000 --> 52:12.000]  because John wanted to talk about foreclosures.
[52:12.000 --> 52:16.000]  John, if you're listening, call us back, we'll take you.
[52:16.000 --> 52:17.000]  Sure.
[52:17.000 --> 52:21.000]  We'll drop mark like a hot rock.
[52:21.000 --> 52:23.000]  I'll be pleased to do that.
[52:23.000 --> 52:26.000]  You know, the main reason why I'm looking for an attorney
[52:26.000 --> 52:31.000]  rather than doing it myself is simply because, A,
[52:31.000 --> 52:35.000]  that causes me not to suffer prejudice
[52:35.000 --> 52:37.000]  and I kind of promised my wife
[52:37.000 --> 52:42.000]  I would quit spending all my extra time on this stuff a few months ago.
[52:42.000 --> 52:47.000]  And, you know, it's something where I'd like to focus on other things.
[52:47.000 --> 52:49.000]  It doesn't mean I'm going to quit.
[52:49.000 --> 52:52.000]  I promised Steve Skidmore as I talked to him after I'd had this judgment.
[52:52.000 --> 52:54.000]  I promised him I wouldn't quit
[52:54.000 --> 52:58.000]  unless it looked like that was the only thing I could do.
[52:58.000 --> 53:02.000]  And as he said, and I think as you said,
[53:02.000 --> 53:06.000]  you only have the rights that you're willing to assert.
[53:06.000 --> 53:09.000]  That's the nature of freedom.
[53:09.000 --> 53:12.000]  And I think I have to do this.
[53:12.000 --> 53:16.000]  And I have to do this for people who have been harmed majorly,
[53:16.000 --> 53:19.000]  where families are getting thrown out into the streets,
[53:19.000 --> 53:21.000]  children are being harmed,
[53:21.000 --> 53:26.000]  by criminals who have no right to do what they're doing.
[53:26.000 --> 53:29.000]  And this is something that's very simple.
[53:29.000 --> 53:31.000]  It could make our entire country mad as hell
[53:31.000 --> 53:34.000]  if they really knew what was going on.
[53:34.000 --> 53:40.000]  And I think that's the main reason why they're not.
[53:40.000 --> 53:42.000]  I had a judge ask me once
[53:42.000 --> 53:44.000]  after I'd filed criminal charges against him
[53:44.000 --> 53:47.000]  and the sheriff and the county attorney,
[53:47.000 --> 53:50.000]  Mr. Kelkin, why are you doing this?
[53:50.000 --> 53:56.000]  And I said, Judge, you kicked this soapbox up under my feet.
[53:56.000 --> 54:01.000]  You don't get to whine that I stand squarely on it.
[54:01.000 --> 54:04.000]  But I think it's our duty.
[54:04.000 --> 54:08.000]  They want to kick it up under our feet, we take them on.
[54:08.000 --> 54:14.000]  I was at the DPS the other day.
[54:14.000 --> 54:15.000]  I wanted a...
[54:15.000 --> 54:21.000]  I understand that new law says if you get a Texas ID,
[54:21.000 --> 54:24.000]  then you have to turn in your driver's license.
[54:24.000 --> 54:27.000]  So I told them I wanted a Texas ID.
[54:27.000 --> 54:28.000]  Oh, do you have a driver's license?
[54:28.000 --> 54:29.000]  Yeah, I do.
[54:29.000 --> 54:31.000]  Well, you'll have to turn that in.
[54:31.000 --> 54:32.000]  Oh, I don't want to turn in my license.
[54:32.000 --> 54:35.000]  Well, you have to.
[54:35.000 --> 54:38.000]  We went around and around a bit and they brought in a DPS guy
[54:38.000 --> 54:43.000]  and he told me, if you do this, you can't drive out of here.
[54:43.000 --> 54:44.000]  I said, sure I can.
[54:44.000 --> 54:45.000]  My car's right outside.
[54:45.000 --> 54:46.000]  I'll just jump right in.
[54:46.000 --> 54:47.000]  Oh, no.
[54:47.000 --> 54:51.000]  He said, I'll stop you and write you a ticket.
[54:51.000 --> 54:57.000]  I said, Bubba, if you write me a ticket for this,
[54:57.000 --> 54:59.000]  I'll give you a romp through the legal system.
[54:59.000 --> 55:03.000]  You are not going to believe me.
[55:03.000 --> 55:06.000]  There was a guy sitting next to me.
[55:06.000 --> 55:11.000]  He almost dropped his coffee.
[55:11.000 --> 55:13.000]  And then when the guy went in the back, this guy said,
[55:13.000 --> 55:16.000]  man, I can't believe you said that to him.
[55:16.000 --> 55:19.000]  Man, I meant it.
[55:19.000 --> 55:21.000]  Well, the people just don't know.
[55:21.000 --> 55:25.000]  I explained the Texas transportation code issue as I understand it,
[55:25.000 --> 55:28.000]  not to the degree that you do.
[55:28.000 --> 55:32.000]  I explained it to an attorney that I was talking to the other day.
[55:32.000 --> 55:33.000]  He loved that idea.
[55:33.000 --> 55:34.000]  I told him, well, guess what?
[55:34.000 --> 55:37.000]  In California, it's even much more clearly defined.
[55:37.000 --> 55:39.000]  You need to go look into this.
[55:39.000 --> 55:41.000]  Anyway.
[55:41.000 --> 55:42.000]  Yeah.
[55:42.000 --> 55:45.000]  So it's worth the fight.
[55:45.000 --> 55:48.000]  It absolutely is.
[55:48.000 --> 55:51.000]  Years from now, one of the things for me,
[55:51.000 --> 55:55.000]  I'm driving down the road and those lights come on behind me.
[55:55.000 --> 56:00.000]  I don't get that empty feeling in the pit of my stomach anymore.
[56:00.000 --> 56:05.000]  Somebody threatened me with a lawsuit.
[56:05.000 --> 56:10.000]  Take your best shot and see how that works out for you.
[56:10.000 --> 56:17.000]  So for me, it's it's it's given me a level of comfort.
[56:17.000 --> 56:23.000]  On the one hand, but with the realization that the system's totally corrupt on the other.
[56:23.000 --> 56:27.000]  But it is worth it is worth the effort.
[56:27.000 --> 56:29.000]  Oh, without a doubt.
[56:29.000 --> 56:34.000]  And the more we go, the more we hammer on, the better.
[56:34.000 --> 56:37.000]  So yeah.
[56:37.000 --> 56:41.000]  Do you have a timeline put together?
[56:41.000 --> 56:43.000]  Me?
[56:43.000 --> 56:47.000]  I know that within a few months, my statute of limitations.
[56:47.000 --> 56:49.000]  Here's the question I want to ask you.
[56:49.000 --> 56:51.000]  This is good. I'm glad you're asking.
[56:51.000 --> 56:57.000]  But in a few months, my statute of limitations is going to run out on my one year FDCPA claim
[56:57.000 --> 57:01.000]  because the last dunning letter I received was like March or April.
[57:01.000 --> 57:05.000]  And I have to go and find all my old papers.
[57:05.000 --> 57:12.000]  My wife took them off the banquet table and put them somewhere in the dark recesses of a closet somewhere.
[57:12.000 --> 57:14.000]  That's that's where this is.
[57:14.000 --> 57:16.000]  She's sick of it.
[57:16.000 --> 57:19.000]  But anyway, I will do that.
[57:19.000 --> 57:22.000]  And then check your time.
[57:22.000 --> 57:25.000]  If you're short on time, get something filed.
[57:25.000 --> 57:28.000]  Even if it's garbage, get it filed.
[57:28.000 --> 57:30.000]  Just get something filed.
[57:30.000 --> 57:31.000]  Steve Skidmore came to me.
[57:31.000 --> 57:33.000]  He was the first guy.
[57:33.000 --> 57:40.000]  He was a doing a show on the network and had two days from an eviction hearing.
[57:40.000 --> 57:43.000]  And I told him he said he needed a lawsuit.
[57:43.000 --> 57:46.000]  And I said, man, I'm still doing my research.
[57:46.000 --> 57:48.000]  He said, I don't have time for your research.
[57:48.000 --> 57:49.000]  I need something right now.
[57:49.000 --> 57:56.000]  So I went on the Internet and pulled down a bunch of junk, stuffed it all together in a suit.
[57:56.000 --> 57:58.000]  He filed it.
[57:58.000 --> 58:02.000]  The J.P. threw him out of the young law for retainer hearing.
[58:02.000 --> 58:03.000]  What are you doing here?
[58:03.000 --> 58:04.000]  I don't have jurisdiction.
[58:04.000 --> 58:07.000]  Get out of my court.
[58:07.000 --> 58:15.000]  The lawyers for the other side filed a answer saying, Your Honor, this suit's a bunch of crap.
