ROL_2019-01-18_16k_Hr3-4.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:06.560]  The following news flash is brought to you by The Lone Star Lowdown.
[00:06.560 --> 00:12.800]  Markets for Wednesday 16 January 2019 open with precious metals gold at $1,294.63 an
[00:12.800 --> 00:19.680]  ounce, silver $15.60 an ounce, copper $2.66 an ounce, oil, Texas crude $52.11 a barrel,
[00:19.680 --> 00:27.400]  Brent crude $60.64 a barrel, and cryptos in order of Market Cap, Bitcoin $3,649.76, Ripple
[00:27.400 --> 00:35.200]  XRP $0.32, Ethereum $122.95, and Bitcoin cashed at $129.54 a crypto coin.
[00:35.200 --> 00:43.840]  Today in History, the year 1377 Pope Gregory XI moves the papacy back to Rome from Avignon,
[00:43.840 --> 00:49.240]  France where it had been since 1309. The relocation of the Pontiface Maximus back to
[00:49.240 --> 00:58.440]  Rome from Avignon. In recent news, for the fiscal year of 2017 in Texas, nearly 18,000
[00:58.440 --> 01:03.040]  state employees working for cities, towns, and counties made at least $100,000 in their
[01:03.040 --> 01:08.080]  yearly salary costing taxpayers $2.1 billion, with almost 2,000 of them making more than
[01:08.080 --> 01:13.160]  $150,000 out earning even the governor's pay grade. In Denton County, in the city of
[01:13.160 --> 01:19.320]  Vernau with a population of only 8,000, city manager Scott Campbell made over a quarter
[01:19.320 --> 01:23.680]  of a million dollars. In Dallas County, the city manager Opal Maldon Jones of Lancaster,
[01:23.680 --> 01:28.040]  population of 39,000, made over half a million coming in second place on the top 10 most
[01:28.040 --> 01:34.120]  compensated city managers in Texas. The number one spot went to Jesus Olivares of Laredo,
[01:34.120 --> 01:40.680]  population 261,000. When he retired in 2017, he was paid out over $651,000 in cash when
[01:40.680 --> 01:45.680]  he originally started off at roughly only $160,000 in 2014. However, it wasn't only
[01:45.680 --> 01:49.800]  city managers ranking in the dough. Assistant city managers, of the which cities have more
[01:49.800 --> 01:54.640]  than one, have also been compensated quite well. All of Austin's five assistant city
[01:54.640 --> 01:58.960]  managers are raking in well over $200,000 each, as well as the four assistant city managers
[01:58.960 --> 02:03.560]  in San Antonio. If that wasn't enough for you, even pool managers, zoo, public works,
[02:03.560 --> 02:07.400]  parks and recreation, and library directors have all benefited quite lucratively from
[02:07.400 --> 02:12.800]  their public service, as well, many of which are several degrees north of $150,000. Add
[02:12.800 --> 02:18.360]  to this the 42 library and 95 park employees making at least six figures, and maybe it's
[02:18.360 --> 02:22.720]  time Texans quit worrying about cutting pork in Washington and start focusing on frying
[02:22.720 --> 02:26.880]  some local bacon instead.
[02:26.880 --> 02:30.640]  The oldest soft drink brand in the United States, the Dr. Pepper Soft Drink Company,
[02:30.640 --> 02:35.120]  started a change.org petition to become the official soft drink of Texas. Dr. Pepper was
[02:35.120 --> 02:40.600]  created in Waco in 1885 by a pharmacist named Charles Alderton. The petition has well over
[02:40.600 --> 02:45.120]  5,000 signatures.
[02:45.120 --> 02:48.840]  The state's 321,000 public school teachers could be getting raises pretty soon, with
[02:48.840 --> 02:53.520]  Senator Jane Nelson filing a bill to give teachers a $5,000 annual raise.
[02:53.520 --> 03:10.520]  This was Brooke Brody with Davodown for January 16, 2019.
[03:10.520 --> 03:39.320]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, we're on the radio and we're talking to John and
[03:39.320 --> 03:51.160]  New York, and we're talking about how to take on the judge. The judge exerting or reported
[03:51.160 --> 03:55.480]  to exert an authority he did not expressly have, and in the process, not just in form
[03:55.480 --> 04:02.600]  for access to enjoyment of right, the person was brought into court and charged with one
[04:02.600 --> 04:16.320]  crime prosecuted for another. The court failed to give, oh, what's the term, John, something
[04:16.320 --> 04:19.320]  in cause.
[04:19.320 --> 04:20.320]  Something in cause?
[04:20.320 --> 04:25.280]  Yeah, nature in cause. Nature in cause.
[04:25.280 --> 04:29.760]  So he didn't know what he was there to defend himself from. He thought he was there to defend
[04:29.760 --> 04:32.960]  himself from a charge of not wearing a seatbelt.
[04:32.960 --> 04:33.960]  That's correct.
[04:33.960 --> 04:34.960]  That's correct.
[04:34.960 --> 04:41.120]  In fact, it turned out he was charged with not wearing a seatbelt properly. So he didn't
[04:41.120 --> 04:47.520]  get nature in cause, constitutional violation. The judge denied him in the due course of
[04:47.520 --> 04:57.360]  the laws, and that's crime in the state of New York. Charging with it. Much more serious
[04:57.360 --> 05:00.320]  crime than your relative was charged with.
[05:00.320 --> 05:05.320]  Is that going to, is that going to help reverse the ticket, though, in the due course?
[05:05.320 --> 05:14.280]  Very good chance it will. The judge may go to the prosecutor, may prosecute Smith's case
[05:14.280 --> 05:17.000]  to get you lay off the judge.
[05:17.000 --> 05:25.280]  Hmm. Okay. Now, is there anything that I could, I want to be absolutely sure that I gave that
[05:25.280 --> 05:31.960]  information to you correctly. The ticket said no seatbelt. They get to court, and the pap
[05:31.960 --> 05:37.000]  says, well, Mr. So-and-So wasn't wearing the seatbelt properly.
[05:37.000 --> 05:46.640]  Well, he came to court. He had a right to nature in cause before he got to court. Not
[05:46.640 --> 05:52.920]  wearing it properly becomes surprise. He was bushwacked in court with a different charge
[05:52.920 --> 05:59.400]  than he's, he was with a different claim than he was charged with.
[05:59.400 --> 06:02.080]  So, so far, everything's...
[06:02.080 --> 06:08.440]  Let's go to your brief. Because you, you started reading your brief last time, and I stopped
[06:08.440 --> 06:16.120]  you because your brief wasn't a brief, it was just an argument.
[06:16.120 --> 06:25.240]  You need to find the legal issues, and that's what I'm trying to define here. The legal
[06:25.240 --> 06:29.600]  issue here was lack of nature in cause.
[06:29.600 --> 06:31.400]  Lack of nature in cause.
[06:31.400 --> 06:39.000]  You lack proper notice, and that's what you do your research on when you're working toward
[06:39.000 --> 06:46.000]  appeal, when you're building an appeal. You were saying that they did this, they did that,
[06:46.000 --> 06:51.360]  they did the other. Well, that's making proactive statements of law and fact out of your own
[06:51.360 --> 06:52.360]  mouth.
[06:52.360 --> 07:02.120]  Here, the facts are already before the court. You were, your relative was pulled over, and
[07:02.120 --> 07:10.200]  you essentially have a statutory admission that he was wearing a seatbelt, but the charge
[07:10.200 --> 07:19.680]  on the charging instrument was no seatbelt. Right. The judge had a duty to dismiss because
[07:19.680 --> 07:26.920]  there is a, is a admission in court that he was wearing a seatbelt, and of course, had
[07:26.920 --> 07:38.400]  a duty to dismiss. You need to find a brief on nature in cause, and then look in that
[07:38.400 --> 07:42.440]  brief, and you'll have the case law that supports those claims.
[07:42.440 --> 07:49.240]  Oh boy. I don't think, I've looked for things like that before, not that necessarily, but
[07:49.240 --> 07:54.320]  I've looked for things like that before, and I have a terrible time locating. If this were
[07:54.320 --> 08:00.240]  medical, it would be simple, but this is English. It's pretty straightforward.
[08:00.240 --> 08:06.480]  Yes, straightforward, but you might be straightforward to you, but it's not.
[08:06.480 --> 08:16.880]  Well, if you go to Google and say, New York, nature and cause, it's pretty straightforward.
[08:16.880 --> 08:20.400]  And then what do I find? I mean, I'm going to find a case law.
[08:20.400 --> 08:24.600]  Yeah. Nature and cause is a specific legal term.
[08:24.600 --> 08:25.600]  Okay.
[08:25.600 --> 08:26.600]  Let me look.
[08:26.600 --> 08:40.280]  Nature and cause. New York, let's see. Environmental issues and inquiry into the nature and causes
[08:40.280 --> 08:52.080]  of wealth in nations. You will all see nature. Let's see. Let's go back to New York. Brief
[08:52.080 --> 09:01.280]  on nature and cause. You go down through those. I don't have time to read them all right
[09:01.280 --> 09:08.680]  now, but you'll find one in there where someone was raised in opposition and filed a brief
[09:08.680 --> 09:14.880]  based on failure to give nature and cause. That's constitutional.
[09:14.880 --> 09:23.040]  Now, what do you mean that's constitutional? In the constitution, you are granted the right
[09:23.040 --> 09:28.360]  to nature and cause of any claim against you.
[09:28.360 --> 09:29.360]  Okay.
[09:29.360 --> 09:43.600]  Look, John, I can't explain to you on the air how to do string basic sentences together.
[09:43.600 --> 09:46.320]  Well, that's not a problem.
[09:46.320 --> 09:53.160]  If you can understand medicine, there is no real difference. If you can look at symptoms
[09:53.160 --> 10:05.120]  and compare symptoms to different conditions, this is exactly the same skill.
[10:05.120 --> 10:10.720]  Well, okay. Take your word for it, but that's not the way it turns out. Now, do you want
[10:10.720 --> 10:11.720]  me to...
[10:11.720 --> 10:16.720]  Okay. Look, if you cannot understand the English language, then this is the way it's
[10:16.720 --> 10:20.680]  time. You need somebody who can because this is really basic English.
[10:20.680 --> 10:26.120]  I know. It's not the English language I'm having a problem with. I'm having a problem
[10:26.120 --> 10:32.200]  with relating what you're saying to how to approach this particular problem. Until I
[10:32.200 --> 10:36.080]  see it done, I don't know my elbow from a hole in the ground.
[10:36.080 --> 10:37.080]  Well...
[10:37.080 --> 10:38.680]  I'm doing the best I can.
[10:38.680 --> 10:48.800]  Okay. What we're trying to get to do is get me to spoon feed you every tiny little detail.
[10:48.800 --> 10:54.120]  That won't do you any good at all, even if I could do that, because you wouldn't understand
[10:54.120 --> 10:55.120]  any of it.
[10:55.120 --> 10:59.600]  Do you want me to read what I do have?
[10:59.600 --> 11:01.800]  You did that, yeah. And unless you changed it...
[11:01.800 --> 11:02.800]  No.
[11:02.800 --> 11:06.560]  There's two other things in there. I got two other things in there.
[11:06.560 --> 11:12.680]  Okay. Read it again and I'll explain why there's a real problem with that.
[11:12.680 --> 11:19.920]  Okay. Let me read the whole thing. It will take me about one minute. Here we go.
[11:19.920 --> 11:25.120]  To the appeals court, I believe I had a right to a verdict of not guilty with prejudice
[11:25.120 --> 11:30.560]  for at least three reasons. First, they challenged the sufficiency of the charging instrument.
[11:30.560 --> 11:36.040]  The charge on the ticket was no seat belt in trial court. The officer, by his own admission,
[11:36.040 --> 11:44.040]  testified I was indeed wearing my seat belt. Even for a late person, the two contradictions
[11:44.040 --> 11:48.200]  should have ended the case right there. I was deprived of proper notice as to what I
[11:48.200 --> 11:53.560]  was there for to defend myself against. I moved the appeals court to rule I had a right
[11:53.560 --> 11:56.040]  to a verdict of not guilty with prejudice.
[11:56.040 --> 12:01.120]  Secondly, during the trial, I asked the officer what evidence he had against me. I asked if
[12:01.120 --> 12:06.200]  he had pictures, witnesses in the courtroom, sworn affidavits from witnesses not present,
[12:06.200 --> 12:10.480]  and he said no to everything. I've been told the court, since there's no real evidence
[12:10.480 --> 12:15.000]  against me, only an unsupportive accusation by the officer. The rules of evidence were
[12:15.000 --> 12:20.080]  not followed in trial court, and for this additional reason, I moved the appeals court
[12:20.080 --> 12:26.040]  to rule that I had a right to a verdict of guilty with prejudice, or not guilty with
[12:26.040 --> 12:32.040]  prejudice. And thirdly, the law says in a CPL, 100.25,
[12:32.040 --> 12:37.760]  Python or two, whatever it is, the defendant has the right to request from the court, from
[12:37.760 --> 12:43.720]  the court, a deposition to be delivered to the defendant, not merely sent, but actually
[12:43.720 --> 12:48.600]  delivered, I believe the word in there is delivered, to the defendant. The law goes
[12:48.600 --> 12:55.880]  on to say that if the court fails, if the court fails, not the officer at the scene,
[12:55.880 --> 13:01.360]  but if the court fails to cause to be delivered, the deposition within 30 days, if they could
[13:01.360 --> 13:09.760]  have dismissed, CPL 100.402. The law does not say that if the police officer gives the
[13:09.760 --> 13:15.000]  defendant a deposition at the traffic scene, that the right of the defendant to be delivered
[13:15.000 --> 13:21.320]  a deposition from the court evaporates. In other words, because the cop gave him anything,
[13:21.320 --> 13:28.800]  he doesn't say that it unlocks the court from the obligation to send it, or the cop
[13:28.800 --> 13:36.200]  to send it when ordered to do so by the court. In other words, I'm getting, I'm splitting
[13:36.200 --> 13:40.440]  hairs here, but the law doesn't say just because the cop gave him a deposition that
[13:40.440 --> 13:43.280]  he hasn't got a right to ask for it from the court.
