[00:00.000 --> 00:09.000]  Sri Lankan police arrested the editor of a Tamil newspaper Thursday accusing him of aiding a rebel air attack.
[00:09.000 --> 00:16.000]  The government faces growing criticism for recent attacks on journalists critical of its offensive against Tamil Tiger rebels.
[00:16.000 --> 00:24.000]  Last month a prominent newspaper editor who criticized the war was shot dead and an editor was stabbed.
[00:24.000 --> 00:31.000]  The United Arab Emirates signed a $5 billion arms deal during a defense show in Abu Dhabi.
[00:31.000 --> 00:37.000]  The contracts included a deal with Italy's Sen Santieri to supply an anti-submarine warship
[00:37.000 --> 00:42.000]  and another with Boeing and Lockheed Martin for military transport aircrafts.
[00:42.000 --> 00:47.000]  The Senate has voted to give the District of Columbia a voting seat in the House of Representatives.
[00:47.000 --> 00:54.000]  However, lawmakers also attached language stripping the district of many local gun control laws.
[00:54.000 --> 00:58.000]  Top of the hour news brought to you by INN World Report.
[00:58.000 --> 01:04.000]  Consumer advocate and presidential candidate Ralph Nader reports that while reckless banks go bust,
[01:04.000 --> 01:08.000]  the nation's credit unions are an island of calm.
[01:08.000 --> 01:16.000]  85 million Americans belong to credit unions, not-for-profit cooperatives owned by their members who are depositors and borrowers.
[01:16.000 --> 01:24.000]  91% of the 8,000 credit unions are reporting greater overall growth in mortgage lending than any other kind of loans.
[01:24.000 --> 01:29.000]  Credit unions are federally insured for up to $250,000 per account.
[01:29.000 --> 01:32.000]  They are well capitalized because of regulation.
[01:32.000 --> 01:37.000]  Credit unions have no incentive to speculate and do not pay exorbitant fees to bosses.
[01:37.000 --> 01:41.000]  Credit unions have no shareholders or stock options.
[01:41.000 --> 01:46.000]  According to Mike Schenk, an economist with the Credit Union National Association,
[01:46.000 --> 01:50.000]  there is another reason why credit unions avoided the mortgage debacle.
[01:50.000 --> 01:55.000]  They hold most of the loans they originate instead of selling them to investors,
[01:55.000 --> 01:58.000]  so they care about the loan's financial performance.
[02:01.000 --> 02:10.000]  In its latest rescue plan, the Obama administration will provide a virtually unlimited solvency guarantee to the nation's 19 largest banks.
[02:10.000 --> 02:16.000]  Barack Obama says he hopes this will replace what he called a 20th century financial regulatory system.
[02:16.000 --> 02:25.000]  The new capital assistance program amounts to a blank check to ensure banks with assets over $100 billion remain solvent.
[02:25.000 --> 02:33.000]  Between now and the end of April, federal regulators will examine the books of Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and others.
[02:33.000 --> 02:40.000]  These stress tests will gauge whether the banks have enough capital to cope with a more severe economic downturn.
[02:40.000 --> 02:47.000]  Those that lack enough capital will be given six months to raise more private capital or ask for a capital buffer from the government.
[02:47.000 --> 02:55.000]  If a bank cannot raise private funds and needs capital from the government, it would do so in exchange for convertible pervert shares.
[02:55.000 --> 03:03.000]  The government would then become a shareholder in the company.
[03:25.000 --> 03:34.000]  It has been one of the leading voices for consumer privacy and has worked tirelessly by educating people on the emergence of a total surveillance control grid being set up all around us.
[03:34.000 --> 03:42.000]  Please come out and show your support as Dr. Albrecht tours Central Texas on a mission to testify against the mandatory microchipping of all pets in San Marcos.
[03:42.000 --> 03:50.000]  Before she visits San Marcos, Dr. Albrecht will hold a one-time-only talk and book signing at Brave New Books on March 2nd at 7 p.m.
[03:50.000 --> 03:55.000]  This will be a popular event, so seating will be limited, so please come to the bookstore early.
[03:55.000 --> 04:04.000]  If you have any questions, please call the bookstore at 512-480-2503 and be sure to go to bravenewbookstore.com for updates on many events coming up.
[04:04.000 --> 04:20.000]  Thank you.
[04:34.000 --> 04:39.000]  All right, we are back.
[04:39.000 --> 04:40.000]  The rule of law.
[04:40.000 --> 04:42.000]  Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens.
[04:42.000 --> 04:43.000]  Yeah, they want to chip us.
[04:43.000 --> 04:46.000]  They want to chip everything in our lives, track us, trace us, everything we do.
[04:46.000 --> 04:47.000]  It's not going to happen.
[04:47.000 --> 04:50.000]  All right, we are with Ken Magnuson.
[04:50.000 --> 04:52.000]  Okay, Ken, please continue.
[04:52.000 --> 04:54.000]  This is an excellent discussion.
[04:54.000 --> 04:57.000]  Of course, every time I get interrupted, I lose track of where I am.
[04:57.000 --> 04:58.000]  Oh, no.
[04:58.000 --> 04:59.000]  Yeah, it's so complex.
[04:59.000 --> 05:02.000]  I'm still getting my head wrapped around it.
[05:02.000 --> 05:06.000]  Well, I think we were talking about the actual causes of action.
[05:06.000 --> 05:08.000]  Yeah, the causes of action, exactly.
[05:08.000 --> 05:12.000]  The actual cause of action you would then plead in your pleading.
[05:12.000 --> 05:28.000]  Some place in there you would wedge in that you're entitled to damages and punitive damages or actual damages, compensatory damages, attorney fees, et cetera, based on a particular statute or a common law doctrine.
[05:28.000 --> 05:33.000]  Once that's in the document, it's very difficult for a court to throw it out.
[05:33.000 --> 05:37.000]  Now, that's if the court's running, actually following the rules.
[05:37.000 --> 05:45.000]  So for the moment, we're not talking about how you address the situation if you're getting the short end of the stick.
[05:45.000 --> 05:49.000]  We're just addressing how you approach it if it was a level playing field.
[05:49.000 --> 06:06.000]  The Texas cases, if the other party has a problem with what you've pled and thinks you haven't issued a cause of action, they generally don't move to dismiss for a lack of jurisdiction or for no cause of action.
[06:06.000 --> 06:09.000]  What they do is what's called special exception.
[06:09.000 --> 06:32.000]  Special exceptions are a list of specific documents, a specific list itemized that states each part of your pleading that doesn't meet statutory or law requirements, whether it be by procedure or by stare decisis, it doesn't meet the requirement.
[06:32.000 --> 06:37.000]  And there's a hearing for special exceptions, and the court will go down that list.
[06:37.000 --> 06:44.000]  The court has to give you the opportunity in Texas to amend it, to meet the requirements of the statute.
[06:44.000 --> 06:49.000]  The objection can't be, oh, we object to line number 27.
[06:49.000 --> 06:53.000]  It's got to be what's on line 27 and why you object to it.
[06:53.000 --> 07:00.000]  So this provides reasonable notice to the party of what the deficit is or what the deficiency of that line is.
[07:00.000 --> 07:09.000]  If you're missing something that's required by the statute, then they have to say that.
[07:09.000 --> 07:10.000]  They have to be specific.
[07:10.000 --> 07:25.000]  So the party, once these rulings come out from the court saying that you have to re-plead, you know, line 17, line 27, line 29, you go back to the drawing board and you ask the court for as much time as you think you're going to need.
[07:25.000 --> 07:31.000]  Don't ask for more than you think you need. If you think you can get it done in two weeks, you ask for four weeks.
[07:31.000 --> 07:35.000]  The idea is you don't know what might come up.
[07:35.000 --> 07:43.000]  If you don't correct these things, the other side then can file a motion to dismiss on the issue on that line.
[07:43.000 --> 07:54.000]  Now, the court frequently will not dismiss it, but that element of your cause of action may go in the trash can unless you correct it before the trial.
[07:54.000 --> 07:58.000]  Re-pleading is not a problem in most state courts.
[07:58.000 --> 08:03.000]  Federal court requires that you ask for leave of the court to amend your brief.
[08:03.000 --> 08:14.000]  So in federal pleadings, it's a lot more important to make sure you have it right the first time because some judges will never give you the chance to do it a second time.
[08:14.000 --> 08:24.000]  So mark that on your calendar about federal. And I'm just going to say right out front, avoid going to federal court.
[08:24.000 --> 08:29.000]  Just avoid it. It's better going to a court which you may have elected the officials in that county,
[08:29.000 --> 08:34.000]  or at least you can go to your state legislator and complain about them.
[08:34.000 --> 08:39.000]  Generally speaking, they're elected. They're generally more sensitive to issues at home.
[08:39.000 --> 08:50.000]  Federal judges have a very high opinion of themselves and an overflated ego with maybe a few unknown exceptions to that rule,
[08:50.000 --> 08:57.000]  meaning I don't personally know any federal judges that are exceptions to that rule, but that's the basic construct that I see in the federal court.
[08:57.000 --> 09:04.000]  There's one judge that, of particular note, named McBride over in Fort Worth, Texas,
[09:04.000 --> 09:16.000]  who has been actually suspended from being a judge for a period of time on no less than two occasions for being abusive to attorneys and clients in his courtroom.
[09:16.000 --> 09:19.000]  And the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has suspended him.
[09:19.000 --> 09:25.000]  What's amazing is any of us does something like what he did. We'd get fired from our job.
[09:25.000 --> 09:35.000]  But, no, he kept his job. So be aware of that. The federal courts are not necessarily friendly, especially to pro-sailors.
[09:35.000 --> 09:40.000]  So having said that, we'll get back to the issue of the state court's claim.
[09:40.000 --> 09:44.000]  Vandal, you got any comments or questions at this time? Leave me in another direction?
[09:44.000 --> 09:51.000]  No, I think I was agreeing. I was thinking about McBride and the experience with him.
[09:51.000 --> 10:01.000]  But, no, I didn't want to interrupt. I was sounding a lot more intelligent by not interrupting.
[10:01.000 --> 10:03.000]  Well, there's so much we can address.
[10:03.000 --> 10:09.000]  So the next step of the process, before you ever file this thing in court, is when you're looking up your causes of action,
[10:09.000 --> 10:15.000]  you want to be very careful to watch what's called latches and statutes of limitation.
[10:15.000 --> 10:21.000]  Generally, legislatures say that a particular cause of action has to be filed in a certain period of time,
[10:21.000 --> 10:24.000]  or you lose that cause of action.
[10:24.000 --> 10:33.000]  Now, the original reason that I've read about that stated this is if we're back in, let's say we're back in the Old West in 1870,
[10:33.000 --> 10:43.000]  and the local general store operator, Mr. Jones, has not an enemy in the world.
[10:43.000 --> 10:51.000]  He's been a good citizen to all the people in the town of Deadwood,
[10:51.000 --> 10:57.000]  and he decides at some point in time, four years from then, to run for office.
[10:57.000 --> 11:01.000]  Well, he's running for office against the incumbent who has been there.
[11:01.000 --> 11:06.000]  Maybe he's the cattleman, maybe he's a railroad man or something,
[11:06.000 --> 11:13.000]  and he's been in office for 20 years and people are just really fed up with his, we don't care about anybody but the rich.
[11:13.000 --> 11:23.000]  So the general store person runs against him, and all of a sudden, the incumbent, Mr. Jones,
[11:23.000 --> 11:28.000]  fabricates a lawsuit against the store owner.
[11:28.000 --> 11:33.000]  Comes out of nowhere, says, oh, he cheated me, he did this and this and this,
[11:33.000 --> 11:37.000]  gets a couple witnesses to testify and brings a lawsuit.
[11:37.000 --> 11:43.000]  The idea is now the store owner, who did I call him? Did I call him Mr. Smith?
[11:43.000 --> 11:44.000]  Store owner?
[11:44.000 --> 11:45.000]  I think he was Jones.
[11:45.000 --> 11:46.000]  What?
[11:46.000 --> 11:48.000]  Let's go with Jones.
[11:48.000 --> 11:52.000]  Okay, Jones. And the railroad guy is who? Snidely Whiplash?
[11:52.000 --> 11:54.000]  Yeah, that'll work.
[11:54.000 --> 12:05.000]  Okay, Snidely Whiplash essentially gets his cohorts and his railroad people to lie about things that Mr. Jones did several years ago.
[12:05.000 --> 12:10.000]  There's no documents to support any of what happened because Mr. Jones hasn't kept the documents.
[12:10.000 --> 12:16.000]  In those years, nobody had large filing cabinets and kept paperwork forever and ever and ever.
[12:16.000 --> 12:21.000]  So it would be hard for Mr. Jones to prove that he didn't do it.
[12:21.000 --> 12:25.000]  So even though the burden of proof is on the other party, Snidely Whiplash,
[12:25.000 --> 12:34.000]  to actually prove that these things occurred, just by the testimony of Trump fabricated witnesses,
[12:34.000 --> 12:36.000]  make it look like Mr. Jones is guilty.
[12:36.000 --> 12:41.000]  However, the law went in and said, you know, if you've been harmed in this way,
[12:41.000 --> 12:44.000]  we're going to give you a certain period of time to act. Why?
[12:44.000 --> 12:48.000]  Because people aren't going to keep documents and paperwork around forever.
[12:48.000 --> 12:52.000]  We can't let you just make up something down the road.
[12:52.000 --> 12:54.000]  So they set the statute of limitations.
[12:54.000 --> 13:01.000]  Now, anybody hearing this is probably saying, yeah, but some of the statute of limitations are ridiculously short.
[13:01.000 --> 13:04.000]  Yes, those are done for political reasons.