[58:15.000 --> 58:20.000]  And the judge read the suit and agreed that the suit's a bunch of crap.
[58:20.000 --> 58:22.000]  Amend it.
[58:22.000 --> 58:26.000]  The second amendment took.
[58:26.000 --> 58:30.000]  But that was like nine months down the road.
[58:30.000 --> 58:32.000]  Point is, don't miss a deadline.
[58:32.000 --> 58:36.000]  Get something in, something good, something garbage.
[58:36.000 --> 58:38.000]  Get something in.
[58:38.000 --> 58:43.000]  Randy Kelton, you radio, I call it number 512-646-1984.
[58:43.000 --> 58:45.000]  You guys have dropped off your call back.
[58:45.000 --> 58:46.000]  We'll take your calls.
[58:46.000 --> 58:50.000]  We'll be right back.
[58:50.000 --> 58:54.000]  Would you like to make more definite progress in your walk with God?
[58:54.000 --> 59:01.000]  Bibles for America is offering a free study Bible and a set of free Christian books that can really help.
[59:01.000 --> 59:06.000]  The New Testament Recovery Version is one of the most comprehensive study Bibles available today.
[59:06.000 --> 59:13.000]  It's an accurate translation, and it contains thousands of footnotes that will help you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[59:13.000 --> 59:18.000]  The free books are a three-volume set called Basic Elements of the Christian Life.
[59:18.000 --> 59:28.000]  Chapter by chapter, Basic Elements of the Christian Life clearly presents God's plan of salvation, growing in Christ, and how to build up the church.
[59:28.000 --> 59:41.000]  To order your free New Testament Recovery Version and Basic Elements of the Christian Life, call Bibles for America toll-free at 888-551-0102.
[59:41.000 --> 59:45.000]  That's 888-551-0102.
[59:45.000 --> 59:50.000]  Or visit us online at bfa.org.
[59:50.000 --> 01:00:02.000]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:02.000 --> 01:00:22.000]  The following news flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing the daily bulletins for the commodities market. Today in history, news updates, and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative.
[01:00:22.000 --> 01:00:44.000]  Markets for Wednesday, March 2, 2016, are currently treading with gold at $1,240 an ounce, silver $14.98 an ounce, Texas crude $34.40 a barrel, and Bitcoin is currently sitting at about $429 U.S. currency.
[01:00:44.000 --> 01:00:53.000]  Today in history, the year 1807, the U.S. Congress passes an act to prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States.
[01:00:53.000 --> 01:00:59.000]  However, the widespread trade of slaves within the South was not prohibited since the children of slaves automatically became slaves themselves.
[01:00:59.000 --> 01:01:05.000]  The act prohibiting importation of slaves of 1807 went into effect January 1, 1808.
[01:01:05.000 --> 01:01:12.000]  The beginning of U.S. abolition was today in history.
[01:01:12.000 --> 01:01:18.000]  In recent news, President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama will both appear later this month at South by Southwest.
[01:01:18.000 --> 01:01:31.000]  The president is scheduled to take part in a discussion on March 11 with Evan Smith, editor of the Texas Tribune, on civic engagement and the role of innovative technology in increasing participation in politics and even solving major problems like climate change.
[01:01:31.000 --> 01:01:42.000]  On March 16, the First Lady will be discussing her Let Girls Learn initiative, which aims to help an estimated 62 million girls around the world have access to basic higher education.
[01:01:42.000 --> 01:01:52.000]  This will make the Obamas the first president and First Lady to appear at South by Southwest in its 30-year history.
[01:01:52.000 --> 01:02:05.000]  Lawyer Jose Refugio Rodriguez said today that his client, drug lord Joaquin El Chapo Guzman, said he wants to be extradited as soon as possible to the United States because guards at the Mexican Maximum Security Prison aren't letting him sleep.
[01:02:05.000 --> 01:02:12.000]  Mr. Rodriguez is wanting to negotiate with the U.S. authorities for a lighter sentence in a state of medium security prison instead.
[01:02:12.000 --> 01:02:22.000]  The radio formula reported El Chapo fears that his health will worsen because of the isolated conditions in the Mexican prison and the possibility that the lack of sleep could cause a heart attack or a stroke.
[01:02:22.000 --> 01:02:30.000]  The process of extradition may take up to a year.
[01:02:30.000 --> 01:02:42.000]  The world's biggest seller of corn and soybean seeds and the maker of Roundup weed killer Monsanto Corporation issued a profit warning today. They are forecasting a cut to the midpoint of its fiscal 2006 profit by at least 11 percent.
[01:02:42.000 --> 01:02:48.000]  This is after they announced laying off 3,600 employees, roughly 16 percent of its global workforce.
[01:02:48.000 --> 01:02:54.000]  Monsanto shares recently went down 7.5 percent and have shed a total of 29 percent during the past year.
[01:02:54.000 --> 01:03:00.000]  This is Rody with your Lowdown for March 2nd, 2016.
[01:03:24.000 --> 01:03:32.000]  Okay, we are back, ready to help.
[01:03:32.000 --> 01:03:40.000]  We've got radio and we're talking to Mark in Texas.
[01:03:40.000 --> 01:03:46.000]  Where were we, Mark?
[01:03:46.000 --> 01:03:50.000]  Oh, hold on, hold on, hold on. Somebody forgot to unmute you.
[01:03:50.000 --> 01:03:54.000]  There you go, Mark.
[01:03:54.000 --> 01:04:04.000]  Hi, so I'm just basically running down my action items here and what I have is email Randy about FTCPA attorney in Dallas in all caps because you won't see it otherwise.
[01:04:04.000 --> 01:04:08.000]  Email Michael Mears.
[01:04:08.000 --> 01:04:16.000]  Just go to Logos Radio Network and find the blue banner. That's Michael Mears' banner.
[01:04:16.000 --> 01:04:22.000]  Okay, that I will do and rather interesting.
[01:04:22.000 --> 01:04:32.000]  I want to ask as far as things go if you think maybe since I haven't sent a qualified written request or something to that effect,
[01:04:32.000 --> 01:04:40.000]  maybe there's some letter that I might write this servicer that could get them to help clarify things a little bit.
[01:04:40.000 --> 01:04:42.000]  Do you have any ideas about that?
[01:04:42.000 --> 01:04:54.000]  Wait a minute, is this a mortgage, is this the mortgage that was foreclosed on or is this one that's still in place?
[01:04:54.000 --> 01:05:00.000]  Oh, no. I have a mortgage that was foreclosed on.
[01:05:00.000 --> 01:05:04.000]  What I think makes sense is I need to file an FTCPA lawsuit.
[01:05:04.000 --> 01:05:24.000]  The reason I ask that is once there's been a foreclosure, there is no more loans so there's no grounds to file a qualified written request or a debt validation because there is no debt to qualify.
[01:05:24.000 --> 01:05:30.000]  However, there are other claims you can make.
[01:05:30.000 --> 01:05:47.000]  I do an evaluation of the finance and one of the claims I like to make is that the fees they charge on the HUD-1 settlement statement.
[01:05:47.000 --> 01:05:51.000]  I think there are statute of limitations on that, no?
[01:05:51.000 --> 01:06:03.000]  That's fraud. If you're past statute of limitations where you can't claim false and misleading, no, this is fraud per se.
[01:06:03.000 --> 01:06:07.000]  I haven't discovered fraud yet. I'm just hearing you.
[01:06:07.000 --> 01:06:24.000]  Okay, let me help you discover some. At closing on the mortgage, the lender put in front of you a HUD-1 settlement statement that contained a set of fees.
[01:06:24.000 --> 01:06:43.000]  Did the lender provide documentation to validate those fees? Documentation that showed that the fees were not otherwise forbidden to be charged by law, that the fees were for services actually rendered,
[01:06:43.000 --> 01:06:55.000]  that the services were necessary, that the amounts charged was reasonable and that the lender did not take an undisclosed markup on the amounts charged.
[01:06:55.000 --> 01:07:06.000]  If they didn't provide that documentation, then as far as you know, every fee on the HUD-1 settlement statement is fraudulent.
[01:07:06.000 --> 01:07:13.000]  So what I do is I build a spreadsheet and I amortize the loan.
[01:07:13.000 --> 01:07:25.000]  And then I could take the amount from line 1400 of the HUD-1 settlement statement and I subtract it from the principal on the first payment as an overpayment.
[01:07:25.000 --> 01:07:28.000]  And then I run out the note.
[01:07:28.000 --> 01:07:38.000]  Steve Skidmore was the first one I did, $116,000 note at 6%. $12,000 in closing costs.
[01:07:38.000 --> 01:07:50.000]  I subtracted $12,000 from the principal, ran out the note. His principal would have went to zero at payment 240.
[01:07:50.000 --> 01:08:01.000]  On a $115,000 note, they would have overcharged him $50,043.
