ROL_2018-02-23_16k_Hr1-2.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:07.000]  The following news flash is brought to you by The Lone Star Lowdown
[00:07.000 --> 00:14.000]  Markets for Wednesday the 21st of February 2018 closed with gold at $1,324.64 an ounce,
[00:14.000 --> 00:22.000]  silver $16.50 an ounce, Texas Crude $61.90 a barrel, bitcoins at $10,673.20, Ethereum
[00:22.000 --> 00:31.000]  $851.12, Bitcoin Cash $1,308.63 and finally Litecoins at $214.03 a crypto coin.
[00:31.000 --> 00:40.000]  Today in History, the year 1965 black nationalist icon Malcolm X was assassinated at the
[00:40.000 --> 00:45.000]  Awborn Ballroom in New York City. He stated just two days before being shot in an interview
[00:45.000 --> 00:49.000]  with Gordon Parks that the Nation of Islam was actively trying to kill him.
[00:49.000 --> 00:57.000]  Today in History. In recent news, the White House released a memo on Tuesday the 20th
[00:57.000 --> 01:01.000]  where President Trump ordered Attorney General Jeff Sessions to direct the DOJ to propose
[01:01.000 --> 01:05.000]  new regulations to ban firearm modifications like bump stocks and all devices that turn
[01:05.000 --> 01:09.000]  legal weapons into machine guns. President Trump also tweeted later that evening that
[01:09.000 --> 01:13.000]  quote whether we are Republican or Democrat we must now focus on strengthening background
[01:13.000 --> 01:18.000]  checks. This initiative in reaction of course to last week's school shooting in Parkland,
[01:18.000 --> 01:23.000]  Florida that killed 17 people right now is Press Secretary Sarah Sanders will relate
[01:23.000 --> 01:28.000]  to Tuesday as well that the president expresses support for efforts to improve the federal
[01:28.000 --> 01:32.000]  background system in the coming days we will continue to explore ways to ensure the safety
[01:32.000 --> 01:40.000]  and security of our schools.
[01:40.000 --> 01:44.000]  Cape Town, South Africa is the first major city of its size to be facing a water shortage
[01:44.000 --> 01:49.000]  day zero of the tap running dry essentially being July 9th. Emergency services and hospitals
[01:49.000 --> 01:52.000]  will continue to be supplied with water but everyone else will be left to the mercy of
[01:52.000 --> 01:57.000]  natural springs for drinking, washing and cleaning with the shortage affecting everyone from
[01:57.000 --> 02:01.000]  drinking to water waste management. A million households are expected to be affected.
[02:01.000 --> 02:05.000]  Officials lay the blame on three years of drought while residents blame their local representatives
[02:05.000 --> 02:10.000]  and national leaders dragging their feet and coming to a budget to diversify the city water
[02:10.000 --> 02:15.000]  system. A lot of hopeful plans and desalination plans, water recycling facilities and getting
[02:15.000 --> 02:19.000]  the natural springs onto the national supply but unfortunately government is really slow
[02:19.000 --> 02:23.000]  in getting things done and nothing substantial has been achieved in any of these areas. To
[02:23.000 --> 02:28.000]  add irony to the crisis Cape Town sits on a huge natural water reserve with about 70 springs
[02:28.000 --> 02:32.000]  around the city. There have been consumption limits set to 50 liters per person per day
[02:32.000 --> 02:37.000]  from their home and 25 liters per person per visit at the springs. Luckily many of the
[02:37.000 --> 02:41.000]  provinces farmers have been able to divert water to Cape Town as a temporary extension.
[02:41.000 --> 02:47.000]  The Lone Star Lowdown is currently for sponsors. If you have a project or a service you'd like to
[02:47.000 --> 02:54.000]  advertise with us feel free to give me a call at 210-363-2257. This was Rick Rody with your
[02:54.000 --> 03:09.000]  Lowdown for February 21st, 2018.
[03:24.000 --> 03:49.000]  Thank you.
[03:49.000 --> 04:09.000]  Okay, howdy, howdy. Randy Kelton, Rural Law Radio on this Friday the 23rd day of February
[04:09.000 --> 04:20.000]  2018. And as usual we have all the phone lines open. I'll make sure I've got them turned
[04:20.000 --> 04:29.000]  on. They'll keep them on all night. I'll call it number 512-646-1984. And I just showed
[04:29.000 --> 04:36.000]  sometimes complaints that a lot of these talk show hosts lean on their guests for content.
[04:36.000 --> 04:50.000]  Guilty. I could do four hours diatribe or just a dissertation. But it's tough. And besides,
[04:50.000 --> 04:59.000]  I could do four hours and it would not be near as immediate and informative as it is
[04:59.000 --> 05:10.000]  when I take callers. Seven years ago I had a co-host on or guest on who had had a show
[05:10.000 --> 05:17.000]  for 20 years of his own. And when the show was over he asked me, where do you get those
[05:17.000 --> 05:27.000]  callers? They ask such interesting questions. And yes, my callers do ask interesting questions
[05:27.000 --> 05:37.000]  and I don't tell you enough how much I appreciate the valuable content you bring to this show.
[05:37.000 --> 05:46.000]  I have people ask me about content sometimes and sometimes she doesn't have time to be here
[05:46.000 --> 05:51.000]  and she says, do you have something? I always have content because I always know I'm going
[05:51.000 --> 05:59.000]  to get good callers that are going to ask insightful and interesting questions and I will always
[05:59.000 --> 06:06.000]  have content just like the caller we just happened to have at the moment. And let me
[06:06.000 --> 06:16.000]  apologize for last night. Both Deborah and I had inclement weather and I'm on a wireless
[06:16.000 --> 06:20.000]  internet system because I'm kind of out in the country and it's the fastest system I
[06:20.000 --> 06:27.000]  can get but it's one weakness. It has rain and snow in between the transmitter and the
[06:27.000 --> 06:36.000]  receiver and we had that and my speeds were slower than dial-up. But we're up and doing
[06:36.000 --> 06:44.000]  well tonight and we're going to Tim in Texas. Hello Tim. Hello sir. Tim and I were talking
[06:44.000 --> 06:51.000]  earlier and he found some very interesting case law. Will you tell us about that case
[06:51.000 --> 07:01.000]  law? Yes, it was sent to me from someone who I guess listens to you and Eddie that I made
[07:01.000 --> 07:08.000]  friends on Facebook but it's called Span vs. City of Dallas and it went to the Texas
[07:08.000 --> 07:17.000]  District and Chief Justice Phillips delivered the opinion. And I don't know how much of
[07:17.000 --> 07:24.000]  this you want me to read because it's like 16, 17 pages so I won't read that much. Just
[07:24.000 --> 07:31.000]  read the part that I will find interesting. Okay. Let me get down here to it. That should
[07:31.000 --> 07:41.000]  be easy enough. Okay. All right. I'm going to read just these highlighted portions of
[07:41.000 --> 07:48.000]  these several pages here. This is property and a thing consists not merely in its ownership
[07:48.000 --> 07:56.000]  and possession but in the unrestricted right of use, enjoyment and disposal. Anything which
[07:56.000 --> 08:02.000]  destroys any of these elements of property to that extent destroys the property itself.
[08:02.000 --> 08:09.000]  The substantial value of property lies in its use. If the right of use be denied the value
[08:09.000 --> 08:14.000]  of the property is annihilated and ownership is rendered at barren right. Therefore a law
[08:14.000 --> 08:20.000]  which forbids the use of a certain kind of property strips it of an essential attribute
[08:20.000 --> 08:27.000]  and actual result prescribes its ownership. The police power is a grant of authority from
[08:27.000 --> 08:32.000]  the people to their governmental agents for the protection of the health, the safety,
[08:32.000 --> 08:39.000]  the comfort and the welfare of the public. While this is true, it is only a power. It
[08:39.000 --> 08:45.000]  is not a right. The powers of government under our system are nowhere absolute. They are
[08:45.000 --> 08:52.000]  grants of authority from the people and are limited to their true purposes. The fundamental
[08:52.000 --> 08:57.000]  rights of the people are inherent and have not been yielded to governmental control.
[08:57.000 --> 09:02.000]  They are not the subjects of governmental authority. They are the subjects of individual
[09:02.000 --> 09:09.000]  authority. Constitutional powers can never transcend constitutional rights. The police
[09:09.000 --> 09:16.000]  power is subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution upon every power of government
[09:16.000 --> 09:22.000]  and it will not be suffered to invade or impair the fundamental liberties of the citizen.
[09:22.000 --> 09:27.000]  Those natural rights which are the chief concern of the Constitution and for those
[09:27.000 --> 09:33.000]  whose protection it was ordained by the people. All grants of power are to be interpreted
[09:33.000 --> 09:40.000]  in the light of the maxims of magnet charter and the common law as transmuted into the
[09:40.000 --> 09:46.000]  bill of rights and those things which those maxims forbid cannot be regarded as within
[09:46.000 --> 09:52.000]  any grant of authority made by the people to their agents. In our Constitution, the
[09:52.000 --> 09:59.000]  liberties protected by the bill of rights are by express provision accepted out of the
[09:59.000 --> 10:06.000]  general powers of government. It is declared that they shall forever remain inviolate and
[10:06.000 --> 10:13.000]  that all laws contrary thereto shall be void. That's a quote. To secure their property was
[10:13.000 --> 10:18.000]  one of the great ends for which men entered into society. The right to acquire and own
[10:18.000 --> 10:23.000]  property and to deal with it and use it as the owner chooses so long as the use harms
[10:23.000 --> 10:30.000]  nobody is a natural right. It does not owe its origin to constitutions. It existed before
[10:30.000 --> 10:37.000]  them. It is a part of the citizen's natural liberty and expression of his freedom guaranteed
[10:37.000 --> 10:43.000]  as inviolate by every American bill of rights. It is not a right therefore over which the
[10:43.000 --> 10:49.000]  police power is paramount like every other fundamental liberty it is a right to which
[10:49.000 --> 10:57.000]  the police power is subordinate. The police power is founded in public necessity and only
[10:57.000 --> 11:04.000]  public necessity can justify its exercise. Since the right of the citizen to use his
[11:04.000 --> 11:10.000]  property as he chooses so long as he harms nobody is an inherent and constitutional
[11:10.000 --> 11:16.000]  right, the police power cannot be invoked for the abridgment of a particular use of private
[11:16.000 --> 11:23.000]  property unless such use reasonably endangers or threatens the public health, the public
[11:23.000 --> 11:30.000]  safety, the public comfort or welfare. A law which assumes to be a police regulation but
[11:30.000 --> 11:35.000]  deprives the citizen of the use of his property under the pretense of preserving the public
[11:35.000 --> 11:41.000]  health, safety, comfort or welfare when it is manifest that such as not the real object
[11:41.000 --> 11:47.000]  and purpose of the regulation will be set aside as a clear and direct invasion of the
[11:47.000 --> 11:53.000]  right of property without any compensating advantages. The ordinance is clearly not a
[11:53.000 --> 11:59.000]  regulation for the protection of the public health or the public safety. A lawful and
[11:59.000 --> 12:04.000]  ordinary use of properties not to be prohibited because repugnant to the sentiment of a
[12:04.000 --> 12:10.000]  particular class. It is a doctrine not to be tolerated in this country that either state
[12:10.000 --> 12:15.000]  or municipal authorities can by their mere declaration make a particular use of a property
[12:15.000 --> 12:22.000]  a nuisance which is not so and subjected to the ban of absolute prohibition. Do you want
[12:22.000 --> 12:32.000]  me to go any further? No, that is wonderful. I think I need to try to memorize that. You
[12:32.000 --> 12:39.000]  know, I tell people when I say never make proactive statement of law out of your own
[12:39.000 --> 12:48.000]  mouth. One of the reasons for that is you will never do it as good as the courts do. That
[12:48.000 --> 12:56.000]  was extremely well written and when I read case law and I read orders and opinions on
[12:56.000 --> 13:04.000]  case law, I find that they are extremely well constructed just like this was. This was in
[13:04.000 --> 13:15.000]  no way difficult to understand and looking at that, I know Tim is looking at it because
[13:15.000 --> 13:22.000]  it goes specifically to ordinances. I'm looking at it also from the perspective of
[13:22.000 --> 13:32.000]  traffic, the use of my private conveyance. That is my private property and if Olivier
[13:32.000 --> 13:38.000]  is listening, I think he is going to find this very interesting as well. He is in Tennessee
[13:38.000 --> 13:48.000]  but he is certainly going to want to see if he can port this from Texas law to Tennessee
[13:48.000 --> 13:56.000]  because this is exactly the issue Olivier was taking on. He wasn't taking on so much
[13:56.000 --> 14:04.000]  the right to travel as the right to liberty and included in the right to liberty was the
[14:04.000 --> 14:14.000]  right to property. We spoke earlier about that and while Tennessee case law said that
[14:14.000 --> 14:21.000]  the state of Tennessee had an inherent interest in protecting the safety of the people and
[14:21.000 --> 14:30.000]  therefore they could require a license of operators of vehicles on the public
[14:30.000 --> 14:37.000]  thoroughfares for the purpose of ensuring that the operators had at least a minimum
[14:37.000 --> 14:46.000]  level of competence and knowledge of the traffic loss. That's nice and interesting.