[13:43.280 --> 13:50.720]  Okay, you're arguing what was in the document. That last one was the only one where you referenced
[13:50.720 --> 13:58.000]  any statute. You should have quoted it. The law says, and then quoted the statute, all
[13:58.000 --> 14:00.000]  of the rest of them are so what?
[14:00.000 --> 14:05.520]  Okay, then the judge is attempting to rewrite, the judge is attempting to rewrite the law
[14:05.520 --> 14:06.520]  from the bench.
[14:06.520 --> 14:07.520]  Okay, so what?
[14:07.520 --> 14:13.720]  The judge has no authority to assume the job of the new judge.
[14:13.720 --> 14:16.840]  Hold on, stop, stop, stop. The judge is attempting to rewrite the law from the bench. So what?
[14:16.840 --> 14:18.800]  What's wrong with that?
[14:18.800 --> 14:24.840]  What's wrong with that? Well, the legislature, I have to have the, I realize I have to have
[14:24.840 --> 14:28.880]  the statute or whatever it is that says it's only the legislature that has the right to
[14:28.880 --> 14:30.600]  do that. Am I correct?
[14:30.600 --> 14:36.760]  Exactly, exactly. You have to say, like, for instance, we have a case law that says,
[14:36.760 --> 14:49.080]  I don't have the exact citation right now, but the court has no discretion in properly
[14:49.080 --> 14:56.120]  applying the law to the facts. A failure to do so is an abusive discretion. You can say
[14:56.120 --> 15:06.000]  that the court's held in such and such a case that the court has no discretion to, in properly
[15:06.000 --> 15:14.680]  applying the law to the facts, fail to do so is an abusive process. The court, in the
[15:14.680 --> 15:22.680]  instant case, failed to properly apply the law to the facts and therefore denied defendant
[15:22.680 --> 15:30.480]  and due process, and therefore, you know, denied defendant and due process and violation
[15:30.480 --> 15:40.160]  of constitution. I forget which statute, which amendment it is. You have to write this in
[15:40.160 --> 15:42.160]  the verbiage of the code.
[15:42.160 --> 15:43.160]  Right.
[15:43.160 --> 15:47.800]  Yeah, never make a statement of law. Never tell them what's right, what's wrong, what
[15:47.800 --> 15:52.600]  they should do, what they ought to do. Tell them, the court said in this case, so the
[15:52.600 --> 15:56.200]  legislature said in this case, this is what you must do.
[15:56.200 --> 16:05.360]  All right. Now, how many areas can we attack to cause the appeals court to rule in his
[16:05.360 --> 16:07.840]  favor? What do we need to...
[16:07.840 --> 16:14.040]  Every area you think they made you attack, all the court has to do is agree with you
[16:14.040 --> 16:16.480]  on one of them and it's out of here.
[16:16.480 --> 16:19.920]  Okay. So any one of these would work?
[16:19.920 --> 16:20.920]  Yes.
[16:20.920 --> 16:28.400]  Okay. How many do you count? Roughly. How many do you count? Just help me out with that,
[16:28.400 --> 16:29.400]  please.
[16:29.400 --> 16:37.280]  I tried to make notes, but I couldn't keep them all. Okay. Contradictory testimony, that's
[16:37.280 --> 16:45.840]  nature and cause. No evidence, rules not followed. Okay. No evidence, insufficient evidence to
[16:45.840 --> 16:54.440]  support the accusation. Rules not followed, due process violation. I wrote a note on it
[16:54.440 --> 17:00.120]  with prejudice. You said it should be dismissed with prejudice. You have to...
[17:00.120 --> 17:05.320]  Rule of law radio is proud to offer the rule of law traffic seminar. In today's America,
[17:05.320 --> 17:08.280]  we live in an us against them society and if we, the people, are ever going to have
[17:08.280 --> 17:12.320]  a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights. Among those
[17:12.320 --> 17:15.840]  rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own
[17:15.840 --> 17:19.520]  private capacity and most importantly, the right to due process of law. Practical courts
[17:19.520 --> 17:23.480]  afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights
[17:23.480 --> 17:27.280]  through due process. Former sheriff's deputy, Eddie Craig, in conjunction with rule of law
[17:27.280 --> 17:30.800]  radio has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you
[17:30.800 --> 17:34.840]  understand what due process is and how to hold courts to the rule of law. You can get
[17:34.840 --> 17:38.880]  your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering
[17:38.880 --> 17:42.840]  your copy today. By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, the Texas Transportation
[17:42.840 --> 17:47.320]  Code, the law versus the lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of
[17:47.320 --> 17:51.000]  research documents and other useful resource material. Learn how to fight for your rights
[17:51.000 --> 17:55.640]  with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. Order your copy today and together we can
[17:55.640 --> 18:02.480]  have the free society we all want and deserve. Are you being harassed by debt collectors
[18:02.480 --> 18:07.680]  with phone calls, letters or even lawsuits? Stop debt collectors now with the Michael
[18:07.680 --> 18:13.000]  Merris Proven Method. Michael Merris has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors
[18:13.000 --> 18:18.200]  and now you can win two. You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win
[18:18.200 --> 18:23.520]  in court using federal civil rights statutes. What to do when contacted by phones, mail
[18:23.520 --> 18:28.000]  or court summons? How to answer letters and phone calls? How to get debt collectors out
[18:28.000 --> 18:33.240]  of your credit reports? How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go
[18:33.240 --> 18:38.880]  away? The Michael Merris Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:38.880 --> 18:44.600]  Personal consultation is available as well. For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com
[18:44.600 --> 18:49.880]  and click on the blue Michael Merris banner or email Michael Merris at yahoo.com. That's
[18:49.880 --> 18:59.360]  ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com. To learn how to stop debt collectors
[18:59.360 --> 19:06.360]  visit ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com.
[19:29.360 --> 19:45.760]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton of ruleoflawradio and we're talking to John in New York. Hang
[19:45.760 --> 19:51.840]  on John. This is going to take a while. So I'm going to go to Tina because she's been
[19:51.840 --> 19:58.680]  hanging on as long as you have and he doesn't tend to take quite so long. So I'll do her
[19:58.680 --> 20:03.680]  first and then I'll come back to you, okay? Be right here. Thank you.
[20:03.680 --> 20:13.960]  Hello Tina. What do you have for us today? Well, couple of things. One, I just emailed
[20:13.960 --> 20:19.880]  you something I think because I'm a little suspect that this attorney might be listening
[20:19.880 --> 20:28.280]  in at time. I wanted to email you this question. But the guy you were talking to earlier on
[20:28.280 --> 20:35.080]  the show from California, I would like you to see if he wants to talk to me because things
[20:35.080 --> 20:42.560]  have changed in California. They are not taking as long for foreclosures. They are rushing
[20:42.560 --> 20:50.480]  them through and there are some things that you told him that absolutely should be true
[20:50.480 --> 20:54.480]  but the courts are tossing them out like they are confetti.
[20:54.480 --> 21:03.320]  Yeah, but the problem is you can appeal, you can file an amended pleading. I did that.
[21:03.320 --> 21:16.320]  I was rushed through in less than two years. It was gone. If you're not adept at slowing
[21:16.320 --> 21:24.400]  them down, then they can do that. It's very difficult here. It depends also on the bank
[21:24.400 --> 21:31.240]  that you are dealing with. You are right to tell them, tell him, they don't care how
[21:31.240 --> 21:39.360]  much they spend fighting you. They spend well over $500,000 fighting me. They don't care
[21:39.360 --> 21:47.840]  because they get it reimbursed. Wait a minute. They get it reimbursed.
[21:47.840 --> 21:56.520]  Certain banks, especially one West Bank, got reimbursed by the FDIC for everything they
[21:56.520 --> 22:01.920]  have spent. Wait a minute. Hold on.
[22:01.920 --> 22:02.920]  Yeah.
[22:02.920 --> 22:13.200]  They have a special deal. It's called a street talk deal from the FDIC for a last year agreement.
[22:13.200 --> 22:20.040]  Those are things that absolutely need to be looked at because FDIC is actually an insurance
[22:20.040 --> 22:26.440]  paid into by everybody. If they're making special deals with the banks, then to indemnify
[22:26.440 --> 22:36.200]  the banks, it sounds like it would be a misappropriation of our funds, but FDIC is actually a private
[22:36.200 --> 22:37.200]  corporation.
[22:37.200 --> 22:48.400]  Very difficult to fight them, especially as some of the bankers are very well in with
[22:48.400 --> 22:49.400]  people.
[22:49.400 --> 22:57.120]  Yeah. Everybody should understand the most corrupt people in any society are always the
[22:57.120 --> 22:58.120]  bankers.
[22:58.120 --> 22:59.120]  Yes.
[22:59.120 --> 23:07.080]  There may be bad guys out there, but nobody's worse than the bankers. Jesus went around
[23:07.080 --> 23:13.840]  the Middle East preaching what the Pharisees for the most part considered to be heresy.
[23:13.840 --> 23:17.120]  But they didn't care. They weren't worried about it.
[23:17.120 --> 23:31.080]  When Paul came to the Pharisees and asked them to crucify James and Peter for preaching
[23:31.080 --> 23:37.640]  heresy, Pharisees said, we don't care what they're done. No bother them. When Jesus went
[23:37.640 --> 23:43.560]  into the temple and kicked over the tables with the money changers, that's when he got
[23:43.560 --> 23:44.560]  in trouble.
[23:44.560 --> 23:50.480]  It's the money changers, the bankers who have always been the bad guys. They've always
[23:50.480 --> 23:55.760]  pulled all the strings and controlled everyone. It's no different now.
[23:55.760 --> 24:02.440]  No. But there's some things I might be able to help this gentleman with based on what
[24:02.440 --> 24:12.640]  you told him to avoid the pitfalls that I went through and to just see if I can help
[24:12.640 --> 24:19.040]  him with not going down some of the routes I went through.
[24:19.040 --> 24:26.040]  And there has been some case law that has stated in California that it's your job to
[24:26.040 --> 24:34.280]  know what you owe. And in my case, they didn't care that I requested accounting. They refused
[24:34.280 --> 24:43.560]  to give it to me. The courts didn't care. And I offered literally putting a verified
[24:43.560 --> 24:50.240]  offer to purchase the property, you know, through a private lender. We put in an offer based
[24:50.240 --> 24:57.840]  on their 97 notices of trustee sale and the figures they put in that. We offered more
[24:57.840 --> 25:00.840]  than what they stated, and they refused it.
[25:00.840 --> 25:01.840]  That's true.
[25:01.840 --> 25:02.840]  Shoot about...
[25:02.840 --> 25:08.840]  Okay. Yeah, the only way we're going to win this is to start going after them criminally.
[25:08.840 --> 25:15.360]  Well, yes, I'm working on that, but I need that accounting that you're working on for
[25:15.360 --> 25:21.840]  me to be able to do that because I don't know how much to put in. But I'm going to
[25:21.840 --> 25:29.720]  the SEC with that, and I'm going to file criminally because they, as they said to me on the phone,
[25:29.720 --> 25:36.640]  you know, you have to pay what we say. We're not giving you an accounting. We don't have
[25:36.640 --> 25:45.840]  to. You just have to pay what we say you owe. Now, the amount went up by 125,000 in three
[25:45.840 --> 25:46.840]  months.
[25:46.840 --> 25:55.440]  Okay. So, I understand that. They're corrupt. They're criminals. And our only real other
[25:55.440 --> 25:58.920]  defense is to go after them criminally.
[25:58.920 --> 26:03.120]  Yes, the Supreme Court even denied me. The California Supreme Court...
[26:03.120 --> 26:12.480]  It doesn't matter. The Supreme Court, they're criminals, especially in California. California
[26:12.480 --> 26:22.360]  is by far the worst of any state I've ever dealt with. California is absolutely just
[26:22.360 --> 26:34.000]  totally, completely corrupt and paid for. There may be a honest judge in California,
[26:34.000 --> 26:36.680]  but if there is one, he won't last long.
[26:36.680 --> 26:43.680]  There is supposedly one in Orange County, but they are trying to get him out.
[26:43.680 --> 26:49.360]  That's what they do. And the only other way to get them to go after them criminally, both
[26:49.360 --> 26:55.520]  in the state and in the Fed. California needs a good RICO suit against the courts.
[26:55.520 --> 26:59.760]  Well, I would like to be the one that does that, but I don't have enough time or the
[26:59.760 --> 27:05.840]  knowledge to pull that off. I would do it if somebody would write it.
[27:05.840 --> 27:13.840]  I would like to do that, but I'm crafting a remedy that's more general and that will
[27:13.840 --> 27:21.160]  build the foundation for going after this kind of action. And I wish I could take on
[27:21.160 --> 27:28.400]  all the issues that I want to, but I can't. I had two major lawsuits I could have filed
[27:28.400 --> 27:33.120]  for actions they did against me, but I'm so busy helping everybody else with their issues
[27:33.120 --> 27:41.160]  that I didn't get to my own. And the issue I'm working on now is far more important than
[27:41.160 --> 27:48.040]  anything else is coming along because I will build a foundation for everyone to begin to
[27:48.040 --> 27:54.120]  secure real remedy. So I realize I haven't been able to get to yours, but it will take
[27:54.120 --> 28:02.280]  me two or three days to recompile this document that Dropbox has lost for me. And I just don't
[28:02.280 --> 28:03.280]  have that time right now.
[28:03.280 --> 28:07.680]  Would you like me to re-send everything?
[28:07.680 --> 28:15.000]  That's not the issue. That's not what's lost. My documents, my tools, the tool that I used
[28:15.000 --> 28:20.640]  to do that with took me six months to create. And I'm going to have to go reconstruct that
[28:20.640 --> 28:27.080]  and pull it from bits and pieces. It's going to be a big job to put it back together. And
[28:27.080 --> 28:29.680]  I just don't have the time right now.