[13:04.000 --> 13:11.000]  Most of the time, statute of limitations against the government or large corporations are set very short,
[13:11.000 --> 13:14.000]  one year, two years, three years, four years.
[13:14.000 --> 13:24.000]  Yet if they want to come after you for failure to make a payment or failing to pay a parking ticket or something,
[13:24.000 --> 13:26.000]  they make that as long as they want.
[13:26.000 --> 13:29.000]  So it's unfair from that perspective.
[13:29.000 --> 13:35.000]  Now, in the modern days of computers now, where everybody says everything,
[13:35.000 --> 13:42.000]  I don't think the short period of time for statute of limitations needs to be as short as they've been.
[13:42.000 --> 13:46.000]  What needs to happen is a requirement that if you go beyond a certain period of time,
[13:46.000 --> 13:51.000]  you need more than anecdotal evidence, meaning testimony of people.
[13:51.000 --> 13:56.000]  You need documents to support the fact that what these people said actually occurred.
[13:56.000 --> 14:01.000]  So if you want to prove a fraud, you better have the documents that go along with the fraud.
[14:01.000 --> 14:06.000]  You better be able to prove that you actually bought something from Mr. Jones' general store
[14:06.000 --> 14:08.000]  and that he cheated you by never delivering it.
[14:08.000 --> 14:12.000]  You paid him money, you showed the contract, but he never delivered it.
[14:12.000 --> 14:15.000]  There's no bill of sales, final bill of sales, yet you paid the money.
[14:15.000 --> 14:18.000]  Okay, now there's documents to support the claim.
[14:18.000 --> 14:24.000]  And I don't see any problem with the idea of extending periods of statute of limitations.
[14:24.000 --> 14:28.000]  Would you address latches?
[14:28.000 --> 14:34.000]  Latches are a little bit more complicated.
[14:34.000 --> 14:39.000]  And latches are like statute of limitations, and if we do something about latches,
[14:39.000 --> 14:43.000]  we'll do it separately, but they're the same kind of issue.
[14:43.000 --> 14:47.000]  In all of the work I've done on all of the cases I have seen,
[14:47.000 --> 14:53.000]  I have never run across a latch that prohibited a particular suit.
[14:53.000 --> 14:59.000]  So latches, you know, we could look it up in the Black Flaw Dictionary, but it's the same kind of thing.
[14:59.000 --> 15:07.000]  It's a rule or regulation that says it bars certain types of actions within a certain type of context.
[15:07.000 --> 15:11.000]  So latches are like a very special definition.
[15:11.000 --> 15:15.000]  We can get into that at another time.
[15:15.000 --> 15:21.000]  But statute of limitations is absolutely essential because that's going to be the issue that's going to nail you
[15:21.000 --> 15:25.000]  as far as being able to bring a case or not.
[15:25.000 --> 15:29.000]  And what about a stopple?
[15:29.000 --> 15:40.000]  A stopple is another one of those really strange, let's talk about, let me see, how can I define a stopple?
[15:40.000 --> 15:46.000]  A stopple is a principle of what parties say.
[15:46.000 --> 15:50.000]  It's a position or perspective that they say.
[15:50.000 --> 16:02.000]  So if, let's say in one suit, a party says, oh, I live here at, you know, 111 Main Street.
[16:02.000 --> 16:13.000]  So there's no way that I participated in or my dog bit you living on 2nd Avenue, which is nowhere near 111 Main Street.
[16:13.000 --> 16:18.000]  But then they come in to a different cause of action, later trying to sue you for something,
[16:18.000 --> 16:20.000]  and now they say they live on 2nd Avenue.
[16:20.000 --> 16:23.000]  Oh, they can't do that.
[16:23.000 --> 16:26.000]  They've already made a statement that they live on Main Street.
[16:26.000 --> 16:29.000]  They're barred by the principle of a stopple.
[16:29.000 --> 16:36.000]  They're stopped from pleading to change because it's a change in place.
[16:36.000 --> 16:44.000]  Anytime something is established as a matter of law, they are stopped from pleading the office.
[16:44.000 --> 16:45.000]  We're going to break.
[16:45.000 --> 16:49.000]  All right, yes, we're going to break. Ken, we'll be right back and we'll talk more about a stopple on the other side.
[16:49.000 --> 16:52.000]  This is the rule of law, Rady Kelton and Deborah Stevens.
[16:52.000 --> 16:59.000]  We'll be right back.
[16:59.000 --> 17:03.000]  Are you looking for an investment that has no stock market risk?
[17:03.000 --> 17:06.000]  Has a 100% track record of returning profits?
[17:06.000 --> 17:11.000]  Is not affected by fluctuations in oil prices and interest rates?
[17:11.000 --> 17:14.000]  Is publicly traded and SEC regulated?
[17:14.000 --> 17:18.000]  If this kind of peace of mind is what you have been looking for in an investment,
[17:18.000 --> 17:21.000]  then life settlements is the investment for you.
[17:21.000 --> 17:27.000]  Our annual rate of return has been 15.83% for the last 17 years.
[17:27.000 --> 17:31.000]  Our investments are insurance and banking commission regulated.
[17:31.000 --> 17:35.000]  Our returns are assured by the largest insurance companies.
[17:35.000 --> 17:41.000]  Even qualified retirement plans such as 401Ks and IRAs are eligible for transfer.
[17:41.000 --> 17:44.000]  We charge absolutely no commissions.
[17:44.000 --> 17:47.000]  100% of your investment goes to work for you.
[17:47.000 --> 17:56.000]  Please visit sleepwellinvestment.com or call Bill Schober at 817-975-2431.
[17:56.000 --> 18:06.000]  That's sleepwellinvestment.com or call 817-975-2431.
[18:06.000 --> 18:11.000]  Thank you very much.
[18:36.000 --> 18:44.000]  All right.
[18:44.000 --> 18:45.000]  We are back.
[18:45.000 --> 18:47.000]  Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens.
[18:47.000 --> 18:51.000]  We're here with Ken Magnuson talking about the principle of a stopple.
[18:51.000 --> 18:53.000]  And we've got Dan Reel on the line.
[18:53.000 --> 18:56.000]  And, Randy, you wanted to make a comment about a stopple.
[18:56.000 --> 19:03.000]  And then if we could just put that topic on hold just for a minute so we could hear what Dan has to say.
[19:03.000 --> 19:04.000]  He has a question for us.
[19:04.000 --> 19:10.000]  A stopple kind of goes to the things that you'd be sitting in the court and the other side would try to do something.
[19:10.000 --> 19:14.000]  And you'd say, hey, wait a minute, wait a minute, he can't do that.
[19:14.000 --> 19:24.000]  Where you have, we ask people if they bring things up for a judicial notice.
[19:24.000 --> 19:31.000]  Or say you file a request for admissions and they don't respond to the admissions.
[19:31.000 --> 19:36.000]  And then they have, as a matter of law, admitted everything in the admissions.
[19:36.000 --> 19:43.000]  And then trying to bring that up in court goes to a stopple.
[19:43.000 --> 19:52.000]  They're stopped from challenging anything that has been accepted by judicial notice in the court
[19:52.000 --> 19:56.000]  so that the court doesn't have to keep re-arguing all these issues.
[19:56.000 --> 20:03.000]  And once the issue becomes fixed as a matter of law, then the other side is stopped from using it.
[20:03.000 --> 20:08.000]  And I was reading through causes of action and I come across a promissory stopple.
[20:08.000 --> 20:20.000]  That's where if you have a contract with someone and they have agreed in the contract to do one thing as opposed to another,
[20:20.000 --> 20:24.000]  they must do the one thing and they are stopped from doing the other.
[20:24.000 --> 20:31.000]  So if they do the second thing, then you can sue them for a promissory stopple.
[20:31.000 --> 20:33.000]  That's also a cause of action.
[20:33.000 --> 20:37.000]  Yes, promissory stopple is a specific cause of action.
[20:37.000 --> 20:45.000]  Most stopple is a basis of stopping somebody from within the court from pleading a specific perspective
[20:45.000 --> 20:51.000]  based on information that they've already provided or the other side has already relied upon.
[20:51.000 --> 21:00.000]  So I came across a case in which some administrative cases in which the party had lost an administrative case
[21:00.000 --> 21:04.000]  and was going to take it to district court for what they call judicial review.
[21:04.000 --> 21:14.000]  The process requires the party that's harmed to ask the agency the process for appeal to judicial review.
[21:14.000 --> 21:21.000]  The party relied upon the procedures specified but lied, misconstrued those,
[21:21.000 --> 21:26.000]  in order to deny the party the opportunity for the judicial review.
[21:26.000 --> 21:29.000]  I heard some ringing. Hello?
[21:29.000 --> 21:31.000]  Yes, go ahead. Sorry.
[21:31.000 --> 21:32.000]  Okay.
[21:32.000 --> 21:33.000]  Sorry about that.
[21:33.000 --> 21:37.000]  So what happens is the party relied upon that information, came into court,
[21:37.000 --> 21:44.000]  and then the party that provided the information complained that they didn't meet the requirements of the appeal.
[21:44.000 --> 21:51.000]  The other party argued what's called equitable stopple, indicating that they relied upon the information
[21:51.000 --> 21:56.000]  and that the information, even if it wasn't done deliberately, was inaccurate,
[21:56.000 --> 22:02.000]  and that inaccuracy misled them down a path and they were barred to complain about it
[22:02.000 --> 22:07.000]  since they had created that path, if everybody followed that.
[22:07.000 --> 22:11.000]  Yeah, you can't tell somebody that it's okay to do something this way
[22:11.000 --> 22:14.000]  and then kick them in the butt for doing it that way.
[22:14.000 --> 22:19.000]  Right. It happens all the time in administrative appeals,
[22:19.000 --> 22:23.000]  and the best thing to do is never rely upon the enemy for information.
[22:23.000 --> 22:24.000]  Yeah, really.
[22:24.000 --> 22:25.000]  Right.
[22:25.000 --> 22:29.000]  Well, that got me thrown in jail the other day.
[22:29.000 --> 22:33.000]  All right, well, should we go to Dan?
[22:33.000 --> 22:34.000]  Yes.
[22:34.000 --> 22:35.000]  He's got a question.
[22:35.000 --> 22:36.000]  Let's go to the question. I'm curious.
[22:36.000 --> 22:38.000]  Yeah, Dan has a question for our guest, Ken.
[22:38.000 --> 22:42.000]  Oh, this goes so well into the question I wanted to ask.
[22:42.000 --> 22:48.000]  Entrapment by a stopple, is it possible and how would it work specifically?
[22:48.000 --> 22:51.000]  That's kind of a contradiction of terms there.
[22:51.000 --> 22:55.000]  Yeah, I heard of it, but, you know, I mean, it seemed very strange,
[22:55.000 --> 22:58.000]  so I guess I wanted to just throw that out there.
[22:58.000 --> 23:01.000]  I mean, it was something I found, God, maybe 18 months ago,
[23:01.000 --> 23:05.000]  and it was just kind of one of those thoughts you'd have when you're falling asleep,
[23:05.000 --> 23:07.000]  but I was curious about it, so I guess...
[23:07.000 --> 23:13.000]  This is only hypothetical on my part, but what it sounds like is that a party,
[23:13.000 --> 23:18.000]  through some actions in which they shouldn't have acted,
[23:18.000 --> 23:25.000]  led you to an action that was either illegal or improper according to the contract,
[23:25.000 --> 23:29.000]  but you did it based on the actions of the other party,
[23:29.000 --> 23:32.000]  and you thought you were relying upon them.
[23:32.000 --> 23:36.000]  So what happens is then they start a cause of action against you, and you say,
[23:36.000 --> 23:41.000]  no, entrapment, you created the circumstances that made me act,
[23:41.000 --> 23:44.000]  and now you're complaining that I acted.
[23:44.000 --> 23:48.000]  Yeah, you're supposed to do this, and you should do that, and you should do this.
[23:48.000 --> 23:53.000]  You go and do that, and then they say, ah, look what he did now, he can't move ahead.
[23:53.000 --> 23:58.000]  Right, they enticed you to do it, so I think that would be...
[23:58.000 --> 24:01.000]  And I think that's a special case of equitable estoppel.
[24:01.000 --> 24:04.000]  It's the same thing, it's the same kind of aspect,
[24:04.000 --> 24:08.000]  where you relied upon the other party's information,
[24:08.000 --> 24:11.000]  and then they walked you into a particular situation
[24:11.000 --> 24:17.000]  in which they claimed a cause of action against you based on relying on their information.
[24:17.000 --> 24:20.000]  And that would also go to fraud.
[24:20.000 --> 24:21.000]  So to what?
[24:21.000 --> 24:26.000]  It would seem that estoppel of that nature would go to fraud.
[24:26.000 --> 24:29.000]  It could be, very much so.
[24:29.000 --> 24:32.000]  Where you make a statement that's untrue,
[24:32.000 --> 24:39.000]  and if the petitioner relies on your untrue statement and is harmed by it.
[24:39.000 --> 24:43.000]  It's not that you necessarily have to make a statement untrue.
[24:43.000 --> 24:47.000]  There's also the absence of estoppel.
[24:47.000 --> 24:52.000]  Estoppel can also be raised when another party, in say a contract,
[24:52.000 --> 24:57.000]  had a duty to tell you something and remain silent.
[24:57.000 --> 25:01.000]  That's also estoppel.
[25:01.000 --> 25:04.000]  They can't complain about the harm that was caused,
[25:04.000 --> 25:08.000]  because they could have stopped it had they disclosed it.
[25:08.000 --> 25:12.000]  But they didn't disclose it, and the disclosure was incumbent upon them.