[14:46.000 --> 14:55.000]  Where they were granted the authority to require a license, what I cannot find is a grant of
[14:55.000 --> 15:06.000]  authority to charge for that license, to charge a tax for that license or to incorporate
[15:06.000 --> 15:17.000]  the operation under the commercial operation code when the use is private because when
[15:17.000 --> 15:28.000]  the use is private, just like this case enumerated, that use is exempted out. I think Olivier
[15:28.000 --> 15:36.000]  will find this very interesting and I know I find it interesting and as you were speaking to that,
[15:36.000 --> 15:46.000]  I'm thinking in Tim's case he's been pursued over municipal ordinance because of a city
[15:46.000 --> 15:54.000]  manager who has a vendetta and she has drugged the city into some serious litigation in order
[15:54.000 --> 16:01.000]  to satisfy her vendetta and we're in the process of trying to turn this back on her and this
[16:01.000 --> 16:06.000]  case law I think will be very helpful.
[16:06.000 --> 16:15.000]  We also have a seven page letter that my high school friend who handles tax law all over
[16:15.000 --> 16:24.000]  the country does a lot of things but the people that have taken over my shop here and the town
[16:24.000 --> 16:33.000]  that I live in that they're harassing me over have gotten a bill today for $27,000 in sales
[16:33.000 --> 16:35.000]  tax.
[16:35.000 --> 16:46.000]  Okay, hang on. This is Randy Kelton on this Friday the 23rd day of February 2017.
[16:46.000 --> 17:09.000]  I'll call it number 512-646-1984. We'll be right back.
[17:09.000 --> 17:17.000]  You can't even eat these cookies. These are cyber cookies and they clog up your computer.
[17:17.000 --> 17:23.000]  These have apples. Really? Oh, that's an actual apple. Yummy apple.
[17:23.000 --> 17:30.000]  I'm going to throw away these yucky cookies in the trash. I click control, shift, delete
[17:30.000 --> 17:34.000]  and then scroll down the cookies and clear them. Bye bye yucky cookies.
[17:34.000 --> 17:41.000]  Now I go to logosradionetwork.com and I click on the Amazon box on the upper right hand side
[17:41.000 --> 17:47.000]  bookmark the link and I can go to Amazon through this link and order you some yummy new cookie.
[17:47.000 --> 17:49.000]  New cookies? For me?
[17:49.000 --> 17:54.000]  Consider it an early Christmas present and every time I order on Amazon I go through this link
[17:54.000 --> 17:58.000]  and I give a little present to this radio network too. These are cookies.
[17:58.000 --> 18:00.000]  These are classified.
[18:00.000 --> 18:05.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters or even lawsuits?
[18:05.000 --> 18:09.000]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Meares proven method.
[18:09.000 --> 18:15.000]  Michael Meares has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win two.
[18:15.000 --> 18:21.000]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes.
[18:21.000 --> 18:27.000]  What to do when contacted by phones, mail or court summons? How to answer letters and phone calls?
[18:27.000 --> 18:30.000]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit report?
[18:30.000 --> 18:34.000]  How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away?
[18:34.000 --> 18:39.000]  The Michael Meares proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:39.000 --> 18:45.000]  Personal consultation is available as well. For more information please visit ruleoflawradio.com
[18:45.000 --> 18:50.000]  and click on the blue Michael Meares banner or email Michael Meares at yahoo.com.
[18:50.000 --> 18:57.000]  Visit ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com
[18:57.000 --> 19:01.000]  to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[19:01.000 --> 19:09.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network. LogosRadioNetwork.com
[19:09.000 --> 19:26.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, rule of law radio on this 23rd, this Friday the 23rd day of February 2018.
[19:26.000 --> 19:29.000]  And we're talking to Tim in Texas.
[19:29.000 --> 19:39.000]  The case Tim was reading is Span v. City of Dallas, that's Span, S-B-A-N-N, v. City of Dallas, 212 SW 513.
[19:39.000 --> 19:42.000]  It's a 1921 case.
[19:42.000 --> 19:51.000]  So what we need to do to that, if a case is over 20 years old, the courts have pretty well held
[19:51.000 --> 19:56.000]  that all of the law is reaffirmed every 20 years.
[19:56.000 --> 20:02.000]  So if you have a case that's over 20 years old, what you need to do is run the case,
[20:02.000 --> 20:05.000]  run a search on the case on the internet.
[20:05.000 --> 20:08.000]  Don't bother with Lexis or Westlaw.
[20:08.000 --> 20:12.000]  The internet works just as well, if not better.
[20:12.000 --> 20:22.000]  And what you want to find are cases that have cited this case, later cases that have cited this case.
[20:22.000 --> 20:30.000]  So get your current law that will show that this case is still current law and hasn't been overturned.
[20:30.000 --> 20:37.000]  Anytime you're looking for law, for instance, a producer is in Georgia and he asks about the name of the case.
[20:37.000 --> 20:46.000]  If you're in Georgia and you want to find cases in Georgia that are similar to this one,
[20:46.000 --> 20:56.000]  under full faith and credit, you can pull case law on a specific legal issue from other states
[20:56.000 --> 21:03.000]  if your state legislature or state court system has not addressed this specific point.
[21:03.000 --> 21:09.000]  While they're not controlling in the state, you draw them into their advisory.
[21:09.000 --> 21:16.000]  So a lot of times you'll find where you have a case that's very well written like this one,
[21:16.000 --> 21:22.000]  it will be cited in briefs in other states.
[21:22.000 --> 21:31.000]  So if you run Spansy City of Dallas, 212, Southwest 513, and then the space in Georgia,
[21:31.000 --> 21:37.000]  then you'll tend to find Georgia cases that has referenced this case.
[21:37.000 --> 21:43.000]  And the Georgia case will give you similar case law in that state.
[21:43.000 --> 21:48.000]  So that's a good way to cross-referential the good case law that you find.
[21:48.000 --> 21:52.000]  Okay, back to Tim. Go ahead.
[21:52.000 --> 21:58.000]  Okay. Well, you mentioned City Administrator.
[21:58.000 --> 22:08.000]  Well, this friend of mine, when he found out today that Guadalupe the lady had received a $27,000 sales tax bill,
[22:08.000 --> 22:18.000]  which was absolutely impossible because she wasn't even there for the years that they're citing her for.
[22:18.000 --> 22:26.000]  He sent a letter and then he emailed it to us at, I can't remember what time.
[22:26.000 --> 22:30.000]  Anyway, sometime today, later this afternoon.
[22:30.000 --> 22:42.000]  And he mentions in there, he says that my wife, names her, served on the City Council of this town for a number of years
[22:42.000 --> 22:48.000]  and apparently has involved an entirely unrelated dispute with the City Administrator.
[22:48.000 --> 22:57.000]  Pursuant to the dispute, the City Administrator found that this automotive did not have a sales tax permit and contacted Ms. Mary.
[22:57.000 --> 23:01.000]  So, so in the Comptroller's Revenue Accounting Division.
[23:01.000 --> 23:09.000]  Anyway, it goes on to say basically that all of this has supposedly been handled.
[23:09.000 --> 23:18.000]  And that two people specifically from the Comptroller's Office has told him that the City Administrator,
[23:18.000 --> 23:22.000]  he puts in quote marks, wants her money.
[23:22.000 --> 23:31.000]  Now, here's where she's getting in hot water because I have one ally on the council.
[23:31.000 --> 23:39.000]  And he went up there and approached her about this, this week and asked her specifically and she just acted like, you know,
[23:39.000 --> 23:43.000]  little Ms. Innocent said, no, no, I didn't do that.
[23:43.000 --> 23:46.000]  I don't know why he would say that.
[23:46.000 --> 23:49.000]  But in quotes, she wants her money.
[23:49.000 --> 23:57.000]  So now he knows and he has read the letter that my friend has written the Comptroller's Office taking them on
[23:57.000 --> 24:04.000]  and wanting to speak to supervisors now because he says over 35 years, he uses this language,
[24:04.000 --> 24:13.000]  in his 35 years he has never seen anything so unprofessionally handled.
[24:13.000 --> 24:17.000]  Now, that's a long time for him to do that.
[24:17.000 --> 24:21.000]  He says, usually I don't take on cases like this.
[24:21.000 --> 24:27.000]  He said, but he's a high school friend and so I thought I would. This shouldn't have been a very hard issue.
[24:27.000 --> 24:30.000]  I see what the problems are. We've taken care of them.
[24:30.000 --> 24:37.000]  Now, this lady wants to press it so it's a vendetta is what he's saying.
[24:37.000 --> 24:39.000]  She's using it as an vendetta.
[24:39.000 --> 24:46.000]  So, I don't know where it's going to go from here, but obviously they're not guilty of what they're accusing them of.
[24:46.000 --> 24:51.000]  And also, another thing I wanted to tell you is at 4.30 this afternoon,
[24:51.000 --> 24:57.000]  we received from the law firm that is suing us in civil court and the district court
[24:57.000 --> 25:03.000]  for the money that the administrative hearing signed us for plus administrative fees
[25:03.000 --> 25:07.000]  rescheduled the hearing for April the 2nd.
[25:07.000 --> 25:17.000]  And the question I have for you, why is it that we weren't able to get a continuum,
[25:17.000 --> 25:23.000]  but this law firm can get a continuum?
[25:23.000 --> 25:28.000]  You don't have to ask the judge that.
[25:28.000 --> 25:31.000]  Yeah, I don't think he's going to want to hear me.
[25:31.000 --> 25:36.000]  Yeah, I can pretend to mind read what the judge is thinking.
[25:36.000 --> 25:40.000]  But that would just be speculation on my point.
[25:40.000 --> 25:41.000]  Okay.
[25:41.000 --> 25:50.000]  And my speculation is that the judge doesn't like the fact that you're not paying a lot of money to some lawyer.
[25:50.000 --> 25:57.000]  So, let's see if we can help that judge get his attitude adjusted.
[25:57.000 --> 25:59.000]  Okay.
[25:59.000 --> 26:01.000]  And we're fixing to do that.
[26:01.000 --> 26:10.000]  You have requested findings, effect, and conclusions at law, and he's going to do what is the standard procedure
[26:10.000 --> 26:15.000]  when dealing with a procé, he's going to ignore it.
[26:15.000 --> 26:21.000]  And what he does, we'll take him to the grand jury and let him explain to the grand jury.
[26:21.000 --> 26:22.000]  Now, I have a question.
[26:22.000 --> 26:28.000]  I did notice the same fellow that sent me the span case, who I'm going to be talking to more.
[26:28.000 --> 26:42.000]  He mentioned somewhere that you have 31 days to put in your request for information, I believe.
[26:42.000 --> 26:44.000]  Findings, effect, and conclusions at law.
[26:44.000 --> 26:48.000]  That's to rule the civil procedure 297.
[26:48.000 --> 26:55.000]  Like, if I want to know something from the other side, as far as, I guess, like, you know, I'm...
[26:55.000 --> 26:57.000]  No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
[26:57.000 --> 26:58.000]  That's different.
[26:58.000 --> 26:59.000]  That's discovery.
[26:59.000 --> 27:00.000]  Yes.
[27:00.000 --> 27:05.000]  And we now need to put in a major discovery.
[27:05.000 --> 27:06.000]  Yeah.
[27:06.000 --> 27:11.000]  My question, you know, I'm sitting here, you know, imagining things.
[27:11.000 --> 27:13.000]  I try to think, okay, how would this go?
[27:13.000 --> 27:15.000]  And questions that I would ask, I'd like...
[27:15.000 --> 27:23.000]  I want to ask the code enforcement officer, if he can only do his job in the presence of the city administrator,
[27:23.000 --> 27:25.000]  then you know where I'm going with that.
[27:25.000 --> 27:26.000]  Yes, I do.
[27:26.000 --> 27:28.000]  He's going to say no.
[27:28.000 --> 27:35.000]  And I'm going to say, well, do you drive into this driveway of this city hall?
[27:35.000 --> 27:36.000]  Well, yes, I do.
[27:36.000 --> 27:38.000]  You know, he's going to say, yeah.
[27:38.000 --> 27:40.000]  Do you drive out of that same driveway?
[27:40.000 --> 27:41.000]  Yes.
[27:41.000 --> 27:44.000]  Do you see anything unusual in this picture?
[27:44.000 --> 27:48.000]  And he's going to have to say yes.
[27:48.000 --> 27:56.000]  Not only that, but one of the guys that's on the council who was on the administrative board as a vehicle,
[27:56.000 --> 28:00.000]  not licensed, not inspected, no windows,
[28:00.000 --> 28:06.000]  that's across the street from a person that the code enforcement officer just went to
[28:06.000 --> 28:12.000]  and cited for a little piglet in their backyard.
[28:12.000 --> 28:22.000]  So it's like he's overlooking everything except what pads his paycheck.
[28:22.000 --> 28:24.000]  Does that make sense?
[28:24.000 --> 28:27.000]  Yes, it does.
[28:27.000 --> 28:38.000]  So essentially, you know, in thinking about it, I'm uncomfortable going to this place.