[01:08:01.000 --> 01:08:11.000]  So since we claim that's all fraud, in fraud you don't sue for the amount you were actually defrauded of.
[01:08:11.000 --> 01:08:18.000]  You sue the amount you would have been defrauded of had their plan ran through fruition.
[01:08:18.000 --> 01:08:25.000]  So his note was only six years old, so he hadn't had it down yet.
[01:08:25.000 --> 01:08:30.000]  But we don't sue for just what he's fraudulently paid in.
[01:08:30.000 --> 01:08:37.000]  We sue for the full amount, but you don't actually sue for that amount, you sue for triple.
[01:08:37.000 --> 01:08:46.000]  So in this calculation, I get a claim against the lender in excess of the original principal.
[01:08:46.000 --> 01:08:51.000]  Sure. Probably do the same thing on yours.
[01:08:51.000 --> 01:08:59.000]  Well, mine was 9.5%. It didn't seem to matter because we figured we'd get equity out and sell it quick, but that didn't quite work.
[01:08:59.000 --> 01:09:05.000]  And yeah, that would be fair, I would say.
[01:09:05.000 --> 01:09:14.000]  That was the standard spiel. It went to a prohibition, never speculate with your home.
[01:09:14.000 --> 01:09:21.000]  Okay, 9.5%. Do you have a truth in lending statement?
[01:09:21.000 --> 01:09:29.000]  Not in front of me, but I wasn't even present at the closing. It was done at a distance.
[01:09:29.000 --> 01:09:35.000]  I'm not even sure there's a HUD 1 settle statement that's included as part of that, but I think there has to be one.
[01:09:35.000 --> 01:09:47.000]  It has to be one. And HUD 1, truth in lending, if you can find the HUD 1 truth in lending in note, I can run some calculations.
[01:09:47.000 --> 01:09:55.000]  What I do is amortize the amounts charged on the truth in lending.
[01:09:55.000 --> 01:10:08.000]  The note and the HUD 1, I do a second amortization where I subtract the amount from the HUD 1 settlement statement.
[01:10:08.000 --> 01:10:18.000]  But I run the note and check the amount that an amortization schedule shows the payment should be.
[01:10:18.000 --> 01:10:27.000]  I compare that to the amount stated on the note. And then I want to look at a demand for payment
[01:10:27.000 --> 01:10:35.000]  and make sure that the principal and interest is accurately applied.
[01:10:35.000 --> 01:10:45.000]  Make sure the amount charged for principal and interest is what is on the note and seldom is. It's almost always different.
[01:10:45.000 --> 01:10:50.000]  And then you run the truth in lending, that'll be somewhat different again.
[01:10:50.000 --> 01:11:01.000]  As best I can tell, the way they calculate the truth in lending statement, because the principal will be less,
[01:11:01.000 --> 01:11:05.000]  the interest will be more than what's on the note.
[01:11:05.000 --> 01:11:09.000]  I had one guy that really seemed to know what he was talking about.
[01:11:09.000 --> 01:11:18.000]  And he said that they subtract the mortgage insurance from the original principal on the truth in lending.
[01:11:18.000 --> 01:11:22.000]  And that's what makes the mortgage amount less.
[01:11:22.000 --> 01:11:31.000]  And then they increase the interest of the payments to recoup that mortgage insurance amount.
[01:11:31.000 --> 01:11:37.000]  So I asked him, why did he do that? It would seem to just make things confusing.
[01:11:37.000 --> 01:11:46.000]  He said, I have no idea. But it's been relatively accurate.
[01:11:46.000 --> 01:11:53.000]  So I say relatively because not always, it varies.
[01:11:53.000 --> 01:12:01.000]  But in any case, you'll have different numbers on the truth in lending and the huddle and the note.
[01:12:01.000 --> 01:12:10.000]  Now, I have found occurrences where the amount chart listed on the truth in lending
[01:12:10.000 --> 01:12:16.000]  and the amount on the note are the same, but rarely.
[01:12:16.000 --> 01:12:24.000]  Where I see a variance, then I check to see if it's more,
[01:12:24.000 --> 01:12:32.000]  I will check to see the statement, what's on the statement and see if it matches the truth in lending.
[01:12:32.000 --> 01:12:37.000]  Sometimes it does. Sometimes it matches the note. It's just kind of random.
[01:12:37.000 --> 01:12:40.000]  But it should match the note.
[01:12:40.000 --> 01:12:48.000]  And when I run these out, I can, if the payments match the truth in lending,
[01:12:48.000 --> 01:12:58.000]  then the amounts charged aren't the same. It doesn't matter if it's more or less.
[01:12:58.000 --> 01:13:02.000]  If they're charging you more than they should, you get to claim fraud.
[01:13:02.000 --> 01:13:07.000]  If they're charging you less than they should, you get to claim fraud.
[01:13:07.000 --> 01:13:12.000]  If they're charging you less than they should be, you think you're getting a deal.
[01:13:12.000 --> 01:13:16.000]  No, you're getting set up is what you're getting.
[01:13:16.000 --> 01:13:23.000]  That's what they're going to do is they're going to watch until the first two times in a row you show pay.
[01:13:23.000 --> 01:13:28.000]  And then they're going to come to you and say, oh, my, oh, my goodness, look what happened.
[01:13:28.000 --> 01:13:34.000]  Bank error. We didn't charge you enough. You owe us $20,000.
[01:13:34.000 --> 01:13:37.000]  You were going to foreclose tomorrow.
[01:13:37.000 --> 01:13:42.000]  I've had a number of people have exactly that happen to them.
[01:13:42.000 --> 01:13:48.000]  So we want to check to make sure those numbers are right. And that's fraud right on its face.
[01:13:48.000 --> 01:13:58.000]  If those numbers aren't right, I seldom find the numbers right on the note compared to what they're actually charging.
[01:13:58.000 --> 01:14:04.000]  And that is a great claim to make. You don't care what they did.
[01:14:04.000 --> 01:14:07.000]  You don't care what all this song and dance is.
[01:14:07.000 --> 01:14:15.000]  The deal is I signed this note. I agreed to pay this principle at this interest.
[01:14:15.000 --> 01:14:22.000]  I don't care what kind of calculations you did. I don't care about HUD. I don't care about anything.
[01:14:22.000 --> 01:14:27.000]  This is what I agreed to. This is what you're supposed to be charging me.
[01:14:27.000 --> 01:14:33.000]  You're not charging me what I agreed to pay. And so you get a lot of claims on that.
[01:14:33.000 --> 01:14:40.000]  The calculation on the HUD-1 gives you a large claim against them.
[01:14:40.000 --> 01:14:51.000]  Now, when I make that argument, I tell them that if they will prove up one of these fines or one of these fees,
[01:14:51.000 --> 01:14:56.000]  then I will deduct it from the calculation and recalculate it.
[01:14:56.000 --> 01:15:09.000]  In some 700 lawsuits filed, you got any idea how many of these amounts charged were actually proven up?
[01:15:09.000 --> 01:15:11.000]  It's a real easy number.
[01:15:11.000 --> 01:15:14.000]  It's zero.
[01:15:14.000 --> 01:15:24.000]  It is zero. The reason it's zero is because if they prove up one fee and they don't prove up another,
[01:15:24.000 --> 01:15:34.000]  the one they didn't prove up, their failure to do so will give us probable cause to believe that that is fraud.
[01:15:34.000 --> 01:15:38.000]  It creates an adverse inference.
[01:15:38.000 --> 01:15:44.000]  It adversely infers that the fee is exactly what we said it was.
[01:15:44.000 --> 01:15:58.000]  A fraudulent fee charged to either, generally we make the charge to bribe our fiduciaries into breaching their fiduciary duty to us.
[01:15:58.000 --> 01:16:07.000]  So that's the claim we make. We've never had anybody touch it, but we've had the federal courts throw out everything.
[01:16:07.000 --> 01:16:13.000]  We've had just about everything thrown out, but we're getting better decisions now.
[01:16:13.000 --> 01:16:18.000]  And the arguments that we're making are different.
[01:16:18.000 --> 01:16:25.000]  I just did a lawsuit over the weekend for someone in Utah.
[01:16:25.000 --> 01:16:39.000]  And in looking at 15 U.S. Code 1652E, the one that requires clear, concise notes,
[01:16:39.000 --> 01:16:45.000]  when I read the state of trust, it's not exactly clear and concise.
[01:16:45.000 --> 01:16:49.000]  Hang on. I'll pick this up on the little side window of my radio.
[01:16:49.000 --> 01:17:00.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:17:00.000 --> 01:17:05.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[01:17:05.000 --> 01:17:09.000]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Maris proven method.
[01:17:09.000 --> 01:17:14.000]  Michael Maris has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win two.