[25:12.000 --> 25:16.000]  They knew, they had knowledge, and they had a duty to tell you,
[25:16.000 --> 25:17.000]  and they didn't do so.
[25:17.000 --> 25:22.000]  Okay, so even if them not telling you didn't amount to fraud,
[25:22.000 --> 25:25.000]  they're stopped from raising an issue about it.
[25:25.000 --> 25:26.000]  Okay, good.
[25:26.000 --> 25:31.000]  Right.
[25:31.000 --> 25:36.000]  Dan, you had seven things you wanted to address?
[25:36.000 --> 25:37.000]  Yes.
[25:37.000 --> 25:39.000]  As a matter of fact, if it would work better for you,
[25:39.000 --> 25:43.000]  I could just hold on and wait until your guest is done.
[25:43.000 --> 25:45.000]  Okay, let's do that.
[25:45.000 --> 25:48.000]  I'm not sure that will ever happen.
[25:48.000 --> 25:49.000]  How much time do you need, Dan?
[25:49.000 --> 25:51.000]  I have the same thing about what I'm doing,
[25:51.000 --> 25:54.000]  but I'm another evil rival radio network host,
[25:54.000 --> 25:55.000]  and you know how that goes, Randy.
[25:55.000 --> 25:58.000]  How much time do you need, Dan?
[25:58.000 --> 26:01.000]  Probably about 15 minutes.
[26:01.000 --> 26:02.000]  Oh, okay.
[26:02.000 --> 26:04.000]  Let's do that now and kind of give Ken a break.
[26:04.000 --> 26:08.000]  Like one segment?
[26:08.000 --> 26:11.000]  Like you need like one segment, Dan?
[26:11.000 --> 26:12.000]  Maybe about that.
[26:12.000 --> 26:15.000]  I'm not sure how it would work depending on any questions you had,
[26:15.000 --> 26:19.000]  but first I just wanted to say the Oswald assassination museum
[26:19.000 --> 26:22.000]  and the book room depository,
[26:22.000 --> 26:29.000]  really historically accurate because Oswald's not in it.
[26:29.000 --> 26:31.000]  Oh, my goodness.
[26:31.000 --> 26:32.000]  Okay.
[26:32.000 --> 26:34.000]  Okay, Dan, you were going to tell a joke.
[26:34.000 --> 26:37.000]  That was the joke.
[26:37.000 --> 26:40.000]  This is where you play the drums and go, haha,
[26:40.000 --> 26:43.000]  you put so much.
[26:43.000 --> 26:45.000]  Okay, Dan, continue.
[26:45.000 --> 26:50.000]  Working paper 666, I don't know why it had that number,
[26:50.000 --> 26:54.000]  but that's out of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank.
[26:54.000 --> 26:56.000]  There's a lot of stuff going out in the credit crisis
[26:56.000 --> 26:58.000]  about how no one can get loans,
[26:58.000 --> 27:04.000]  and the title of the paper was three myths of the 2008 financial crisis,
[27:04.000 --> 27:06.000]  and they actually graphed it out.
[27:06.000 --> 27:08.000]  It turns out more loans were being given out
[27:08.000 --> 27:11.000]  despite the fact that Bear Stearns went under,
[27:11.000 --> 27:16.000]  Washington Mutual was bailed out, all that other happy stuff,
[27:16.000 --> 27:21.000]  and I actually did a show on it on my evil rival radio network at RTRradio.com,
[27:21.000 --> 27:26.000]  which stands for Evil Rival Radio Network.
[27:26.000 --> 27:28.000]  That was no plug intended, right?
[27:28.000 --> 27:30.000]  Oh, no plug intended.
[27:30.000 --> 27:32.000]  RTR stands for Evil Rival Radio Network.
[27:32.000 --> 27:34.000]  Yeah, so does GCN.
[27:34.000 --> 27:39.000]  Oh, yeah, GSN, if I'm not mistaken.
[27:39.000 --> 27:41.000]  You had a caller on.
[27:41.000 --> 27:44.000]  I did hear this earlier, and like I say before,
[27:44.000 --> 27:48.000]  one thing I hate about calling in is I just get so many things that just keep coming up.
[27:48.000 --> 27:53.000]  I think it was Metta mentioned there was a new Constitution hanging around.
[27:53.000 --> 27:58.000]  That is called the Constitution for the New States of America,
[27:58.000 --> 28:00.000]  and I did a show on it,
[28:00.000 --> 28:04.000]  and I know Michael Badner did a show on it on his network, too,
[28:04.000 --> 28:08.000]  and it's a completely offensive, horrible document,
[28:08.000 --> 28:10.000]  and it's just been lying around,
[28:10.000 --> 28:13.000]  kind of like Joe Biden had the Patriot Act lying around.
[28:13.000 --> 28:17.000]  It's just there waiting for him to dust it off when they need it,
[28:17.000 --> 28:20.000]  so it's already there, and that is true.
[28:20.000 --> 28:24.000]  Mark Adams was mentioning that there was a stimulus protest.
[28:24.000 --> 28:27.000]  There was actually one in Hartford today, too, believe it or not.
[28:27.000 --> 28:33.000]  Dan, is there a Web site people could go to to look at this evil second Constitution
[28:33.000 --> 28:36.000]  for the New States or whatever it's called again?
[28:36.000 --> 28:38.000]  What is it called now?
[28:38.000 --> 28:40.000]  The Constitution for the New States of America.
[28:40.000 --> 28:41.000]  Okay.
[28:41.000 --> 28:43.000]  Is there a Web site where somebody could go look at that?
[28:43.000 --> 28:47.000]  I don't have it offhand because I am downstairs right now,
[28:47.000 --> 28:51.000]  but I did a program on my show, Re-liberating the Constitution.
[28:51.000 --> 28:56.000]  You can find it through Ixquick if you don't want to use evil Google,
[28:56.000 --> 28:58.000]  which is evil.
[28:58.000 --> 29:00.000]  But it's easily accessible.
[29:00.000 --> 29:05.000]  It talks about a whole bunch of new positions, including overseer.
[29:05.000 --> 29:06.000]  That's really it.
[29:06.000 --> 29:08.000]  Note it.
[29:08.000 --> 29:14.000]  I think it was the sociologist or one of those type of people at the University of Colorado,
[29:14.000 --> 29:19.000]  I'm thinking, but it was written in 1973,
[29:19.000 --> 29:22.000]  and I just remembered it because the caller brought it up.
[29:22.000 --> 29:25.000]  I have it somewhere in my notes, but it is there.
[29:25.000 --> 29:26.000]  1973.
[29:26.000 --> 29:29.000]  That was during the Nixon administration.
[29:29.000 --> 29:32.000]  Yep.
[29:32.000 --> 29:34.000]  Yeah, there's actually a story.
[29:34.000 --> 29:36.000]  Now that you mention it, I'd like to tell,
[29:36.000 --> 29:38.000]  and it goes with that documentary, The Money Masters.
[29:38.000 --> 29:39.000]  Okay.
[29:39.000 --> 29:41.000]  Well, hold that to the other side, Dan.
[29:41.000 --> 29:42.000]  We're going to break.
[29:42.000 --> 29:44.000]  We've got Russell from Texas on the line as well.
[29:44.000 --> 29:48.000]  We'll bring him up after you finish your point to next segment.
[29:48.000 --> 29:49.000]  All right.
[29:49.000 --> 29:51.000]  This is the rule of law, Rady Kelton and Deborah Stevens.
[29:51.000 --> 29:53.000]  We'll be right back.
[29:53.000 --> 30:02.000]  Gold prices are at historic highs, and with the recent pullback,
[30:02.000 --> 30:04.000]  this is a great time to buy.
[30:04.000 --> 30:08.000]  With the value of the dollar, risks of inflation, geopolitical uncertainties,
[30:08.000 --> 30:12.000]  and instability in rural financial systems, I see gold going up much higher.
[30:12.000 --> 30:15.000]  Hi, I'm Tim Fry at Roberts & Roberts Brokerage.
[30:15.000 --> 30:19.000]  Everybody should have some of their assets in investment-grade precious metals.
[30:19.000 --> 30:22.000]  At Roberts & Roberts Brokerage, you can buy gold, silver,
[30:22.000 --> 30:25.000]  or platinum with confidence from a brokerage that's specialized
[30:25.000 --> 30:28.000]  in the precious metals market since 1977.
[30:28.000 --> 30:31.000]  If you are new to precious metals, we will happily provide you
[30:31.000 --> 30:34.000]  with the information you need to make an informed decision
[30:34.000 --> 30:36.000]  whether or not you choose to purchase from us.
[30:36.000 --> 30:39.000]  Also, Roberts & Roberts Brokerage values your privacy
[30:39.000 --> 30:42.000]  and will always advise you in the event that we would be required
[30:42.000 --> 30:44.000]  to report any transaction.
[30:44.000 --> 30:47.000]  If you have gold, silver, or platinum you'd like to sell,
[30:47.000 --> 30:49.000]  we can convert it for immediate payment.
[30:49.000 --> 30:53.000]  Call us at 800-874-9760.
[30:53.000 --> 30:59.000]  We're Roberts & Roberts Brokerage, 800-874-9760.
[30:59.000 --> 31:03.000]  Hello.
[31:03.000 --> 31:07.000]  Yes, George, how good of you to call.
[31:07.000 --> 31:12.000]  Yeah, we had dinner with the Cheneys last week.
[31:12.000 --> 31:18.000]  We had a great time sitting around talking about politics.
[31:18.000 --> 31:21.000]  All right, we are back.
[31:21.000 --> 31:23.000]  The rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens.
[31:23.000 --> 31:30.000]  We're here with Dan Reel, the real deal from Connecticut, Ken Magnuson.
[31:30.000 --> 31:33.000]  All right, Dan, you were just about to tell a story.
[31:33.000 --> 31:36.000]  Yeah, have you guys ever heard of the Money Masters?
[31:36.000 --> 31:39.000]  It was a documentary done by Bill Still before.
[31:39.000 --> 31:40.000]  Yes.
[31:40.000 --> 31:44.000]  Bill Still actually had a story that he was talking about when he
[31:44.000 --> 31:47.000]  was doing speech for these people about it.
[31:47.000 --> 31:51.000]  And his father, believe it or not, was anyway,
[31:51.000 --> 31:56.000]  they attempted to recruit him for a revolution in the United States.
[31:56.000 --> 32:00.000]  And he was actually a member of the Air Force at the time.
[32:00.000 --> 32:02.000]  And they basically said, we'll pay you whatever you want.
[32:02.000 --> 32:07.000]  And it was kind of along the lines of the business plot of 1933,
[32:07.000 --> 32:08.000]  which essentially, you know,
[32:08.000 --> 32:13.000]  they wanted to topple Roosevelt and install a fascist government.
[32:13.000 --> 32:20.000]  But yeah, that just kind of reminded me of that when Nixon came up.
[32:20.000 --> 32:24.000]  But that kind of stuff has been going on a lot more than people realize.
[32:24.000 --> 32:26.000]  And I'm kind of suspecting that might happen again,
[32:26.000 --> 32:28.000]  so I figured I would mention it.
[32:28.000 --> 32:30.000]  Another thing I wanted to mention,
[32:30.000 --> 32:33.000]  I'm just going to go through this so I can get out of your hair and everything.
[32:33.000 --> 32:39.000]  But I came up with an idea for a protest for the stimulus.
[32:39.000 --> 32:43.000]  And it turns out the tax cut every two weeks for the average person
[32:43.000 --> 32:46.000]  would amount to $15.
[32:46.000 --> 32:49.000]  So I figured, wouldn't it be such a good idea if we all just bought a pizza
[32:49.000 --> 32:52.000]  and went down to our congressman's office or our senator's office
[32:52.000 --> 32:54.000]  and just ate it?
[32:54.000 --> 32:55.000]  We wouldn't call it a pizza.
[32:55.000 --> 33:00.000]  We would say, I'm enjoying my delicious tax cut.
[33:00.000 --> 33:02.000]  That's an idea.
[33:02.000 --> 33:04.000]  I think that's great for the pizza industry.
[33:04.000 --> 33:05.000]  Oh, certainly.
[33:05.000 --> 33:07.000]  We'd at least be stimulating something.
[33:07.000 --> 33:11.000]  I mean, with pepperoni or sausage or whatever you wanted to bring.
[33:11.000 --> 33:14.000]  Heartburn.
[33:14.000 --> 33:18.000]  It would be a great heartburn stimulus.
[33:18.000 --> 33:19.000]  Indeed.
[33:19.000 --> 33:24.000]  But yeah, just to get through this, state sovereignty bills,
[33:24.000 --> 33:26.000]  I mean, there is a lot of hope.
[33:26.000 --> 33:29.000]  Most of the states, believe it or not, have already submitted them,
[33:29.000 --> 33:31.000]  if not for that, for real ID.
[33:31.000 --> 33:36.000]  And in Connecticut, proposed Senate Bill 436, it's still in play.
[33:36.000 --> 33:38.000]  There was a lot of favorable testimony,
[33:38.000 --> 33:42.000]  and that's to basically get rid of it in Connecticut.
[33:42.000 --> 33:46.000]  And we just need a lot of people to call if you're listening in Connecticut.
[33:46.000 --> 33:50.000]  I know you guys have listeners in Connecticut because they went ahead
[33:50.000 --> 33:52.000]  and they contacted me.
[33:52.000 --> 33:56.000]  But my state representative actually did make the motion to bring it to a vote,
[33:56.000 --> 33:59.000]  so we could probably really get that rolling
[33:59.000 --> 34:04.000]  and add one of the most unlikely states to this.