[28:38.000 --> 28:47.000]  However, if the offending vehicle is in plain sight.
[28:47.000 --> 28:49.000]  Oh, you can't miss it.
[28:49.000 --> 29:00.000]  Then I would call that a failing form of duty he's required to perform.
[29:00.000 --> 29:06.000]  But the second part of official oppression goes to deny meaningful free access to a driver's right.
[29:06.000 --> 29:24.000]  And I could speculate that the right you were denied in was the right to an environment free of contaminants from junk vehicles.
[29:24.000 --> 29:26.000]  Works for me.
[29:26.000 --> 29:29.000]  Let them make that argument.
[29:29.000 --> 29:35.000]  How many junk vehicles do you see around the city you live in that have not been cited?
[29:35.000 --> 29:39.000]  This becomes selective enforcement.
[29:39.000 --> 29:44.000]  We could try to call that.
[29:44.000 --> 29:47.000]  Equal protection to dial of equal protection.
[29:47.000 --> 29:48.000]  Hang on.
[29:48.000 --> 29:50.000]  Randy Kelton wheels on radio.
[29:50.000 --> 29:54.000]  I call it number 512-646-1984.
[29:54.000 --> 30:02.000]  We'll be right back.
[30:02.000 --> 30:06.000]  The next time the doctor asks you how you feel, ask him the same question.
[30:06.000 --> 30:07.000]  Why?
[30:07.000 --> 30:12.000]  New research shows unhappy doctors perform differently than their contented counterparts.
[30:12.000 --> 30:15.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht with details in a moment.
[30:15.000 --> 30:17.000]  Privacy is under attack.
[30:17.000 --> 30:21.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[30:21.000 --> 30:26.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:26.000 --> 30:27.000]  So protect your rights.
[30:27.000 --> 30:31.000]  Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[30:31.000 --> 30:32.000]  Privacy.
[30:32.000 --> 30:34.000]  It's worth hanging on to.
[30:34.000 --> 30:41.000]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[30:41.000 --> 30:44.000]  Start over with StartPage.
[30:44.000 --> 30:48.000]  We've long suspected it and now a new study confirms it.
[30:48.000 --> 30:52.000]  A doctor's mood impacts their professional behavior towards patients.
[30:52.000 --> 30:59.000]  A survey of nearly 200 Israeli physicians found that on bad mood days, doctors spent less time talking with patients.
[30:59.000 --> 31:04.000]  Wrote more prescriptions, ordered more tests, and issued more referrals, often unnecessarily.
[31:04.000 --> 31:07.000]  All of this, of course, leads to higher healthcare costs.
[31:07.000 --> 31:12.000]  But when the doctors were in a good mood and felt less burnout, they consulted more with patients,
[31:12.000 --> 31:17.000]  diagnosed their conditions with fewer tests, and prescribed less expensive medicines.
[31:17.000 --> 31:24.000]  Let's see, less caregiver stress, less burnout, and better patient care sounds like just what the doctor ordered.
[31:24.000 --> 31:29.000]  On Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[31:54.000 --> 32:01.000]  And see what our powder, seeds, and oil can do for you only at SQSA.org.
[32:24.000 --> 32:31.000]  For more information on SQSA, please visit www.SQSA.org.
[32:55.000 --> 33:00.000]  Order your coffee today, and together we can have free society we all want and deserve.
[33:04.000 --> 33:11.000]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at www.LogosRadioNetwork.com
[33:11.000 --> 33:28.000]  Okay, we are back. We're in the Kelton Roodle Law Radio on this Friday, the 23rd day of February 2018,
[33:28.000 --> 33:36.000]  and we're talking to Tim and Texas. Okay, Tim, what else do you have for us?
[33:36.000 --> 33:42.000]  Well, that's really it. That's it. You know, just trying to thread the needle.
[33:42.000 --> 33:49.000]  Yeah, that was a very good case, and I'm going to have to study that case. I very much like the verbiage of it.
[33:49.000 --> 33:57.000]  I seem to really like the older cases, and the way they use the language.
[33:57.000 --> 34:12.000]  If you go back to the constant papers, James Madison was, in my opinion, the best legal writer I've ever come across.
[34:12.000 --> 34:22.000]  And I see lawyers now trying to imitate James Madison, and they call what they're doing legalese.
[34:22.000 --> 34:33.000]  But that's not what James Madison did. His style was sounded similar, but he was a true word craftsman.
[34:33.000 --> 34:42.000]  He chose his words extremely carefully. He strung them together very well, and he made absolute good sense.
[34:42.000 --> 34:55.000]  Lawyers trying to imitate that style have turned it into legalese trash. But these older writers, especially the opinions of the higher courts,
[34:55.000 --> 35:00.000]  tend to always be examples of extremely well-written prose.
[35:00.000 --> 35:08.000]  Okay, thank you, Tim. We've got a full board of callers. Now we're going to go to Chris in Pennsylvania. Hello, Chris.
[35:08.000 --> 35:16.000]  Hello, Randy. How are you? I'm good. What is happening around? Are you still around reading?
[35:16.000 --> 35:42.000]  Reading Pennsylvania? Yes. Yeah, we're so hot. How are things going in your case? Well, we filed a quiet title action, and we showed where the five different
[35:42.000 --> 35:52.000]  mortgages who were not given assignments in the recorder of deeds office appeared. We showed where the mortgage was securitized.
[35:52.000 --> 36:08.000]  We showed all these things, but yet the judge gave the summary judgment to counsel for the bank with no proof, no affidavits, no nothing, but counsel hearsay.
[36:08.000 --> 36:22.000]  Okay, is this in federal or state? Not civil court. Yes, state. Civil court, federal state. Yeah, civil court.
[36:22.000 --> 36:30.000]  No, no, yes. Or which civil court is there's a federal civil court and there's a state civil court? State civil court.
[36:30.000 --> 36:47.000]  Okay, state civil court. In the Fed, an order is not final unless there is a judgment. And judgment is findings affecting conclusions at law. Did you get that with this order?
[36:47.000 --> 37:01.000]  No, no findings, no conclusion. He simply gave them summary judgment said that he ruled for the defendant and the plaintiff against the plaintiff with prejudice.
[37:01.000 --> 37:09.000]  Did you request findings affecting conclusions at law? We did not yet. We are going to.
[37:09.000 --> 37:25.000]  Oh, good. I take it you have counsel? No. Okay. Okay, then you might file when you get findings affecting conclusions at law if you're not satisfied with it.
[37:25.000 --> 37:40.000]  By the criminal complaint with the prosecuting attorney, you're in Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, it's the only state that I know of where the prosecuting attorney has first blush.
[37:40.000 --> 37:59.000]  In most in all other states, the prosecuting attorney is given no direct discretion. He's allowed discretion by the courts, but he's not given it by statute. In Pennsylvania, he is. However, and in Pennsylvania, you don't have direct access to a grand jury either.
[37:59.000 --> 38:16.000]  And on the surface, that looks like a problem. However, in Pennsylvania, unlike the other states on filing a criminal complaint, you have standing. When I file a criminal complaint in Texas, I have no standing.
[38:16.000 --> 38:36.000]  I have a duty to give notice, but all I'm doing is giving notice. Once I give notice, prosecutions up to the state, not me. But Pennsylvania is Commonwealth and it carries over some of the characteristics of the English Commonwealth.
[38:36.000 --> 38:52.000]  And in England and Australia, which uses English, English law, a private citizen can file a criminal appearance notice in the capacity of a common law public official.
[38:52.000 --> 39:01.000]  They have standing on the wall. In Pennsylvania, you have standing on the wall. When you file a criminal complaint, prosecuting attorney has first blush.
[39:01.000 --> 39:11.000]  You decide whether or not he feels there is sufficient cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused has committed the crime.
[39:11.000 --> 39:28.000]  What he does not have power to do is exercise prosecutorial caprice. He does not have power to determine who he wants to prosecute and who he does not want to prosecute.
[39:28.000 --> 39:41.000]  And he fails to prosecute. And there is sufficient evidence to give a reasonable person of ordinary prudence caused to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused has committed that crime.
[39:41.000 --> 39:56.000]  Then you have standing to appeal to the court of common police. And if the court of common police denies your appeal, you can appeal that all the way up to Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
[39:56.000 --> 40:09.000]  I had a friend and listener a long time ago who appealed a traffic issue to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. He did a horrible job.
[40:09.000 --> 40:25.000]  He got back a 50 page brief from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, explaining precisely to him what was wrong with his pleading and how to fix it. I was astounded.
[40:25.000 --> 40:36.000]  In spite of the inarticulate nature of his presentation, they took his presentation very seriously.
[40:36.000 --> 40:47.000]  So I suggest to you that if a judge fails to determine the facts in accordance with the rules of evidence, then apply the laws that comes to him to the facts in the case.
[40:47.000 --> 41:12.000]  Then you file criminal charges against the U.S. Attorney for shielding from prosecution with the Attorney General for the State of Pennsylvania.
[41:12.000 --> 41:23.000]  In the State of Texas, the Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania is a prosecutor and he has prosecutorial authority.
[41:23.000 --> 41:30.000]  So you file a criminal complaint against the District Attorney for exercising prosecutorial caprice.
[41:30.000 --> 41:48.000]  I know that the U.S. Attorney General is going to refuse to prosecute the prosecutor and he's going to exercise prosecutorial caprice.
[41:48.000 --> 42:03.000]  You have to appeal that all the way up to the Pennsylvania Supreme. At the end of the day, you will never win your case simply because you have the facts and the law on your side.
[42:03.000 --> 42:11.000]  You'll win your case if you have the politics on your side and all politics is local.
[42:11.000 --> 42:26.000]  This will create you a massive amount of local politics where you're accusing each official in line of sticking their snouts in the same trough.
[42:26.000 --> 42:33.000]  You create political cannon fodder for each one of these officials political opponents.
[42:33.000 --> 42:40.000]  The higher up you go in the ranks, the more dangerous that political cannon fodder becomes.
[42:40.000 --> 42:42.000]  Does that make sense, Chris?
[42:42.000 --> 42:44.000]  It does.
[42:44.000 --> 42:45.000]  It does.
[42:45.000 --> 42:49.000]  More importantly, does it sound like fun?
[42:49.000 --> 42:52.000]  Oh, it sounds like a blast.
[42:52.000 --> 43:08.000]  I think we're almost there where you're at though because what we've done is, as well as file the quiet title action, we also, right after filing the quiet title action, we went in for argument.
[43:08.000 --> 43:24.000]  The council rose their brief and his brief was solely based on a race judicata that they had gotten foreclosure and this matter should be closed.
[43:24.000 --> 43:38.000]  And I argued to the judge that your honor, that does not address the title. Whether they have foreclosure or not, they have not addressed title in the foreclosure case, they have not addressed the title.
[43:38.000 --> 43:42.000]  And we're here to address quiet title, not the old one.
[43:42.000 --> 43:46.000]  Objection relevance.
[43:46.000 --> 43:48.000]  Right.
[43:48.000 --> 44:01.000]  Okay, hang on. Hang on. That's good to break. Randy Kelton, Rue Law Radio. I call in number 512-646-1984. We'll be right back.
[44:01.000 --> 44:09.000]  At Capital Coin and Bullion, our mission is to be your preferred shopping destination by delivering excellent customer service and outstanding value at an affordable price.
[44:09.000 --> 44:19.000]  We provide a wide assortment of favorite products featuring a great selection of high quality coins and precious metals. We cater to beginners in coin collecting as well as large transactions for investors.
[44:19.000 --> 44:27.000]  We believe in educating our customers with resources from top accredited metal stealers and journalists. If we don't have what you're looking for, we can find it.
[44:27.000 --> 44:39.000]  In addition, we carry popular young Jeopardy products such as Beyond Tangy Tangerine and Pollen Burst. We also offer one-world-way mountain house storeable foods, Berkey Water Products, ammunition at 10% above wholesale, and more.
[44:39.000 --> 44:51.000]  We broker metals IRA accounts and we also accept big coins as payment. Call us at 512-646-6404. We're located at 7304 Burnett Road, Suite A, about a half mile south of Anderson.
[44:51.000 --> 45:00.000]  We're open Monday through Friday, 10 to 6, Saturdays, 10 to 2. Visit us at CapitalCoinandBullion.com or call 512-646-6404.
[45:00.000 --> 45:15.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step.
[45:15.000 --> 45:23.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[45:23.000 --> 45:34.000]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course and now you can too. Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[45:34.000 --> 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.
[45:43.000 --> 45:52.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, prosa tactics, and much more.
[45:52.000 --> 46:15.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[46:22.000 --> 46:49.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton rules our radio and we're talking to Chris in Pennsylvania.
[46:49.000 --> 46:57.000]  Okay, Chris, where were you? I'd say it's my diet, Rob.
[46:57.000 --> 47:08.000]  We were discussing after the argument of the quiet title. He gave them judgment, but after I filed the quiet title, before we went to argument,
[47:08.000 --> 47:27.000]  I also filed a cross-claim for avoiding the foreclosure order based on 1032B where the plaintiff failed to include myself as spouse in the suit under subject of our jurisdiction.