[01:17:14.000 --> 01:17:20.000]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes,
[01:17:20.000 --> 01:17:26.000]  what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, how to answer letters and phone calls,
[01:17:26.000 --> 01:17:33.000]  how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[01:17:33.000 --> 01:17:38.000]  The Michael Maris proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[01:17:38.000 --> 01:17:41.000]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[01:17:41.000 --> 01:17:49.000]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Maris banner or email michaelmaris at yahoo.com.
[01:17:49.000 --> 01:18:00.000]  That's 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 now.
[01:18:00.000 --> 01:18:05.000]  Did you know that the Logos Radio Network is a truly listener-supported radio network?
[01:18:05.000 --> 01:18:10.000]  On top of the on-air talents, producers, and other hardworking individuals working behind the scenes,
[01:18:10.000 --> 01:18:14.000]  Logos Radio Network is kept on the air by the generous support of listeners like you.
[01:18:14.000 --> 01:18:19.000]  And we appreciate our loyal listeners making contributions every year on our annual fundraisers,
[01:18:19.000 --> 01:18:22.000]  which help keep the lights on and Logos Radio Network on the air.
[01:18:22.000 --> 01:18:26.000]  The 2016 fundraiser has been extended to March 17th.
[01:18:26.000 --> 01:18:30.000]  Head on over to logosradionetwork.com to make your contribution.
[01:18:30.000 --> 01:18:35.000]  Every $25 donation enters you for a chance to win prizes from Central Texas Gunworks.
[01:18:35.000 --> 01:18:40.000]  First prize being a Spikes skull lower receiver, second prize being a Taurus curve.
[01:18:40.000 --> 01:18:46.000]  And if you donate your $25 contribution early enough, you will also receive a complimentary jar of My Magic Mud.
[01:18:46.000 --> 01:18:51.000]  Donations by all major credit cards are accepted as well as contributions by Bitcoin.
[01:18:51.000 --> 01:18:54.000]  The Logos Radio Network fundraiser now through March 17th.
[01:18:54.000 --> 01:19:00.000]  Head on over to logosradionetwork.com for more information and to donate to keep the Logos Radio Network on the air.
[01:19:00.000 --> 01:19:28.000]  This is the Logos Logos Radio Network.
[01:19:30.000 --> 01:19:47.000]  If I can't get everything I want, maybe I'll get a rain chair.
[01:19:47.000 --> 01:19:55.000]  If I can't get everything I need, maybe I'll get a rain chair.
[01:19:55.000 --> 01:20:01.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton with Logos Radio. We're talking to Mark in Texas.
[01:20:01.000 --> 01:20:08.000]  And I've been taking somewhat of a different approach.
[01:20:08.000 --> 01:20:15.000]  I looked at 15 U.S. Code 1692E and it's talking about clear and concise notice.
[01:20:15.000 --> 01:20:23.000]  And it's examined based on the least sophisticated consumer perspective.
[01:20:23.000 --> 01:20:31.000]  Okay, I have this assignment by the original lender, which was MetLife.
[01:20:31.000 --> 01:20:41.000]  MetLife assigned the mortgage to JP Morgan Chase.
[01:20:41.000 --> 01:20:50.000]  Based on the least sophisticated consumer perspective, I went back to the deed of trust and I read in there
[01:20:50.000 --> 01:20:59.000]  right at the beginning where it names MERS and it identifies MERS as the beneficiary.
[01:20:59.000 --> 01:21:13.000]  Okay, so the lender at closing transferred its beneficial interest in the note to MERS.
[01:21:13.000 --> 01:21:20.000]  Now, I've heard these cases, it says MERS can't hold your beneficial interest. Well, I don't know about that. I don't care about that.
[01:21:20.000 --> 01:21:23.000]  I'm a least sophisticated consumer.
[01:21:23.000 --> 01:21:30.000]  This document says that MERS is the beneficiary on the mortgage.
[01:21:30.000 --> 01:21:43.000]  So then I see this assignment where it says that MERS, acting as an agent or nominee for MetLife,
[01:21:43.000 --> 01:21:52.000]  transferred the beneficial interest from MetLife to JP Morgan Chase.
[01:21:52.000 --> 01:22:09.000]  So, okay, MERS transferred the value held by MetLife to JP Morgan and that value was zero.
[01:22:09.000 --> 01:22:21.000]  So under Carpenter-London, when the deed of trust transferred the beneficial interest to MERS, the deed of trust followed it.
[01:22:21.000 --> 01:22:30.000]  So MERS could have transferred its beneficial interest to JP Morgan Chase, but it didn't do that.
[01:22:30.000 --> 01:22:39.000]  It transferred MetLife's beneficial interest to JP Morgan Chase and that was nothing.
[01:22:39.000 --> 01:22:41.000]  That's a good thing.
[01:22:41.000 --> 01:22:49.000]  Yeah. I'm a least sophisticated consumer and I didn't create this document.
[01:22:49.000 --> 01:22:56.000]  So any errors or problems with the document is attributed to the creator.
[01:22:56.000 --> 01:23:05.000]  So you guys created it, you put it down in front of me, so I must presume it said exactly what you wanted it to.
[01:23:05.000 --> 01:23:06.000]  Right.
[01:23:06.000 --> 01:23:20.000]  Now later on in the Together With section, it says you understand that MERS does not hold the beneficial interest, but merely holds the legal title.
[01:23:20.000 --> 01:23:32.000]  Well, from the least sophisticated consumer position perspective, I have to assume that that's garbage.
[01:23:32.000 --> 01:23:38.000]  That doesn't mean anything because MERS can't hold the legal title.
[01:23:38.000 --> 01:23:42.000]  The trustee holds the legal title.
[01:23:42.000 --> 01:23:44.000]  Right.
[01:23:44.000 --> 01:23:52.000]  If the trustee doesn't hold the legal title, it's not a deed of trust, it's a mortgage.
[01:23:52.000 --> 01:23:58.000]  I think whoever wrote that was high on coke.
[01:23:58.000 --> 01:24:08.000]  I went on to argue that I'm arguing the validity of the contract.
[01:24:08.000 --> 01:24:18.000]  I'm not getting into FTCPA, Respetila, any of that stuff.
[01:24:18.000 --> 01:24:19.000]  Contract.
[01:24:19.000 --> 01:24:22.000]  This is what the contract says.
[01:24:22.000 --> 01:24:30.000]  This one was FHA, so 13 and 14, if it's Fannie Mae Freddie Mac, it would be 14 and 15.
[01:24:30.000 --> 01:24:42.000]  In this case, Covenant 13 says that the lender, that both parties will provide all notices as required by law by certified mail.
[01:24:42.000 --> 01:24:45.000]  Okay.
[01:24:45.000 --> 01:24:51.000]  14 says both parties will abide by all law.
[01:24:51.000 --> 01:25:03.000]  Well, in this case, we have a letter from this law firm that says that they're an agent for JP Morgan Chase,
[01:25:03.000 --> 01:25:21.000]  and this letter is to give you notice of a pending purchase of your mortgage by JP Morgan Chase from Government National Mortgage Association.
[01:25:21.000 --> 01:25:24.000]  Say what?
[01:25:24.000 --> 01:25:35.000]  I don't see Government National Mortgage Association in these capital records anywhere.
[01:25:35.000 --> 01:25:43.000]  Now, I make this argument between Merge and MetLife, but this other company doesn't show up anywhere.
[01:25:43.000 --> 01:26:02.000]  So this gives us reason to believe that the lender failed to give notice of a transfer of beneficial interest to Government National Mortgage Association
[01:26:02.000 --> 01:26:05.000]  because there's no notice in the record.
[01:26:05.000 --> 01:26:18.000]  And they're required to give this information by the Leadership Center Procedures Act, but I don't claim the remedy provided in the Leadership Center Procedures Act.
[01:26:18.000 --> 01:26:30.000]  I claim the remedy of breach of contract while the borrower was in honor with the contract.
[01:26:30.000 --> 01:26:40.000]  The lender breached two covenants of the contract, thereby they repudiated the contract
[01:26:40.000 --> 01:26:53.000]  and cannot now come to the court and claim the privileges that are granted in the contract based on adherence to the covenants.
[01:26:53.000 --> 01:27:03.000]  So they're in default. Once they default on the contract, the contract's for it. That's the argument.
[01:27:03.000 --> 01:27:07.000]  All contract law, this is really easy to wrap your head around.
[01:27:07.000 --> 01:27:20.000]  While I speak to the Consumer Protection Laws, Hope, Treaty of Respect, and FDCPA, I don't invoke the remedy under these laws.
[01:27:20.000 --> 01:27:35.000]  I merely speak to them to show that there are law relating to the contract that the lender violated in default of Covenant 14. Does that make sense?
[01:27:35.000 --> 01:27:44.000]  I think you're doing that to keep the politics out of there because nobody wants to just give some consumer a bunch of money, do they?