[28:29.680 --> 28:42.360]  If I can find it, I know I've sent the entire document to someone. If I can find out who
[28:42.360 --> 28:46.680]  it is, there are a number of people, if I can find one of the copies, then I can reconstruct
[28:46.680 --> 28:56.480]  the whole thing. But so far it's not on my system. Dropbox was a disaster. I had an
[28:56.480 --> 29:07.160]  ex-employee go in using the access I gave her and wiped out Dropbox. Well, what happens
[29:07.160 --> 29:15.120]  is Dropbox keeps a copy. So I went back and recovered the copy. Well, what Dropbox put
[29:15.120 --> 29:25.000]  back was I had folders inside of folders inside of folders. It just arbitrarily dropped out
[29:25.000 --> 29:29.200]  folders. And then it put folders in there and opened the folders and the whole file
[29:29.200 --> 29:38.240]  was empty. It just scrambled everything. And it was a horrible mess. I'm still struggling
[29:38.240 --> 29:52.200]  with it. I lost years worth of work. So I certainly do not recommend Dropbox. If Dropbox
[29:52.200 --> 29:57.360]  kept two or three versions, then maybe I could be safe. But right now I don't know how to
[29:57.360 --> 30:02.040]  protect my data. Because I did.
[30:02.040 --> 30:07.240]  In a South African game park, a rhinoceros died during an operation to embed a remotely
[30:07.240 --> 30:12.640]  readable tracking microchip in its horn. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll have details
[30:12.640 --> 30:16.920]  on the tragic death of Spencer the Rhino next.
[30:16.920 --> 30:21.400]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back
[30:21.400 --> 30:27.200]  again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:27.200 --> 30:33.440]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy,
[30:33.440 --> 30:38.800]  it's worth hanging onto. This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search
[30:38.800 --> 30:45.720]  engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with StartPage.
[30:45.720 --> 30:50.880]  Africa has a real problem with poachers who hunt endangered animals for ivory and meat.
[30:50.880 --> 30:55.520]  To stop the slaughter, they've tried various countermeasures, including locator microchips
[30:55.520 --> 31:00.640]  to track the animal's movements. But a game park in South Africa made the wrong decision
[31:00.640 --> 31:05.720]  when they tried to embed a microchip into the horn of a rhino named Spencer. To perform
[31:05.720 --> 31:10.680]  the procedure, veterinarians injected him with sedatives, inserted the chip, and tried
[31:10.680 --> 31:15.560]  to wake him up with stimulants. The culmination tragically resulted in the animal's death.
[31:15.560 --> 31:20.280]  It was a painful reminder that drugging and chipping living creatures can be dangerous
[31:20.280 --> 31:26.120]  and sometimes deadly. I'm Dr. Cameron Albright for StartPage.com, the world's most private
[31:26.120 --> 31:31.200]  search engine.
[31:31.200 --> 31:36.320]  I lost my son. My nephew. My uncle. My son. On September 11th, 2000, boy. Most people
[31:36.320 --> 31:42.320]  don't know that a third tower fell on September 11th. World Trade Center 7, a 47-story skyscraper
[31:42.320 --> 31:46.920]  was not hit by a plane. Well, the official explanation is that fire brought down building
[31:46.920 --> 31:51.880]  7. Over 1,200 architects and engineers have looked into the evidence and believed there
[31:51.880 --> 31:57.160]  is more to the story. Bring justice to my son. My uncle. My nephew. My son. Go to building
[31:57.160 --> 32:01.280]  what.org. Why it fell, why it matters, and what you can do.
[32:01.280 --> 32:04.840]  Hey, it's Danny here for Hill Country Home Improvements. Did your home receive hail or
[32:04.840 --> 32:08.600]  wind damage from the recent storms? Come on, we all know that government caused it with
[32:08.600 --> 32:12.640]  their chemtrails, but good luck getting them to pay for it. Okay, I might be kidding about
[32:12.640 --> 32:16.640]  the chemtrails, but I'm serious about your roof. That's why you have insurance and Hill
[32:16.640 --> 32:21.600]  Country Home Improvements can handle the claim for you with little to no out-of-pocket expense.
[32:21.600 --> 32:25.880]  And we accept Bitcoin as a multi-year A-plus member of the Better Business Bureau with
[32:25.880 --> 32:30.480]  zero complaints. You can trust Hill Country Home Improvements to handle your claim and
[32:30.480 --> 32:39.120]  your roof right the first time. Just call 512-992-8745 or go to hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[32:39.120 --> 32:43.720]  Visit the crypto show and get $100 off, and we'll donate another $100 to the Logos Radio
[32:43.720 --> 32:48.760]  Network to help continue this programming. So if those out-of-town roofers come knocking,
[32:48.760 --> 32:57.520]  your door should be locked in. That's 512-992-8745 or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com. Discounts
[32:57.520 --> 33:23.520]  are based on full roof replacement. I mean, I actually be kidding about chemtrails.
[33:23.520 --> 33:53.440]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Rural Law Radio, and we're talking to Tina.
[33:53.440 --> 34:03.640]  I know this is a problem, but the Dropbox has been a horrible problem. I had Dropbox
[34:03.640 --> 34:14.720]  on five machines, and they wiped every one of them. I had a copy that was off of Dropbox,
[34:14.720 --> 34:25.040]  a separate copy. I copied that in and got trash. It was just a conglomeration of errors.
[34:25.040 --> 34:35.440]  So my data is in a mess. I've lost 65 gigabytes of research material. It's just gone. The
[34:35.440 --> 34:43.000]  folder is there, and it's empty. The more I look, the bigger mess I've gotten. So I
[34:43.000 --> 34:52.080]  will phase out Dropbox altogether, and I won't recommend anybody using it. Anyway, and I apologize
[34:52.080 --> 34:58.160]  for that. It turned out to be a major problem, and I don't have it cured yet.
[34:58.160 --> 35:05.480]  I'll just look on what I can in the meantime. I do intend, as you say, to go after these
[35:05.480 --> 35:12.840]  people for their false accounting, especially the judges, because they have failed to apply
[35:12.840 --> 35:18.760]  the law. You mentioned to this gentleman about the tender law, and you see the courts completely
[35:18.760 --> 35:25.600]  ignored the fact that we put in tender law, that we had properly tendered, and they just
[35:25.600 --> 35:34.800]  bank just kept saying, her tender had conditions, and it's supposed to be unconditional. What
[35:34.800 --> 35:38.800]  is conditional about putting in an offer to pay full price for the property?
[35:38.800 --> 35:44.800]  Yes. My friend said, well, they probably, they claimed that because someone else was
[35:44.800 --> 35:51.800]  purchasing it, that it had to change names in escrow, and that's bullshit.
[35:51.800 --> 35:53.800]  Oops. Okay.
[35:53.800 --> 35:59.560]  I know, but it is. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have said that, but they made me so mad when
[35:59.560 --> 36:05.280]  they come up with these stupid statements. There's nothing conditional about putting
[36:05.280 --> 36:11.960]  in a full price offer with no inspections, no nothing, and interest paid until the day
[36:11.960 --> 36:16.080]  it's closed. What is conditional about that?
[36:16.080 --> 36:20.600]  Okay. I understand, and you're angry and you're frustrated.
[36:20.600 --> 36:29.160]  But anyway, if you want to put me in touch with this guy, because if I can help him and
[36:29.160 --> 36:36.160]  I could share what I said, so he doesn't make the same mistake, I will be happy to do that.
[36:36.160 --> 36:40.720]  Okay. Well, if you're listening, I don't have his name in front of me. It's dropped off
[36:40.720 --> 36:46.200]  my screen, and frankly, I don't remember what it was. I have too much going on to, not Larry
[36:46.200 --> 36:48.720]  in Arizona. I'm going back up through my notes.
[36:48.720 --> 36:49.720]  Yeah.
[36:49.720 --> 36:54.040]  I didn't know his name. I generally don't do that, because anyway, I don't remember
[36:54.040 --> 37:01.160]  his name. If he will call back, if he'll call back or send me an email, then I can forward
[37:01.160 --> 37:10.200]  your contact information to him. If not, when he calls back again, then I will make sure
[37:10.200 --> 37:14.760]  I get his email so I can get him connected with you.
[37:14.760 --> 37:20.280]  Yes. And anyone else that needs help in California, I'll be happy to do what I can. And I'll
[37:20.280 --> 37:25.640]  let you go to the other callers. Thank you as usual for all your great help.
[37:25.640 --> 37:33.440]  Okay. Thank you, Tina. Now we're going back to John in New York. And John, we were talking
[37:33.440 --> 37:38.840]  about how to write legal documents. It's probably where I need to go to.
[37:38.840 --> 37:39.840]  All right.
[37:39.840 --> 37:48.800]  You're attempting to help someone, and you're writing an appeal, appeal of all things. You
[37:48.800 --> 37:57.120]  always have to... You can never make a proactive statement out of law out of your own mouth,
[37:57.120 --> 38:04.640]  even in the trial court, but it's even more important in the appellate court. And when
[38:04.640 --> 38:14.920]  I do legal research, when I create a brief, if you are writing the brief yourself instead
[38:14.920 --> 38:25.000]  of just copying information in there and creating intros and outros to other people's information,
[38:25.000 --> 38:33.360]  then you haven't done enough homework. I have one skill honed above all others. I am an
[38:33.360 --> 38:44.320]  accomplished plagiarist. I try never to write my own arguments. I look for court cases that
[38:44.320 --> 38:51.840]  go to the issues that I have and find where a court has rendered a ruling on this kind
[38:51.840 --> 39:00.120]  of issue. Where you have an issue where you were charged with one thing and prosecuted
[39:00.120 --> 39:10.880]  with a different one, that could not be difficult to find. And once you get the first case on
[39:10.880 --> 39:16.520]  point, it will be relatively easy. The hardest part is finding the first case on point.
[39:16.520 --> 39:22.320]  It doesn't make a difference that the court, that the judge ruled, and he said, I find
[39:22.320 --> 39:26.360]  you guilty of not wearing a seat belt. Does it make a difference that he said that? He
[39:26.360 --> 39:33.960]  allowed the cop to change the charge, really, is what he did. Does that make a difference?
[39:33.960 --> 39:40.440]  I think, if I remember it, I got to listen to the case. But I think the judge says,
[39:40.440 --> 39:44.880]  you're guilty, you weren't wearing your seat belt. I think that's what he said. I could
[39:44.880 --> 39:49.960]  be very wrong. Now, if that's the case, does that change anything?
[39:49.960 --> 39:57.800]  No. If you were charged with not wearing a seat belt, and there was evidence that you
[39:57.800 --> 39:59.640]  were wearing a seat belt.
[39:59.640 --> 40:02.280]  In your prediction.
[40:02.280 --> 40:07.480]  Is there a charge of improperly wearing a seat belt?
[40:07.480 --> 40:10.600]  Not on the ticket, no.
[40:10.600 --> 40:14.600]  No, no. Is there such a charge in law?
[40:14.600 --> 40:19.560]  Oh, I see. Of not wearing it properly. I see you should say it, yeah.
[40:19.560 --> 40:26.720]  Does the law say that not wearing a seat belt properly amounts to not wearing a seat belt?
[40:26.720 --> 40:31.080]  Right, I see what you're saying, yeah.
[40:31.080 --> 40:35.560]  That's what we need to look at. We need to look at what the law actually says. But even
[40:35.560 --> 40:45.040]  if it says that, if he was charged with not wearing a seat belt, and the real accusation
[40:45.040 --> 40:50.440]  that he was not wearing it properly, that should have been on the charging instrument.
[40:50.440 --> 40:53.000]  And it wasn't.
[40:53.000 --> 41:02.400]  So it wasn't. So he wasn't given proper notice and cause. So that's the real issue here is
[41:02.400 --> 41:09.120]  noticing cause. So you go to the, you know, when I do legal research, I primarily use
[41:09.120 --> 41:17.880]  Google. I don't use Google scholar. I've had no luck with it at all. I don't use Lexis
[41:17.880 --> 41:28.600]  Nexus or Westlaw or most any other search engines. They just do it wrong. And you know,
[41:28.600 --> 41:35.280]  you go to these search engines and they have a method of doing things. And we just presume
[41:35.280 --> 41:43.240]  that that's the correct method of doing it. And I've been researching for 30 years. And
[41:43.240 --> 41:50.760]  until I got to work on this project, it never occurred to me to ask the question, is this
[41:50.760 --> 41:58.000]  method the best way of doing legal research? Or is there some other method?
[41:58.000 --> 42:05.280]  But then when I got down to taking these things apart in little pieces, all of a sudden it
[42:05.280 --> 42:16.080]  became clear, what are we thinking? We go on to Lexis or Westlaw and we try to figure
[42:16.080 --> 42:27.640]  out a string of letters in the form of words and paragraphs and something that would occur
[42:27.640 --> 42:37.880]  in a case that goes to the particular point we're seeking that would occur in that case
[42:37.880 --> 42:50.640]  and no other case. Good luck with that. When you've got 100,000 cases to look through,
[42:50.640 --> 42:55.040]  what are the odds that you're going to be able to figure out an exact set of words that
[42:55.040 --> 43:01.120]  will get you to the particular case that you're after? It is my experience that when I do a
[43:01.120 --> 43:09.600]  search on Lexis, the first search I will generally get between 10,000 and 30,000 hits, 30,000
[43:09.600 --> 43:16.400]  to generally all they'll give you. Then you have to take, you look at the cases that you're
[43:16.400 --> 43:27.120]  getting and try to figure out how can I whittle down these terms to get less hits. If I wind
[43:27.120 --> 43:35.600]  up with less than a thousand hits, I think I've done really, really good on Lexis. Well,
[43:35.600 --> 43:49.520]  that's insane. Every single case is based on some law. So why aren't we looking, taking
[43:49.520 --> 43:58.720]  all of the cases and sorting them by the laws that they reference? Hang on, be right back.