[47:27.000 --> 47:40.000]  So he didn't really say anything about this when we were there for the argument, not even sure if he had seen it yet, but he looked at it,
[47:40.000 --> 47:46.000]  we went to court the other day for argument and the facts never showed up.
[47:46.000 --> 47:58.000]  So he said he would note that and I said that was fine. I said so he let us know in a week or so what his judgment was.
[47:58.000 --> 48:05.000]  So what I've done is put together three things. I put together a notice of appeal for the quiet title.
[48:05.000 --> 48:20.000]  I put together a notice or a motion for reconsideration since the 1032B subject matter jurisdiction voids the foreclosure for which they got decision on the quiet title about.
[48:20.000 --> 48:37.000]  And we're looking at trying to put down a writ of mandanus. The judge itself acted under the law because all we've done is present case law to him for these problems and he's overlooked everything and just cited for the bank.
[48:37.000 --> 49:03.000]  Okay, I have some Texas case law and some federal case law that says if the judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts, that is a due process violation subject to extraordinary remedy which is writ of mandanus.
[49:03.000 --> 49:13.000]  And it's also an act of official misconduct. That's a crime in every state.
[49:13.000 --> 49:26.000]  But the case law will establish that. I have the case law. If you will send me an email and ask me for that, I will dig it out and send that to you.
[49:26.000 --> 49:44.000]  And this is a tool I'm beginning to use so that every time a judge fails to, in my opinion, fails to properly apply the law to the facts, I'm going to appeal to a grand jury and indict him.
[49:44.000 --> 49:56.000]  They tell you, you know, like my ruling, they always appeal to a court of appeals once, maybe true, but I can also appeal to a grand jury and indict you and see what they think about it.
[49:56.000 --> 50:05.000]  Right. That's why we're hoping that, you know, the Superior Court here in Pennsylvania rules heavily on the 10-3-2-B.
[50:05.000 --> 50:12.000]  You know, Leslie's case out of Philadelphia was that exact ruling where they dismissed her case but she failed.
[50:12.000 --> 50:16.000]  Hang on, hang on. Funny you should mention, Leslie.
[50:16.000 --> 50:21.000]  Hello, Ms. Leslie.
[50:21.000 --> 50:23.000]  Hi, how are you?
[50:23.000 --> 50:27.000]  Would you like to chime in on this issue?
[50:27.000 --> 50:31.000]  Yes, I would. Let me tell you what's happened.
[50:31.000 --> 50:47.000]  You know how they usually rule like he's saying with the 10-3-2-B, you know? I mean, it was good enough for the banks when they wanted a decision, but guess what they did to me this time?
[50:47.000 --> 50:58.000]  This time, I had an appeal on a 10-3-2-B failure to join a necessary party against the bank.
[50:58.000 --> 51:02.000]  Okay? The bank forgot.
[51:02.000 --> 51:15.000]  And guess who? Guess what happened? They said, instead of ruling on the issues, they said that I filed my claim late.
[51:15.000 --> 51:28.000]  Now, in Pennsylvania, jurisdiction has no, you know, you can always do it no matter if it's late or if it's another law.
[51:28.000 --> 51:35.000]  Okay, hold on, Leslie. You had a prior case dismissed for exactly this reason, did you not?
[51:35.000 --> 51:42.000]  The same thing. Yes, I did. My husband, I could not join my husband to a quiet title case.
[51:42.000 --> 51:51.000]  And what they did was they said, oh, your husband's not part of this. We have to cancel your case. You have to throw it out.
[51:51.000 --> 51:57.000]  And how far down the legal road were you at that time? How many years?
[51:57.000 --> 52:11.000]  I filed it. Oh, that was in 2014. That was four years already. And now it's been since 2010. It's now eight years. We've been at this.
[52:11.000 --> 52:20.000]  Now, the judge has now ruled that you didn't raise that claim soon enough against the bank.
[52:20.000 --> 52:32.000]  No, he said I didn't file my notice of appeal. I filed the notice of appeal timely, but I didn't file the 1925 statement timely.
[52:32.000 --> 52:43.000]  That's strange because that's another thing. My attorney, I asked him, it's not showing up in the docket. And he says, well, I filed it electronically.
[52:43.000 --> 52:52.000]  I said, well, then it should be in the docket and it's not. So I called the proponent area to find out what's going on. And she said, oh, it didn't get filed.
[52:52.000 --> 52:58.000]  I said, what do you mean it didn't get filed? I have a receipt in front of me. She said, oh, no, that's not what I mean.
[52:58.000 --> 53:11.000]  The filing failed. He was supposed to refile it. And he said, read it to me again. And I read the receipt. And she said, see those four little letters there?
[53:11.000 --> 53:26.000]  That means it didn't get filed. It took us three days to get it straightened out, but it wasn't because it wasn't filed. It was because it didn't register electronically.
[53:26.000 --> 53:35.000]  So that's an issue with the clerk, not with, did you have to do the e-file through a third party e-filer?
[53:35.000 --> 53:39.000]  My attorney did it directly with the court.
[53:39.000 --> 53:41.000]  Oh, OK.
[53:41.000 --> 53:43.000]  Now, the other thing is...
[53:43.000 --> 53:55.000]  Wait, wait, wait, Miss Leslie, I didn't want to go after yours. I wanted to finish up Chris and I bought you in because what you were doing, you had been in the exact same position Chris was in.
[53:55.000 --> 54:03.000]  Yeah, they kicked us out. They kicked us right out of court. Failure to join their third party. Unbelievable.
[54:03.000 --> 54:09.000]  So it appears in your case that the court is ruling inconsistent?
[54:09.000 --> 54:11.000]  Absolutely.
[54:11.000 --> 54:19.000]  Is it the same court or are the different judges doing this?
[54:19.000 --> 54:33.000]  Well, actually, the judges rotate in the superior court, so it was a different bunch of judges. There was three judges that sit on this, and it was a different group of them.
[54:33.000 --> 54:36.000]  So yes, it was a different judge.
[54:36.000 --> 54:42.000]  So you should be able to file against these judges for ruling inconsistently?
[54:42.000 --> 54:50.000]  Not only that, but jurisdiction has nothing to do with timeliness.
[54:50.000 --> 55:00.000]  So no matter when I put in my 1935 thing, it shouldn't matter because it's jurisdiction.
[55:00.000 --> 55:04.000]  You know, jurisdiction doesn't change.
[55:04.000 --> 55:22.000]  The 1935 wouldn't give you judgment. The jurisdiction would give you judgment. The 1935 is just why you want to say that the judge didn't rule on what you thought he should have ruled on.
[55:22.000 --> 55:24.000]  Right.
[55:24.000 --> 55:32.000]  It's a statement of error. That's what it is. In my case, outside is a statement of error.
[55:32.000 --> 55:40.000]  Okay, like in Texas, in most states you would call that a motion to reconsider.
[55:40.000 --> 55:57.000]  When the judge doesn't rule the way you think he should, you file a motion for reconsideration and you show why you believe the judge acted in error, and this gives the judge opportunity to examine your argument and correct the error.
[55:57.000 --> 56:02.000]  So that sounds like what you're addressing in Pennsylvania.
[56:02.000 --> 56:16.000]  No, no, no. It comes after. After you file a motion for reconsideration and you file a notice of appeal, the judge will order you to give him a statement of error, like what do I did wrong?
[56:16.000 --> 56:26.000]  And then you write your statement of error, and it has to be after he gives you the order to do that. You can't do it before that.
[56:26.000 --> 56:32.000]  That's interesting. Statement of error, and the court asks for it.
[56:32.000 --> 56:34.000]  Yes.
[56:34.000 --> 56:43.000]  I think, ma'am, they start producing those in courts that don't ask for it.
[56:43.000 --> 56:57.000]  Yes, so after the statement of error, they said, because I didn't file that in time, they weren't even going to look at my case. And that's against the law, too, because it goes directly to jurisdiction 100%. They can't ignore it.
[56:57.000 --> 57:07.000]  Then if you filed it as a statement of error, you might refile it as a subject matter jurisdiction challenge.
[57:07.000 --> 57:15.000]  Yes, and I'm prepared to operate in another court case, the same exact thing.
[57:15.000 --> 57:31.000]  Well, in this case, this is subject matter jurisdiction, and we have ample case law that says subject matter jurisdiction is threshold, may not be waived, and can be filed at any time, no matter how remote in history.
[57:31.000 --> 57:33.000]  That's right.
[57:33.000 --> 57:50.000]  So then why is it that we have to file? What would a notice of appeal actually get me, and why would I fill out a 1925 form when subject matter jurisdiction trumps anything that I could possibly say?
[57:50.000 --> 57:54.000]  I agree. Subject matter jurisdiction should stand over all of them.
[57:54.000 --> 57:58.000]  Right. All the rest of it, they're relevant.
[57:58.000 --> 58:01.000]  Exactly.
[58:01.000 --> 58:16.000]  And I have quite a bit of case law on subject matter jurisdiction. If you want to send me an e-mail, ask for it, and I will gather up my subject matter jurisdiction folder and send it to you.
[58:16.000 --> 58:36.000]  When we come back, I want to talk about the potential use of declaratory judgment as a separate tool outside the ongoing litigation, and I don't understand why it's not used more, and I'll explain when we come back on the other side.
[58:36.000 --> 58:47.000]  Thank you very much.
[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 --> 59:27.000]  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.
[59:27.000 --> 59:40.000]  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.
[59:40.000 --> 59:58.000]  That's 888-551-0102, or visit us online at bfa.org.
[59:58.000 --> 01:00:14.000]  The following news flash is brought to you by The Lone Star Lowdown.
[01:00:29.000 --> 01:00:43.000]  Today in History, the year 1965, black nationalist icon Malcolm X was assassinated at the Auburn Ballroom in New York City.
[01:00:43.000 --> 01:00:50.000]  He stated just two days before being shot in an interview with Gordon Parks that the nation of Islam was actively trying to kill him.
[01:00:50.000 --> 01:01:07.000]  In recent news, the White House released a memo on Tuesday the 20th where President Trump ordered Attorney General Jeff Sessions to direct the DOJ to propose new regulations to ban firearm modifications like bump stocks and all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns.
[01:01:07.000 --> 01:01:14.000]  President Trump also tweeted later that evening that, quote, whether we are Republican or Democrat, we must now focus on strengthening background checks.
[01:01:14.000 --> 01:01:20.000]  This initiative, in reaction, of course, to last week's school shooting in Parkland, Florida, that killed 17 people.
[01:01:20.000 --> 01:01:28.000]  White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders will relate to Tuesday as well that the President expressed his support for efforts to improve the federal background system.
[01:01:28.000 --> 01:01:39.000]  In the coming days, we will continue to explore ways to ensure the safety and security of our schools.
[01:01:39.000 --> 01:01:47.000]  Cape Town, South Africa is the first major city of its size to be facing a water shortage with day zero of the tap running dry, essentially being July 9th.
[01:01:47.000 --> 01:01:59.000]  Emergency services and hospitals will continue to be supplied with water, but everyone else will be left to the mercy of natural springs for drinking, washing and cleaning, with the shortage affecting everyone from drinking to water waste management.
[01:01:59.000 --> 01:02:10.000]  A million households are expected to be affected. Officials lay the blame on three years of drought while residents blame their local representatives and national leaders dragging their feet and coming to a budget to diversify the city water system.
[01:02:10.000 --> 01:02:17.000]  A lot of hopeful plans and desalination plans, water recycling facilities, and getting the natural springs onto the national supply.
[01:02:17.000 --> 01:02:23.000]  But unfortunately, government is really slow in getting things done, and nothing substantial has been achieved in any of these areas.
[01:02:23.000 --> 01:02:29.000]  To add irony to the crisis, Cape Town sits on a huge natural water reserve with about 70 springs around the city.
[01:02:29.000 --> 01:02:36.000]  There have been consumption limits set to 50 liters per person per day from their home and 25 liters per person per visit at the springs.
[01:02:36.000 --> 01:02:41.000]  Luckily, many of the province's farmers have been able to divert water to Cape Town as a temporary extension.
[01:02:41.000 --> 01:02:53.000]  The Lone Star Lowdown is currently looking for sponsors. If you have a product or a service you'd like to advertise with us, feel free to give me a call at 210-363-2257.
[01:02:53.000 --> 01:03:19.000]  This was Rick Rody with your Lowdown for February 21, 2018.
[01:03:19.000 --> 01:03:28.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Rula Radio, and we're talking to Chris and Leslie, both from Pennsylvania.
[01:03:28.000 --> 01:03:36.000]  Actually, Leslie's not in Pennsylvania anymore, but it's all about Pennsylvania.
[01:03:36.000 --> 01:03:44.000]  Okay, Chris, where are you in your litigation right at the moment?
[01:03:44.000 --> 01:03:54.000]  Well, right at the moment, I'm getting ready to file my notice of appeal for the quiet title.
[01:03:54.000 --> 01:04:10.000]  I'm getting ready to file my motion for reconsideration based on the fact that the cost claim for avoiding the foreclosure order came in after his decision that he filed for the quiet title.
[01:04:10.000 --> 01:04:25.000]  So the subject manager's diction, 1032B should trump all of that, and I'm also going to include to reverse the share of sale in with the motion to reconsider.