[34:04.000 --> 34:10.000]  What would be the actual effect if it is passed?
[34:10.000 --> 34:13.000]  Well, we would basically not comply with real ID.
[34:13.000 --> 34:15.000]  We would basically throw out, you know,
[34:15.000 --> 34:18.000]  the idea of spending all the money on the new equipment.
[34:18.000 --> 34:22.000]  We would throw out all the liaisons with the federal government required for this,
[34:22.000 --> 34:30.000]  and there would be no RFID chip in the license.
[34:30.000 --> 34:35.000]  What do you expect the federal government to do to try to enforce?
[34:35.000 --> 34:40.000]  Well, based on what happened with the last Secretary of Homeland Security,
[34:40.000 --> 34:42.000]  Michael Chertoff, he backed down.
[34:42.000 --> 34:45.000]  Initially he was saying, well, you guys won't be able to get on a plane,
[34:45.000 --> 34:49.000]  but he eventually admitted that would be impossible to enforce.
[34:49.000 --> 34:52.000]  I mean, not that, you know, it's unconstitutional,
[34:52.000 --> 34:55.000]  but in a way he essentially admitted we can't do this.
[34:55.000 --> 34:59.000]  It's, you know, unconstitutional, so we're not even going to bother.
[34:59.000 --> 35:05.000]  I mean, I know he's got a new one, but it would at least slow them down a little bit,
[35:05.000 --> 35:11.000]  and it would send a very embarrassing statement at the same time.
[35:11.000 --> 35:12.000]  Good.
[35:12.000 --> 35:21.000]  I'm hoping these proclamations that the states are trying to pass declaring their sovereignty,
[35:21.000 --> 35:26.000]  I was kind of hoping we could get some teeth put into them.
[35:26.000 --> 35:30.000]  I mean, if we just go up here and stand up in front of the federal government
[35:30.000 --> 35:36.000]  and say, yo, Bubba, we're sovereign, the federal government's going to say, yeah, your point is?
[35:36.000 --> 35:38.000]  Yeah, I know what you're saying there.
[35:38.000 --> 35:43.000]  And in Connecticut, I don't know if you guys have been to Connecticut at all,
[35:43.000 --> 35:48.000]  but, you know, we're kind of just finding an awareness of ourselves up here.
[35:48.000 --> 35:53.000]  I know in Texas, Montana, South Carolina, it's a different story.
[35:53.000 --> 35:56.000]  I mean, at least there's a little more awareness down there.
[35:56.000 --> 36:01.000]  But in Connecticut, you know, the fact that this has even happened here,
[36:01.000 --> 36:02.000]  I mean, you have to think of it.
[36:02.000 --> 36:05.000]  This is Chris Dodd territory.
[36:05.000 --> 36:08.000]  Chris Dodd's father, he's the senator from Connecticut,
[36:08.000 --> 36:14.000]  actually introduced the 1968 Gun Control Act, which was translated from German,
[36:14.000 --> 36:18.000]  and that was another one of Hitler's prized pieces of legislation.
[36:18.000 --> 36:22.000]  I mean, this is, you know, Bush territory right up here, too, in a way.
[36:22.000 --> 36:24.000]  How about Joe Lieberman?
[36:24.000 --> 36:26.000]  Yeah, Lieberscum, too.
[36:26.000 --> 36:30.000]  Did I say that?
[36:30.000 --> 36:37.000]  Yeah, we really, I'm sorry, we really put, you know, a big dent in the spokes.
[36:37.000 --> 36:45.000]  We really threw a pretty big monkey wrench just by getting this legislation fielded.
[36:45.000 --> 36:53.000]  Well, I am extremely pleased to see so many states raising a red flag
[36:53.000 --> 36:57.000]  to the federal government, to the federal government encroachment.
[36:57.000 --> 37:01.000]  Even if these proclamations have no teeth in them,
[37:01.000 --> 37:04.000]  at least they're waving a red flag in front of the federal government,
[37:04.000 --> 37:07.000]  warning them to back up.
[37:07.000 --> 37:17.000]  So it may slow down the one world order, the new world order, at least for a little while,
[37:17.000 --> 37:21.000]  give us time to get the courts back.
[37:21.000 --> 37:25.000]  Let's take Russell.
[37:25.000 --> 37:27.000]  We don't want to make him mad, make him wait too long.
[37:27.000 --> 37:33.000]  Okay. All right, let's go to Russell in Texas.
[37:33.000 --> 37:36.000]  Hey, Russell, thanks for calling in. What's on your mind tonight?
[37:36.000 --> 37:37.000]  Hey, what's up?
[37:37.000 --> 37:40.000]  Well, I'll tell you what would happen when the next stimulus bill,
[37:40.000 --> 37:42.000]  they'll have something hidden in that thing,
[37:42.000 --> 37:45.000]  saying that they'll have the states to take the money.
[37:45.000 --> 37:53.000]  The states will have to initiate the Drivers License Act, whatever you call it.
[37:53.000 --> 37:56.000]  I'm surprised you didn't put it in this one.
[37:56.000 --> 38:00.000]  But anyway, I wanted to talk, Ken brought up a stopple earlier.
[38:00.000 --> 38:04.000]  I wanted to ask him a question about a stopple.
[38:04.000 --> 38:09.000]  Say you litigate something and say it's in bankruptcy court in 2005,
[38:09.000 --> 38:15.000]  but since that litigation you discovered that the other party was not honest
[38:15.000 --> 38:22.000]  or the other party, there was some new evidence involved in your issue.
[38:22.000 --> 38:27.000]  Can't you open that back up or can they claim a stopple on that?
[38:27.000 --> 38:34.000]  Well, this gets into a specific area. It depends on what they did.
[38:34.000 --> 38:38.000]  If they presented information affirmatively in the court as fleeting
[38:38.000 --> 38:44.000]  and stated something that was false, they committed fraud upon the court.
[38:44.000 --> 38:49.000]  And that's not only an opportunity to re-litigate,
[38:49.000 --> 38:55.000]  it's also a cause of action independently for the fraud, for the damage done by that fraud.
[38:55.000 --> 39:01.000]  It also would lead to potentially the argument to move for summary judgment against them
[39:01.000 --> 39:03.000]  because of that fraud.
[39:03.000 --> 39:07.000]  And if they had been the prevailing party in the past, because of what they said.
[39:07.000 --> 39:10.000]  And it has to be germane to the issue.
[39:10.000 --> 39:14.000]  If the ruling of the court had nothing to do with that issue and it was a side issue,
[39:14.000 --> 39:17.000]  like they talked about accounts and they talked about money,
[39:17.000 --> 39:22.000]  and then one of them came in and said my dog's name is Spock.
[39:22.000 --> 39:28.000]  And it turns out his dog isn't named Spock. That's not pertinent to the issue.
[39:28.000 --> 39:32.000]  So it's got to be germane to the actual decision that the court made.
[39:32.000 --> 39:38.000]  And if that's the case, then I would see that there would be reason to reopen it based on the fact that they lied.
[39:38.000 --> 39:42.000]  You can't commit fraud upon the court.
[39:42.000 --> 39:46.000]  Well, your problem in this, this involved a mortgage.
[39:46.000 --> 39:51.000]  And you have my attorney in bankruptcy court and their attorney in bankruptcy court.
[39:51.000 --> 39:57.000]  Of course, their attorney is not, you know, the mortgage company didn't disclose all the facts to their attorney.
[39:57.000 --> 40:02.000]  So they just did the best, you know, settlement type thing that they knew how to do.
[40:02.000 --> 40:09.000]  But when the other parties are not disclosing that, I mean, you can find, for instance,
[40:09.000 --> 40:14.000]  you can find on the Securities and Exchange Commission any public traded mortgage,
[40:14.000 --> 40:19.000]  you can find what's called a 424B5 report.
[40:19.000 --> 40:24.000]  And that report alone will show that they sold the mortgage to another company.
[40:24.000 --> 40:28.000]  And that alone is enough information to get rid of somebody's mortgage.
[40:28.000 --> 40:34.000]  But yet they, you know, they don't disclose all these things when you're having all these mortgage battles.
[40:34.000 --> 40:42.000]  Well, the first aspect of the disclosure is, was it specifically requested under discovery?
[40:42.000 --> 40:46.000]  If it was, there's not an incumbent requirement necessarily unless it's that story.
[40:46.000 --> 40:54.000]  The mortgage is the contract. If you're going to sue on a contract, you have to produce a contract.
[40:54.000 --> 41:00.000]  Oh, that don't always work like that, Randy, especially here in Texas.
[41:00.000 --> 41:07.000]  We're back talking about federal judges, and I think I made the comment about them already.
[41:07.000 --> 41:13.000]  The issue, though, is that the only way you get to raise an issue like that is if it was discoverable
[41:13.000 --> 41:16.000]  and you didn't request the discovery, you waived the issue.
[41:16.000 --> 41:22.000]  Now, I'm going to tell you right now that, I'm going to tell you this, everybody listen.
[41:22.000 --> 41:32.000]  The most dangerous person in the courtroom is the lawyer representing you.
[41:32.000 --> 41:35.000]  Everybody heard that, right?
[41:35.000 --> 41:38.000]  He's the one that can waive your rights.
[41:38.000 --> 41:39.000]  That's right.
[41:39.000 --> 41:42.000]  Yep, the most dangerous man in the courtroom is your own attorney, that's for sure.
[41:42.000 --> 41:47.000]  Right, so the issue here is even though we've been talking about fleeting in the court yourself,
[41:47.000 --> 41:52.000]  if you get an attorney, you don't throw your hands up and go back to watching TV.
[41:52.000 --> 41:55.000]  You sit down and watch what they're doing.
[41:55.000 --> 41:57.000]  You get copies of documents.
[41:57.000 --> 42:01.000]  You read the theories of law that he's putting before the court.
[42:01.000 --> 42:08.000]  You make sure that you look occasionally in the file at the court out to see that you've received all the copies.
[42:08.000 --> 42:10.000]  Don't tell him you're doing that or her.
[42:10.000 --> 42:16.000]  It's an equal opportunity, Keith.
[42:16.000 --> 42:20.000]  This was done, this was a deal between the attorneys.
[42:20.000 --> 42:23.000]  There was basically no discovery.
[42:23.000 --> 42:24.000]  There was no documents.
[42:24.000 --> 42:32.000]  This was phone conversations and all this stuff, and before I knew it, it was over with.
[42:32.000 --> 42:37.000]  So I'm going to tell you, you have no chance of going back and raising this based on what you just told me.
[42:37.000 --> 42:39.000]  Because it was a discoverable issue.
[42:39.000 --> 42:43.000]  I don't know how stubborn and hard-headed I am, and I don't care how many courts it takes.
[42:43.000 --> 42:46.000]  I will get it raised back open.
[42:46.000 --> 42:51.000]  The biggest issue is go after the attorney for not doing the discovery.
[42:51.000 --> 42:55.000]  If it hasn't been four years, you can go after the attorney.
[42:55.000 --> 42:59.000]  In Texas, there's a few things.
[42:59.000 --> 43:02.000]  We're going to go into a little side issue about attorneys here.
[43:02.000 --> 43:07.000]  There's a doctrine in Texas about attorneys and malpractice.
[43:07.000 --> 43:15.000]  If your attorney screws up your case and you lose, you have no case against him or her for malpractice.
[43:15.000 --> 43:19.000]  It's the doctrine that your case had no merit, that's why you lost.
[43:19.000 --> 43:23.000]  So what happens is when your attorney gets disappointed with you,
[43:23.000 --> 43:28.000]  the attorney will poison the case deliberately to draw that doctrine in.
[43:28.000 --> 43:30.000]  There's a little asterisk by that.
[43:30.000 --> 43:36.000]  The asterisk is there's a couple cases where you don't win or lose.
[43:36.000 --> 43:40.000]  Okay, okay, Ken, listen, listen, we're going to break.
[43:40.000 --> 43:42.000]  Let's continue this on the other side.
[43:42.000 --> 43:47.000]  Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens rule of law with Ken Magnuson.
[43:47.000 --> 43:59.000]  We'll be right back.
[43:59.000 --> 44:02.000]  Stock markets are taking hit after hit.
[44:02.000 --> 44:05.000]  Corrupt bankers are choking on subprime debt.
[44:05.000 --> 44:13.000]  The Fed is busy printing dollars, dollars, and more dollars to bail out Wall Street, banks, and the U.S. car industry.
[44:13.000 --> 44:19.000]  As investors scramble for safety in the metals in the face of a further devaluation of the dollar,
[44:19.000 --> 44:22.000]  the price of silver will only increase.
[44:22.000 --> 44:29.000]  Some of the world's leading financial analysts believe that silver is one of the world's most important commodities
[44:29.000 --> 44:33.000]  with unparalleled investment opportunities for the future.
[44:33.000 --> 44:38.000]  Now is the time to buy silver before it heads for $75 an ounce,
[44:38.000 --> 44:44.000]  and the yellow metal roars back past $1,000 an ounce to new highs.
[44:44.000 --> 44:56.000]  Call Maximus Holdings now at 407-608-5430 to find out how you can turn your IRA and 401K into a solid investment,
[44:56.000 --> 45:00.000]  silver, without any penalties for early withdrawal.
[45:00.000 --> 45:05.000]  Even if you don't have a retirement account yet, we have fantastic investment opportunities for you.
[45:05.000 --> 45:23.000]  Call Maximus Holdings at 407-608-5430 for more information.
[45:23.000 --> 45:30.000]  It's all according to the will of the Almighty.
[45:30.000 --> 45:37.000]  I read his book and it says the cares done for the unsightly.
[45:37.000 --> 45:46.000]  These warm hungers come by that term of right.