[43:58.720 --> 44:04.720]  At Capital Corn and Bullion, our mission is to be your preferred shopping destination
[44:04.720 --> 44:08.560]  by delivering excellent customer service and outstanding value at an affordable price.
[44:08.560 --> 44:13.000]  We provide a wide assortment of favorite products featuring a great selection of high quality
[44:13.000 --> 44:17.760]  coins and precious metals. We cater to beginners in coin collecting as well as large transactions
[44:17.760 --> 44:22.440]  for investors. We believe in educating our customers with resources from top accredited
[44:22.440 --> 44:26.640]  metal dealers and journalists. If we don't have what you're looking for, we can find
[44:26.640 --> 44:31.240]  it. In addition, we carry popular young jeffety products such as Beyond's Hengie Tangerine
[44:31.240 --> 44:36.080]  and Pollen Burks. We also offer one-world-way, mountain house storeable foods, Berkey water
[44:36.080 --> 44:40.960]  products, ammunition at 10% above wholesale, and more. We broke through metals IRA accounts
[44:40.960 --> 44:46.960]  and we also accept big coins as payment. Call us at 512-646-644-0. We're located at
[44:46.960 --> 44:52.040]  7304 Burnett Road, Sweet A, about a half mile south of Anderson. We're open Monday through
[44:52.040 --> 45:01.200]  Friday 10 to 6, Saturdays 10 to 2. Visit us at CapitalCoinandBullion.com or call 512-646-644-0.
[45:01.200 --> 45:07.640]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary,
[45:07.640 --> 45:14.640]  the affordable, easy-to-understand 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[45:14.640 --> 45:20.920]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer,
[45:20.920 --> 45:26.320]  know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and
[45:26.320 --> 45:33.080]  now you can, too. Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning
[45:33.080 --> 45:39.000]  experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[45:39.000 --> 45:44.480]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio
[45:44.480 --> 45:51.520]  classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, prosay tactics, and much
[45:51.520 --> 45:58.520]  more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[46:21.520 --> 46:28.520]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelsen from Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking to John in
[46:33.600 --> 46:40.600]  New York, and we're talking about case law research right now, and it's called case
[46:40.600 --> 46:47.600]  law because it consists of cases as they relate to law. Now, I could go on any of these search
[46:53.600 --> 47:00.600]  engines and do a search for a specific statute, any paragraph, sub-paragraph, sub-sub-paragraph,
[47:00.600 --> 47:07.600]  anything that's listed in a table of contents in the statutory law, I can search for any
[47:12.480 --> 47:19.480]  one of those. Now, that would get me only those cases that go to this statute I'm dealing
[47:19.480 --> 47:26.480]  with. That would whittle the cases down better than any other search I could do. The problem
[47:30.520 --> 47:37.520]  with all of the case law research engines is once I've made that search, I can't make
[47:39.320 --> 47:46.320]  a search on that group. If I could do a search, pull a section down, then do a search on that
[47:46.320 --> 47:53.320]  section, I could break these down relatively quickly. That is not rocket science.
[47:56.520 --> 48:02.520]  Okay, so why don't any of these things do that? The tools that we're building, that's
[48:02.520 --> 48:09.520]  what they will do. But this is kind of all from your particular issue. You have to find
[48:09.520 --> 48:16.520]  the first case either on point or near point. Because when you look in a case, the only
[48:19.840 --> 48:26.840]  thing you primarily care about in the case is the order at the end, the decision the
[48:28.680 --> 48:35.680]  court made. The case will always have points and authorities showing how it got to its
[48:35.680 --> 48:42.680]  decision. The primary thing that matters is what's in the decision. Because the arguments
[48:44.180 --> 48:49.680]  in the case of how they got there, what they will do is they will show the plaintiff's
[48:49.680 --> 48:55.680]  arguments, the defendant's arguments, and then in the order they will show which of the
[48:55.680 --> 49:00.680]  arguments they gave credibility to, which ones they accepted. The only thing that's
[49:00.680 --> 49:07.680]  controlling in case law is the order. Any time I write a brief, all I want to do is
[49:11.880 --> 49:18.880]  connect the two paragraphs that are out of judge's orders together. So I do intros and
[49:20.000 --> 49:27.000]  outros and use the verbiage of the judge in the order to make my argument. What you did
[49:27.000 --> 49:34.000]  John was made an argument. You made a normal kind of argument you and I would make an
[49:34.000 --> 49:40.920]  argument, an issue with one another. That's a, I don't know what to call it, a public,
[49:40.920 --> 49:47.920]  a civil type of an argument. But this is law. And arguments are made differently. So we
[49:47.920 --> 49:54.920]  find a case that says what we want, we drop that part out, drop it in our document. When
[49:55.920 --> 50:01.920]  you look at these cases, you find one, if it's not exactly on point, you find one close
[50:01.920 --> 50:08.920]  to point. Because the first thing the court tries to do is show why this case is different.
[50:08.920 --> 50:15.920]  From all the other rulings that they have made. So they'll say, in these cases we rule
[50:18.920 --> 50:24.920]  this way, and this leads up to this point. And in these cases that follow this point,
[50:24.920 --> 50:31.920]  we rule this way. But this is an issue in the middle that we have not addressed. So you
[50:31.920 --> 50:37.920]  mentioned, you mentioned what the defendant's situation is first, or what the other court
[50:37.920 --> 50:44.920]  decided first, and then mentioned the defendant's situation. I'm not sure what you're asking.
[50:44.920 --> 50:51.920]  Well, let's see. You say, in Smith v. Thompson, the court ruled that the defendant had a right
[51:03.920 --> 51:10.920]  to ask for a dismissal based on the fact that he was charged with one crime and the defendant
[51:10.920 --> 51:17.920]  had one crime and the officer changed forces in midstream and mentioned another.
[51:18.920 --> 51:25.920]  Okay, okay. I don't know how to answer that question. What you do is say that you believe
[51:29.920 --> 51:36.920]  that the court erred in this particular ruling. The court ruled based on these facts and this
[51:36.920 --> 51:43.920]  law. The court should have rules based on these other facts and this other law. That's basically
[51:47.920 --> 51:54.920]  how you do it. But you won't have to do all that. You find a case on point and the judge
[51:55.920 --> 52:01.920]  in the ruling will do all that. Right, it'll do it for you, literally. Yeah, you find it
[52:01.920 --> 52:08.920]  where the courts have said what you want to. There's so much case law out there that what
[52:08.920 --> 52:15.920]  you need to say has already been said, especially when you're talking something constitutional.
[52:15.920 --> 52:22.920]  There will be tons of case law. This is the hardest part, first case on point, or first
[52:22.920 --> 52:29.920]  case near point. If I can get the case on nature and cause, from that case, it will give me
[52:33.920 --> 52:39.920]  other related cases. I can look at those and see the ones that are closer to my issue and
[52:39.920 --> 52:44.920]  then I take that one and I gradually get closer to my issue until I get one on point. Right.
[52:44.920 --> 52:49.920]  So what the judge did to the defendant, he violated his due process. Is that how you
[52:49.920 --> 52:56.920]  say it? Yes. So where the judge failed to properly apply the law to the facts. When
[52:58.920 --> 53:04.920]  you state that the judge failed to properly apply the law to the facts, you have to show
[53:04.920 --> 53:11.920]  where judges were appellate court panels with essentially the same facts came to a different
[53:11.920 --> 53:18.920]  conclusion than this judge came to. This judge was required to follow the court's rulings
[53:18.920 --> 53:24.920]  and not come up with something different on his own. Right. So that's what you have to
[53:24.920 --> 53:30.920]  find. If you're writing the brief yourself, you haven't done enough homework. And this
[53:30.920 --> 53:35.920]  is really important. You have to follow the court's rulings and not come up with something
[53:35.920 --> 53:42.920]  that can be a brief yourself. You haven't done enough homework. And this is really more
[53:42.920 --> 53:48.920]  straightforward than it sounds, John. When you start doing legal research and start reading
[53:48.920 --> 53:55.920]  these opinions, you will find that for the most part they are very well written. The
[53:55.920 --> 54:02.920]  judges go to great effort to focus their decision by stipulating what law surrounds their issue
[54:10.920 --> 54:16.920]  so that they focus the reader on the specific issue they're trying to address. And we use
[54:16.920 --> 54:26.920]  that discipline to help us find cases on point because I may be in a case that's somewhat off point,
[54:26.920 --> 54:34.920]  but the surrounding cases will point me toward the issue that I need. So first case on point,
[54:34.920 --> 54:42.920]  ask the second and command North Carolina Bar. On the average, how many cases do you have to go
[54:42.920 --> 54:49.920]  through to find first case on point? She said pretty much what every other lawyer said,
[54:50.920 --> 55:00.920]  50 to 100. Now, they don't have to read the whole case. In, like Lexus, most of the search
[55:00.920 --> 55:13.920]  engines will organize the front part of the case by legal issues. Every case will tend to have
[55:13.920 --> 55:21.920]  more than one issue in it. Screws of the U.S. has about 15 or 20. We cite screws of the
[55:21.920 --> 55:26.920]  U.S. all the time. And we only care about one issue in there, but it has 15 or 20 whole
[55:26.920 --> 55:33.920]  bunch of different things it addresses. So that's generally at the top. They'll have a list of the
[55:33.920 --> 55:38.920]  different issues that are addressed. And then for each issue, then you want to go to the order
[55:38.920 --> 55:44.920]  and see what the judge said. For each issue, that sounds like it's on your point. And that will
[55:44.920 --> 55:53.920]  direct you to cases closer to point. First time you've done this consistently, it will become
[55:53.920 --> 56:04.920]  very clear how to do it. It's not difficult. It's not complex. It is detailed. It takes some
[56:04.920 --> 56:10.920]  patience to struggle through it. But if you pay attention to what the courts say, they have
[56:10.920 --> 56:22.920]  struggled to arrange their orders in a way that people can sort them out by the particular
[56:22.920 --> 56:31.920]  points they go to. All right. What I'm going to do, I'm going to start out by saying this.
[56:31.920 --> 56:38.920]  It gives me a second year to formulate my thought. I'm going to start out by saying the reason why
[56:38.920 --> 56:46.920]  I'm addressing the appeals court is because what this trial court judge and this trial court judge...
[56:46.920 --> 56:55.920]  Oh, stop. Scott, this is the wrong place. You're starting out by trying to write your argument.
[56:55.920 --> 57:05.920]  The first thing you do is go in and make a list of all of the errors you think the court made.
[57:05.920 --> 57:14.920]  And then look at those errors, which ones are consistent. You may have four errors that all go
[57:14.920 --> 57:25.920]  to the exact same issue. And so sort out to all of the issues, the specific errors that go to a
[57:25.920 --> 57:32.920]  specific issue. I'll figure out how to say that in a minute. You get all of the specific issues that
[57:32.920 --> 57:43.920]  you want to address. And then you address them one at a time, isolated, separate, even if these two
[57:43.920 --> 57:49.920]  errors occurred at the same time. You do one argument for one of the errors, another argument for the
[57:49.920 --> 57:58.920]  other error. Because any one of these will win you the case. You mix them all together and they're
[57:58.920 --> 58:04.920]  likely to look at it and see one that they can rule in the favor of the court for an ignore the
[58:04.920 --> 58:15.920]  rest. So you need each error you believe the court made that would require the reversal of the
[58:15.920 --> 58:22.920]  case. You want each one of those separate and separately argued. So you start out with a good
[58:22.920 --> 58:29.920]  outline, a list of all the errors, and then you'll look up each one. And then you can string the
[58:29.920 --> 58:35.920]  issues together so that they fall in a logical sequence. Hang on back to go to break Randy
[58:35.920 --> 58:43.920]  Kelton. Rule of law radio or call it number 512-646-1984. We'll be right back.
[58:49.920 --> 58:55.920]  Would you like to make more definite progress in your walk with God? Bibles for America is offering
[58:55.920 --> 59:00.920]  a free study Bible and a set of free Christian books that can really help. The New Testament
[59:00.920 --> 59:05.920]  recovery version is one of the most comprehensive study Bibles available today. It's an accurate
[59:05.920 --> 59:10.920]  translation and it contains thousands of footnotes that will help you to know God and to know the
[59:10.920 --> 59:16.920]  meaning of life. The free books are a three volume set called basic elements of the Christian
[59:16.920 --> 59:22.920]  life. Chapter by chapter basic elements of the Christian life clearly presents God's plan of
[59:22.920 --> 59:28.920]  salvation, growing in Christ and how to build up the church. To order your free New Testament
[59:28.920 --> 59:35.920]  recovery version and basic elements of the Christian life, call Bibles for America toll free
[59:35.920 --> 59:48.920]  at 888-551-0102. That's 888-551-0102. Or visit us online at bfa.org.