[01:04:25.000 --> 01:04:36.000]  Okay, on the share of sale, are there key points of law that need to be adjudicated?
[01:04:36.000 --> 01:04:46.000]  Okay, let me explain why I asked that question that way. I'm thinking in terms of petition for declaratory judgment.
[01:04:46.000 --> 01:04:55.000]  A petition for declaratory judgment only asks the court to rule on a point of law.
[01:04:55.000 --> 01:05:04.000]  And as I look at it, it seems like an invaluable tool that's not being utilized.
[01:05:04.000 --> 01:05:14.000]  The final suit in these courts were pretty well determined that these local judges have been bought and paid for.
[01:05:14.000 --> 01:05:24.000]  And they're going to find any possible way they can to rule against you, and then if they can't find a legal way, they're going to rule against you anyway.
[01:05:24.000 --> 01:05:34.000]  If you look at all the pros and cons, they rule against pros and cons every time, no matter what. So how do we get around that? How do we box them in?
[01:05:34.000 --> 01:05:40.000]  And one way to do that is take these issues of point of law.
[01:05:40.000 --> 01:05:47.000]  For instance, where I have a document filed in the county record that affects title.
[01:05:47.000 --> 01:06:01.000]  And the document is ostensibly filed by an entity that has authority under the record to file a document affecting title.
[01:06:01.000 --> 01:06:14.000]  For instance, when mortgage electronic registration systems is named as the agent for the lender and files a document in the record,
[01:06:14.000 --> 01:06:22.000]  assigning the asset belonging to the beneficiary to the third party on its face that looks valid.
[01:06:22.000 --> 01:06:30.000]  But the person who signed that document, who is that person?
[01:06:30.000 --> 01:06:49.000]  And a good question to ask if you look in the record and find no evidence of power of attorney for that person to act as an agent for the agent, an agent for MERS, who is an agent for the beneficiary.
[01:06:49.000 --> 01:06:52.000]  Who needs the power of attorney themselves?
[01:06:52.000 --> 01:07:00.000]  Yeah, must the person who signs a document show authority to sign that document?
[01:07:00.000 --> 01:07:04.000]  That's pretty simple, straightforward and law.
[01:07:04.000 --> 01:07:10.000]  We file a declaratory judgment on that singular issue.
[01:07:10.000 --> 01:07:19.000]  You're not asking for any damages so that it's not amenable to Rule 12B6 or to any motion to dismiss.
[01:07:19.000 --> 01:07:25.000]  It's your right to discovery and they can't go around it.
[01:07:25.000 --> 01:07:28.000]  You can do this in the federal court.
[01:07:28.000 --> 01:07:32.000]  I think every state has a declaratory judgment statute now.
[01:07:32.000 --> 01:07:36.000]  And in Texas, declaratory judgment costs $15.
[01:07:36.000 --> 01:07:43.000]  To file a civil action is about $253,000, but declaratory judgment is only $15.
[01:07:43.000 --> 01:07:52.000]  Because it's a really narrowly focused suit and the more narrowly you can focus it, the better.
[01:07:52.000 --> 01:08:11.000]  And you use that to get your ruling that you can then come back to the foreclosure court and claim that the document is invalid because the signature on the document
[01:08:11.000 --> 01:08:15.000]  lacks evidence of power authority in the public record.
[01:08:15.000 --> 01:08:23.000]  And that power of authority is necessary as per your declaratory judgment ruling.
[01:08:23.000 --> 01:08:28.000]  That ruling cannot be revisited.
[01:08:28.000 --> 01:08:30.000]  It's restricted.
[01:08:30.000 --> 01:08:32.000]  Right.
[01:08:32.000 --> 01:08:41.000]  So what you're saying then, would I need to even go back to the person who signed the document as a representative for MERS?
[01:08:41.000 --> 01:08:56.000]  Wouldn't I be able to attack MERS in its own right as not having a power of attorney through the third party to even be that person who is capable of assigning the mortgage?
[01:08:56.000 --> 01:09:00.000]  Okay, third party assumes facts not in evidence.
[01:09:00.000 --> 01:09:02.000]  You have a lender.
[01:09:02.000 --> 01:09:07.000]  You have a beneficiary named in the record.
[01:09:07.000 --> 01:09:25.000]  And you know by information that's not in the record that the beneficiary has negotiated the beneficial interest in the asset to a third party.
[01:09:25.000 --> 01:09:34.000]  That's not evident in the public record for a court to give you declaratory judgment.
[01:09:34.000 --> 01:09:42.000]  You have to really focus your request laser type.
[01:09:42.000 --> 01:09:44.000]  At this moment, we're not going for all that.
[01:09:44.000 --> 01:10:00.000]  Now if you want to say that MERS at this time did not have the legal capacity to act as an agent for the lender.
[01:10:00.000 --> 01:10:01.000]  It's a different issue.
[01:10:01.000 --> 01:10:02.000]  Right.
[01:10:02.000 --> 01:10:15.000]  And in the contract, MERS is made is named as a nominee for the lender and the lender's successors and the signs.
[01:10:15.000 --> 01:10:22.000]  So they'll be hard to get to the only way you can get to the fact that it's been negotiated.
[01:10:22.000 --> 01:10:46.000]  And the two holders not standing forward is to address the, bring in the transfer of the beneficial interest and that gets into a whole lot of difficult detail.
[01:10:46.000 --> 01:10:59.000]  A good declaratory judgment suit, you want to make it real easy for the court to make the ruling and box the court in with very clear law.
[01:10:59.000 --> 01:11:07.000]  I can't go down and file an assignment as an agent for MERS.
[01:11:07.000 --> 01:11:17.000]  And if I did file an assignment for the agents of MERS, as an agent for MERS, what would be your remedy?
[01:11:17.000 --> 01:11:21.000]  What would be MERS remedy?
[01:11:21.000 --> 01:11:25.000]  They'd claim that person didn't have power of attorney.
[01:11:25.000 --> 01:11:26.000]  Right.
[01:11:26.000 --> 01:11:32.000]  And you're claiming there's no evidence of power of attorney in the court record.
[01:11:32.000 --> 01:11:33.000]  Right.
[01:11:33.000 --> 01:11:37.000]  So there's reason to believe they don't have power of attorney.
[01:11:37.000 --> 01:11:40.000]  That's really, and it's basic to contract law.
[01:11:40.000 --> 01:11:41.000]  Right.
[01:11:41.000 --> 01:11:49.000]  Because the person assigned for the MERS was a loan officer for Wells Fargo.
[01:11:49.000 --> 01:11:54.000]  So basically Wells Fargo was assigning itself its own mortgage.
[01:11:54.000 --> 01:12:07.000]  Ask the court, give them something to rule on that if they rule against you, they undermine the corpus juris, the body of law.
[01:12:07.000 --> 01:12:21.000]  If they rule that a party can file a document in the public record affecting real title when there is no evidence that the party has authority to file that document.
[01:12:21.000 --> 01:12:23.000]  Now they open the door.
[01:12:23.000 --> 01:12:24.000]  Right.
[01:12:24.000 --> 01:12:29.000]  For me to go down and file a lead against the property.
[01:12:29.000 --> 01:12:30.000]  Right.
[01:12:30.000 --> 01:12:33.000]  And they can't challenge my authority.
[01:12:33.000 --> 01:12:44.000]  You're referring more to the quiet title and title that this person would have obtained through power of attorney to make that signature.
[01:12:44.000 --> 01:12:52.000]  Yeah, I'm trying to break chain of title to the current alleged holder.
[01:12:52.000 --> 01:12:54.000]  Good.
[01:12:54.000 --> 01:12:57.000]  And that's in looking at all these records.
[01:12:57.000 --> 01:12:58.000]  That's one way of doing it.
[01:12:58.000 --> 01:13:07.000]  Another way of doing it is where you have a lender that goes out of business.
[01:13:07.000 --> 01:13:15.000]  And then MERS comes in as nominee for the lenders and lenders and sisters and sons.
[01:13:15.000 --> 01:13:16.000]  Right.
[01:13:16.000 --> 01:13:29.000]  We know what really happens is the lender becomes the servicer and they stand in the record as the beneficiary, but they're not really the beneficiary.
[01:13:29.000 --> 01:13:33.000]  But from our perspective, we don't care.
[01:13:33.000 --> 01:13:52.000]  We care what's in the record because every state has a statute that essentially says what 13.001 Texas property code says any claim against real property, not properly acknowledged or proven and filed in the record is void as to the holder.
[01:13:52.000 --> 01:13:59.000]  So as far as the validity of a claim goes, we don't care who holds what.
[01:13:59.000 --> 01:14:02.000]  We care what's in the record.
[01:14:02.000 --> 01:14:18.000]  And if there's a filing in the record that's questionable, if you can disrupt that filing, you break chain of title, especially where an entity ceases to exist.
[01:14:18.000 --> 01:14:23.000]  And then MERS comes along claiming to be the agent for that entity.
[01:14:23.000 --> 01:14:32.000]  And they're going to claim that they're AGT for the successors and the signs. And you're going to claim, well, according to the public record, there is no successor.
[01:14:32.000 --> 01:14:38.000]  This entity is standing as the holder and there's no evidence of any other holder in the record.
[01:14:38.000 --> 01:14:49.000]  And there was no evidence that this entity transferred its asset to a third party while this entity existed.
[01:14:49.000 --> 01:14:56.000]  And unlike a person who dies, a company doesn't have a heart attack fall over debt.
[01:14:56.000 --> 01:15:00.000]  They die slowly. They die deliberately.
[01:15:00.000 --> 01:15:15.000]  And if this legal person, this company, went out of business and elected not to transfer its claim against the property to a third party, it abandoned that claim.
[01:15:15.000 --> 01:15:17.000]  That's the argument I make.
[01:15:17.000 --> 01:15:24.000]  So they abandoned the claim and then MERS comes along as the agent for a successor.
[01:15:24.000 --> 01:15:29.000]  And they try to remedy the error of the original holder.
[01:15:29.000 --> 01:15:31.000]  That's too late.
[01:15:31.000 --> 01:15:39.000]  So they file an assignment and you challenge the power of attorney for that assignee.
[01:15:39.000 --> 01:15:50.000]  Power of attorney would have had to be granted not by the agent. MERS cannot appoint a power of attorney.
[01:15:50.000 --> 01:15:54.000]  An agent cannot appoint power of attorney for an agent.
[01:15:54.000 --> 01:15:58.000]  The principal must grant power of attorney.
[01:15:58.000 --> 01:16:00.000]  There's not one from the principal.
[01:16:00.000 --> 01:16:03.000]  There is no authority.
[01:16:03.000 --> 01:16:13.000]  And that's so basic to contract law that the courts would be remiss to undermine that.
[01:16:13.000 --> 01:16:17.000]  15 bucks.
[01:16:17.000 --> 01:16:21.000]  And everything stops waiting on that.
[01:16:21.000 --> 01:16:28.000]  So in essence, even though the foreclosure has been decided already, I can still file that.
[01:16:28.000 --> 01:16:32.000]  Yeah. That has nothing to do with the foreclosure.
[01:16:32.000 --> 01:16:39.000]  It has to do with the validity of that particular document as filed in that particular record.
[01:16:39.000 --> 01:16:42.000]  And nothing else.
[01:16:42.000 --> 01:16:43.000]  Right.
[01:16:43.000 --> 01:16:44.000]  Hang on. We're sorry.
[01:16:44.000 --> 01:16:51.000]  About to go to break. Randy Kelton, rule of law radio or call in number 512-646-1984.
[01:16:51.000 --> 01:17:00.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:17:00.000 --> 01:17:04.000]  I love logos. Without the shows on this network, I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends.
[01:17:04.000 --> 01:17:08.000]  I'm so addicted to the truth now that there's no going back. I need my truth pick.
[01:17:08.000 --> 01:17:13.000]  I'd be lost without logos. And I really want to help keep this network on the air.
[01:17:13.000 --> 01:17:16.000]  I'd love to volunteer as a show producer, but I'm a bit of a Luddite.
[01:17:16.000 --> 01:17:20.000]  And I really don't have any money to give because I spent it all on supplements.
[01:17:20.000 --> 01:17:22.000]  How can I help logos?
[01:17:22.000 --> 01:17:24.000]  Well, I'm glad you asked.
[01:17:24.000 --> 01:17:27.000]  Whenever you order anything from Amazon, you can help logos.
[01:17:27.000 --> 01:17:31.000]  When ordering your supplies or holiday gifts, first thing you do is clear your cookies.
[01:17:31.000 --> 01:17:34.000]  Now, go to LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:17:34.000 --> 01:17:37.000]  Click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it.
[01:17:37.000 --> 01:17:43.000]  Now, when you order anything from Amazon, you use that link and logos gets a few pesos.
[01:17:43.000 --> 01:17:44.000]  Do I pay extra?
[01:17:44.000 --> 01:17:45.000]  No.
[01:17:45.000 --> 01:17:47.000]  Do you have to do anything different when I order?
[01:17:47.000 --> 01:17:48.000]  No.
[01:17:48.000 --> 01:17:49.000]  Can I use my Amazon Prime?
[01:17:49.000 --> 01:17:50.000]  No.