[01:27:44.000 --> 01:27:56.000]  Right. We're not saying there isn't a mortgage. When I wrote this particular document, it was for someone else who was helping a third party.
[01:27:56.000 --> 01:28:09.000]  They were a little more into the commercial side. He wanted me to claim that there was no note, that don't stipulate to the existence of the note.
[01:28:09.000 --> 01:28:17.000]  I told him I can't do that because there's a document filed in the record that the client signed.
[01:28:17.000 --> 01:28:28.000]  And had it filed in a record in the form of the trust, you can't claim what is incontrovertible. That's incontrovertible.
[01:28:28.000 --> 01:28:47.000]  So we're not saying there's not a claim. All we're saying is we granted in the deed of trust a privilege to the lender of a grant against the property,
[01:28:47.000 --> 01:28:59.000]  a grant of a claim against the property, and a confessed judgment against the property on the condition that the lender abide by these covenants.
[01:28:59.000 --> 01:29:05.000]  Well, they didn't abide by the covenants. So they can't now come and claim the privilege.
[01:29:05.000 --> 01:29:17.000]  Now, yeah, we stipulate there is a debt obligation, but they can't use this special privilege method to collect that debt obligation.
[01:29:17.000 --> 01:29:32.000]  Now they have to go file suit against the borrower in court, and it's an unsecured claim because they can't keep up their security.
[01:29:32.000 --> 01:29:36.000]  Does that sound reasonable?
[01:29:36.000 --> 01:29:38.000]  Sure.
[01:29:38.000 --> 01:29:41.000]  I'm trying to find holes in it.
[01:29:41.000 --> 01:29:47.000]  This seems pretty straightforward, and it's what I've been saying. Give the judge something easy to rule on.
[01:29:47.000 --> 01:30:03.000]  Hang on and pick this up on the other side. Call it number 512-646-1984. We'll be right back.
[01:30:03.000 --> 01:30:08.000]  Attention, everyone who gains a few pounds each winter. You may be too warm and cozy for your own good.
[01:30:08.000 --> 01:30:14.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be back in just a moment to explain why you might want to turn down the heat.
[01:30:14.000 --> 01:30:19.000]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:30:19.000 --> 01:30:24.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:30:24.000 --> 01:30:29.000]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[01:30:29.000 --> 01:30:43.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with StartPage.
[01:30:43.000 --> 01:30:51.000]  A new study suggests the trend for warmer indoor temperatures could be making people fatter and contributing to the obesity epidemic.
[01:30:51.000 --> 01:30:59.000]  University College London researchers explain that when the weather turns cold, our bodies are designed to burn a special kind of fat called adipose tissue.
[01:30:59.000 --> 01:31:07.000]  It's supposed to keep us warm, but if our homes, businesses, and cars are already toasty, our bodies never use up the energy to burn it.
[01:31:07.000 --> 01:31:16.000]  As a result, it hangs on as excess fat. So consider lowering the thermostat. You'll burn more calories, and you'll whittle away all that adipose fat.
[01:31:16.000 --> 01:31:20.000]  You'll also save on heating costs and reduce carbon emissions in the process.
[01:31:20.000 --> 01:31:30.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:31:30.000 --> 01:31:36.000]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[01:31:36.000 --> 01:31:43.000]  The government says that fire brought it down. However, 1,500 architects and engineers concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[01:31:43.000 --> 01:31:46.000]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives.
[01:31:46.000 --> 01:31:48.000]  Thousands of my fellow first responders are dying.
[01:31:48.000 --> 01:31:50.000]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[01:31:50.000 --> 01:31:51.000]  I'm a structural engineer.
[01:31:51.000 --> 01:31:52.000]  I'm a New York City correction officer.
[01:31:52.000 --> 01:31:53.000]  I'm an Air Force pilot.
[01:31:53.000 --> 01:31:55.000]  I'm a father who lost his son.
[01:31:55.000 --> 01:31:57.000]  We're Americans, and we deserve the truth.
[01:31:57.000 --> 01:32:07.000]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[01:32:27.000 --> 01:32:46.000]  That's 512-992-8745 or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[01:32:46.000 --> 01:32:59.000]  Out of town roofers come knocking. Your door should be locking. That's 512-992-8745 or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com. Discounts are based on full roof replacement.
[01:32:59.000 --> 01:33:02.000]  Me and I actually be kidding about chemtrails.
[01:33:02.000 --> 01:33:12.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com.
[01:33:12.000 --> 01:33:19.000]  I see it too. I see it too.
[01:33:19.000 --> 01:33:23.000]  Yeah, every time we have a ghost in the room.
[01:33:23.000 --> 01:33:26.000]  I see two of them engineering.
[01:33:26.000 --> 01:33:30.000]  They use against the workers of iniquity.
[01:33:30.000 --> 01:33:50.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton with our radio, and that was kind of off topic for you, Mark. On yours, you have the option of going back at any time if you could show fraud.
[01:33:50.000 --> 01:34:18.000]  Right. I'm concerned about one thing, because my original lender is out of business, but if we really dig in and look at what happened in my case, original lender, I did this in late 2005, then the original lender in 2006 gives me notice that it is passing this over to case.
[01:34:18.000 --> 01:34:24.000]  I did three failed workout attempts, failed by design.
[01:34:24.000 --> 01:34:26.000]  We all know how that works.
[01:34:26.000 --> 01:34:47.000]  At least I think most people do if they haven't done it, but I paid them a ton of money during that time, and I figured there may be some way that I might be able to go back and get them to return that, because that was done in bad faith.
[01:34:47.000 --> 01:34:50.000]  Anyway, I hear where you're coming from.
[01:34:50.000 --> 01:34:57.000]  Where you're coming from, it seems to me you're saying something that I've seen in some of the blogs online and definitely heard you talk about precision.
[01:34:57.000 --> 01:35:00.000]  That seems to be a new hot term.
[01:35:00.000 --> 01:35:02.000]  Precision is very simple.
[01:35:02.000 --> 01:35:07.000]  Still, many of the courts don't understand it, don't do what they should by that.
[01:35:07.000 --> 01:35:09.000]  That's what I understand.
[01:35:09.000 --> 01:35:21.000]  I don't think I necessarily need to go about anything in that sense, because the people who are bringing this action against me are bringing an action that's time barred, and they don't have standing to do it.
[01:35:21.000 --> 01:35:30.000]  They're essentially criminals who come to the court and attempt to collect money that's not theirs to collect, and that's how I'm seeing it.
[01:35:30.000 --> 01:35:33.000]  Is that pretty much how it is in your way of seeing things?
[01:35:33.000 --> 01:35:36.000]  That's the way I'm seeing it.
[01:35:36.000 --> 01:35:51.000]  But there is a provision under challenge to subject matter jurisdiction that says that you can challenge subject matter jurisdiction no matter how remote in history, at any time, no matter how remote.
[01:35:51.000 --> 01:36:02.000]  The concern is you've already challenged subject matter jurisdiction, and you needed to get that into the Court of Appeals.
[01:36:02.000 --> 01:36:23.000]  The question that I would have, and I don't know the answer to, if you come back with a fraud claim and use that to overcome any restriction challenge, any time barring,
[01:36:23.000 --> 01:36:33.000]  come back with a fraud claim, can we adjudicate the issues that you were ruled against?
[01:36:33.000 --> 01:36:37.000]  I'm going to suggest that you can't.
[01:36:37.000 --> 01:36:40.000]  Yeah.
[01:36:40.000 --> 01:36:46.000]  The only thing you can address are the new issues.
[01:36:46.000 --> 01:36:50.000]  Well, we could say there was a fraud upon the Court.
[01:36:50.000 --> 01:37:03.000]  It's an interesting idea. If I win the FDCPA suit against the servicer, where right now I've got 200,000 actual damages, those are actual damages, and I could very well win that.
[01:37:03.000 --> 01:37:05.000]  That would be great.
[01:37:05.000 --> 01:37:08.000]  There'd be a nice accountant.
[01:37:08.000 --> 01:37:10.000]  Wait a minute. You're right.
[01:37:10.000 --> 01:37:13.000]  Fraud upon the Court.
[01:37:13.000 --> 01:37:22.000]  If you claim fraud, when I said that earlier, I was thinking committing fraud against you.
[01:37:22.000 --> 01:37:28.000]  But you won't be claiming fraud against you. You'll be claiming fraud on the Court.
[01:37:28.000 --> 01:37:36.000]  And if the Court was defrauded, everything that it ruled would be contaminated.
[01:37:36.000 --> 01:37:38.000]  Right.
[01:37:38.000 --> 01:37:44.000]  So you might be able to...
[01:37:44.000 --> 01:37:50.000]  You might be able to use fraud to re-adjudicate everything.