[59:48.920 --> 59:58.920]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at www.logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:18.920 --> 01:00:28.920]  Bibles for America toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:00:49.920 --> 01:00:58.920]  In recent news, for the fiscal year of 2017, in Texas, nearly 18,000 state employees working
[01:00:58.920 --> 01:01:04.920]  for cities, towns and counties made at least $100,000 in their yearly salary, costing taxpayers
[01:01:04.920 --> 01:01:10.920]  $2.1 billion, with almost 2,000 of them making more than $150,000, out earning even the governor's
[01:01:10.920 --> 01:01:15.920]  pay grade. In Denton County, in the city of Renauk, with a population of only 8,000, city
[01:01:15.920 --> 01:01:19.920]  manager Scott Campbell made over a quarter of a million dollars. In Dallas County, the
[01:01:19.920 --> 01:01:25.920]  city manager Opal Maldon Jones of Lancaster, a population of 39,000, made over half a million,
[01:01:25.920 --> 01:01:30.920]  coming in second place on the top 10 most compensated city managers in Texas. The number
[01:01:30.920 --> 01:01:36.920]  one spot went to Jesus Olivarez of Laredo, population 261,000. When he retired in 2017,
[01:01:36.920 --> 01:01:42.920]  he was paid out over $651,000 in cash when he originally started off at roughly only
[01:01:42.920 --> 01:01:47.920]  18,000 in 2014. However, it wasn't only city managers ranking in the dough, assistant city
[01:01:47.920 --> 01:01:52.920]  managers, of which cities have more than one, have also been compensated quite well. All
[01:01:52.920 --> 01:01:57.920]  of Austin's five assistant city managers are raking in well over $200,000 each, as well
[01:01:57.920 --> 01:02:01.920]  as the four assistant city managers in San Antonio. If that wasn't enough for you, even pool
[01:02:01.920 --> 01:02:06.920]  managers, zoo, public works, parks and recreation, and library directors have all benefited quite
[01:02:06.920 --> 01:02:10.920]  lucratively from their public service as well, many of which are several degrees north of
[01:02:10.920 --> 01:02:17.920]  150K. Add to this the 42 library and 95 park employees making at least six figures, and
[01:02:17.920 --> 01:02:21.920]  maybe it's time Texans quit worrying about cutting pork in Washington and start focusing
[01:02:21.920 --> 01:02:28.920]  on frying some local bacon instead. The oldest soft drink brand in the United States, the
[01:02:28.920 --> 01:02:32.920]  Dr. Pepper Soft Drink Company, started a change.org petition to become the official soft drink
[01:02:32.920 --> 01:02:38.920]  of Texas. Dr. Pepper was created in Waco in 1885 by a pharmacist named Charles Alderton.
[01:02:38.920 --> 01:02:46.920]  The petition has well over 5,000 signatures. The state's 321,000 public school teachers
[01:02:46.920 --> 01:02:50.920]  could be getting raises pretty soon, with Senator Jane Nelson filing a bill to give
[01:02:50.920 --> 01:02:53.920]  teachers a $5,000 annual raise.
[01:02:53.920 --> 01:03:19.920]  This was Rick Brody with Davodano for January 16th, 2019.
[01:03:19.920 --> 01:03:27.920]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Rue La Radio, and we're talking to John in New York, and
[01:03:27.920 --> 01:03:35.920]  I don't know if anybody can tell or not, but sometimes I use this show to help organize
[01:03:35.920 --> 01:03:46.920]  my thinking. We can think things in our brain and they sound absolutely lucid and well-formed,
[01:03:46.920 --> 01:03:54.920]  but when we speak them out of our mouth, they sound like trash. Sometimes I use this show
[01:03:54.920 --> 01:04:04.920]  to organize my thinking, and I was kind of doing that in the last segment. The tools that
[01:04:04.920 --> 01:04:11.920]  we're developing go to a whole different way of doing legal research.
[01:04:11.920 --> 01:04:17.920]  Well, you know what? More than anything else right now. All I need you to do is just write
[01:04:17.920 --> 01:04:22.920]  the first sentence to be appealed. That's all I need. Tell me how you would write the appeal.
[01:04:22.920 --> 01:04:24.920]  That's the first sentence.
[01:04:24.920 --> 01:04:29.920]  The court erred as follows.
[01:04:29.920 --> 01:04:33.920]  Beautiful. Thank you. That's all I need.
[01:04:33.920 --> 01:04:38.920]  While we were on break, I did a little search for nature and cause. The United States
[01:04:38.920 --> 01:04:44.920]  Constitution Amendment 6 states, in pertinent part, in all criminal prosecutions, the accused
[01:04:44.920 --> 01:04:52.920]  shall enjoy the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
[01:04:52.920 --> 01:04:55.920]  Was that for all courts?
[01:04:55.920 --> 01:04:58.920]  U.S. Constitution. All courts.
[01:04:58.920 --> 01:05:05.920]  That'll do it. I've got a dozen copies of the Constitution, so I've got plenty of them.
[01:05:05.920 --> 01:05:10.920]  Okay. Well, having a lot of copies is not as good as reading one of them several times.
[01:05:10.920 --> 01:05:14.920]  Well, yeah. I've already read the Constitution twice.
[01:05:14.920 --> 01:05:20.920]  Yeah. If I had read mine often enough, I'd have remembered that that was the Sixth Amendment.
[01:05:20.920 --> 01:05:22.920]  That's the Sixth Amendment?
[01:05:22.920 --> 01:05:23.920]  Yes.
[01:05:23.920 --> 01:05:29.920]  So I can actually start out basically by saying that the court erred, and this is why the court
[01:05:29.920 --> 01:05:33.920]  erred. It didn't follow the Sixth Amendment. Is that correct?
[01:05:33.920 --> 01:05:43.920]  They denied the defendant in the Constitutional right to nature and cause, to be informed of the nature
[01:05:43.920 --> 01:05:51.920]  and cause of the accusation. In that, defendant was charged with one crime, convicted of a
[01:05:51.920 --> 01:06:02.920]  different crime. After statutory admission that he had not violated the first crime.
[01:06:02.920 --> 01:06:13.920]  But you do a search for case law on Sixth Amendment, and that'll start honing you down to the part
[01:06:13.920 --> 01:06:14.920]  that you need.
[01:06:14.920 --> 01:06:16.920]  That's beautiful. Thank you, Randy.
[01:06:16.920 --> 01:06:29.920]  Okay. Thank you, John. And back to legal research. When we get this tool together, we will be going
[01:06:29.920 --> 01:06:37.920]  into all of the case law. And first, we'll take all of the case law, search, we'll run an
[01:06:37.920 --> 01:06:48.920]  algorithm on all the case law, and everywhere a statute is cited, a statute rule regulation.
[01:06:48.920 --> 01:06:56.920]  We will take all of the, we'll go to the government sites and give their tables of contents for
[01:06:56.920 --> 01:07:02.920]  all the statutes. And we'll create a database for all those tables of contents so that for
[01:07:02.920 --> 01:07:07.920]  every entry in a table of contents, we have a table and a database where we can store
[01:07:07.920 --> 01:07:13.920]  information. And then we search all of the case law, and everywhere a case references
[01:07:13.920 --> 01:07:22.920]  statute, we put a link in there. We've got 80% of all the case law sorted. 80% of all
[01:07:22.920 --> 01:07:31.920]  the sort we need, just by sorting them by statute. And when you look at it, you say,
[01:07:31.920 --> 01:07:38.920]  well, you know, all case law is our case is going to law, so it seems reasonable that
[01:07:38.920 --> 01:07:46.920]  you'd select the cases by the law they go to. So why didn't let's us do that? Why didn't
[01:07:46.920 --> 01:07:57.920]  any of the search engines do that? Strange, if you think you have a good idea and you
[01:07:57.920 --> 01:08:04.920]  look at it and you say, you know, this is really too simple, somebody else had to have
[01:08:04.920 --> 01:08:13.920]  already thought about that. Well, trust yourself, maybe they haven't. It's a complex
[01:08:13.920 --> 01:08:21.920]  world we live in. This goes to an issue I find a lot is unstated presuppositions. We
[01:08:21.920 --> 01:08:28.920]  for the most part do the things we do the way we do them because that's how we learned
[01:08:28.920 --> 01:08:39.920]  how to do them. And things we do consistently all the time, they're common, we don't ever
[01:08:39.920 --> 01:08:44.920]  challenge them. For the most part, unless something comes up and forces us to challenge
[01:08:44.920 --> 01:08:51.920]  them. The first case law engine, as far as I know, is Westlaw. That's the first major
[01:08:51.920 --> 01:09:00.920]  one. And this is how Westlaw did it. And they did it this way because before that, we had
[01:09:00.920 --> 01:09:10.920]  legal encyclopedias. And legal encyclopedias all sorted cases by keywords. As far back
[01:09:10.920 --> 01:09:23.920]  as we can go. In all this time, nobody ever thought of sorting case law by law. Instead
[01:09:23.920 --> 01:09:31.920]  of some word that might occur in the document. We look back at it now and you say, well,
[01:09:31.920 --> 01:09:40.920]  this is obvious we should do it this way. Nobody ever thought of it. I won't spend much more
[01:09:40.920 --> 01:09:47.920]  time on this. Flabbergast did that. I had to figure this out. I'm kind of annoyed at
[01:09:47.920 --> 01:09:53.920]  myself that it took 30 years to do it. We've been struggling with case law for 30 years.
[01:09:53.920 --> 01:10:01.920]  And a simple sort would eliminate 80% of the problem. We ought to be beating ourselves
[01:10:01.920 --> 01:10:06.920]  on the head with a hammer because it feels so good when we stop. Anyway, okay, I got
[01:10:06.920 --> 01:10:14.920]  four cars. I'm going to, we're going to Shane in New York. Hello, Shane. Hello, Randy. How
[01:10:14.920 --> 01:10:19.920]  are you doing? I'm doing good. I know you tried to call me at time or two, but I've
[01:10:19.920 --> 01:10:24.920]  really been swamped and hadn't been able to get to you. So what's been happening in
[01:10:24.920 --> 01:10:32.920]  your issue? Okay, well, the bankruptcy case is a stalemate. We can't do the amended
[01:10:32.920 --> 01:10:36.920]  bankruptcy like the trustee wants us to do. And actually, it's not my case, my mom's
[01:10:36.920 --> 01:10:44.920]  case. We filed a document. Actually, let me just back up a second. We're trying to get
[01:10:44.920 --> 01:10:48.920]  confirmation done. Okay, wait, hold on. Step back and give everybody, I know what the
[01:10:48.920 --> 01:10:54.920]  case is, but everybody else doesn't. Give us a quick brief where you're at.
[01:10:54.920 --> 01:11:01.920]  Okay, well, the case originally started back in 2014. They granted summary judgment to
[01:11:01.920 --> 01:11:06.920]  the lender. It doesn't even exist. I'm not going to get too detailed. So we filed a bankruptcy
[01:11:06.920 --> 01:11:12.920]  action in the Western District of New York back in July, and it stopped the sale of
[01:11:12.920 --> 01:11:16.920]  the property, which was kind of nice. And they were using a second lane holder, not the
[01:11:16.920 --> 01:11:22.920]  first lane holder. The first lane holder just, I don't know, we don't even know what
[01:11:22.920 --> 01:11:29.920]  happened to the first lane holder. Well, Zicky was handling that. And as a side note, I'm
[01:11:29.920 --> 01:11:34.920]  sure you heard about this. Yeah, we know what happened to Ruzicky and Ruzicky. They got
[01:11:34.920 --> 01:11:41.920]  hammered. Yeah. Go ahead and explain to everybody what happened to these guys. In
[01:11:41.920 --> 01:11:53.920]  Texas, we have Dap, Frappin, Drapin, and Kiss My Behind. There's one primary big company
[01:11:53.920 --> 01:11:59.920]  that handles foreclosure. In New York and the Northeast, it was Ruzicky and Ruzicky.
[01:11:59.920 --> 01:12:09.920]  Yeah, it's the largest law firm in New York. Okay, explain what happened to them.
[01:12:09.920 --> 01:12:15.920]  Okay, so what they were doing since 2009, based on a memo on the Department of Justice
[01:12:15.920 --> 01:12:21.920]  website, is they were substituting other lender's names, deleting and inserting the
[01:12:21.920 --> 01:12:26.920]  Federal National Mortgage Association at the very last moment, because a lot of times
[01:12:26.920 --> 01:12:32.920]  these lenders basically just didn't have any documents to prove that at all. So they
[01:12:32.920 --> 01:12:36.920]  said, well, we'll just whip out and change the caption. And they always did that at the
[01:12:36.920 --> 01:12:41.920]  last minute, usually at the fourth quarter, and they would replace it and do a change
[01:12:41.920 --> 01:12:47.920]  called the Federal National Mortgage Association, which is Franny and Freddie. And they
[01:12:47.920 --> 01:12:52.920]  finally got caught, but years went by, and that's exactly what they did in our case,
[01:12:52.920 --> 01:12:57.920]  as they originally started with HSBC, but then after they found out that HSBC didn't
[01:12:57.920 --> 01:13:04.920]  have any documents to even have a valid claim, like the note, the assignment, and so forth
[01:13:04.920 --> 01:13:10.920]  and so on. That's a long story, which I don't want to get into, but they finally got caught
[01:13:10.920 --> 01:13:15.920]  and they did a settlement, I think it was like $6 million, they paid the federal government
[01:13:15.920 --> 01:13:23.920]  and admitted the wrongdoing of our case. So meanwhile, the second lean holder key bank
[01:13:23.920 --> 01:13:28.920]  was going to go ahead and sell the property. The first lean holder went into a band and
[01:13:28.920 --> 01:13:33.920]  just didn't do anything. And they were using the second lean holder to sell the property,
[01:13:33.920 --> 01:13:39.920]  and that's when we filed bankruptcy, and we've been there since July of 2018. And the very
[01:13:39.920 --> 01:13:45.920]  very last day for everybody to file the proof of claims, the IRS filed the proof of claim,
[01:13:45.920 --> 01:13:53.920]  this is going to blow you away. Are you ready for this one? $258,000 proof of claim. They
[01:13:53.920 --> 01:13:57.920]  filed it the last moment because they gave a deadline for all creditors to file the proof
[01:13:57.920 --> 01:14:02.920]  of claims. And Randy, you're still there, right?
[01:14:02.920 --> 01:14:04.920]  I'm still here.
[01:14:04.920 --> 01:14:11.920]  Okay. What was so amazing about it, just trying to get right to the facts here, is that the
[01:14:11.920 --> 01:14:18.920]  transcripts that we ordered only had at $69,000, and this is going back like 20 years ago.
[01:14:18.920 --> 01:14:24.920]  Now, of course, you know, our big deal, because there is no money owed to the IRS, and that's
[01:14:24.920 --> 01:14:31.920]  another long story, but we did send a letter, a certified letter to them, green card request,
[01:14:31.920 --> 01:14:38.920]  saying, okay, IRS, if we owe you all this money, please produce the 1099As, the 1099s, W2 forms,
[01:14:38.920 --> 01:14:44.920]  and a series of documents so we can go ahead and amend the bankruptcy plan, which we already
[01:14:44.920 --> 01:14:50.920]  had all set up nicely, and these guys knocked it out of the park, and they failed to respond.