[01:17:50.000 --> 01:17:51.000]  I mean, yes.
[01:17:51.000 --> 01:17:55.000]  Wow. Giving without doing anything or spending any money. This is perfect.
[01:17:55.000 --> 01:17:56.000]  Thank you so much.
[01:17:56.000 --> 01:17:58.000]  We are Logos.
[01:17:58.000 --> 01:18:00.000]  Happy holidays, Logos.
[01:18:00.000 --> 01:18:05.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[01:18:05.000 --> 01:18:09.000]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mearris Proven Method.
[01:18:09.000 --> 01:18:14.000]  Michael Mearris has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win two.
[01:18:14.000 --> 01:18:21.000]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes.
[01:18:21.000 --> 01:18:27.000]  What to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons? How to answer letters and phone calls?
[01:18:27.000 --> 01:18:29.000]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit report?
[01:18:29.000 --> 01:18:34.000]  How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away?
[01:18:34.000 --> 01:18:39.000]  The Michael Mearris Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[01:18:39.000 --> 01:18:41.000]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[01:18:41.000 --> 01:18:47.000]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mearris banner,
[01:18:47.000 --> 01:18:52.000]  or email michaelmearris at yahOO.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com,
[01:18:52.000 --> 01:19:01.000]  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.
[01:19:01.020 --> 01:19:11.020]  This is the Logos Radio Net Judrial.
[01:19:11.020 --> 01:19:37.660]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Roova Radio, and we're talking to Chris and Leslie and
[01:19:37.660 --> 01:19:43.740]  both on Pennsylvania issues. What do you think, Chris?
[01:19:43.740 --> 01:19:49.660]  I think it sounds great. So, in other words, I can file a declaratory judgment, a motion
[01:19:49.660 --> 01:19:55.860]  to file a declaratory judgment, and ask for the fact that the person signing for MERS
[01:19:55.860 --> 01:20:01.660]  had no power of attorney in order to grant title to Wells Fargo.
[01:20:01.660 --> 01:20:10.140]  Yeah, and look in Pennsylvania law on power of attorney. Somewhere there's going to be
[01:20:10.140 --> 01:20:20.900]  a requirement that whoever files a document in the public record affecting title must show
[01:20:20.900 --> 01:20:27.860]  evidence of authority to file that record. They must either be a named principal or they
[01:20:27.860 --> 01:20:35.780]  must have evidence of power of attorney from a named principal. Otherwise, it would be
[01:20:35.780 --> 01:20:42.620]  absolutely no purpose to have the counter recorder's office because anybody just filed
[01:20:42.620 --> 01:20:50.860]  any trash they wanted to in there. The thing about human beings is, if God made man, he
[01:20:50.860 --> 01:21:02.660]  made us flawed, but he did not make us randomly flawed. We all seem to be flawed consistently
[01:21:02.660 --> 01:21:09.420]  across all cultures. I was talking to someone in England about this electronic paralegal
[01:21:09.420 --> 01:21:14.380]  I'm building, and I'm taking the codes in Texas and converting them to questionnaires,
[01:21:14.380 --> 01:21:20.020]  and he said, well, yes, but we mentioned traffic code, but traffic code in Finland is not
[01:21:20.020 --> 01:21:26.100]  the same as it is in New Zealand or in the United States. I said, yeah, that's true,
[01:21:26.100 --> 01:21:35.940]  but any legal left turns and legal left turn, all of the human beings do when driving automobiles,
[01:21:35.940 --> 01:21:42.460]  those primarily those things they don't pay attention to that causes safety issues. It
[01:21:42.460 --> 01:21:50.100]  was the same no matter what, no matter where. And the way people cheat and steal is the
[01:21:50.100 --> 01:21:59.180]  same everywhere. So it's not a matter of is that law present, we have a number, all of
[01:21:59.180 --> 01:22:08.660]  our laws are very sophisticated. So the remedies there, we just got to find it. And here, I
[01:22:08.660 --> 01:22:14.340]  mean, just with Tim, who was the first caller, he just he said on the air that he got a
[01:22:14.340 --> 01:22:18.820]  contingent, he was trying to get a containers and they're dragging their feet. I filed a
[01:22:18.820 --> 01:22:26.580]  findings of fact and conclusions of law and added to that a plea and abatement. Plain abatement
[01:22:26.580 --> 01:22:32.100]  is actually an old term that's not used much anymore. But I didn't want to ask for a
[01:22:32.100 --> 01:22:41.580]  contingence. I asked to abate all proceedings until the current issue before the court could
[01:22:41.580 --> 01:22:48.420]  be resolved. The judge issued a dispositive ruling dismissed all attempts claims with
[01:22:48.420 --> 01:22:56.220]  prejudice with no explanation. So we asked for findings fact. And that rendered the ruling
[01:22:56.220 --> 01:23:03.860]  done final. So now they're going to go to court. And Tim can't address his issues because
[01:23:03.860 --> 01:23:09.620]  the judge is rendered a ruling, but the ruling is not final. So we don't know how long it
[01:23:09.620 --> 01:23:15.260]  will take the judge to produce the findings fact and all that stuff. And then a motion
[01:23:15.260 --> 01:23:19.460]  for reconsideration and then notice of appeal and interlocutory appeal all this stuff can
[01:23:19.460 --> 01:23:26.860]  happen. So we asked for a plain abatement. Ask the court to abate all proceedings and
[01:23:26.860 --> 01:23:33.540]  that instead of saying give it a 90 day continuance, you stop everything. And on the declaratory
[01:23:33.540 --> 01:23:41.020]  judgments, that's what you wanted to do. Stop everything. They got to wait for this ruling
[01:23:41.020 --> 01:23:50.060]  because this ruling becomes relevant to issues before the court. Put a ruling in the front
[01:23:50.060 --> 01:23:57.020]  of the court that the court can't get around. Because once that district court rules on
[01:23:57.020 --> 01:24:10.100]  your declaratory judgment, it becomes Residucata and another court cannot revisit it. Now rather
[01:24:10.100 --> 01:24:14.100]  that's appropriate to your case or not, I'm trying to make the point is we need to start
[01:24:14.100 --> 01:24:25.540]  thinking in terms of what issues of law would give us, force the court to give us the ruling
[01:24:25.540 --> 01:24:33.020]  we're asking for. That's the ruling against us just out of hand. So instead of ruling
[01:24:33.020 --> 01:24:39.420]  against us, let's see if we can't get that judge to have to step directly on the toe
[01:24:39.420 --> 01:24:48.100]  of another judge. It's all politics through the end of the day. So this judge ruled it's
[01:24:48.100 --> 01:24:51.100]  this way and another judge said, we don't care what that judge rules, we're going to
[01:24:51.100 --> 01:24:58.140]  do something else. Then we pick the judges against each other. Okay, go ahead.
[01:24:58.140 --> 01:25:08.460]  No, in conclusion, what you were saying about murders and power of attorney and someone
[01:25:08.460 --> 01:25:18.140]  stepping in and the principle of the original lender, this signing we were hoping was going
[01:25:18.140 --> 01:25:25.420]  to get dismissed anyway because the properly perfected lien through the assignment which
[01:25:25.420 --> 01:25:34.820]  came from a MERS loan officer in North Carolina who had no knowledge of any of this and was
[01:25:34.820 --> 01:25:40.260]  never probably given power of attorney for sure came two years after the fact that the
[01:25:40.260 --> 01:25:42.260]  bank had closed.
[01:25:42.260 --> 01:25:52.540]  So that one would, you pick a really fine point of law and this one goes to does agency
[01:25:52.540 --> 01:26:02.540]  survive death? That's well established. Agency doesn't survive death.
[01:26:02.540 --> 01:26:11.180]  Now, if you're a human and you die, your estate goes into probate because you have errors.
[01:26:11.180 --> 01:26:22.660]  But a legal fiction, although it is termed a person, they don't go into probate. A legal
[01:26:22.660 --> 01:26:28.780]  fiction before it ceases to exist must transfer its claims or abandon some.
[01:26:28.780 --> 01:26:34.260]  Wait, and how long do they have to do that? And I thought it was in Pennsylvania had 120
[01:26:34.260 --> 01:26:37.060]  days to justify properly.
[01:26:37.060 --> 01:26:45.300]  No, they have to transfer it before they cease to exist. Judge Shrek in New York called
[01:26:45.300 --> 01:26:52.700]  them vampire lenders. The lender dies and then rises up from the grave and assigns its
[01:26:52.700 --> 01:26:59.220]  asset to some third party after it died. That does not work. That's the question you want
[01:26:59.220 --> 01:27:00.220]  to bring.
[01:27:00.220 --> 01:27:09.300]  What seems more interesting is in the bankruptcy court, you know, we did the 544A, which was
[01:27:09.300 --> 01:27:19.380]  we filed a chapter seven included the property as dischargable as debt. And so as soon as
[01:27:19.380 --> 01:27:25.100]  you file a chapter seven, if 544A says if there's not a properly perfected lien prior
[01:27:25.100 --> 01:27:31.980]  to the filing of a chapter seven, the mortgage and the note become unsecured because there
[01:27:31.980 --> 01:27:39.500]  is no lender. So the judge ruled the fact that the debt was unsecured, but never really
[01:27:39.500 --> 01:27:46.220]  gave a statement about the mortgage. And then when we went in and brought this up, the court
[01:27:46.220 --> 01:27:50.740]  was saying, well, the mortgage just survives the bankruptcy.
[01:27:50.740 --> 01:27:52.700]  Well, it didn't in this case, but...
[01:27:52.700 --> 01:27:56.900]  Okay, hold on, hold on. That's the problem because this court's ruling on a whole bunch
[01:27:56.900 --> 01:28:02.700]  of stuff and they just bundle it all together and they blow off what they want to.
[01:28:02.700 --> 01:28:13.980]  Break that apart. Take the facts and the law on one laser focused issue and bring that
[01:28:13.980 --> 01:28:20.700]  up to the court for a declaration of the rights of the parties. And nothing else, no other
[01:28:20.700 --> 01:28:25.060]  consideration so they can't dance around and just blow something off and then you have
[01:28:25.060 --> 01:28:30.780]  to go and sort through all their rulings to sort out what they didn't do. They got
[01:28:30.780 --> 01:28:41.500]  one thing to do. And then you need to craft your question in a way so that if the court
[01:28:41.500 --> 01:28:52.940]  rules against you, they undermine the Corpus Juris, the body's law. Everything gets disrupted.
[01:28:52.940 --> 01:29:00.820]  And here you're going to agency. It is well established that agency does not survive the
[01:29:00.820 --> 01:29:09.460]  death of the principal. So now you're going to go ask the court, does agency survive the
[01:29:09.460 --> 01:29:17.260]  death of the principal? What are they going to do? A district court is going to go against
[01:29:17.260 --> 01:29:24.820]  well established law. There's a rule against you, you appeal that and there's the appeals
[01:29:24.820 --> 01:29:34.020]  court going to rule that agency survives death when 200 years of law says it doesn't.
[01:29:34.020 --> 01:29:44.380]  God, I'm in a spot. Right. Decatur adjustment gives you a way to do that. Find me focused.
[01:29:44.380 --> 01:29:51.780]  No mixing these things around. So there's the then separate declaratory judgments that
[01:29:51.780 --> 01:29:58.340]  you would file based on? Yes. Whole separate suit. Okay, so each one would then become
[01:29:58.340 --> 01:30:05.780]  a don't declare smoke. Have you had your hug today? If not, you're missing out on some
[01:30:05.780 --> 01:30:10.380]  of the best medicine relationships have to offer. Dr. Catherine Albright, tell me back
[01:30:10.380 --> 01:30:16.220]  in just a moment to tell you why you should get your daily dose of hug power. Privacy is
[01:30:16.220 --> 01:30:21.180]  under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. And once
[01:30:21.180 --> 01:30:26.420]  your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. So protect your
[01:30:26.420 --> 01:30:32.260]  rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy, it's worth
[01:30:32.260 --> 01:30:37.540]  hanging on to. This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private
[01:30:37.540 --> 01:30:44.300]  search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing. Start over with StartPage.
[01:30:44.300 --> 01:30:49.180]  A hug a day could keep the heart doctor away. Researchers at the University of North Carolina
[01:30:49.180 --> 01:30:53.980]  say a simple embrace has benefits that go way beyond that warm and fuzzy feeling. They
[01:30:53.980 --> 01:30:58.660]  measure the levels of the stress hormone cortisol and the bonding hormone oxytocin,
[01:30:58.660 --> 01:31:03.900]  both before and after volunteer couples held hands, talked and hugged. Following the 22nd
[01:31:03.900 --> 01:31:09.500]  hug, oxytocin increased and cortisol decreased in both men and women. As a result, their
[01:31:09.500 --> 01:31:14.660]  blood pressure also went down, lowering their risk of cardiovascular disease. So wrap your
[01:31:14.660 --> 01:31:19.260]  arms around the one you love. It'll do your heart and theirs a world of good.