[45:46.000 --> 45:50.000]  I won't stay for the war with my bite.
[45:50.000 --> 45:53.000]  All right, we are back. Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens.
[45:53.000 --> 45:56.000]  We're speaking with our guest, Ken Magnuson.
[45:56.000 --> 46:01.000]  And Ken, we were discussing about how malpractice,
[46:01.000 --> 46:06.000]  and just because your attorney loses a case for you, that's not necessarily malpractice.
[46:06.000 --> 46:12.000]  Well, I mean, it could be malpractice, but the issue is no court in Texas will allow you to win on that
[46:12.000 --> 46:16.000]  based on the fact that your case had no merit. That's why you lost.
[46:16.000 --> 46:23.000]  Now, Ken, let me ask you something. If you can prove that your lawyer intentionally threw the case,
[46:23.000 --> 46:26.000]  would that be a cause of action?
[46:26.000 --> 46:28.000]  I don't think they'll ever let you into court with that.
[46:28.000 --> 46:33.000]  All the attorney will do is point out the doctrine and plead the doctrine
[46:33.000 --> 46:38.000]  and indicate that you lost the case and this case has no merit
[46:38.000 --> 46:41.000]  and should be immediately summarily dismissed.
[46:41.000 --> 46:46.000]  They may even say it's a frivolous suit based on the fact that you know that you don't have a cause of action
[46:46.000 --> 46:49.000]  because you lost your original case.
[46:49.000 --> 46:54.000]  Now, recognize that losing, there's an exception to this.
[46:54.000 --> 46:57.000]  The exception is, that's what I'm getting to.
[46:57.000 --> 47:00.000]  Bankruptcy is an exception. There is no winner or loser there.
[47:00.000 --> 47:06.000]  There's just amounts of money exchanged. It's not like a car accident case.
[47:06.000 --> 47:14.000]  There's not a guilty verdict or an innocent verdict or a compensation award made by a jury.
[47:14.000 --> 47:17.000]  It's a decision made by essentially an administrative process.
[47:17.000 --> 47:21.000]  The other case that this works for, too, is divorce.
[47:21.000 --> 47:24.000]  There is no such thing as a winner or loser in divorce.
[47:24.000 --> 47:32.000]  Well, in Texas, there's just all losers, but the only people that win in divorce cases in Texas are the attorneys.
[47:32.000 --> 47:34.000]  Are the attorneys, I was just going to say.
[47:34.000 --> 47:43.000]  Right. So the issue that comes up is that if you find that there were things that they should have done
[47:43.000 --> 47:50.000]  by normal standards and practices and didn't do them in order to discover issues that were germane
[47:50.000 --> 47:58.000]  and material to the cause of action and would have changed the outcome now that you know what it is,
[47:58.000 --> 48:05.000]  now they're guilty of malpractice because they didn't vigilantly and diligently represent the client.
[48:05.000 --> 48:14.000]  But I'm going to tell you right now, I have never met yet a malpractice attorney in this state that will sue other attorneys.
[48:14.000 --> 48:19.000]  I've heard some names, but I've never met any of them.
[48:19.000 --> 48:26.000]  So if you've got one in Austin, you might get all your ducks in a row and go down and talk to them about this
[48:26.000 --> 48:33.000]  because if they didn't go in and challenge the mortgage company with regards to the fact that they were listed as a debtor
[48:33.000 --> 48:40.000]  and they did no discovery on them, that was incumbent upon the requirements of doing the bankruptcy.
[48:40.000 --> 48:44.000]  So that's a possible cause of action.
[48:44.000 --> 48:51.000]  There's a law firm here in town named Leoni and Lee, and the Lee part, I forgot his first name,
[48:51.000 --> 48:56.000]  is a lawyer that does nothing but malpractice against other lawyers.
[48:56.000 --> 49:00.000]  Oh, I love it. We need more of them.
[49:00.000 --> 49:06.000]  If we could clone them, I would suggest we get a DNA sample right to the laboratory.
[49:06.000 --> 49:13.000]  What's to keep you from suing your attorney for malpractice while your case is still ongoing?
[49:13.000 --> 49:19.000]  Well, the first thing is you might lose the case because you didn't need to get rid of your attorney.
[49:19.000 --> 49:23.000]  You know, as soon as you file a malpractice suit against your attorney, your attorney is going to withdraw,
[49:23.000 --> 49:29.000]  but I have a feeling your attorney is going to withdraw in the most obnoxious and damaging manner possible.
[49:29.000 --> 49:36.000]  One case I saw where an attorney withdrew from a case and held discovery that was supposed to be done
[49:36.000 --> 49:43.000]  for the opposing side would make motions and sanctions for the discovery to be done because it was late now
[49:43.000 --> 49:50.000]  to cast the party in a bad light with the judge, even though the attorney had constructed it that way.
[49:50.000 --> 49:56.000]  And the judge didn't seem to care about it. The other side seemed to be in on it.
[49:56.000 --> 50:00.000]  It was like they had already conspired to do this.
[50:00.000 --> 50:05.000]  So if you're going to do it, you might as well fire the attorney first
[50:05.000 --> 50:08.000]  and get another attorney in there before he can poison the cake.
[50:08.000 --> 50:18.000]  What we're planning to do is get the attorney to ask the judge to remove him from the case.
[50:18.000 --> 50:20.000]  Well, the question is how can he sabotage?
[50:20.000 --> 50:25.000]  I'm familiar with if you're referring to the case, I'm thinking it's a criminal cause of action.
[50:25.000 --> 50:28.000]  Criminal cause of action is a little bit different.
[50:28.000 --> 50:33.000]  Criminal cause of action, you can claim incompetent counsel.
[50:33.000 --> 50:38.000]  Civil cases you can't claim incompetent counsel.
[50:38.000 --> 50:44.000]  There is no doctrine of incompetent counsel in this state on civil cases, but in criminal cases there is.
[50:44.000 --> 50:52.000]  So you could always claim incompetent counsel later, but I'm not exactly sure what the strategy gains you,
[50:52.000 --> 51:02.000]  except if you're trying to create confusion and animosity within the context of that jurisdiction in order to exit the jurisdiction.
[51:02.000 --> 51:08.000]  Well, let me give you an example of what it will gain me.
[51:08.000 --> 51:15.000]  We hand our attorney a stack of documents that contain at least 20 due process violations,
[51:15.000 --> 51:21.000]  a positive ruling on any one of which would render the prosecution impossible.
[51:21.000 --> 51:23.000]  Okay. Well, first off, let me stop you here.
[51:23.000 --> 51:30.000]  I'm familiar, you and I have talked about this, and it's kind of off the topic of civil.
[51:30.000 --> 51:34.000]  That gets us to criminal law, and I think we can wait until another day to do that.
[51:34.000 --> 51:41.000]  And so that we don't, I think the audience is probably confused enough with changing topics.
[51:41.000 --> 51:50.000]  No, it didn't. My question went to if your attorney is in the process of screwing you royal in your case,
[51:50.000 --> 51:56.000]  do you have to wait until you're thoroughly destroyed to raise an issue when you can't raise an issue
[51:56.000 --> 52:00.000]  once you're thoroughly destroyed because you lost the case?
[52:00.000 --> 52:01.000]  Well, that's the end of the case.
[52:01.000 --> 52:08.000]  I think the first time that the attorney steps over the line, you want to make sure that you start building a document trail.
[52:08.000 --> 52:15.000]  But that's back to the whole idea of in any case, remember Ken's third rule, document everything.
[52:15.000 --> 52:21.000]  But if you have an attorney in a cause of action, you want to make sure that you send letters to them.
[52:21.000 --> 52:25.000]  You want to make sure that you keep a log of all the phone calls.
[52:25.000 --> 52:27.000]  You never leave something to a phone call.
[52:27.000 --> 52:32.000]  You take the phone call, turn it into a short letter reiterating what was discussed
[52:32.000 --> 52:37.000]  and what the attorney was going to do or what you were supposed to do in your cause of action.
[52:37.000 --> 52:40.000]  And you always do these documents back and forth.
[52:40.000 --> 52:45.000]  You don't have to send them by certified mail, but you corroborate that the attorney received them
[52:45.000 --> 52:52.000]  by calling his or her paralegal and or secretary or whoever the clerk is that works for the attorney.
[52:52.000 --> 52:57.000]  So you get a confirmation that Cindy, the person that answers the phone,
[52:57.000 --> 53:00.000]  oh yes, Mr. Smith, we received your letter.
[53:00.000 --> 53:04.000]  And you indicate the date and time you talked to Cindy and she indicated that they got the letter.
[53:04.000 --> 53:07.000]  You keep a log of this and you start creating it.
[53:07.000 --> 53:12.000]  When the attorney starts going off the rail, you start making demands in the letter.
[53:12.000 --> 53:14.000]  I already know what's going to happen.
[53:14.000 --> 53:20.000]  As soon as you start making demands of an attorney to do certain things or stop doing certain things,
[53:20.000 --> 53:23.000]  the attorney will immediately file a motion to withdraw.
[53:23.000 --> 53:28.000]  Or some of the cases I've seen, they won't actually file a motion, which they're required to do.
[53:28.000 --> 53:33.000]  They'll just walk up in front of the judge the next time and ask the judge to let them leave
[53:33.000 --> 53:37.000]  without filing the formal motion, which is required by the rule.
[53:37.000 --> 53:40.000]  That would be a bar agreement.
[53:40.000 --> 53:44.000]  But this gets into a whole aspect of how we deal with attorneys,
[53:44.000 --> 53:48.000]  which I think is a program in and of itself for one or two.
[53:48.000 --> 53:50.000]  I'll ask that question another time.
[53:50.000 --> 53:52.000]  Okay.
[53:52.000 --> 53:53.000]  Okay.
[53:53.000 --> 53:54.000]  Where were we?
[53:54.000 --> 53:55.000]  We have Russell.
[53:55.000 --> 53:56.000]  Russell is still on the line as well.
[53:56.000 --> 53:58.000]  Russell, do you have anything else for us?
[53:58.000 --> 53:59.000]  No, that's it.
[53:59.000 --> 54:00.000]  Okay.
[54:00.000 --> 54:01.000]  Very good.
[54:01.000 --> 54:03.000]  I hope I gave you some direction.
[54:03.000 --> 54:07.000]  Oh, yes.
[54:07.000 --> 54:08.000]  Excellent.
[54:08.000 --> 54:09.000]  Thank you for calling in, Russell.
[54:09.000 --> 54:10.000]  We appreciate it.
[54:10.000 --> 54:12.000]  Thanks.
[54:12.000 --> 54:14.000]  Where did we leave it off?
[54:14.000 --> 54:19.000]  We were talking about...
[54:19.000 --> 54:20.000]  Law.
[54:20.000 --> 54:21.000]  Okay.
[54:21.000 --> 54:23.000]  Well, listen.
[54:23.000 --> 54:24.000]  Okay.
[54:24.000 --> 54:28.000]  While we're getting our bearings back here, why don't we take our next caller?
[54:28.000 --> 54:29.000]  We've got Stephen from Minnesota.
[54:29.000 --> 54:32.000]  We only have a couple minutes before the top of the hour, so let's go to the caller.
[54:32.000 --> 54:34.000]  Stephen, thanks for calling in.
[54:34.000 --> 54:36.000]  You have a question for Ken?
[54:36.000 --> 54:51.000]  Yes, actually, I was wondering, without prejudice, UCC 1-207 and attached with UCC Section 2-302.
[54:51.000 --> 54:52.000]  Wait a minute.
[54:52.000 --> 54:53.000]  Wait a minute.
[54:53.000 --> 54:54.000]  You can't start in the middle like that.
[54:54.000 --> 54:56.000]  We have no idea what you're talking about.
[54:56.000 --> 55:06.000]  Well, it says in UCC 1-207 in Black's dictionary, without prejudice, where an offer or admission
[55:06.000 --> 55:12.000]  is made without prejudice or a motion is denied or a suit dismissed without prejudice,
[55:12.000 --> 55:19.000]  it is meant to be as declared that no rights or privileges of the party concerned are to be considered
[55:19.000 --> 55:25.000]  as thereby waived or lost, accepted or there as may be expressly conceded or decided.
[55:25.000 --> 55:28.000]  Okay, so you're talking about the phrase without prejudice.
[55:28.000 --> 55:30.000]  Yeah, what's your question?
[55:30.000 --> 55:39.000]  Oh, if I had filed in the county clerk, like the senior clerk itself as a notary even,
[55:39.000 --> 55:55.000]  and just used UCC 1-207 and the 1-203, you know, construed together in conjunction with that,
[55:55.000 --> 56:05.000]  if nobody disputes those with any contracts you send into them, signed by them, or they want you to sign,
[56:05.000 --> 56:13.000]  if it's not disputed within a month, would that not preserve my, what would be the...
[56:13.000 --> 56:14.000]  Not necessarily.
[56:14.000 --> 56:16.000]  Not necessarily.
[56:16.000 --> 56:20.000]  The first thing I'd say is why are you filing these documents with the clerk to begin with?
[56:20.000 --> 56:29.000]  Well, I was going to do this in a tax court, and actually I'm sending it to a notice of deficiency to the IRS.
[56:29.000 --> 56:32.000]  Okay, you have a notice of deficiency from the IRS?
[56:32.000 --> 56:33.000]  Yes.
[56:33.000 --> 56:37.000]  Okay, and what are you responding with?
[56:37.000 --> 56:39.000]  Without prejudice, UCC 1-...
[56:39.000 --> 56:43.000]  No, no, that's there.
[56:43.000 --> 56:47.000]  That's like there's a law against shooting somebody.