[01:14:50.920 --> 01:14:53.920]  And that was two months ago, so we filed a second letter saying, if you don't wish to
[01:14:53.920 --> 01:14:58.920]  respond, we're going to hold you in contempt pursuant to the bankruptcy rules, and they
[01:14:58.920 --> 01:15:03.920]  still haven't responded. And so we filed a motion for extension of time, which is going
[01:15:03.920 --> 01:15:07.920]  to be heard on January 22nd.
[01:15:07.920 --> 01:15:13.920]  Okay. What were you trying to get them to provide for you?
[01:15:13.920 --> 01:15:20.920]  W2 forms and any documents that reported to the taxpayer.
[01:15:20.920 --> 01:15:27.920]  Who signed the document filed with the court?
[01:15:27.920 --> 01:15:33.920]  It was an agent somewhere in Ohio, Randy.
[01:15:33.920 --> 01:15:41.920]  I'll criminally against him. Now, that agent, that name is not, is a fictitious name.
[01:15:41.920 --> 01:15:42.920]  Okay.
[01:15:42.920 --> 01:15:45.920]  The IRS knows who it is.
[01:15:45.920 --> 01:15:49.920]  Douglas, Douglas Smith.
[01:15:49.920 --> 01:15:59.920]  So the claim that was filed, then because they failed to respond, you have reason to believe
[01:15:59.920 --> 01:16:04.920]  and do believe that the claim was fraudulent.
[01:16:04.920 --> 01:16:16.920]  We got an IRS agent fired in Fort Lauderdale because we went after the agent's boss's boss's boss.
[01:16:16.920 --> 01:16:23.920]  We went after the boss's boss's boss criminally. The next day they fired the agent and we charged
[01:16:23.920 --> 01:16:27.920]  the boss to respond to get superior for the behavior of the agent.
[01:16:27.920 --> 01:16:36.920]  Somebody committed fraud and aggravated perjury, tampering with a government document, and
[01:16:36.920 --> 01:16:38.920]  you want that person prosecuted.
[01:16:38.920 --> 01:16:45.920]  So you take whoever the person's boss's boss's boss is, because if this person filed this
[01:16:45.920 --> 01:16:50.920]  document with the court, they had to have the approval of their superior and you charged
[01:16:50.920 --> 01:16:58.920]  their superior to respond to get superior criminally for the behavior of their subordinates.
[01:16:58.920 --> 01:16:59.920]  Right.
[01:16:59.920 --> 01:17:04.920]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[01:17:04.920 --> 01:17:09.920]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mearris proven method. Michael Mearris has
[01:17:09.920 --> 01:17:14.920]  won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win two. You'll
[01:17:14.920 --> 01:17:19.920]  get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil
[01:17:19.920 --> 01:17:24.920]  rights statutes, what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, how to answer
[01:17:24.920 --> 01:17:29.920]  letters and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit reports, how to turn the
[01:17:29.920 --> 01:17:34.920]  financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away. The Michael Mearris proven
[01:17:34.920 --> 01:17:39.920]  method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available
[01:17:39.920 --> 01:17:44.920]  as well. For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael
[01:17:44.920 --> 01:17:51.920]  Mearris banner or email MichaelMearris at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com or email
[01:17:51.920 --> 01:17:59.920]  M-I-C-H-A-E-L-M-I-R-R-A-S at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[01:17:59.920 --> 01:18:04.920]  I love logos. Without the shows on this network, I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends. I'm
[01:18:04.920 --> 01:18:08.920]  so addicted to the truth now that there's no going back. I need my truths fit. I'd be
[01:18:08.920 --> 01:18:13.920]  lost without logos and I really want to help keep this network coming here. I'd love to
[01:18:13.920 --> 01:18:17.920]  volunteer as a show producer but I'm a bit of a Luddite and I really don't have any money
[01:18:17.920 --> 01:18:21.920]  to give because I spent it all on supplements. How can I help logos?
[01:18:21.920 --> 01:18:26.920]  Well, I'm glad you asked. Whenever you order anything from Amazon, you can help logos with
[01:18:26.920 --> 01:18:31.920]  ordering your supplies or holiday gifts. First thing you do is clear your cookies. Now go
[01:18:31.920 --> 01:18:38.920]  to LogosRadioNetwork.com. Click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it. Now when you order anything
[01:18:38.920 --> 01:18:44.920]  from Amazon, you use that link and logos gets a few pesos. Do I pay extra? No. Do you have
[01:18:44.920 --> 01:18:50.920]  to do anything different when I order? No. Can I use my Amazon Prime? No. I mean yes.
[01:18:50.920 --> 01:18:56.920]  Wow. Giving without doing anything or spending any money. This is perfect. Thank you so much.
[01:18:56.920 --> 01:19:06.920]  Here we are. Welcome. Happy Holidays Logos. This is the Logos Logos Radio Network.
[01:19:26.920 --> 01:19:42.920]  Okay. We are back. Randy Helton with Logos Radio and we're talking to Shane in New York.
[01:19:42.920 --> 01:19:48.920]  Okay, Shane. Hold on. Let me get you on mute. There we go.
[01:19:48.920 --> 01:19:51.920]  Okay. Are you there, Randy? I'm here.
[01:19:51.920 --> 01:19:56.920]  All right. So I'm just basically giving the cliff notes, but it's been a long journey
[01:19:56.920 --> 01:20:02.920]  and everybody, you know, that I've spoken to, you know, family and all that, everybody
[01:20:02.920 --> 01:20:08.920]  would have given up years ago. But I think people have studied this stuff and understand
[01:20:08.920 --> 01:20:14.920]  holder and due course and the assignment has to be connected to the notes and a list of
[01:20:14.920 --> 01:20:20.920]  things. I mean, you talk about blatant fraud. It's so amazing. It's mind-boggling to put
[01:20:20.920 --> 01:20:26.920]  the plans that they filed and the IRS waited to the very last moment to file it because
[01:20:26.920 --> 01:20:31.920]  we had a nice plan going. It was $500 a month and then they came out of nowhere and came
[01:20:31.920 --> 01:20:37.920]  out with some crazy plan and assessed some crazy amount of money and here's my mom,
[01:20:37.920 --> 01:20:42.920]  retired for almost 10 years now. And so what they did is they assessed her because she
[01:20:42.920 --> 01:20:46.920]  hasn't filed, but she hasn't made anything in 10 years.
[01:20:46.920 --> 01:20:52.920]  So whoever did the assessment, you can't, you can't find out who that is because they
[01:20:52.920 --> 01:21:02.920]  use fake names. Exactly. So that gives you reason to go after the individuals who would
[01:21:02.920 --> 01:21:12.920]  authorize these people to use fake names. Right. What happened in Florida is we had
[01:21:12.920 --> 01:21:17.920]  a IRS agent was after a guy and she couldn't get to him, so she went after a friend of
[01:21:17.920 --> 01:21:25.920]  his. They went into his chiropractic shop and raided it. They came in with automatic
[01:21:25.920 --> 01:21:32.920]  weapons, guns in their hands, pointed an automatic weapon in the face of the receptionist.
[01:21:32.920 --> 01:21:43.920]  A nurse had a patient in a machine that stretched his spine and an IRS agent with a weapon pointed
[01:21:43.920 --> 01:21:50.920]  at her ordered her to take him out of the machine and she refused. And he threatened
[01:21:50.920 --> 01:21:55.920]  to arrest her if she didn't. She said, arrest me. I'm not doing it. We got to take him out
[01:21:55.920 --> 01:22:02.920]  gradually or he'll injure him. I'm not going to do it. And they finally backed down. Well,
[01:22:02.920 --> 01:22:13.920]  the manual said that an IRS agent could only pull his weapon when he had grounds to pull
[01:22:13.920 --> 01:22:26.920]  and discharge. So we want to know who authorized this particular action. And we researched to
[01:22:26.920 --> 01:22:33.920]  see how far up it had to be signed off the top guy. He was either three or four steps
[01:22:33.920 --> 01:22:40.920]  up the ladder. The last guy who had to sign off of it, we filed against him. The U.S.
[01:22:40.920 --> 01:22:50.920]  Attorney, I filed with the grand jury. U.S. Attorney called me and told me that I was not
[01:22:50.920 --> 01:22:55.920]  to make any more filings with the grand jury. If I did, he would arrest me and charge me
[01:22:55.920 --> 01:23:03.920]  with jury tampering. I told him, knock yourself out. I'll charge you with witness tampering,
[01:23:03.920 --> 01:23:10.920]  felon retaliation. We'll see how this works out for you. Next day, they fired the IRS
[01:23:10.920 --> 01:23:21.920]  agent. There is an IRS statute that requires that agents abide by all state and federal
[01:23:21.920 --> 01:23:30.920]  law. It's like what they did to us when we were in the military. I was in Vietnam and
[01:23:30.920 --> 01:23:38.920]  I loaded weapons on fighter type aircraft. And every day, they would give us what we
[01:23:38.920 --> 01:23:43.920]  called a frag. That's how many weapons we had to load. And it was about five times the
[01:23:43.920 --> 01:23:50.920]  amount we could load by the book. But we were flying fire support ground troops. And my
[01:23:50.920 --> 01:23:56.920]  twin brother was one of those ground troops. They gave us a frag. We loaded it. Whatever
[01:23:56.920 --> 01:24:00.920]  we had to do to get it loaded, we loaded it. And then they come down and give us direct
[01:24:00.920 --> 01:24:07.920]  orders that we would load by the book. So they create a condition where you have to put
[01:24:07.920 --> 01:24:16.920]  the manual aside and do what has to be done. And then they give you an order so that if
[01:24:16.920 --> 01:24:22.920]  in getting done what has to be done, something goes wrong, they're indemnified. They do
[01:24:22.920 --> 01:24:32.920]  the exact same thing to the IRS agents. So let's go for them. The IRS is not really a
[01:24:32.920 --> 01:24:39.920]  part of the government. It's a private corporation. They don't have any official capacity. They
[01:24:39.920 --> 01:24:46.920]  have to get all through the courts. One of those agents is part of a private corporation,
[01:24:46.920 --> 01:24:59.920]  violates law. Then we get to go for them personally. The best one to go for is respondeat superior.
[01:24:59.920 --> 01:25:06.920]  Who is the highest person you can find that would be responsible for supervising this
[01:25:06.920 --> 01:25:12.920]  person, file a criminal against them for aggravated perjury, a big tamper with a government
[01:25:12.920 --> 01:25:26.920]  document. We see how this works out for them. What do you think? Still there, Shane?
[01:25:26.920 --> 01:25:36.920]  Oh yeah, Randy, I'm here. I'm not sure how many people have gone down this path, but
[01:25:36.920 --> 01:25:40.920]  people don't know where to go. They would love to follow charges. But where do you go?
[01:25:40.920 --> 01:25:51.920]  Easy. This is fed. You make up a criminal complaint, and you make up, I think there's
[01:25:51.920 --> 01:26:01.920]  23 federal grand juries. You make up 23 copies, put each one in a separate envelope, form
[01:26:01.920 --> 01:26:11.920]  it into the grand jury, grand jury one through grand jury 23. Put all of those in an envelope
[01:26:11.920 --> 01:26:22.920]  and mail it to the federal grand jury at the office of the U.S. attorney. U.S. attorney
[01:26:22.920 --> 01:26:35.920]  will get those. You put a return receipt. It doesn't need to be, I'd like registered
[01:26:35.920 --> 01:26:40.920]  restricted. And registered restricted, the only one who's supposed to be able to sign
[01:26:40.920 --> 01:26:48.920]  for it is the named person. And you put U.S. grand jury for them. Best to go, do you have
[01:26:48.920 --> 01:27:02.920]  Pacer? Yep. Go to Pacer and see if you can find the last criminal complaint filed in whatever
[01:27:02.920 --> 01:27:11.920]  circuit you're in. And look for the indictment. It will have the name of the grand jury, as
[01:27:11.920 --> 01:27:19.920]  they form it in the grand jury signed on it at the bottom. Gotcha. Very smart. If you
[01:27:19.920 --> 01:27:33.920]  can't read it, no problem. Just go into windows and hit, what's it called? Bringing it up
[01:27:33.920 --> 01:27:45.920]  here. Snipping tool. Click on the snipping tool. It will darken the screen and then go
[01:27:45.920 --> 01:27:55.920]  select out the form and signature and then save it as a file. And you mail it to that
[01:27:55.920 --> 01:28:01.920]  name. You don't have to be able to read it. Form it in the grand jury, you drop that in.
[01:28:01.920 --> 01:28:11.920]  I've done that before. Registered restricted. It's going to go to the federal courthouse.
[01:28:11.920 --> 01:28:19.920]  It's the red sticker. That's the red sticker, right Randy? Yes, yes. When they get it, the
[01:28:19.920 --> 01:28:28.920]  guy in the mail room will sign for it. That's an oops. And then he'll give it to the U.S.
[01:28:28.920 --> 01:28:36.920]  Attorney and U.S. Attorney will open it and you want a cover letter in there. And this
[01:28:36.920 --> 01:28:43.920]  cover letter addressed to the foreman asks the foreman to initial this document and
[01:28:43.920 --> 01:28:54.920]  return it in the included stamp self-address envelope. Please do not sign it. As the U.S.
[01:28:54.920 --> 01:29:01.920]  Attorney has a rubber stamp with your name on it that the U.S. Attorney uses to stamp
[01:29:01.920 --> 01:29:07.920]  superseding indictments. And we want to make sure that the U.S. Attorney doesn't rubber
[01:29:07.920 --> 01:29:13.920]  stamp this document. We need to make sure you actually received it as U.S.