[01:31:19.260 --> 01:31:24.140]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht sending you a virtual hug from Radioland. More news and information
[01:31:24.140 --> 01:31:26.260]  at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:31:26.260 --> 01:31:35.740]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[01:31:35.740 --> 01:31:41.180]  The government says that fire brought it down. However, 1,500 architects and engineers concluded
[01:31:41.180 --> 01:31:45.100]  it was a controlled demolition. Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their
[01:31:45.100 --> 01:31:49.740]  lives and thousands of my fellow force responders are dying. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm
[01:31:49.740 --> 01:31:53.020]  a structural engineer. I'm a New York City correction officer. I'm an Air Force pilot.
[01:31:53.020 --> 01:31:59.660]  I'm the father who lost his son. We are Americans and we deserve the truth. Go to RememberBuilding7.org
[01:31:59.660 --> 01:32:00.660]  today.
[01:32:00.660 --> 01:32:03.980]  Hey, it's Danny here for Hill Country Home Improvements. Did your home receive hail or
[01:32:03.980 --> 01:32:07.740]  wind damage from the recent storms? Come on, we all know the government caused it with
[01:32:07.740 --> 01:32:11.740]  their chemtrails, but good luck getting them to pay for it. Okay, I might be kidding about
[01:32:11.740 --> 01:32:15.740]  the chemtrails, but I'm serious about your roof. That's why you have insurance and Hill
[01:32:15.740 --> 01:32:20.380]  Country Home Improvements can handle the claim for you with little to no out-of-pocket expense.
[01:32:20.380 --> 01:32:25.100]  And we accept Bitcoin as a multi-year A-plus member of the Better Business Bureau with
[01:32:25.100 --> 01:32:29.580]  zero complaints. You can trust Hill Country Home Improvements to handle your claim and
[01:32:29.580 --> 01:32:38.140]  your roof right the first time. Just call 512-992-8745 or go to hillcountryhomeimprovements.com,
[01:32:38.140 --> 01:32:42.820]  mention the crypto show and get $100 off, and we'll donate another $100 to the Logos Radio
[01:32:42.820 --> 01:32:47.900]  Network to help continue this programming. So if those out-of-town roofers come knocking,
[01:32:47.900 --> 01:32:56.620]  your door should be locked in. That's 512-992-8745 or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com. Discounts
[01:32:56.620 --> 01:33:00.420]  are based on full roof replacement. I mean, I actually be kidding about chemtrails.
[01:33:00.420 --> 01:33:07.420]  Looking for some truth? You found it. LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:33:30.420 --> 01:33:48.420]  We're getting done with temptation. They're trying to buy the whole place. They want to
[01:33:48.420 --> 01:34:14.460]  buy the whole place. Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton with Logos Radio and we're talking
[01:34:14.460 --> 01:34:20.380]  to Chris and Leslie in Pennsylvania. That's something I've been working on for a while
[01:34:20.380 --> 01:34:28.660]  is the declaratory judgments. I'm looking at, in the future, before we actually go into
[01:34:28.660 --> 01:34:38.340]  litigation or when litigation first starts, we look at the case and determine what points
[01:34:38.340 --> 01:34:46.620]  of law need to be ruled on. And then we file a petition for declaratory judgment separately
[01:34:46.620 --> 01:34:53.020]  on each of those points of law. Most of the time, the points of law will follow one from
[01:34:53.020 --> 01:34:59.380]  the other. So we start with the one that would need to be first that would support the second
[01:34:59.380 --> 01:35:05.420]  or third. For instance, where you have a number of assignments, the second assignment is going
[01:35:05.420 --> 01:35:10.460]  to depend on the validity of the first assignment. So we look at the first assignment and go
[01:35:10.460 --> 01:35:16.940]  after it first, a focused declaratory judgment on to undermine that one. And once we got
[01:35:16.940 --> 01:35:22.020]  that ruling, we could come to the court with that ruling and use it to undermine the second
[01:35:22.020 --> 01:35:28.420]  one. Does that make sense, Chris? Yeah, that makes sense. That makes sense. You know, there
[01:35:28.420 --> 01:35:36.860]  was another thing that I was just reading about on summary judgment. The court has given
[01:35:36.860 --> 01:35:45.460]  the bank's summary judgment on three of my defenses. And I was reading a thing where
[01:35:45.460 --> 01:35:57.180]  it said that counsel's brief cannot be used to rule a summary judgment since it's basically
[01:35:57.180 --> 01:36:09.860]  hearsay. Yes, a lawyer cannot testify. Right. Goes to the rules of evidence. Right. So if
[01:36:09.860 --> 01:36:16.580]  all we're hearing from is the lawyer and the attorneys who are presenting their case for
[01:36:16.580 --> 01:36:21.980]  the bank, and we have no affidavits, we have no witnesses, we have no testimony from anybody
[01:36:21.980 --> 01:36:28.900]  with personal knowledge in any of the cases, and he's basically just saying these things
[01:36:28.900 --> 01:36:35.300]  because he's been told them, then really, how do they get a summary judgment if all
[01:36:35.300 --> 01:36:51.540]  of his testimony is merely hearsay? Exactly. So is there something within that realm that's
[01:36:51.540 --> 01:37:01.540]  worth fighting? Absolutely. Look at, read the rules of evidence. And if you can, generally
[01:37:01.540 --> 01:37:08.740]  what you get from lawyers are a bunch of proactive statements of law out of their own mouth,
[01:37:08.740 --> 01:37:13.340]  and assertions of fact. Anytime there is an assertion of fact from a lawyer, that should
[01:37:13.340 --> 01:37:19.660]  be, you should move to strike. Right. Well, we've never really been in a position to move
[01:37:19.660 --> 01:37:24.860]  to strike anything because we've really never had anything but argument based on a brief
[01:37:24.860 --> 01:37:31.820]  or whatever. You know, we've never stood in front of anyone to object to really anything.
[01:37:31.820 --> 01:37:39.900]  We've only been given time to argue our cases, his objections and my, you know, pleadings.
[01:37:39.900 --> 01:37:45.700]  Well, everything should be done in the pleadings anyway. You should move to strike as arguments
[01:37:45.700 --> 01:37:53.140]  if the argument presumes a fact not in evidence, or if the argument asserts a fact that has
[01:37:53.140 --> 01:38:00.940]  not been properly put before the court in accordance with the rules of evidence. Right.
[01:38:00.940 --> 01:38:14.700]  In studying cases, one of the hardest things for me to do is recognize an unstated presupposition.
[01:38:14.700 --> 01:38:24.700]  One says something and it just doesn't click in here to say, whoa, hold on. That implies
[01:38:24.700 --> 01:38:30.500]  the fact that's not in evidence. And if that fact is not in evidence, what they just said
[01:38:30.500 --> 01:38:37.180]  is not true. That is, it's really subtle. And I struggle with that all the time. I'm
[01:38:37.180 --> 01:38:51.220]  constantly finding things where I have failed to address an unstated presupposition. I'm
[01:38:51.220 --> 01:38:57.980]  preparing this electronic lawyer. And one of the things that has forced me to do is keep
[01:38:57.980 --> 01:39:07.100]  working my way back to the beginning. What is the first question that should be asked
[01:39:07.100 --> 01:39:16.940]  and I have a one of my suits that I call it my who's on first suit. And that's what
[01:39:16.940 --> 01:39:27.660]  that's about. Who's on first? Who has power to open their mouth? Before I pay any attention
[01:39:27.660 --> 01:39:35.260]  to anybody, anything anybody says, I want to make sure the speaker has agency standing
[01:39:35.260 --> 01:39:45.620]  or legal capacity to speak. And this goes to sorting out our unstated presuppositions.
[01:39:45.620 --> 01:39:55.140]  So what unstated presuppositions exist in your case that haven't been adjudicated?
[01:39:55.140 --> 01:40:03.900]  The bankruptcy for sure, the fact that actually Wachovia even owned the mortgage prior to
[01:40:03.900 --> 01:40:11.820]  being closed and assumed to buy Wells Fargo. Okay, the mortgage, that assumes there is
[01:40:11.820 --> 01:40:18.380]  a mortgage and that the mortgage that exists is valid. Have you tested that?
[01:40:18.380 --> 01:40:25.420]  Well, we've tried in the court by asking, we went down the road of, you know, just like
[01:40:25.420 --> 01:40:29.140]  you mentioned just now, where you break things down to the very beginning, you started the
[01:40:29.140 --> 01:40:38.420]  beginning and what that concept meant to me was follow the money trail. So if I ask you
[01:40:38.420 --> 01:40:47.980]  who is going to be the power, who's got the power to enforce? Well, that would obviously
[01:40:47.980 --> 01:40:54.860]  be the person who's getting the money at the end of the day who says, I own this and all
[01:40:54.860 --> 01:40:59.900]  the money is coming to me. So how do I determine that you are that person? Well, the first
[01:40:59.900 --> 01:41:03.900]  thing I want to look at is one of the things that we're going to do no matter who you are
[01:41:03.900 --> 01:41:09.500]  in this country, you're going to die and you're going to pay taxes. And taxes, if you cannot
[01:41:09.500 --> 01:41:14.820]  show me validly that you've been paying the taxes on the principal and interest of my
[01:41:14.820 --> 01:41:21.420]  mortgage payment, then you are certainly not the person in power to make these requests.
[01:41:21.420 --> 01:41:31.420]  That's the presupposition. How do you get there? Well, you asked for their tax records
[01:41:31.420 --> 01:41:38.660]  to show. No, no, no, no. How do you get to the presupposition that if you're in the taxes,
[01:41:38.660 --> 01:41:46.860]  you're not the holder? Well, because you have to be able to prove that you are the one who
[01:41:46.860 --> 01:41:53.020]  is entitled to the money. Okay, what does paying the taxes have to do with that? Well,
[01:41:53.020 --> 01:41:58.780]  you have to pay taxes on that money. Do you? Someone has to. Someone does, unless it's
[01:41:58.780 --> 01:42:04.180]  placed in a remic and the remic is... Okay, there you go. That's where it's getting to.
[01:42:04.180 --> 01:42:12.340]  Just because someone is paying taxes on a property does not give them any standing concerning
[01:42:12.340 --> 01:42:17.780]  the property. I could pay your taxes if I wanted to. I'm not talking about the property
[01:42:17.780 --> 01:42:23.180]  tax. I'm not talking about the municipal and property tax. I'm talking about the taxes
[01:42:23.180 --> 01:42:29.780]  on my principal and interest that you're charging me on my mortgage payment. If I'm paying you
[01:42:29.780 --> 01:42:38.540]  the mortgage, you're the owner. That's interesting. Okay, I'm being deliberately pedantic here
[01:42:38.540 --> 01:42:49.580]  because it's about making sure we're asking the right questions. If I am the entity receiving
[01:42:49.580 --> 01:42:57.980]  beneficial interest from the mortgage, is there any way I could receive beneficial interest
[01:42:57.980 --> 01:43:07.340]  in the mortgage and not be the holder? No. If you can take the payment at the end of
[01:43:07.340 --> 01:43:12.260]  the day, and I think Black's Law determines what the owner is, or something I've read
[01:43:12.260 --> 01:43:18.020]  this where, if you can take the payment at the end of the day and do what you want, then
[01:43:18.020 --> 01:43:23.380]  you are the person who receives those payments based on the fact that you're the owner. If
[01:43:23.380 --> 01:43:31.380]  I'm the landlord, I get your rent payment. Mortgage works the same way. I get your mortgage
[01:43:31.380 --> 01:43:37.580]  payment, but I must pay taxes on that. So those taxes then have got to be public record,
[01:43:37.580 --> 01:43:41.380]  and I've got to be able to still documentate them that I actually paid the taxes on the
[01:43:41.380 --> 01:43:46.780]  principal and interest I'm on. Okay, if you get that ruling, how can you use it? Hang
[01:43:46.780 --> 01:43:50.700]  on, we're about to go to break, and we'll pick this up on the other side. Randy Kelton,
[01:43:50.700 --> 01:44:02.260]  Reuval Radio, we'll be right back.
[01:44:02.260 --> 01:44:28.780]  Thank you.
[01:44:28.780 --> 01:44:34.140]  same species. HempUSA.org wants the world to know these basic facts and to help people
[01:44:34.140 --> 01:44:39.100]  understand that hemp protein powder is the best kept health secret you need to know about.
[01:44:39.100 --> 01:44:45.420]  Remember, hemp protein powder contains 53% protein, is gluten free, anti-inflammatory,
[01:44:45.420 --> 01:44:54.540]  non-GMO, and is loaded with nutrients. Call 888-910-4367. 888-910-4367 and see what our
[01:44:54.540 --> 01:44:59.580]  powder seeds and oil can do for you only at hempusa.org.
[01:45:01.580 --> 01:45:07.980]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary,
[01:45:07.980 --> 01:45:14.380]  the affordable, easy to understand four-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours,
[01:45:14.380 --> 01:45:21.260]  step by step. If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer,
[01:45:21.260 --> 01:45:27.100]  know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step-by-step course and now
[01:45:27.100 --> 01:45:33.660]  you can too. Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning
[01:45:33.660 --> 01:45:39.420]  experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[01:45:39.420 --> 01:45:45.100]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio
[01:45:45.100 --> 01:45:52.780]  classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, prosa tactics, and much more.