[56:47.000 --> 56:53.000]  You don't have to hold up UCC 1-07, or I think it's 2-07, in front of anybody
[56:53.000 --> 56:57.000]  and wave it in front of them for it to have effect.
[56:57.000 --> 57:07.000]  What I'm going to tell is that the president above would be dishonored then, wouldn't it?
[57:07.000 --> 57:12.000]  You can only hold someone to a contract if they're bound to a contract.
[57:12.000 --> 57:13.000]  Right.
[57:13.000 --> 57:17.000]  You can only hold someone to a provision if they're bound to the provision.
[57:17.000 --> 57:28.000]  These guys are trying to exert commercial law when they're in a criminal law or a civil law setting.
[57:28.000 --> 57:36.000]  Well, commercial law will apply, but only in areas where the criminal
[57:36.000 --> 57:40.000]  or the civil statute doesn't cover a particular issue,
[57:40.000 --> 57:45.000]  and the particular issue is specifically covered in the commercial code.
[57:45.000 --> 57:47.000]  Otherwise, you can't use it.
[57:47.000 --> 57:52.000]  You can't take the commercial code and use it where the criminal code,
[57:52.000 --> 57:59.000]  code of criminal procedure or the rules of civil procedure have rules
[57:59.000 --> 58:02.000]  or statutes governing the situation.
[58:02.000 --> 58:05.000]  And this is what a lot of these legal reform guys are trying to do.
[58:05.000 --> 58:06.000]  You can't do that.
[58:06.000 --> 58:10.000]  You got to go back and talk in terms of the statutes governing.
[58:10.000 --> 58:13.000]  And I'll let Ken address that when I get back.
[58:13.000 --> 58:15.000]  And we're going on break now.
[58:15.000 --> 58:16.000]  We're at the top of the hour.
[58:16.000 --> 58:19.000]  Stephen, stay on the line, and we're going to have Ken.
[58:19.000 --> 58:20.000]  Wait, wait, wait.
[58:20.000 --> 58:21.000]  Hold on.
[58:21.000 --> 58:22.000]  Hold on.
[58:22.000 --> 58:23.000]  We're going to break, okay?
[58:23.000 --> 58:24.000]  We'll be right back, guys.
[58:24.000 --> 58:25.000]  All right.
[58:25.000 --> 58:29.000]  Stay on the line, Steve, and Ken will address your issue when we get back on the other side.
[58:29.000 --> 58:32.000]  This is the rule of law, Rainy Kelton and Debra Stevens.
[58:32.000 --> 58:33.000]  Ken Magnuson.
[58:33.000 --> 58:34.000]  We'll be right back.
[58:34.000 --> 59:00.000]  We'll be right back.
[59:00.000 --> 59:03.000]  First they came for the dogs, then they came for me.
[59:03.000 --> 59:09.000]  Hi, this is Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I think it's about time we start fighting back against the microchip agenda.
[59:09.000 --> 59:16.000]  To kickstart the process, I'm traveling to Austin, Texas next week to help fight mandatory dog chipping in the city of San Marcos.
[59:16.000 --> 59:23.000]  For those of you in Austin, please join me at Brave New Books on Monday evening at 7 p.m. for a reception and a book signing.
[59:23.000 --> 59:28.000]  We'll have copies of my book Spy Chips and my DVDs, or you can bring your own copy and I'll be glad to sign it.
[59:28.000 --> 59:35.000]  Brave New Books is located at 1904 Guadalupe Street in Austin near the UT Austin campus.
[59:35.000 --> 59:45.000]  Then on Tuesday, March 3rd, I invite you to join us for the candlelight vigil and protest against mandatory pet chipping in San Marcos, about 30 miles south of Austin.
[59:45.000 --> 59:49.000]  We'll meet at 6 p.m. at the dog park across from the San Marcos City Hall.
[59:49.000 --> 59:53.000]  Bring your dog, your kids, and your friends, or just yourself, and we'll provide the rest.
[59:53.000 --> 59:56.000]  For more details, go to CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[59:56.000 --> 59:58.000]  I hope to see you there.
[01:00:26.000 --> 01:00:28.000]  Thank you.
[01:00:56.000 --> 01:01:00.000]  Oh, God, this world's expected.
[01:01:00.000 --> 01:01:03.000]  Wake up and take his place.
[01:01:03.000 --> 01:01:06.000]  I will light up my house.
[01:01:06.000 --> 01:01:10.000]  Take a chicken at the night to show the father enter.
[01:01:10.000 --> 01:01:13.000]  Kiss all the parasites from around ya.
[01:01:13.000 --> 01:01:15.000]  Teeth blight up and feel the murderer.
[01:01:15.000 --> 01:01:18.000]  Kiss them all they must because they cannot enter.
[01:01:18.000 --> 01:01:21.000]  Urine water cleans runs only.
[01:01:21.000 --> 01:01:24.000]  Only them could enter in God's house, you see.
[01:01:24.000 --> 01:01:26.000]  So surrender quickly.
[01:01:26.000 --> 01:01:28.000]  That's what we are doing, now we heard a hoax just now.
[01:01:28.000 --> 01:01:39.000]  I will light up my house.
[01:01:39.000 --> 01:01:40.000]  All right, we are back.
[01:01:40.000 --> 01:01:45.000]  The rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens.
[01:01:45.000 --> 01:01:52.000]  We're here with Ken Magnison, and we are dressing our caller, Steven from Minnesota.
[01:01:52.000 --> 01:01:59.000]  and yes, good point, Randy, and this is good clarification here.
[01:01:59.000 --> 01:02:10.000]  You can only use other areas of law when the area of law that you're in that is being litigated does not apply.
[01:02:10.000 --> 01:02:18.000]  So you can't just bring commercial law into a criminal setting unless the criminal code specifically
[01:02:18.000 --> 01:02:27.000]  does not cover the issue you're addressing and the UCC code has to specifically address the issue of concern.
[01:02:27.000 --> 01:02:34.000]  That's why most of the time when people try to bring commercial law into a civil or criminal setting,
[01:02:34.000 --> 01:02:37.000]  the judge just throws it out and it's proper.
[01:02:37.000 --> 01:02:41.000]  There's nothing, I mean, that's the way it works with law.
[01:02:41.000 --> 01:02:43.000]  And Ken, Ken, go ahead.
[01:02:43.000 --> 01:02:44.000]  You were going to address this point.
[01:02:44.000 --> 01:02:49.000]  The only thing that I would say is we're back to the issue that if you're going to fight the IRS,
[01:02:49.000 --> 01:02:56.000]  you go out there online and find all the IRS code you can and read it top to bottom, not once, not twice,
[01:02:56.000 --> 01:02:58.000]  but over and over and over again.
[01:02:58.000 --> 01:03:00.000]  Oh boy, and there's a lot of it too.
[01:03:00.000 --> 01:03:01.000]  Yes, I know.
[01:03:01.000 --> 01:03:04.000]  Obviously you skip over the parts that don't apply to you.
[01:03:04.000 --> 01:03:06.000]  If you're not a corporation, you don't have to read that section.
[01:03:06.000 --> 01:03:11.000]  But the issue is you have to understand the rules if you find some books on it.
[01:03:11.000 --> 01:03:17.000]  But don't read necessarily the books that are talking about all of the anti-IRF stuff
[01:03:17.000 --> 01:03:24.000]  because without being specific, there's some of this stuff that's gotten a lot of people into trouble.
[01:03:24.000 --> 01:03:31.000]  And it's one of those things where they never read the code that started the process.
[01:03:31.000 --> 01:03:37.000]  And this is the big aspect of bringing in commercial law to apply to IRS.
[01:03:37.000 --> 01:03:43.000]  You've got to read the code and make up your mind whether or not the code applies to you or doesn't apply to you.
[01:03:43.000 --> 01:03:50.000]  And then if it doesn't and you can make a case, then go out and start looking for case law that supports your perspective.
[01:03:50.000 --> 01:03:57.000]  But remember when you read case law, don't try to twist it to say, oh, that might apply to me.
[01:03:57.000 --> 01:04:00.000]  To read it, say, who does this apply to?
[01:04:00.000 --> 01:04:03.000]  Clear your head, look at the law, say, who does this apply to?
[01:04:03.000 --> 01:04:07.000]  You decide, nah, that's nowhere near close to me, just throw it away.
[01:04:07.000 --> 01:04:08.000]  You don't use it.
[01:04:08.000 --> 01:04:18.000]  I have seen over and over and over again the people that aren't taught legal research and legal reading and reasoning
[01:04:18.000 --> 01:04:26.000]  to read a particular paragraph out of a particular case and try to apply it to a whole system saying,
[01:04:26.000 --> 01:04:32.000]  here it is, the magic bullet, the silver bullet, and it shows this huge conspiracy.
[01:04:32.000 --> 01:04:40.000]  But all case law has to be read within the context of the case law that you're reading, the particular case you're reading.
[01:04:40.000 --> 01:04:46.000]  And later on when we start talking about some case law stuff, I'll bring up one of the examples.
[01:04:46.000 --> 01:04:53.000]  I was wondering, too, if I could send a letter of request for law in the IRS code clarification,
[01:04:53.000 --> 01:05:00.000]  especially on the OMB numbers or even if it was ratified by Congress.
[01:05:00.000 --> 01:05:04.000]  I think that's a letter that you might want to write to your congressman.
[01:05:04.000 --> 01:05:05.000]  Yes, okay.
[01:05:05.000 --> 01:05:18.000]  The problem you're going to get into here is covered by what the courts told, oh, what was his name?
[01:05:18.000 --> 01:05:21.000]  Anyway, I'll think of his name in a minute.
[01:05:21.000 --> 01:05:31.000]  He brought a case before the court, and the court told him that the last client you brought before us and raised these issues
[01:05:31.000 --> 01:05:42.000]  of not being a taxpayer and all of the standard IRS objection issues, we put him in jail.
[01:05:42.000 --> 01:05:52.000]  Now you bring another client with the same issues, making the same arguments, and you give us a 400-page brief.
[01:05:52.000 --> 01:06:13.000]  Becraft, they censured Becraft $5,000 and put his client in jail, telling him that we have been ruling this way for the last 70 years.
[01:06:13.000 --> 01:06:14.000]  He wasn't getting it.
[01:06:14.000 --> 01:06:17.000]  They're not going to change.
[01:06:17.000 --> 01:06:24.000]  So if you bring these same issues that all these people in legal reform have been touting,
[01:06:24.000 --> 01:06:36.000]  that the courts have ruled against over and over and over, it doesn't make any difference how right you think you are.
[01:06:36.000 --> 01:06:42.000]  In the world you and I live in, they're going to rule against you.
[01:06:42.000 --> 01:06:49.000]  We have to consider the reality of the world we live in.
[01:06:49.000 --> 01:06:53.000]  Let me put a finer point on that.
[01:06:53.000 --> 01:07:02.000]  For years, separate but equal was the law of the land as set by the Supreme Court case,
[01:07:02.000 --> 01:07:07.000]  and almost everybody knew it was wrong, sociologically it was wrong,
[01:07:07.000 --> 01:07:11.000]  except those who were prejudiced against blacks and minorities.
[01:07:11.000 --> 01:07:16.000]  And it took until we had Brown versus the Board of Education for it to get fixed.
[01:07:16.000 --> 01:07:23.000]  But for a better part of, what, 75 years, nobody got any traction on that issue,
[01:07:23.000 --> 01:07:29.000]  and people went to jail or people got thrown off a train or people got segregated
[01:07:29.000 --> 01:07:33.000]  based on the fact that the law of the land was separate but equal.
[01:07:33.000 --> 01:07:38.000]  We all look back at that and say, okay, yeah, they got it wrong.
[01:07:38.000 --> 01:07:42.000]  Even with this stuff right now, it's either the courts have got it wrong
[01:07:42.000 --> 01:07:49.000]  and it's going to take a big Supreme Court case to straighten it out, or these are all corrupt decisions.
[01:07:49.000 --> 01:07:55.000]  If these are corrupt decisions, then it's going to take a reformation of the courts to get honest judges
[01:07:55.000 --> 01:07:58.000]  to take a new look at all of these issues.
[01:07:58.000 --> 01:08:03.000]  But until that happens, you're essentially doing the same thing over and over and over again,
[01:08:03.000 --> 01:08:09.000]  expecting a different outcome, and that's the definition of insanity.
[01:08:09.000 --> 01:08:18.000]  This is what I see going on, and it frustrates me to see people going down these same paths.
[01:08:18.000 --> 01:08:26.000]  You will not win an IRS case with commercial law.
[01:08:26.000 --> 01:08:28.000]  I have a woman that keeps calling me.
[01:08:28.000 --> 01:08:31.000]  She's in jail in Arizona.
[01:08:31.000 --> 01:08:40.000]  She's been in jail for 200-some-odd days, on contempt for not showing them the IRS her records.
[01:08:40.000 --> 01:08:44.000]  And she's saying, well, she don't have to show them her records.
[01:08:44.000 --> 01:08:49.000]  And she's been using these commercial issues.
[01:08:49.000 --> 01:08:53.000]  And I ask her, how well has that worked for you so far?
[01:08:53.000 --> 01:08:58.000]  Yeah, I was going to say, even if she's right, she's still in jail, okay?
[01:08:58.000 --> 01:09:04.000]  We have to find ways of dealing with these problems without having our liberties taken away.
[01:09:04.000 --> 01:09:07.000]  Well, just keep reading the codes then and trying to find something.
[01:09:07.000 --> 01:09:11.000]  Yeah, Stephen, just don't be a martyr.
[01:09:11.000 --> 01:09:13.000]  No, no, I'm not trying to be a martyr.