[01:29:13.920 --> 01:29:18.920]  Attorneys have a habit of secreting criminal complaints against public officials from the
[01:29:18.920 --> 01:29:24.920]  grand jury. Now there is no way on earth the foreman of the grand jury is going to see
[01:29:24.920 --> 01:29:34.920]  that document. But when you don't get it back in a week, you have reason to believe that
[01:29:34.920 --> 01:29:43.920]  the somebody secreted these complaints from the federal grand jury. Now you go to the
[01:29:43.920 --> 01:29:52.920]  special agent charge, the FBI. The only FBI agent you can get the name of is the SAC.
[01:29:52.920 --> 01:29:55.920]  Hang on, about to go to break. We'll be right back.
[01:30:01.920 --> 01:30:06.920]  The next time the doctor asks you how you feel, ask him the same question. Why? New
[01:30:06.920 --> 01:30:11.920]  research shows unhappy doctors perform differently than their contentive counterparts. I'm
[01:30:11.920 --> 01:30:14.920]  Dr. Cameron Albrecht with details in a moment.
[01:30:42.920 --> 01:30:48.920]  We've long suspected it and now a new study confirms it. A doctor's mood impacts their
[01:30:48.920 --> 01:30:53.920]  professional behavior towards patients. A survey of nearly 200 Israeli physicians found
[01:30:53.920 --> 01:30:59.920]  that on bad mood days, doctors spent less time talking with patients. But more prescriptions
[01:30:59.920 --> 01:31:04.920]  ordered more tests and issued more referrals, often unnecessarily. All of this, of course,
[01:31:04.920 --> 01:31:09.920]  leads to higher healthcare costs. But when the doctors were in a good mood and felt less
[01:31:09.920 --> 01:31:14.920]  burnout, they consulted more with patients, diagnosed their conditions with fewer tests
[01:31:14.920 --> 01:31:19.920]  and prescribed less expensive medicines. Let's see, less caregiver stress, less burnout
[01:31:19.920 --> 01:31:24.920]  and better patient care sounds like just what the doctor ordered. I'm Dr. Cameron Albrecht
[01:31:24.920 --> 01:31:28.920]  for Storypage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:31:30.920 --> 01:31:36.920]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11th.
[01:31:36.920 --> 01:31:41.920]  The government says the fire brought it down. However, 1,500 architects and engineers have
[01:31:41.920 --> 01:31:45.920]  concluded it was a controlled demolition. Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have
[01:31:45.920 --> 01:31:49.920]  given their lives. And thousands of my fellow first responders are dying. I'm not a conspiracy
[01:31:49.920 --> 01:31:53.920]  theorist. I'm a structural engineer. I'm a New York City correction officer. I'm an Air Force pilot.
[01:31:53.920 --> 01:31:58.920]  I'm a father who lost his son. We are Americans and we deserve the truth. Go to
[01:31:58.920 --> 01:32:08.920]  RememberBuilding7.org today.
[01:32:28.920 --> 01:32:43.920]  This is Building 7, the world's most private search engine.
[01:32:43.920 --> 01:33:07.920]  This is Building 7, the world's most private search engine.
[01:33:07.920 --> 01:33:17.920]  This is Building 7, the world's most private search engine.
[01:33:17.920 --> 01:33:27.920]  This is Building 7, the world's most private search engine.
[01:33:27.920 --> 01:33:37.920]  This is Building 7, the world's most private search engine.
[01:33:37.920 --> 01:33:47.920]  This is Building 7, the world's most private search engine.
[01:33:47.920 --> 01:33:57.920]  This is Building 7, the world's most private search engine.
[01:33:57.920 --> 01:34:07.920]  This is Building 7, the world's most private search engine.
[01:34:07.920 --> 01:34:17.920]  This is Building 7, the world's most private search engine.
[01:34:17.920 --> 01:34:27.920]  This is Building 7, the world's most private search engine.
[01:34:27.920 --> 01:34:37.920]  This is Building 7, the world's most private search engine.
[01:34:37.920 --> 01:34:47.920]  This is Building 7, the world's most private search engine.
[01:34:47.920 --> 01:34:57.920]  This is Building 7, the world's most private search engine.
[01:34:57.920 --> 01:35:07.920]  This is Building 7, the world's most private search engine.
[01:35:07.920 --> 01:35:17.920]  This is Building 7, the world's most private search engine.
[01:35:17.920 --> 01:35:27.920]  This is Building 7, the world's most private search engine.
[01:35:27.920 --> 01:35:37.920]  This is Building 7, the world's most private search engine.
[01:35:37.920 --> 01:35:47.920]  This is Building 7, the world's most private search engine.
[01:35:47.920 --> 01:35:57.920]  This is Building 7, the world's most private search engine.
[01:35:57.920 --> 01:36:07.920]  This is Building 7, the world's most private search engine.
[01:36:07.920 --> 01:36:31.920]  So you file a complaint against the U.S. Attorney with the SEC for not giving notice to the Attorney General in D.C. that he had knowledge that a federal official in violating the law relating to our office is required by 28 U.S.C. 535.
[01:36:31.920 --> 01:36:39.920]  The reason we go to the SEC because that's the only IRS agent whose name you can find.
[01:36:39.920 --> 01:36:49.920]  Did I say IRS agent? That's the only FBI agent's name that you can find. The rest of them are now secret agents.
[01:36:49.920 --> 01:37:07.920]  And it's better, he's the boss, so you file against him or file with him. So what does he do? He gets this complaint accusing the U.S. Attorney of not following 28 U.S.C. 535.
[01:37:07.920 --> 01:37:19.920]  But then if he's got any smarts at all, he'll realize that 28 U.S.C. 535 applies to him just as well as to the U.S. Attorney.
[01:37:19.920 --> 01:37:31.920]  We kind of put him on the dime. If he doesn't read the code, it's his problem because we'll hold him responsible for reading the code because he's headed in front of him.
[01:37:31.920 --> 01:37:42.920]  And then when you don't hear back from the SEC, then you file with the Attorney General against the both of them.
[01:37:42.920 --> 01:37:54.920]  And you know what every U.S. Attorney in the country must do when a new president takes office.
[01:37:54.920 --> 01:38:07.920]  He must tender his resignation. So the president has the resignation of every U.S. Attorney that was in office when he was elected.
[01:38:07.920 --> 01:38:17.920]  So he can drop you like a hot rock. We have a president from outside the Beltway.
[01:38:17.920 --> 01:38:25.920]  And I've been telling people for years, Democrats, Republicans, how you don't make any difference, they all got their snouts in the same trough.
[01:38:25.920 --> 01:38:33.920]  Well, Trump may have his snout and somebody's trough, but it's not the ones Democrats and Republicans got theirs in.
[01:38:33.920 --> 01:38:43.920]  So we've got a president that really needs federal appointments to get friends on his side.
[01:38:43.920 --> 01:38:52.920]  And if you're a U.S. Attorney, especially if you're a Democrat, and the president's got your resignation and you send a criminal accusation,
[01:38:52.920 --> 01:39:01.920]  somebody sends a criminal accusation against you to the Attorney General for not giving notice to the Attorney General with the law of command you to do,
[01:39:01.920 --> 01:39:05.920]  that mark on your chart.
[01:39:05.920 --> 01:39:21.920]  Whether they prosecute you or not, now the president has political cannon fodder he can use as an excuse for throwing you out and replacing you with one of his political cronies.
[01:39:21.920 --> 01:39:28.920]  The end of the day, it's not about the law, it's about the politics. Does that make sense, Shane?
[01:39:28.920 --> 01:39:31.920]  Yes, it does. In fact, I was going to just ask you that.
[01:39:31.920 --> 01:39:36.920]  Looks like we may have lost Shane.
[01:39:36.920 --> 01:39:44.920]  Well, anyway, that's kind of my story and I'm sticking to it and I've done this myself.
[01:39:44.920 --> 01:39:51.920]  So I tend not to ask people to do things that I won't do myself.
[01:39:51.920 --> 01:39:59.920]  And you might think that they would tend to come after you if you do this kind of thing, they don't.
[01:39:59.920 --> 01:40:05.920]  When you start filing criminal charges, you become a protected class.
[01:40:05.920 --> 01:40:15.920]  Once you file a criminal charge, you have the same immunity from civil litigation as a judge has.
[01:40:15.920 --> 01:40:28.920]  They want the public to participate in civil obedience by giving notice of crime because the police, they can't keep up with everything.
[01:40:28.920 --> 01:40:35.920]  They want it so that a citizen can feel safe in reporting crime.
[01:40:35.920 --> 01:40:44.920]  So when you report that crime, you become protected, especially if you report that crime against the public official.
[01:40:44.920 --> 01:40:51.920]  Anything they say to you becomes retaliation, witness tampering, both of them felonies.
[01:40:51.920 --> 01:40:58.920]  So you do that and I had the U.S. attorney call me and threaten me.
[01:40:58.920 --> 01:41:09.920]  And at the time, I hadn't had not put together all of these pieces or I would have immediately filed criminal charges against him.
[01:41:09.920 --> 01:41:15.920]  That was a number of years ago. I know better now. Now I go for his throat.
[01:41:15.920 --> 01:41:25.920]  So using these tools, primarily you create political cannon fodder.
[01:41:25.920 --> 01:41:29.920]  You're not going to get these guys to be afraid of you personally.
[01:41:29.920 --> 01:41:41.920]  You know, we're just ordinary pro se individuals, we're not part of their inside club, so they don't take us very seriously.
[01:41:41.920 --> 01:41:53.920]  What they do take seriously is the political cannon fodder you create for their political opponents.
[01:41:53.920 --> 01:41:59.920]  That's where we win this thing. And that's how we can beat them.
[01:41:59.920 --> 01:42:11.920]  Shane, I'm sorry, I can't get you back. If you are still there and I can't hear you, try hanging up and calling back.
[01:42:11.920 --> 01:42:17.920]  So enough with that, we've got one minute, a minute and a half before break and then I've got one more segment.
[01:42:17.920 --> 01:42:24.920]  I didn't start out talking about the electronic lawyer project.
[01:42:24.920 --> 01:42:34.920]  It is moving along. We're bringing together a team. I'm getting together a pretty large team.
[01:42:34.920 --> 01:42:43.920]  And I want to reiterate what I spoke to earlier about people doing legal research and people fighting their own cases.
[01:42:43.920 --> 01:42:51.920]  I'm going to try to put together a website that you can go to and upload your information.
[01:42:51.920 --> 01:43:02.920]  I want to create a repository for pro se researchers where we can all find each other's stuff.
[01:43:02.920 --> 01:43:17.920]  And then I'll take the remedies that people post on there and as we begin to put our tools together, I have the basic underlying software.
[01:43:17.920 --> 01:43:28.920]  The big job is loading in the content and I want all the pro se researchers out there to be part of my content.
[01:43:28.920 --> 01:43:40.920]  And we'll start loading those in, loading in the remedies. The way this tool will generate revenue is by selling documents to people who use the questionnaire.
[01:43:40.920 --> 01:43:48.920]  We will set this up. Any pro se researchers who help us develop documentation, we'll put those on the site.
[01:43:48.920 --> 01:43:59.920]  Anytime it's sold, the creator of it gets sent over right. Hang on, Randy Kelton, we'll be right back.
[01:43:59.920 --> 01:44:05.920]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved except in the area of nutrition.
[01:44:05.920 --> 01:44:10.920]  People feed their pets better than they feed themselves and it's time we changed all that.
[01:44:10.920 --> 01:44:16.920]  Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[01:44:16.920 --> 01:44:24.920]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need.
[01:44:24.920 --> 01:44:30.920]  Logo's radio network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject.
[01:44:30.920 --> 01:44:38.920]  We have come to trust young Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[01:44:38.920 --> 01:44:46.920]  When you order from Logo's radio network dot com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio.
[01:44:46.920 --> 01:44:50.920]  As you realize the benefits of young Jevity, you may want to join us.
[01:44:50.920 --> 01:45:00.920]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and increase your income. Order now.
[01:45:21.920 --> 01:45:24.920]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:24.920 --> 01:45:29.920]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:45:29.920 --> 01:45:35.920]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:45:35.920 --> 01:45:44.920]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:44.920 --> 01:45:53.920]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, prosa tactics, and much more.
[01:45:53.920 --> 01:46:02.920]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:02.920 --> 01:46:18.920]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton with Law Radio. Shane, are you there? I think I had an issue last segment.
[01:46:18.920 --> 01:46:21.920]  Randy, I think you're having a mute.
[01:46:21.920 --> 01:46:31.920]  Okay, no, I had you unmuted, but when we went off the air, I'd get a beep to tell me it's off the air, but I didn't get that beep.
[01:46:31.920 --> 01:46:36.920]  So I went in and reset all my systems, something happened, and I lost your sound.
[01:46:36.920 --> 01:46:47.920]  You see, I'm a mixer, and when I speak into the mic, the mixer feeds that voice back into my headset so I can hear my own voice and I know what it sounds like.
[01:46:47.920 --> 01:46:56.920]  Well, it was feeding back to me, so that's the only way I know if I'm...this mixer is actually hearing me,
[01:46:56.920 --> 01:47:06.920]  but I had no way to know that you were hearing me until I didn't get that...or that I wasn't hearing you because I didn't get that beep when it went out, but I got it fixed now.
[01:47:06.920 --> 01:47:08.920]  Okay.
[01:47:08.920 --> 01:47:15.920]  So, we go to court January 22nd, Randy, for the hearing.
[01:47:15.920 --> 01:47:18.920]  And what's the nature of the hearing?
[01:47:18.920 --> 01:47:26.920]  Well, it was supposed to be on the docket, it's for confirmation, but we're far, far away from that because we got to get the IRS things settled.
[01:47:26.920 --> 01:47:37.920]  So our motion for extension of time for an additional 60 days to get the IRS to produce these documents so we can go ahead and amend the bankruptcy plan and add them to the list, which there is no depth of...
[01:47:37.920 --> 01:47:39.920]  That's why we sent those two letters.
[01:47:39.920 --> 01:47:47.920]  We sent one back in November when I just sent another one about a week ago that if you don't give us this information, we're going to hold you in contempt.
[01:47:47.920 --> 01:47:49.920]  So...