[01:37:50.000 --> 01:37:58.000]  It would be the right remedy. It would be the right course of action if we really want our courts to be doing justice.
[01:37:58.000 --> 01:38:10.000]  And it's clear in my way of seeing this, just from what little I know and what lot I've learned from listening to your show, that's clearly not happened here.
[01:38:10.000 --> 01:38:12.000]  The case shouldn't have been reopened.
[01:38:12.000 --> 01:38:25.000]  The judge should have, according to Mr. Randall Kelton, the judge should have forced the plaintiff to affirmatively plead subject matter jurisdiction rather than just dismiss and say, yeah, the Court has jurisdiction.
[01:38:25.000 --> 01:38:29.000]  They needed to affirmatively plead that, to show that to the Court, right?
[01:38:29.000 --> 01:38:38.000]  Yeah. And this would give you a great shot at stinging the judge, because you brought the issue before to the judge.
[01:38:38.000 --> 01:38:44.000]  You demonstrated that the judge lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and he ruled anyway.
[01:38:44.000 --> 01:38:51.000]  Once he stepped forward, you can maintain that he stepped outside his immunity.
[01:38:51.000 --> 01:38:54.000]  And from that point on, he was on his own.
[01:38:54.000 --> 01:39:04.000]  Yeah. This judge has had a writ of mandamus issued against him in the past for presuming that he had jurisdiction when he did not.
[01:39:04.000 --> 01:39:14.000]  I talked to one of the foreclosure fighters here in Austin who couldn't do a thing for me in Arkansas, but I loved his attitude.
[01:39:14.000 --> 01:39:20.000]  And one of the first things he said is he said, you don't need to do an appeal.
[01:39:20.000 --> 01:39:26.000]  He said, if the district court didn't have jurisdiction, the appellate court doesn't have jurisdiction.
[01:39:26.000 --> 01:39:29.000]  You need a writ of mandamus.
[01:39:29.000 --> 01:39:35.000]  And I spoke to a few attorneys. They didn't have a clue what that meant.
[01:39:35.000 --> 01:39:40.000]  Okay. That's something I can work with.
[01:39:40.000 --> 01:39:48.000]  You sent me your documentation. I had a little catastrophe this week, so I wasn't able to get to it.
[01:39:48.000 --> 01:39:56.000]  I did a – I spent all weekend writing a 54-page document for someone.
[01:39:56.000 --> 01:40:02.000]  And I've been asking them for a long time, make sure I've got all the documents.
[01:40:02.000 --> 01:40:14.000]  By Monday, after working all weekend on it, it was clear by reading the documents that I had that there were documents missing.
[01:40:14.000 --> 01:40:27.000]  So I had to go back and recheck, and sure enough, the document that I prepared the case around, I prepared it for not being there.
[01:40:27.000 --> 01:40:33.000]  It turned out it was there. So I had to start all over again.
[01:40:33.000 --> 01:40:37.000]  That was tough. And then today my hot water gave me luck.
[01:40:37.000 --> 01:40:44.000]  But a writ of mandamus, it's been a long time since I've written one of those.
[01:40:44.000 --> 01:40:53.000]  I will look closer at the documentation from the perspective of a writ of mandamus.
[01:40:53.000 --> 01:40:58.000]  Actually might be able to get an appellate court to ruin your favor.
[01:40:58.000 --> 01:41:13.000]  Now, when this lawyer said there's nothing he can do for you in Arkansas, this is – if he filed a federal action for a procedural due process,
[01:41:13.000 --> 01:41:22.000]  that won't be in Arkansas, that'll be here in Texas, like if you see the judge and the lawyers.
[01:41:22.000 --> 01:41:30.000]  Yeah. I won't mention his name. You know, I don't want to push him. That's not allowed.
[01:41:30.000 --> 01:41:32.000]  Here it is.
[01:41:32.000 --> 01:41:36.000]  Oh, his name is Bill Gammon. You may know Bill Gammon.
[01:41:36.000 --> 01:41:38.000]  I know Bill Gammon.
[01:41:38.000 --> 01:41:47.000]  But I think he seems like a guy that's a spitfire, kind of like you a little bit, based on my quick conversation.
[01:41:47.000 --> 01:41:56.000]  I called Bill Gammon and told him I wanted to rent your bar card.
[01:41:56.000 --> 01:42:01.000]  He got real excited about that.
[01:42:01.000 --> 01:42:03.000]  I'll rent the bar card.
[01:42:03.000 --> 01:42:10.000]  And he told me to rent it. You can't rent my bar card since you're a kid.
[01:42:10.000 --> 01:42:17.000]  Now, I'm going to file the three things as a pro se, and then I want to bring you in behind me,
[01:42:17.000 --> 01:42:25.000]  and that'll give you plausible deniability to argue the issues you otherwise might not want to bring.
[01:42:25.000 --> 01:42:29.000]  He was not interested.
[01:42:29.000 --> 01:42:31.000]  Anyway, go ahead. That's my Bill Gammon story.
[01:42:31.000 --> 01:42:37.000]  That makes sense. I would figure somebody would want to handle it, you know, all the way,
[01:42:37.000 --> 01:42:43.000]  and that protects them because, as I think you've discussed or somebody else has discussed with me recently,
[01:42:43.000 --> 01:42:49.000]  they are still all members of the same club, and the club has rules.
[01:42:49.000 --> 01:42:57.000]  Well, you know, Gammon, like everybody else, he's in business, and he could step on their toes to some degree,
[01:42:57.000 --> 01:43:03.000]  but you can't get too far out of hand or they'll come back after you.
[01:43:03.000 --> 01:43:08.000]  I once sued Denton County, Texas, for $10 million.
[01:43:08.000 --> 01:43:17.000]  I sued 24 litigants, all of them public officials, and I sued all of them for following policy.
[01:43:17.000 --> 01:43:24.000]  Except one. I sued my worst nightmare.
[01:43:24.000 --> 01:43:29.000]  Now, that was absolutely a hoot at court in the County Commissioner's Court
[01:43:29.000 --> 01:43:33.000]  when they appointed the district attorney to represent the case.
[01:43:33.000 --> 01:43:42.000]  The judge, Dick Armey, asked the lawyer, the prosecutor, who is this my worst nightmare?
[01:43:42.000 --> 01:43:48.000]  He said, well, so apparently somebody introduced himself to Mr. Kelton as his worst nightmare.
[01:43:48.000 --> 01:43:52.000]  Yes, and I have a bone to pick with him.
[01:43:52.000 --> 01:43:54.000]  Hang on, I'll pick this up on the other side.
[01:43:54.000 --> 01:43:59.000]  Randy Chalk, we'll be right back.
[01:43:59.000 --> 01:44:04.000]  You feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics?
[01:44:04.000 --> 01:44:07.000]  Are you confused by words like the Constitution or the Federal Reserve?
[01:44:07.000 --> 01:44:08.000]  What?
[01:44:08.000 --> 01:44:12.000]  If so, you may be diagnosed with the deadliest disease known today, stupidity.
[01:44:12.000 --> 01:44:19.000]  Hi, my name is Steve Holt, and like millions of other Americans, I was diagnosed with stupidity at an early age.
[01:44:19.000 --> 01:44:25.000]  I had no idea that the number one cause of the disease is found in almost every home in America, the television.
[01:44:25.000 --> 01:44:30.000]  Unfortunately, that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity, but there is hope.
[01:44:30.000 --> 01:44:36.000]  The staff at Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other foxaholics suffering from sports zombieism recover.
[01:44:36.000 --> 01:44:43.000]  And because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading and watching educational documentaries without feeling tired or uninterested.
[01:44:43.000 --> 01:44:55.000]  So if you or anybody you know suffers from stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503 or visit them in 1904 Guadalupe or bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:44:55.000 --> 01:45:01.000]  Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include discernment and enlarged vocabulary and an overall increase in mental functioning.
[01:45:01.000 --> 01:45:04.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:04.000 --> 01:45:11.000]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand 4-CD course
[01:45:11.000 --> 01:45:15.000]  that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[01:45:15.000 --> 01:45:19.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:45:19.000 --> 01:45:23.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:23.000 --> 01:45:28.000]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:45:28.000 --> 01:45:34.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:45:34.000 --> 01:45:43.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:43.000 --> 01:45:52.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:45:52.000 --> 01:46:20.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:20.000 --> 01:46:24.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Felton here with our radio.
[01:46:24.000 --> 01:46:31.000]  And not to get too sidetracked on this story, I called 60 lawyers.
[01:46:31.000 --> 01:46:37.000]  I kept a list of them and tried to get someone to represent this case for me.
[01:46:37.000 --> 01:46:42.000]  Because it was a pretty good case. I had pretty well set it up so it would be.
[01:46:42.000 --> 01:46:50.000]  The last lawyer I called was the previous district attorney in Denton County.