[01:09:13.000 --> 01:09:18.000]  Find a way to win, get the best win you can get.
[01:09:18.000 --> 01:09:25.000]  It also goes to the fact that if you think this is contrary to the law and you really believe it,
[01:09:25.000 --> 01:09:27.000]  you can't just do it yourself.
[01:09:27.000 --> 01:09:36.000]  You've got to find other people that find that this is contrary to either the law or the political ideals of this country
[01:09:36.000 --> 01:09:39.000]  and start getting together and organizing.
[01:09:39.000 --> 01:09:43.000]  The issue is that I meet people and hear from people one phone call at a time,
[01:09:43.000 --> 01:09:48.000]  and yet none of the people, almost none of the people, tell the other people involved in the fight.
[01:09:48.000 --> 01:09:52.000]  So they divide us into individuals to go down to the courthouse
[01:09:52.000 --> 01:09:57.000]  and get cut down by the sword of injustice individually.
[01:09:57.000 --> 01:10:05.000]  I don't see these people down at the state legislature or talking to congressmen or senators
[01:10:05.000 --> 01:10:16.000]  or organizing class action lawsuits with a long list of attorneys because nobody's organizing.
[01:10:16.000 --> 01:10:20.000]  And one of the biggest criticisms I have of many of the people that I've met,
[01:10:20.000 --> 01:10:27.000]  and I don't want to include you in this group, but many of the people I've met, is that they are all in it for themselves.
[01:10:27.000 --> 01:10:30.000]  That's been a common thing that I've found,
[01:10:30.000 --> 01:10:37.000]  and that they don't want to sacrifice their independence and idea of getting their money back
[01:10:37.000 --> 01:10:39.000]  or not paying the money to the government,
[01:10:39.000 --> 01:10:43.000]  but they don't really care about whether or not they help their neighbors.
[01:10:43.000 --> 01:10:45.000]  And that's got to change.
[01:10:45.000 --> 01:10:48.000]  It's got to be we together.
[01:10:48.000 --> 01:10:57.000]  I hate to point fingers at the legal reform community because, for the most part, these people are right.
[01:10:57.000 --> 01:11:05.000]  The law they read, for the most part, says what they think it says, and they're right.
[01:11:05.000 --> 01:11:10.000]  But, you know, I go back to my combat experience.
[01:11:10.000 --> 01:11:14.000]  Right or wrong in combat doesn't make any difference.
[01:11:14.000 --> 01:11:18.000]  Outcomes are the only thing that makes a difference.
[01:11:18.000 --> 01:11:26.000]  I could go into the battle and absolutely have the moral high ground and still lose.
[01:11:26.000 --> 01:11:31.000]  So if you're in combat, you don't get to lose one because you don't go home.
[01:11:31.000 --> 01:11:35.000]  So you have to look at that and say, can I win or can I not win?
[01:11:35.000 --> 01:11:40.000]  Right and wrong doesn't have anything to do with it.
[01:11:40.000 --> 01:11:45.000]  If you're going to win the war, you've got to start fighting the battles you can win
[01:11:45.000 --> 01:11:51.000]  and only fight those battles that will make a difference if you do win.
[01:11:51.000 --> 01:11:57.000]  We have a lot of people out there who are fighting these battles because it's right.
[01:11:57.000 --> 01:12:01.000]  It is the right thing to do and they're right.
[01:12:01.000 --> 01:12:03.000]  But don't do it individually.
[01:12:03.000 --> 01:12:07.000]  It's great for you to do that, but if you don't have a plan as to how you're going to get to your outcome,
[01:12:07.000 --> 01:12:10.000]  they're making a difference.
[01:12:10.000 --> 01:12:12.000]  That's the whole thing.
[01:12:12.000 --> 01:12:14.000]  Where's the money going to?
[01:12:14.000 --> 01:12:20.000]  Because to me it seems like it's not for prosperity of America anymore.
[01:12:20.000 --> 01:12:23.000]  And that's what a lot of these people do.
[01:12:23.000 --> 01:12:25.000]  That's a different issue.
[01:12:25.000 --> 01:12:26.000]  That's political ideology.
[01:12:26.000 --> 01:12:29.000]  Yeah, a whole different issue.
[01:12:29.000 --> 01:12:31.000]  Get all of that out.
[01:12:31.000 --> 01:12:40.000]  If you're going for the issue before you, you have to set aside all this stuff about what's right, what's wrong.
[01:12:40.000 --> 01:12:50.000]  You notice when I talk about going after public officials, I don't allow myself to cultivate anger.
[01:12:50.000 --> 01:12:53.000]  I simply cannot afford it.
[01:12:53.000 --> 01:12:55.000]  That is a little wrong.
[01:12:55.000 --> 01:13:02.000]  I have to always look at my outcome and reaching my outcome,
[01:13:02.000 --> 01:13:11.000]  I cannot allow anger or frustration or any of those emotions to get in my way and distract me
[01:13:11.000 --> 01:13:19.000]  because they will lead me to do things that don't lead me directly toward my outcome.
[01:13:19.000 --> 01:13:21.000]  You need to do the same thing.
[01:13:21.000 --> 01:13:27.000]  What is your intended outcome from your encounter with the IRS?
[01:13:27.000 --> 01:13:30.000]  What do you want to achieve?
[01:13:30.000 --> 01:13:32.000]  Okay, total question.
[01:13:32.000 --> 01:13:33.000]  Hey, very good point.
[01:13:33.000 --> 01:13:36.000]  Actually, I've got one more question too for Deborah.
[01:13:36.000 --> 01:13:38.000]  Okay.
[01:13:38.000 --> 01:13:47.000]  That the song you just played that I love so much, have you guys finished it so that I don't get a call from you to do these?
[01:13:47.000 --> 01:13:52.000]  I haven't had a chance to master anything lately.
[01:13:52.000 --> 01:13:59.000]  I've just been too busy with the infrastructure of the network and getting that whole thing set up.
[01:13:59.000 --> 01:14:03.000]  But yeah, that's coming soon.
[01:14:03.000 --> 01:14:07.000]  Are you the one that emailed me about the song?
[01:14:07.000 --> 01:14:16.000]  It might have been, but actually I was wondering if you could email me the lyrics.
[01:14:16.000 --> 01:14:20.000]  Oh, yes, I'll email you the lyrics.
[01:14:20.000 --> 01:14:24.000]  Stay on the line and I'll get your email address on the break, okay?
[01:14:24.000 --> 01:14:26.000]  Wait, which song are you talking about?
[01:14:26.000 --> 01:14:28.000]  I'm talking about Occupy My Father's House.
[01:14:28.000 --> 01:14:32.000]  Oh, not the Stap Miller song?
[01:14:32.000 --> 01:14:34.000]  It should be a number one hit.
[01:14:34.000 --> 01:14:36.000]  Oh, thank you.
[01:14:36.000 --> 01:14:42.000]  That song was pretty much done completely by my husband Jerry.
[01:14:42.000 --> 01:14:50.000]  I contributed some. We are a songwriting team, all three of us, Patterson and Jerry and I.
[01:14:50.000 --> 01:14:54.000]  We all contribute in different ways on all different songs.
[01:14:54.000 --> 01:14:56.000]  That one is mostly Jerry.
[01:14:56.000 --> 01:14:58.000]  He's the man, that's for sure.
[01:14:58.000 --> 01:15:01.000]  He's been doing it for years and years and years.
[01:15:01.000 --> 01:15:06.000]  Jerry's won two songwriting contests at Kerrville Folk Festival, the New Folk Award.
[01:15:06.000 --> 01:15:08.000]  He's won it twice.
[01:15:08.000 --> 01:15:15.000]  Well, if you guys don't mind me saying I play guitar too and I would like to have that just to do kind of like a,
[01:15:15.000 --> 01:15:18.000]  not as your version, but just in church.
[01:15:18.000 --> 01:15:19.000]  Oh, that's so sweet.
[01:15:19.000 --> 01:15:22.000]  All right, I'll get your email when we go on the break.
[01:15:22.000 --> 01:15:23.000]  Thank you so much.
[01:15:23.000 --> 01:15:29.000]  My favorite song is the Stap Miller song, but they won't play it for me.
[01:15:29.000 --> 01:15:31.000]  Well, I also like Marlhager too.
[01:15:31.000 --> 01:15:34.000]  Big City turned me loose and set me free.
[01:15:34.000 --> 01:15:39.000]  So-called social securities.
[01:15:39.000 --> 01:15:42.000]  Yes, indeed.
[01:15:42.000 --> 01:15:46.000]  All right, well, we're going to be going to break pretty soon.
[01:15:46.000 --> 01:15:52.000]  I just got to keep studying, I guess, and keep reading and figure out something here.
[01:15:52.000 --> 01:15:57.000]  Yes, put in your mind the ultimate outcome you want
[01:15:57.000 --> 01:16:04.000]  and then judge everything you do based on the likelihood of it leading to that outcome.
[01:16:04.000 --> 01:16:07.000]  That will help more than anything.
[01:16:07.000 --> 01:16:09.000]  All right, thank you very much then.
[01:16:09.000 --> 01:16:11.000]  Yeah, just hang on the line.
[01:16:11.000 --> 01:16:14.000]  Don't hang up, Stephen, and I'll talk to you on the break and get your email.
[01:16:14.000 --> 01:16:15.000]  Sure.
[01:16:15.000 --> 01:16:16.000]  All right, yeah.
[01:16:16.000 --> 01:16:22.000]  I think the lesson here is that, you know, you really do have to have an outcome in mind
[01:16:22.000 --> 01:16:27.000]  and not letting your anger get in the way and doing things correctly.
[01:16:27.000 --> 01:16:34.000]  And when you're looking up case law, don't just look for what supports your case,
[01:16:34.000 --> 01:16:37.000]  but try to poke holes in it because somebody else will.
[01:16:37.000 --> 01:16:42.000]  It's better to be shot down in the law library than in court and from the judge.
[01:16:42.000 --> 01:16:49.000]  Yes, and when you don't get angry, it really pisses those guys off.
[01:16:49.000 --> 01:16:50.000]  Okay, Randy.
[01:16:50.000 --> 01:16:51.000]  All right, we'll be right back.
[01:16:51.000 --> 01:16:59.000]  This is a rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens, 512-646-1984.
[01:16:59.000 --> 01:17:03.000]  Are you looking for an investment that has no stock market risk,
[01:17:03.000 --> 01:17:07.000]  has a 100 percent track record of returning profits,
[01:17:07.000 --> 01:17:11.000]  is not affected by fluctuations in oil prices and interest rates,
[01:17:11.000 --> 01:17:14.000]  is publicly traded and SEC regulated?
[01:17:14.000 --> 01:17:19.000]  If this kind of peace of mind is what you have been looking for in an investment,
[01:17:19.000 --> 01:17:22.000]  then Life Settlements is the investment for you.
[01:17:22.000 --> 01:17:28.000]  Our annual rate of return has been 15.83 percent for the last 17 years.
[01:17:28.000 --> 01:17:32.000]  Our investments are insurance and banking commission regulated.
[01:17:32.000 --> 01:17:35.000]  Our returns are assured by the largest insurance companies.
[01:17:35.000 --> 01:17:42.000]  Even qualified retirement plans such as 401Ks and IRAs are eligible for transfer.
[01:17:42.000 --> 01:17:44.000]  We charge absolutely no commissions.
[01:17:44.000 --> 01:17:47.000]  One hundred percent of your investment goes to work for you.
[01:17:47.000 --> 01:17:57.000]  Please visit sleepwellinvestment.com or call Bill Schober at 817-975-2431.
[01:17:57.000 --> 01:18:05.000]  That's sleepwellinvestment.com or call 817-975-2431.
[01:18:05.000 --> 01:18:20.000]  Thank you.
[01:18:35.000 --> 01:18:54.000]  All right.
[01:18:54.000 --> 01:18:55.000]  We are back.
[01:18:55.000 --> 01:18:58.000]  The rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens.
[01:18:58.000 --> 01:19:01.000]  We're here with Ken Magnuson.
[01:19:01.000 --> 01:19:07.000]  And Ken, we wanted to get back to what you were talking about last time you were on the show.
[01:19:07.000 --> 01:19:11.000]  You were referring to special exception.
[01:19:11.000 --> 01:19:13.000]  Can you please explain what that is?
[01:19:13.000 --> 01:19:18.000]  We were talking about the original pleadings and Randy had mentioned that in some cases
[01:19:18.000 --> 01:19:23.000]  the courts will dismiss a case saying that the plaintiff hadn't stated a cause
[01:19:23.000 --> 01:19:26.000]  by which the court could grant any remedy.
[01:19:26.000 --> 01:19:32.000]  That's a phrase that's generally used by dismissal motions for federal courts.
[01:19:32.000 --> 01:19:40.000]  State court in Texas, anyway, requires the party complaining about the shortcomings
[01:19:40.000 --> 01:19:43.000]  of your pleadings by what's called special exception.
[01:19:43.000 --> 01:19:44.000]  They'll go through it.
[01:19:44.000 --> 01:19:46.000]  And there's a rule about special exceptions.
[01:19:46.000 --> 01:19:50.000]  And they have to specifically say we have an exception to this rule
[01:19:50.000 --> 01:19:55.000]  because it doesn't state what the statute requires or something like that.
[01:19:55.000 --> 01:20:02.000]  It requires the location of an accident where it occurred to be in the pleadings.
[01:20:02.000 --> 01:20:04.000]  Then you have to put it in there and if it's not there,
[01:20:04.000 --> 01:20:09.000]  they would make a special exception saying the accident location was not in the pleading.
[01:20:09.000 --> 01:20:12.000]  And the judge would then rule and say, yes, you've got to fix that.