[01:47:49.920 --> 01:47:55.920]  And what I wanted to tell you really quick is that the...
[01:47:55.920 --> 01:48:02.920]  There's another servicer that just took over this foreclosure proceeding, the same one that linked to Rosicki and Rosicki.
[01:48:02.920 --> 01:48:10.920]  They just jumped on board like a year ago and they filed a proof of claim and they're a servicer.
[01:48:10.920 --> 01:48:24.920]  Well, the servicer will be acting as agent for the beneficiary of the mortgage, of the note.
[01:48:24.920 --> 01:48:37.920]  Right, the Federal National Mortgage Association, correct, but the Federal National Mortgage Association has told us several times over the phone, it's irrelevant, there's no depth with that.
[01:48:37.920 --> 01:48:41.920]  And there's so much to tell you, Randy.
[01:48:41.920 --> 01:48:51.920]  Okay, has the Federal Mortgage Association filed anything with the court indicating that they don't have a claim?
[01:48:51.920 --> 01:48:59.920]  No, but the attorneys that allegedly represent the Federal National Mortgage Association did file a claim.
[01:48:59.920 --> 01:49:05.920]  And they have a sub-servicer that wrote an affidavit stating that this month is owed.
[01:49:05.920 --> 01:49:09.920]  Meanwhile, when we called them off, they said there's nothing owed.
[01:49:09.920 --> 01:49:11.920]  Do you have that recorded?
[01:49:11.920 --> 01:49:14.920]  Absolutely.
[01:49:14.920 --> 01:49:15.920]  Good.
[01:49:15.920 --> 01:49:16.920]  Absolutely.
[01:49:16.920 --> 01:49:22.920]  I got it recorded, but the thing is, I'm not really sure what the law is in New York and the bankruptcy hearing...
[01:49:22.920 --> 01:49:34.920]  There's only one state I know of that you can't record another person that you're in a conversation with without notifying them that's Pennsylvania.
[01:49:34.920 --> 01:49:42.920]  In the state of New York, you can absolutely record any conversation to which you are a party.
[01:49:42.920 --> 01:49:51.920]  But even if there is a concern about that, never ever produce the actual recording.
[01:49:51.920 --> 01:49:55.920]  Make a transcript of the recording.
[01:49:55.920 --> 01:50:01.920]  So even if you record someone without their knowing it and you weren't supposed to,
[01:50:01.920 --> 01:50:10.920]  it comes under harmless error if you don't do anything untoward with that recording.
[01:50:10.920 --> 01:50:12.920]  No harm, no foul.
[01:50:12.920 --> 01:50:16.920]  So you make up a transcript.
[01:50:16.920 --> 01:50:21.920]  And then when they ask you how you know this is exactly what was said, well, I took it off their recording.
[01:50:21.920 --> 01:50:25.920]  I actually did that in court once.
[01:50:25.920 --> 01:50:32.920]  I told them exactly what was said and it had been about 10 years since this incident.
[01:50:32.920 --> 01:50:35.920]  And the lawyer said, well, Mr. Kelton, you must have a perfect memory.
[01:50:35.920 --> 01:50:38.920]  I said, oh no, I have a horrible memory.
[01:50:38.920 --> 01:50:45.920]  If you have a horrible memory, and the judge sitting up there, when I said I have a horrible memory,
[01:50:45.920 --> 01:50:50.920]  the judge kind of ducked his head and put his head in his hand and he's shaking his head.
[01:50:50.920 --> 01:50:52.920]  He sees it coming.
[01:50:52.920 --> 01:50:54.920]  The lawyer didn't.
[01:50:54.920 --> 01:50:59.920]  Well, if you have a horrible memory, how do you know this is exactly what was said?
[01:50:59.920 --> 01:51:02.920]  Well, I took it off the transcript.
[01:51:02.920 --> 01:51:04.920]  The lawyer said, I would throw all the questions.
[01:51:04.920 --> 01:51:11.920]  The judge said, no, counselor, you open this door.
[01:51:11.920 --> 01:51:18.920]  And then when the lawyer on the other side got me, then he asked for the recording.
[01:51:18.920 --> 01:51:25.920]  I said, well, I was there helping another guy, and he's got it right there.
[01:51:25.920 --> 01:51:31.920]  And the lawyer was objecting, objecting, and the judge said, no, counselor, you open this door.
[01:51:31.920 --> 01:51:33.920]  He mentioned the recording.
[01:51:33.920 --> 01:51:35.920]  Now you can bring it in.
[01:51:35.920 --> 01:51:41.920]  So if you bring in a transcript and file it as an affidavit, that's your statement.
[01:51:41.920 --> 01:51:46.920]  And then when they challenge the veracity of the affidavit, then you can bring it right in.
[01:51:46.920 --> 01:51:53.920]  But yeah, in New York, though, I know that you can record.
[01:51:53.920 --> 01:51:57.920]  So the finish up, Randy, is that we've got the hearing January 22nd.
[01:51:57.920 --> 01:52:06.920]  And by the way, this bankruptcy court, when you file a motion, you have to attach a proposed order for the judge to sign otherwise it's defective.
[01:52:06.920 --> 01:52:08.920]  Okay, well, that's pretty common.
[01:52:08.920 --> 01:52:18.920]  It's not required in Texas, but you need to do that anyway. Anybody who ever files a motion should file an order.
[01:52:18.920 --> 01:52:21.920]  Yes, so we got that proposed order done.
[01:52:21.920 --> 01:52:31.920]  But what I wanted to tell everybody is the 341 meeting that they have, you have 60 days to file an extension for cause.
[01:52:31.920 --> 01:52:32.920]  We have a cause.
[01:52:32.920 --> 01:52:36.920]  What is a 341 meeting?
[01:52:36.920 --> 01:52:39.920]  Clearly this is in bankruptcy.
[01:52:39.920 --> 01:52:41.920]  Yeah, that's the meeting with the creditors.
[01:52:41.920 --> 01:52:47.920]  And you bring your social security card, your driver's license and all the elements to identify who you are on the record.
[01:52:47.920 --> 01:52:51.920]  And then they move forward and the creditors will say, oh, we have a claim.
[01:52:51.920 --> 01:52:53.920]  And oh, we have one too.
[01:52:53.920 --> 01:52:57.920]  Okay, this is an evidentiary hearing?
[01:52:57.920 --> 01:53:06.920]  It's a private hearing with the trustee in a room before you go in front of the judge. At least that's how we do it in Buffalo.
[01:53:06.920 --> 01:53:13.920]  You have the trustee's meeting and then you move forward and you go into the judge.
[01:53:13.920 --> 01:53:20.920]  Is this where the claimants come in and prove up their claim?
[01:53:20.920 --> 01:53:21.920]  Right.
[01:53:21.920 --> 01:53:24.920]  Okay, then this is the evidentiary hearing.
[01:53:24.920 --> 01:53:30.920]  I've been through a bankruptcy a long, long time ago and that's how I recall it.
[01:53:30.920 --> 01:53:32.920]  This is the evidentiary hearing.
[01:53:32.920 --> 01:53:34.920]  This is where they got to bring proof.
[01:53:34.920 --> 01:53:46.920]  And any proactive statement out of the mouth of the lawyer is a huge object to it.
[01:53:46.920 --> 01:53:47.920]  Right.
[01:53:47.920 --> 01:53:49.920]  He's not best witness.
[01:53:49.920 --> 01:53:57.920]  He must present this by either by presenting best witness or affidavit of best witness.
[01:53:57.920 --> 01:54:04.920]  And then you can, if you have reason to challenge, then you challenge that and they have to bring in best witness.
[01:54:04.920 --> 01:54:08.920]  These guys are not going to have it.
[01:54:08.920 --> 01:54:14.920]  So what I want to finish up and tell you is that's the only thing that's going to be in the hearing on January 22nd.
[01:54:14.920 --> 01:54:19.920]  And here are our hearings for an extension of time of 60 days for the IRS to comply.
[01:54:19.920 --> 01:54:23.920]  And so we can go ahead and amend the bankruptcy plan.
[01:54:23.920 --> 01:54:27.920]  We can't, you know, you have one person out of line for the confirmation.
[01:54:27.920 --> 01:54:28.920]  You have no choice.
[01:54:28.920 --> 01:54:35.920]  You have to file an extension within that 68 time period because you have one person that's come out with some outrageous claim.
[01:54:35.920 --> 01:54:37.920]  So you also got, yeah, you don't have an IRS aid.
[01:54:37.920 --> 01:54:40.920]  You don't have someone from the IRS there?
[01:54:40.920 --> 01:54:49.920]  No, we have somebody from the U.S. Attorney's Office that's, you know, that filed a notice at the very last minute and he's going to represent the IRS.
[01:54:49.920 --> 01:54:53.920]  The lawyer can't produce any evidence.
[01:54:53.920 --> 01:54:58.920]  He's not a witness.
[01:54:58.920 --> 01:55:00.920]  Well, yeah.
[01:55:00.920 --> 01:55:07.920]  They only have to prove it, bring a witness or bring a verified affidavit.
[01:55:07.920 --> 01:55:19.920]  And then you'll want to subpoena the person on the affidavit because if it's an IRS document, that name on there is absolutely going to be fake.
[01:55:19.920 --> 01:55:21.920]  It is.
[01:55:21.920 --> 01:55:23.920]  They never give the right name.
[01:55:23.920 --> 01:55:26.920]  So you ask the U.S. Attorney, where is this person?
[01:55:26.920 --> 01:55:30.920]  I need to depose this person.
[01:55:30.920 --> 01:55:34.920]  And I want opportunity to examine him.
[01:55:34.920 --> 01:55:36.920]  See how that works for him.
[01:55:36.920 --> 01:55:38.920]  So I know we're running out of time.
[01:55:38.920 --> 01:55:41.920]  So our hearing is only for that only.
[01:55:41.920 --> 01:55:48.920]  It was supposed to be confirmation hearing, but that's going to be postponed based on our motion for extension of time and resting for 60 days.
[01:55:48.920 --> 01:55:52.920]  And we're ready to file our objections and our adversary complaints.
[01:55:52.920 --> 01:56:02.920]  Well, we can't because we can't get the IRS to comply with the documents that we need to go ahead and amend the bankruptcy plan.
[01:56:02.920 --> 01:56:06.920]  So that's what the hearing is set for for January 22nd.
[01:56:06.920 --> 01:56:15.920]  But just so everybody knows, after a 341 hearing, you do have 60 days to file that adversary complaint or objection.
[01:56:15.920 --> 01:56:25.920]  But if you file an extension for cause like we did, it's granted because we can't do anything until they comply with the documents to add them to the plan.
[01:56:25.920 --> 01:56:33.920]  And as of right now, we have nothing. It's a fake proof of claim.
[01:56:33.920 --> 01:56:37.920]  Okay.
[01:56:37.920 --> 01:56:43.920]  So you're waiting for an entry here?
[01:56:43.920 --> 01:56:45.920]  Yeah, it's going to be Tuesday at 10 o'clock.
[01:56:45.920 --> 01:56:56.920]  And the trustee has been saying, you got to amend this plan to add the IRS into it because they come out with some crazy money, not like a quarter million dollars.
[01:56:56.920 --> 01:57:04.920]  Aren't you the one that had the trustee who was pulling some shenanigans?
[01:57:04.920 --> 01:57:06.920]  Right.
[01:57:06.920 --> 01:57:09.920]  Did you get rid of that trustee?
[01:57:09.920 --> 01:57:16.920]  No, because we didn't move forward on that. And if he was going to be kicked off the case, they would have moved the whole case to Rochester.
[01:57:16.920 --> 01:57:21.920]  We'd have to drive two hours over there.
[01:57:21.920 --> 01:57:27.920]  You still need to hammer that guy when you're out of this bankruptcy?
[01:57:27.920 --> 01:57:31.920]  No, we will. We will. I just want to let you know we're doing one thing at a time.
[01:57:31.920 --> 01:57:32.920]  Yeah.
[01:57:32.920 --> 01:57:36.920]  We're burning the WIC and we're burning it slow.
[01:57:36.920 --> 01:57:41.920]  Good. And as far as you're concerned, that works in your favor.
[01:57:41.920 --> 01:57:49.920]  Right. Yeah, we're not going to jump to filing. But I just want everybody to know out there, take your time, follow due process.
[01:57:49.920 --> 01:57:55.920]  You've got that 60 days to file that extension at a time, which we did. We did it within three weeks.
[01:57:55.920 --> 01:58:00.920]  But you do have to read the rules, and that's what I've been doing on the side, reading the rules.
[01:58:00.920 --> 01:58:07.920]  If this judge were in front of us, it's been one of the nicest judges I've ever been in front of.
[01:58:07.920 --> 01:58:09.920]  Wonderful. That's good to hear.
[01:58:09.920 --> 01:58:19.920]  Yeah. So the thing is, Randy, don't bring up any of that sovereignty crap. Don't say the names on mine. I'm the creditor.
[01:58:19.920 --> 01:58:21.920]  Forget about it.
[01:58:21.920 --> 01:58:28.920]  Forget about it. You say two words, and the judge is going to be totally against you.
[01:58:28.920 --> 01:58:34.920]  Okay, we are out of time. Thank you, Shane. This is Randy Kelton. We'll have a radio.
[01:58:34.920 --> 01:58:43.920]  We'll be back next week with our regular show on Thursday and Friday, and check out Eddie's traffic show on Monday.
[01:58:43.920 --> 01:58:59.920]  Thank you all for listening, and good night.
[01:59:13.920 --> 01:59:19.920]  551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:19.920 --> 01:59:29.920]  This translation is highly accurate, and it comes with over 13,000 cross references, plus charts and maps, and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:59:29.920 --> 01:59:32.920]  This is truly a Bible you can understand.
[01:59:32.920 --> 01:59:50.920]  Get your free copy of the New Testament recovery version. Call us toll free at 888-551-0102. That's 888-551-0102, or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:50.920 --> 02:00:06.920]  Looking for some truth? You found it. LogosRadioNetwork.com.