[01:45:52.780 --> 01:46:16.460]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EASY.
[01:46:22.780 --> 01:46:46.380]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, rule of law radio and I'm drawing out this argument because
[01:46:46.380 --> 01:46:51.980]  these are the kind of arguments that I'd like and find very beneficial. And I'm starting to
[01:46:51.980 --> 01:46:59.660]  producer on the break about this and where I'm going here, I am being pedantic is because
[01:46:59.660 --> 01:47:10.300]  things are not always the way they appear. As concerns who has authority concerning my real
[01:47:10.300 --> 01:47:22.620]  property, I don't care who the actual holder is. I care who stands in the record as the holder.
[01:47:24.060 --> 01:47:29.740]  Well, they're the only one that can bring a claim and it doesn't matter if they are actually the
[01:47:29.740 --> 01:47:37.340]  holder or not, they can bring that claim. Well, honestly, Randy, neither one of those make
[01:47:37.340 --> 01:47:44.460]  are relevant because if either one of those don't receive the final payment to do with what they
[01:47:44.460 --> 01:47:49.420]  want with it at the end of the day, then neither one of those two people are empowered to enforce
[01:47:49.420 --> 01:47:58.620]  my mortgage. No, that, okay, that's a presupposition that I can't follow. The one named in the public
[01:47:58.620 --> 01:48:08.860]  record as the holder can enforce. Whether they're the actual holder or not, by law, their claim
[01:48:08.860 --> 01:48:15.420]  stands first in the record if their claim is valid. Right, and if they prove that they don't pay taxes
[01:48:15.420 --> 01:48:22.460]  on my mortgage in person principle, how does that change the validity of the filing in the record?
[01:48:22.460 --> 01:48:29.980]  Well, because you, in order, if you're not receiving the money, then you're not the owner.
[01:48:31.500 --> 01:48:38.300]  So what? This is not about the owner, this is about the holder, the holder of the record.
[01:48:40.380 --> 01:48:42.700]  We better ask the right question to get the right answer.
[01:48:43.740 --> 01:48:45.020]  How did you become the holder?
[01:48:45.020 --> 01:48:52.940]  You filed a document in the record naming you as a beneficiary.
[01:48:53.900 --> 01:48:57.500]  And right, and how does anyone can do that? I could walk down today to the
[01:48:57.500 --> 01:49:01.340]  President's office or the Recorder of Deeds office and file that I own my property.
[01:49:01.340 --> 01:49:04.620]  It would get knocked in the Recorder of Deeds. Now, how do I legitimate that?
[01:49:07.020 --> 01:49:12.620]  You can't file a claim against the property. Whoever holds the property
[01:49:12.620 --> 01:49:19.500]  must file the claim and name you as the beneficiary. Now, once you're named as the holder,
[01:49:20.300 --> 01:49:24.620]  by someone who actually holds it, now you become the holder.
[01:49:26.300 --> 01:49:28.780]  And the only way is that they're the actual holder.
[01:49:30.540 --> 01:49:34.940]  Would you say that again? How does they prove that they're the actual holder?
[01:49:34.940 --> 01:49:42.140]  Just want to deed. Okay, so when you purchase the property,
[01:49:42.700 --> 01:49:46.700]  the previous holder of the warranty deed transfers the warranty deed to you.
[01:49:47.980 --> 01:49:53.980]  Now, you hold a warranty deed, you are the holder. The only claims that can be made
[01:49:53.980 --> 01:50:01.260]  against that property have to be granted by you. When you get a mortgage, you grant the mortgage
[01:50:01.260 --> 01:50:10.700]  to the lender. You grant that lender a claim against your property. Now, that lender who's
[01:50:10.700 --> 01:50:18.220]  named in that grant becomes a holder of the claim. Now, they can take their claim
[01:50:19.420 --> 01:50:25.820]  and transfer it to somebody else. They can grant their claim to a third party,
[01:50:25.820 --> 01:50:32.060]  but they have to do it in the record. Any claim against real property not properly acknowledged
[01:50:32.060 --> 01:50:37.900]  approving and filing the records voids us to the holder. So, while they can transfer their claims,
[01:50:37.900 --> 01:50:44.460]  if they don't file it in the record, they'll still stand as the holder. Okay. And the great
[01:50:44.460 --> 01:50:51.660]  advantage we have is when that holder dies. Well, we have a bigger advantage because with the taxes,
[01:50:51.660 --> 01:50:57.660]  if you cannot come up with who's paying the taxes, then the taxes aren't being paid.
[01:50:58.220 --> 01:51:03.820]  Would that be correct? Okay. No. I can't. No, no, no. Hold on. Hold on. Well,
[01:51:03.820 --> 01:51:11.820]  that does not necessarily follow. I could be anonymously paying your taxes for you.
[01:51:12.940 --> 01:51:17.180]  No, not my taxes. The taxes on the principal and interest of my mortgage payments,
[01:51:17.180 --> 01:51:23.340]  but you have only the person who is the owner can pay. The landlord has to pay.
[01:51:25.020 --> 01:51:28.540]  What does that have to do with who holds the claim in the record?
[01:51:29.260 --> 01:51:33.820]  Okay. Well, I'll tell you what it has to do with. If you hold, if you cannot show that somebody's
[01:51:33.820 --> 01:51:37.340]  paying their taxes, then I have to assume that the mortgage is placed in a remit.
[01:51:38.220 --> 01:51:43.660]  If I assume the mortgage is placed in a remit, then at some point my mortgage was placed into a
[01:51:43.660 --> 01:51:51.580]  trust and the trust closed. And if you're not the trust, then you can't possibly be
[01:51:52.620 --> 01:51:57.180]  the holder of my note. Okay. That's proactive statement of law in real
[01:51:57.180 --> 01:52:04.140]  mouth. How do you get there legally? That's my point. Well, I see how you get there rationally.
[01:52:05.180 --> 01:52:11.260]  I can't see if someone, uh, the taxes, you know, you're, you're, I'm good. I can't,
[01:52:11.260 --> 01:52:18.940]  I can't find any legal connection to paying tax, taxes on a mortgage payment and a holder.
[01:52:20.780 --> 01:52:25.820]  Okay. It doesn't have to be the holder. My point is, is that if there's no one who can show that
[01:52:25.820 --> 01:52:30.620]  they're paying the taxes on the interest and principal of my mortgage, so I pay you money.
[01:52:31.260 --> 01:52:38.060]  Okay. You're the landlord and you don't pay your tax. So now you're just passivate.
[01:52:38.060 --> 01:52:45.100]  Right? You're not paying tax on my principal and interest. Right? So there's two things that
[01:52:45.100 --> 01:52:49.100]  either happen. Either you're evading paying the taxes or it's been placed in a remit and placed
[01:52:49.100 --> 01:52:57.580]  in a trust. Okay. Then you're the holder of my mortgage. This is a problem. This is a problem
[01:52:57.580 --> 01:53:03.980]  I've always had with securitization. Uh, I'm going to say so what? What does that have to do with
[01:53:03.980 --> 01:53:11.820]  who the holder is? Well, if the holder isn't paying his taxes, then somebody needs to look
[01:53:11.820 --> 01:53:21.020]  at the fact that they're intact. Okay. So, so what? How does that make him not the holder?
[01:53:23.980 --> 01:53:29.180]  Because if I can prove that he's not paying the taxes, it has to be placed in a remit.
[01:53:29.180 --> 01:53:35.900]  So what? Okay. So that means that the trust should be holding the holder.
[01:53:36.700 --> 01:53:43.980]  That means the remit can't come to the table and make a claim. They're actually the holder,
[01:53:43.980 --> 01:53:48.860]  but they can't come and make a claim because they're not the holder of record.
[01:53:50.700 --> 01:53:55.580]  The holder of fact is irrelevant. The holder of record is the only thing that's relevant.
[01:53:55.580 --> 01:54:05.020]  So, if we know then that say, Wachovia is the originator of my mortgage,
[01:54:05.020 --> 01:54:10.780]  they just created the paperwork and then it went. They're the original holder of record.
[01:54:11.980 --> 01:54:18.620]  Right. And they died without transferring their asset to a third party.
[01:54:19.820 --> 01:54:22.060]  Correct. That's what matters.
[01:54:22.060 --> 01:54:27.740]  Right. Oh, no, I understand that. I just, we got off on this
[01:54:28.460 --> 01:54:35.580]  tangent of looking back at the beginning of time and things. I was, yeah.
[01:54:35.580 --> 01:54:45.580]  The only, okay. That was my point is the remit and who's paying taxes on the beneficial interest
[01:54:45.580 --> 01:54:52.700]  payments? We don't, I can't get there. I can't find a way to get it there.
[01:54:53.900 --> 01:55:01.180]  I can't find a way that that becomes relevant. The only thing I can find is the warranty deed,
[01:55:01.180 --> 01:55:08.300]  holder in the record. They must file a grant acclaim to a third party.
[01:55:08.300 --> 01:55:16.780]  Now, that third party becomes a holder of record and any other person who steps forward
[01:55:16.780 --> 01:55:24.860]  and claims to be a holder must have a grant in a direct chain of title from that original warranty
[01:55:24.860 --> 01:55:30.860]  deed. Don't care who actually holds it. Don't care who collects the beneficial interest.
[01:55:31.420 --> 01:55:38.060]  Irrelevant. Right. You can argue all of those and they will go nowhere and the banks will
[01:55:38.060 --> 01:55:41.260]  love you to argue those because they know they are relevant. Don't matter.
[01:55:42.380 --> 01:55:48.780]  What they don't want you to argue, holder of record. Right.
[01:55:48.780 --> 01:55:52.220]  Actual holder doesn't matter. Holder of record is the only thing that matters.
[01:55:52.220 --> 01:55:54.460]  And right now you don't have a holder of record.
[01:55:56.220 --> 01:56:00.860]  That's a good place to go back with a petition to declaratory judgment.
[01:56:00.860 --> 01:56:11.180]  Right. It's real simple. A negative ruling will undermine everything. A negative ruling on that
[01:56:11.180 --> 01:56:17.900]  would eliminate the counter recorder altogether. Right. And that would place all the property
[01:56:17.900 --> 01:56:25.820]  in Pennsylvania up for grabs. Right. They're not going to do that even if you are a prosa.
[01:56:25.820 --> 01:56:32.460]  They're not going to place everything up for grabs just to keep from giving a prosa a ruling.
[01:56:33.020 --> 01:56:38.060]  And this is the kind of thing you might be able to actually get a lawyer to argue and address.
[01:56:40.140 --> 01:56:42.380]  I've tried that. Because it's really...
[01:56:45.420 --> 01:56:47.420]  Well, you can't get every lawyer because
[01:56:47.420 --> 01:56:58.540]  you have to look. Yeah. But you're more likely to get a positive ruling
[01:57:00.780 --> 01:57:08.460]  and a prosa capacity on something really finely focused. And where if they rule against you,
[01:57:08.460 --> 01:57:16.300]  it undermines the corpus juris. Now, this district court is going to look at this and say,
[01:57:16.300 --> 01:57:23.180]  what's going to happen when this goes to the court of appeals? If the court of appeals says that
[01:57:23.180 --> 01:57:32.300]  you don't have to prove legal capacity to claim a lien against real property, then everything's up
[01:57:32.300 --> 01:57:40.780]  for grabs. Right. You've got to find the right questions. The one they can't rule against you on
[01:57:40.780 --> 01:57:48.700]  and get out of that district court, get out of the foreclosure context and go back to state law
[01:57:48.700 --> 01:57:55.340]  context. Well, I'm hoping that's what my cross claim for avoiding the foreclosure order is going
[01:57:55.340 --> 01:58:00.620]  to do based on a 10-3-2-B at subject matter jurisdiction. I don't know how he's going
[01:58:00.620 --> 01:58:07.340]  to get around that. I'm sure he's going to figure it out. But the subject matter jurisdiction.
[01:58:07.340 --> 01:58:11.180]  Okay. When we come back, I want to go to Leslie.
[01:58:14.780 --> 01:58:19.740]  She's got, I'm sure she has more insight on this particular issue. Leslie's still there.
[01:58:20.940 --> 01:58:27.660]  I'm still here. Okay. When we come back, we want to go to you. This is Randy Kelton,
[01:58:27.660 --> 01:58:35.260]  Roova Radio, our call in number 512-646-1984. We've got a couple more callers on the line.
[01:58:35.260 --> 01:58:38.940]  We'll get to everybody. We'll be right back.
[01:59:05.260 --> 01:59:12.380]  of the scripture. Enter the recovery version. First, this new translation is extremely faithful
[01:59:12.380 --> 01:59:18.860]  and accurate. But the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes. Difficult and
[01:59:18.860 --> 01:59:25.020]  profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance into the riches of the word
[01:59:25.020 --> 01:59:30.380]  beyond which you've ever experienced before. Bibles for America would like to give you a
[01:59:30.380 --> 01:59:36.060]  free recovery version simply for the asking. This comprehensive yet compact study Bible
[01:59:36.060 --> 01:59:47.660]  is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102 or by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[01:59:47.660 --> 02:00:00.460]  That's freestudybible.com. You are listening to the Logos Radio Network. LogosRadioNetwork.com.