[01:46:50.000 --> 01:46:57.000]  And his name was Jerry, I forget his last name. He'll come to me in a second.
[01:46:57.000 --> 01:47:06.000]  But I talked to him and I told him my name is Randy Felton and I have sued Denton County for, I'm sorry, $11 million.
[01:47:06.000 --> 01:47:09.000]  And I need a lawyer to represent my case.
[01:47:09.000 --> 01:47:14.000]  He said, oh, Mr. Felton, I know all about your suit and I can't represent you.
[01:47:14.000 --> 01:47:19.000]  You made allegations against public officials and I have to represent clients in this county.
[01:47:19.000 --> 01:47:22.000]  I said, what's the matter, Jerry?
[01:47:22.000 --> 01:47:26.000]  Need those judges to screw your next client to get back at you?
[01:47:26.000 --> 01:47:31.000]  And he said the same thing every other lawyer said.
[01:47:31.000 --> 01:47:35.000]  You darn right they will.
[01:47:35.000 --> 01:47:39.000]  Now, I don't know if that's true or not.
[01:47:39.000 --> 01:47:47.000]  But I do know that he thinks it's true and every lawyer I talk to thinks it's true.
[01:47:47.000 --> 01:47:54.000]  So when you go to a lawyer and ask him to do something that might annoy a judge,
[01:47:54.000 --> 01:47:59.000]  you know, he may want to actively adjudicate your issues.
[01:47:59.000 --> 01:48:02.000]  But first, he's in business.
[01:48:02.000 --> 01:48:10.000]  And when you're gone, he's going to have more clients and he's still going to be in front of these same judges and other lawyers.
[01:48:10.000 --> 01:48:23.000]  So it's hard to get a lawyer to actively adjudicate your case if there's any chance he'll run afoul of a judge.
[01:48:23.000 --> 01:48:26.000]  The lawyers are terrified of judges.
[01:48:26.000 --> 01:48:44.000]  And the only time I suggest getting a lawyer is in certain instances where you need to avoid the, say, bias.
[01:48:44.000 --> 01:48:53.000]  Otherwise, if you're taking on issues, especially difficult issues, issues they haven't addressed before,
[01:48:53.000 --> 01:48:56.000]  lawyers don't want to touch them.
[01:48:56.000 --> 01:49:00.000]  You understand why that is, Mark?
[01:49:00.000 --> 01:49:04.000]  It puts them in a precarious position.
[01:49:04.000 --> 01:49:05.000]  Yeah?
[01:49:05.000 --> 01:49:07.000]  Yeah, exactly.
[01:49:07.000 --> 01:49:09.000]  They're learning counsel.
[01:49:09.000 --> 01:49:10.000]  You're not.
[01:49:10.000 --> 01:49:12.000]  You're just an ignorant old pro se.
[01:49:12.000 --> 01:49:16.000]  You can come in here and screw up all you want to.
[01:49:16.000 --> 01:49:24.000]  And the judge may admonish you, but you're just an ignorant old pro se. He expects you to make mistakes.
[01:49:24.000 --> 01:49:25.000]  He's learning counsel.
[01:49:25.000 --> 01:49:28.000]  Just enough citizen's life, no big deal.
[01:49:28.000 --> 01:49:29.000]  Yeah.
[01:49:29.000 --> 01:49:30.000]  He's learning counsel.
[01:49:30.000 --> 01:49:32.000]  He can't make these mistakes.
[01:49:32.000 --> 01:49:38.000]  I had a friend who was good friends with a lawyer and the guy did foreclosure.
[01:49:38.000 --> 01:49:42.000]  And he filed a document that missed something.
[01:49:42.000 --> 01:49:45.000]  It was a minor issue.
[01:49:45.000 --> 01:49:48.000]  A minor point, but he missed it.
[01:49:48.000 --> 01:49:51.000]  And the guy was just distraught.
[01:49:51.000 --> 01:49:58.000]  He said he didn't know who was going to ruin his practice, the judge or his client.
[01:49:58.000 --> 01:50:03.000]  Apparently, he lost a motion because he screwed up something.
[01:50:03.000 --> 01:50:05.000]  See, lawyers can't make mistakes.
[01:50:05.000 --> 01:50:09.000]  Lawyers cannot misquote law.
[01:50:09.000 --> 01:50:11.000]  You can't.
[01:50:11.000 --> 01:50:14.000]  And the judge would be annoyed at you for it.
[01:50:14.000 --> 01:50:16.000]  The lawyer would do it.
[01:50:16.000 --> 01:50:20.000]  And the judge is going to be really, really unhappy.
[01:50:20.000 --> 01:50:27.000]  The reason being is he doesn't want to have to go read every case these lawyers bring him.
[01:50:27.000 --> 01:50:30.000]  He wants to be able to trust the citations he gets.
[01:50:30.000 --> 01:50:36.000]  Eddie Craig called me about a, I think it was Gonzalez v. State,
[01:50:36.000 --> 01:50:45.000]  a piece of case law in traffic and the right to travel issue that had went all the way to spring.
[01:50:45.000 --> 01:50:49.000]  And, you know, I kept saying, read the pleadings.
[01:50:49.000 --> 01:50:51.000]  Read the cases that you cite.
[01:50:51.000 --> 01:50:53.000]  Don't just cite them.
[01:50:53.000 --> 01:50:56.000]  He said, you're not going to believe this.
[01:50:56.000 --> 01:50:58.000]  But I read this case.
[01:50:58.000 --> 01:51:02.000]  Nothing about traffic in there, anywhere.
[01:51:02.000 --> 01:51:06.000]  This is a bad citation.
[01:51:06.000 --> 01:51:07.000]  I thought about that.
[01:51:07.000 --> 01:51:08.000]  How on earth could that happen?
[01:51:08.000 --> 01:51:11.000]  The Supreme Court cited it.
[01:51:11.000 --> 01:51:18.000]  What happened was what I suspect is a well-respected lawyer gives directions to his paralegal,
[01:51:18.000 --> 01:51:21.000]  and the paralegal screws it up.
[01:51:21.000 --> 01:51:22.000]  They file it in the case.
[01:51:22.000 --> 01:51:23.000]  The lawyer don't catch it.
[01:51:23.000 --> 01:51:26.000]  He gets the wrong citation in.
[01:51:26.000 --> 01:51:30.000]  The courts get a well-respected lawyer.
[01:51:30.000 --> 01:51:36.000]  They don't feel the need to check his source for whatever reason the appeals court didn't.
[01:51:36.000 --> 01:51:40.000]  So it gets to the Supreme with this case in place,
[01:51:40.000 --> 01:51:45.000]  and the Supreme had no reason to check the source.
[01:51:45.000 --> 01:51:51.000]  So you see the potential for a time bomb for a lawyer, I mean, for a judge.
[01:51:51.000 --> 01:51:57.000]  If the judge trusts the lawyer's pleadings and sends it to the court of appeals,
[01:51:57.000 --> 01:52:00.000]  and they look at it and say, what is this trash?
[01:52:00.000 --> 01:52:04.000]  The judge is going to get smacked big time.
[01:52:04.000 --> 01:52:10.000]  So when a judge gets bad case law, the lawyer's looking at sanctions.
[01:52:10.000 --> 01:52:13.000]  Lawyers are terrified.
[01:52:13.000 --> 01:52:17.000]  I would never want to be a lawyer.
[01:52:17.000 --> 01:52:22.000]  I don't know of a single lawyer who went to law school
[01:52:22.000 --> 01:52:27.000]  with the idea that when they got out of law school, they'd spend the rest of their professional career
[01:52:27.000 --> 01:52:31.000]  kissing some arrogant judges behind.
[01:52:31.000 --> 01:52:34.000]  They didn't teach them that in law school.
[01:52:34.000 --> 01:52:39.000]  But that's what they find out once they get out here in the real world.
[01:52:39.000 --> 01:52:42.000]  If you're a lawyer, you'll do what the judge says,
[01:52:42.000 --> 01:52:47.000]  and he can end your career in a heartbeat.
[01:52:47.000 --> 01:52:48.000]  We're in procession.
[01:52:48.000 --> 01:52:49.000]  They can't do that.
[01:52:49.000 --> 01:52:51.000]  That's part of the reason they hate us.
[01:52:51.000 --> 01:52:55.000]  Does that make sense, Martin?
[01:52:55.000 --> 01:52:58.000]  It makes an incredible amount of sense.
[01:52:58.000 --> 01:53:01.000]  As I've gone through this entire experience,
[01:53:01.000 --> 01:53:07.000]  I would love to be a lawyer except for that.
[01:53:07.000 --> 01:53:11.000]  I didn't realize how impressive that was.
[01:53:11.000 --> 01:53:13.000]  Lawyers are terrified.
[01:53:13.000 --> 01:53:16.000]  The reason I'm saying this to everybody,
[01:53:16.000 --> 01:53:24.000]  we like to beat up on lawyers, but we really need to understand where they live
[01:53:24.000 --> 01:53:28.000]  if we want to get a lawyer to do something positive for us.
[01:53:28.000 --> 01:53:34.000]  We need to understand what you can ask a lawyer to do and what you can't.
[01:53:34.000 --> 01:53:38.000]  If you want your lawyer to do something provocative,
[01:53:38.000 --> 01:53:43.000]  figure out how to give him plausible deniability.
[01:53:43.000 --> 01:53:48.000]  One of the things we do is I know a couple of lawyers
[01:53:48.000 --> 01:53:54.000]  that I can write the pleading for someone
[01:53:54.000 --> 01:54:01.000]  and put in these arguments that the court's not accustomed to hearing.
[01:54:01.000 --> 01:54:09.000]  The person files the pleadings, per se, and then they bring the lawyer in.
[01:54:09.000 --> 01:54:14.000]  Now the lawyer comes in and he steps up before the judge and he says,
[01:54:14.000 --> 01:54:18.000]  Your Honor, I believe this, that, or the other.
[01:54:18.000 --> 01:54:21.000]  That's the lawyer arguing his issues.
[01:54:21.000 --> 01:54:24.000]  But if he steps up in front of the judge and says,
[01:54:24.000 --> 01:54:27.000]  Your Honor, my client says,
[01:54:27.000 --> 01:54:32.000]  that's telling the judge that my client ordered me to do this
[01:54:32.000 --> 01:54:36.000]  so he's going to kick my behind.
[01:54:36.000 --> 01:54:40.000]  So don't be PO'd at me.
[01:54:40.000 --> 01:54:43.000]  Yeah, and now we're just going to have to work with it anyway,
[01:54:43.000 --> 01:54:45.000]  I guess is where it is.
[01:54:45.000 --> 01:54:49.000]  Well, if you have that in your mind that the lawyer,
[01:54:49.000 --> 01:54:51.000]  he's running a business here,
[01:54:51.000 --> 01:54:56.000]  and you can't ask the lawyer to do something that will ruin his business.
[01:54:56.000 --> 01:54:59.000]  Well, I don't intend to do that, but one quick thing I want to do
[01:54:59.000 --> 01:55:01.000]  because we're going to run out of time,
[01:55:01.000 --> 01:55:06.000]  with respect to the FCCPA issue,
[01:55:06.000 --> 01:55:09.000]  if you have a suspicion that you may know someone in Dallas
[01:55:09.000 --> 01:55:12.000]  who might be able to handle it being that it's federal
[01:55:12.000 --> 01:55:15.000]  and not have an issue with it being in another state,
[01:55:15.000 --> 01:55:19.000]  I'm going to be delighted to be in touch with that person.
[01:55:19.000 --> 01:55:24.000]  Okay, she is tough.
[01:55:24.000 --> 01:55:28.000]  You have to be careful with her or she'll work you over.
[01:55:28.000 --> 01:55:34.000]  That's okay, but I want to make sure I do it right.
[01:55:34.000 --> 01:55:39.000]  And I want her to get $10,000 to $15,000 in lawyer's fees
[01:55:39.000 --> 01:55:43.000]  because they need to pay.
[01:55:43.000 --> 01:55:49.000]  I definitely, definitely despise what I understand is going on,
[01:55:49.000 --> 01:55:53.000]  and that would be good.
[01:55:53.000 --> 01:55:56.000]  If I can do discovery in an FCCPA suit,
[01:55:56.000 --> 01:56:00.000]  even though I'm just going to win $1,000 point below me,
[01:56:00.000 --> 01:56:02.000]  if I can do discovery that lets me go back
[01:56:02.000 --> 01:56:06.000]  and nail the plaintiff in this case for the fraud
[01:56:06.000 --> 01:56:11.000]  or helps to prepare that much better, then that's a great idea.
[01:56:11.000 --> 01:56:15.000]  And I think that that's exactly what I have to do.
[01:56:15.000 --> 01:56:17.000]  You're playing chess now in Studio Checkers.
[01:56:17.000 --> 01:56:21.000]  I like chess in Studio Checkers.
[01:56:21.000 --> 01:56:26.000]  It's nice to be a move or two ahead.
[01:56:26.000 --> 01:56:31.000]  In my case, I know that my case is one that is a lot easier
[01:56:31.000 --> 01:56:34.000]  than a lot of others, and I thought it would be very easy.
[01:56:34.000 --> 01:56:37.000]  I thought I'd walk in and I would just simply win,
[01:56:37.000 --> 01:56:38.000]  and that would be the end of it.
[01:56:38.000 --> 01:56:42.000]  And it definitely was not.
[01:56:42.000 --> 01:56:44.000]  It made no sense.
[01:56:44.000 --> 01:56:50.000]  Did you attempt to negotiate a settlement with these guys earlier?
[01:56:50.000 --> 01:56:53.000]  No. They came to me a few times.
[01:56:53.000 --> 01:56:57.000]  They were offering me $1,500 to just accept foreclosure
[01:56:57.000 --> 01:57:00.000]  and go away and let that be on my credit.
[01:57:00.000 --> 01:57:04.000]  And I'm telling them, I do not want this on my credit.
[01:57:04.000 --> 01:57:06.000]  It shouldn't be there.
[01:57:06.000 --> 01:57:10.000]  You know, I was willing to hear a little bit more
[01:57:10.000 --> 01:57:13.000]  of a reasonable offer from therein.
[01:57:13.000 --> 01:57:16.000]  Like if they said, here, you know, we'll take the house,
[01:57:16.000 --> 01:57:22.000]  which I didn't really want, and we'll simply wipe it out,
[01:57:22.000 --> 01:57:24.000]  you know, they didn't have to say.
[01:57:24.000 --> 01:57:26.000]  It's because it's not a real debt anyway.
[01:57:26.000 --> 01:57:29.000]  There was a time when I thought, that's acceptable.
[01:57:29.000 --> 01:57:32.000]  Okay. I have talked to a number of attorneys,
[01:57:32.000 --> 01:57:38.000]  and when I told them I want you to remove all the marks off the client's credit,
[01:57:38.000 --> 01:57:41.000]  they all said the same thing.
[01:57:41.000 --> 01:57:43.000]  Sure, no problem.
[01:57:43.000 --> 01:57:45.000]  Don't cost them anything.
[01:57:45.000 --> 01:57:48.000]  I don't know why that would have been a problem for them.
[01:57:48.000 --> 01:57:50.000]  Well, it was.
[01:57:50.000 --> 01:57:53.000]  They had to have it their way.
[01:57:53.000 --> 01:57:56.000]  And because of that, it's gotten to where it is.
[01:57:56.000 --> 01:58:00.000]  I think within the near-term future, they're going to regret it quite a lot.
[01:58:00.000 --> 01:58:02.000]  I still have a lot of hope.
[01:58:02.000 --> 01:58:03.000]  Thank you very much.
[01:58:03.000 --> 01:58:04.000]  I hope so.
[01:58:04.000 --> 01:58:08.000]  That's how we get them to keep them honest.
[01:58:08.000 --> 01:58:10.000]  I'm going to send you my email.
[01:58:10.000 --> 01:58:11.000]  I'll send it now.
[01:58:11.000 --> 01:58:12.000]  Thank you.
[01:58:12.000 --> 01:58:14.000]  Send it to me, and we'll talk off the air.
[01:58:14.000 --> 01:58:15.000]  Thank you, Mark.
[01:58:15.000 --> 01:58:18.000]  This is Randy Kelton, the beauty of our radio.
[01:58:18.000 --> 01:58:20.000]  We'll be back next Thursday.
[01:58:20.000 --> 01:58:22.000]  We'll be live next Thursday night.
[01:58:22.000 --> 01:58:26.000]  We apologize for the recording last night,
[01:58:26.000 --> 01:58:30.000]  but we had to do some business to keep this sharing here.
[01:58:30.000 --> 01:58:32.000]  We're kind of struggling right now.
[01:58:32.000 --> 01:58:33.000]  But we'll be back next week.
[01:58:33.000 --> 01:58:35.000]  Thank you all for listening,
[01:58:35.000 --> 01:58:38.000]  and make sure you tell all your friends and neighbors and business
[01:58:38.000 --> 01:58:41.000]  as much listening as many listeners as possible
[01:58:41.000 --> 01:58:44.000]  so we can get some donations to keep this thing on the air.
[01:58:44.000 --> 01:58:45.000]  Thank you.
[01:58:45.000 --> 01:58:46.000]  Good night.
[01:58:46.000 --> 01:59:11.000]  Good night.
[01:59:16.000 --> 01:59:41.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:59:46.000 --> 01:59:48.000]  We'll be right back.