[01:20:12.000 --> 01:20:15.000]  Then you have the opportunity to replede.
[01:20:15.000 --> 01:20:19.000]  So for most people who have never filed pleadings,
[01:20:19.000 --> 01:20:22.000]  what you have is what they call the original pleading.
[01:20:22.000 --> 01:20:26.000]  If you file another one, it's called an amended pleading.
[01:20:26.000 --> 01:20:32.000]  An amended pleading supersedes what came before.
[01:20:32.000 --> 01:20:33.000]  So it's a replacement.
[01:20:33.000 --> 01:20:36.000]  So generally it says plaintiff's first amended pleading.
[01:20:36.000 --> 01:20:40.000]  The reason why you call it the first amended pleading is because you may have more.
[01:20:40.000 --> 01:20:44.000]  You may have a second, you may have a third, you may have a fourth.
[01:20:44.000 --> 01:20:46.000]  So you start numbering them.
[01:20:46.000 --> 01:20:50.000]  And they number them generally by spelling out first.
[01:20:50.000 --> 01:20:55.000]  The pleading contains all of the things that are necessary if you didn't like the original pleading.
[01:20:55.000 --> 01:20:58.000]  This is all to correct the special exceptions
[01:20:58.000 --> 01:21:05.000]  or to add information that you've now become aware of that creates a cause of action against, say, another party.
[01:21:05.000 --> 01:21:07.000]  So you now add that other party to the suit
[01:21:07.000 --> 01:21:11.000]  and you name them in the suit in this first amended pleading.
[01:21:11.000 --> 01:21:18.000]  If you found another cause of action that allows you to sue for other damages,
[01:21:18.000 --> 01:21:20.000]  you would add that to the suit as well.
[01:21:20.000 --> 01:21:26.000]  And then you serve it upon the other party now by whatever method is required by the statute.
[01:21:26.000 --> 01:21:33.000]  Generally in Texas, once the other party has answered, it's just by certified mail.
[01:21:33.000 --> 01:21:37.000]  But we'll get into that because that's Rule 21A.
[01:21:37.000 --> 01:21:42.000]  The issue with what's in the actual pleadings
[01:21:42.000 --> 01:21:47.000]  and what the other side does, I mentioned before about jury charges
[01:21:47.000 --> 01:21:50.000]  and thinking about what you have to prove.
[01:21:50.000 --> 01:21:56.000]  And when you write the pleadings up, you're going to kind of contemplate the idea of the jury charge
[01:21:56.000 --> 01:22:01.000]  in the pleading from the standpoint that in the prayer you're going to ask for,
[01:22:01.000 --> 01:22:07.000]  you're going to say that the party did the damages, they did so negligently.
[01:22:07.000 --> 01:22:11.000]  You're going to state essentially all the elements that the jury charge would contain,
[01:22:11.000 --> 01:22:16.000]  that if the jury agrees with you saying, yes, we find this, you win your case.
[01:22:16.000 --> 01:22:24.000]  And there's essentially an entire section in the law libraries on what they call pattern jury charges.
[01:22:24.000 --> 01:22:28.000]  And they talk about different causes of action and what you want to use.
[01:22:28.000 --> 01:22:32.000]  And you want to look this up because sometimes the phrasing of the words
[01:22:32.000 --> 01:22:39.000]  and the failure to put a certain phrase in there may make you lose the entire case on appeal.
[01:22:39.000 --> 01:22:44.000]  So once you've got that, you don't go rushing down to the courthouse to file it.
[01:22:44.000 --> 01:22:47.000]  You sit down and say, okay, what are the things I need to prove?
[01:22:47.000 --> 01:22:50.000]  What evidence do I need to gather?
[01:22:50.000 --> 01:23:00.000]  You start thinking about what evidence you need to gather to prove your case.
[01:23:00.000 --> 01:23:05.000]  The other side may have a lot of that evidence, and they have to give it to you.
[01:23:05.000 --> 01:23:07.000]  That's production of documents.
[01:23:07.000 --> 01:23:14.000]  But they also have to state their position so you can do what's called admission.
[01:23:14.000 --> 01:23:23.000]  And one of the things, an example of an admission question would be the defendant's name is John Q. Doe,
[01:23:23.000 --> 01:23:27.000]  and they either agree or disagree.
[01:23:27.000 --> 01:23:32.000]  And you go through a list like that, and the whole idea is to end up with agreement.
[01:23:32.000 --> 01:23:38.000]  There's a whole section in almost every law library on how to do admission.
[01:23:38.000 --> 01:23:42.000]  The next thing on discovery that's available are interrogatories.
[01:23:42.000 --> 01:23:44.000]  Interrogatories are questions.
[01:23:44.000 --> 01:23:50.000]  You can ask them where they live, what insurance company covers them, where they work,
[01:23:50.000 --> 01:23:55.000]  other witnesses that they are aware of that have pertinent information to the case.
[01:23:55.000 --> 01:24:00.000]  They have to give you a list of names and addresses and phone numbers of these people.
[01:24:00.000 --> 01:24:07.000]  You ask for any information that they're going to use as a defense to your cause of action.
[01:24:07.000 --> 01:24:11.000]  They have to provide it.
[01:24:11.000 --> 01:24:15.000]  The next aspect is production of documents.
[01:24:15.000 --> 01:24:21.000]  Production of documents would be contracts, e-mails, letters.
[01:24:21.000 --> 01:24:23.000]  Now, there's exceptions to this stuff.
[01:24:23.000 --> 01:24:28.000]  Recognize that anything that they send to their attorneys is part of what's called work product,
[01:24:28.000 --> 01:24:31.000]  and it's attorney-client privilege.
[01:24:31.000 --> 01:24:37.000]  But that doesn't include the documents that they have created before the issue was created.
[01:24:37.000 --> 01:24:40.000]  So attorney-client privilege is only the documents that the attorneys explain
[01:24:40.000 --> 01:24:44.000]  between the client and the attorneys about the process of the case.
[01:24:44.000 --> 01:24:49.000]  It doesn't mean just because they send them the documents that would be evidence in the case
[01:24:49.000 --> 01:24:52.000]  that automatically it's excluded.
[01:24:52.000 --> 01:24:53.000]  It's not.
[01:24:53.000 --> 01:25:02.000]  But the stories, if the attorney sat down and took a narrative from their client as to what took place,
[01:25:02.000 --> 01:25:08.000]  that narrative that the attorneys took is attorney-client privilege.
[01:25:08.000 --> 01:25:12.000]  In order to get that narrative or something similar to that narrative,
[01:25:12.000 --> 01:25:17.000]  the party would do what's called a deposition, which is you set the date and time and place,
[01:25:17.000 --> 01:25:24.000]  court reporter swear the witness is in, you ask for a videotape deposition, so you set up a video camera,
[01:25:24.000 --> 01:25:28.000]  and then you swear the witness in, and then you get to ask them questions
[01:25:28.000 --> 01:25:31.000]  just as if they were on the witness stand.
[01:25:31.000 --> 01:25:36.000]  There are objections available there, and each objection gets noted.
[01:25:36.000 --> 01:25:41.000]  You have to go back to the court and file a motion to compel the answer to those questions,
[01:25:41.000 --> 01:25:45.000]  and the judge can either uphold the objection or deny the objection,
[01:25:45.000 --> 01:25:52.000]  and then the party has to come back and do the deposition and answer those questions.
[01:25:52.000 --> 01:25:55.000]  Depositions are very expensive, very time-consuming,
[01:25:55.000 --> 01:26:01.000]  but they can lead to most of the information that most of the big litigation that goes on,
[01:26:01.000 --> 01:26:10.000]  like product liability, where an XYZ car maker makes a car that blows up when somebody taps it from the back.
[01:26:10.000 --> 01:26:17.000]  The depositions of the scientists and quality control engineers are the ones that usually sync the company,
[01:26:17.000 --> 01:26:22.000]  because they're already well aware of the danger before the car ever went on the road.
[01:26:22.000 --> 01:26:28.000]  When you finally get to find out who actually was there and did these tests,
[01:26:28.000 --> 01:26:32.000]  then all of a sudden it all comes out if everybody tells the truth.
[01:26:32.000 --> 01:26:37.000]  Just because you do a deposition doesn't necessarily mean the witnesses are going to be honest.
[01:26:37.000 --> 01:26:40.000]  Which is another consideration in a case.
[01:26:40.000 --> 01:26:46.000]  If there's people that you really think might lie, chances are they're going to lie.
[01:26:46.000 --> 01:26:53.000]  If they have a particular piece of information that's pertinent to your case that's absolutely a pivotal piece of information,
[01:26:53.000 --> 01:27:01.000]  you may need to find another way to get it, because that person's going to lie.
[01:27:01.000 --> 01:27:07.000]  Once you have your discovery plan put together, admissions and interrogatories
[01:27:07.000 --> 01:27:11.000]  and requests for production of documents could be sent with the original pleading.
[01:27:11.000 --> 01:27:14.000]  What that does is put the other party in a time crush,
[01:27:14.000 --> 01:27:19.000]  because not only do they have to answer the original petition within a certain period of time,
[01:27:19.000 --> 01:27:26.000]  but they also have a certain period of time to answer all of the discovery that you filed.
[01:27:26.000 --> 01:27:31.000]  It puts them on a defensive, which is a good strategy.
[01:27:31.000 --> 01:27:35.000]  It's almost how everybody that gets sued, that's the same panic that they get,
[01:27:35.000 --> 01:27:40.000]  because you generally only have 20, 21 days to answer the pleadings
[01:27:40.000 --> 01:27:51.000]  and you have another 30 days to answer the discovery, or you can ask for extension of time.
[01:27:51.000 --> 01:27:57.000]  Listen, Ken, if you're at a good place to pause for a moment, I wanted to take this call.
[01:27:57.000 --> 01:28:04.000]  We've got David from New Brunswick, Canada, and I believe he's a first-time caller,
[01:28:04.000 --> 01:28:09.000]  so I wanted to take David's call since he's calling internationally.
[01:28:09.000 --> 01:28:13.000]  David, thank you for calling in. What's on your mind tonight?
[01:28:13.000 --> 01:28:17.000]  Oh, wait a minute, we just lost him.
[01:28:17.000 --> 01:28:21.000]  He'll call back.
[01:28:21.000 --> 01:28:25.000]  Yeah, I think he just stopped off the board. I think he's about to come back.
[01:28:25.000 --> 01:28:27.000]  There he is. Okay.
[01:28:27.000 --> 01:28:31.000]  David, thanks for calling in. What's on your mind tonight?
[01:28:31.000 --> 01:28:42.000]  I was just wondering about undertaking and discovery.
[01:28:42.000 --> 01:28:47.000]  Like, I'm trying to figure out something here.
[01:28:47.000 --> 01:28:50.000]  I noticed that you said examination.
[01:28:50.000 --> 01:28:54.000]  I'm currently suing my wife.
[01:28:54.000 --> 01:29:00.000]  I'm suing a local police force, but I'm trying to figure something out here.
[01:29:00.000 --> 01:29:06.000]  Undertaking, are they...
[01:29:06.000 --> 01:29:13.000]  When they give you a notice of... Let's see, I'm just trying to figure something out.
[01:29:13.000 --> 01:29:23.000]  When a person agrees to undertake something, is it imperative that they do it right away, like at the next...
[01:29:23.000 --> 01:29:26.000]  It depends on the nature of the agreement.
[01:29:26.000 --> 01:29:33.000]  Are you holding a police officer to their contract of law, or do you have a special contract?
[01:29:33.000 --> 01:29:38.000]  Oh, wait a minute.
[01:29:38.000 --> 01:29:44.000]  Okay, David, listen, please hold to the other side of the break. We're going to break right now.
[01:29:44.000 --> 01:29:59.000]  Okay, we'll be right back. This is rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens.
[01:29:59.000 --> 01:30:04.000]  Gold prices are at historic highs, and with the recent pullback, this is a great time to buy.
[01:30:04.000 --> 01:30:12.000]  With the value of the dollar, risks of inflation, geopolitical uncertainties, and instability in world financial systems, I see gold going up much higher.
[01:30:12.000 --> 01:30:15.000]  Hi, I'm Tim Fry at Roberts and Roberts Brokerage.
[01:30:15.000 --> 01:30:19.000]  Everybody should have some of their assets in investment-grade precious metals.
[01:30:19.000 --> 01:30:28.000]  At Roberts and Roberts Brokerage, you can buy gold, silver, and platinum with confidence from a brokerage that specialized in the precious metals market since 1977.
[01:30:28.000 --> 01:30:36.000]  If you are new to precious metals, we will happily provide you with the information you need to make an informed decision whether or not you choose to purchase from us.
[01:30:36.000 --> 01:30:44.000]  Also, Roberts and Roberts Brokerage values your privacy and will always advise you in the event that we would be required to report any transaction.
[01:30:44.000 --> 01:30:49.000]  If you have gold, silver, or platinum you'd like to sell, we can convert it for immediate payment.
[01:30:49.000 --> 01:30:59.000]  Call us at 800-874-9760. We're at Roberts and Roberts Brokerage, 800-874-9760.
[01:31:19.000 --> 01:31:22.000]  Something nosing behind me and they don't want to talk?
[01:31:22.000 --> 01:31:24.000]  It's a cold shoulder man.
[01:31:24.000 --> 01:31:28.000]  But you know, sorry, it's alright. My grandpa used to always say, don't worry sonny.
[01:31:28.000 --> 01:31:30.000]  Let them give you the cold shoulder.
[01:31:30.000 --> 01:31:34.000]  This can't freeze me. I got the golds on, rest of my feet is in there, you know?
[01:31:34.000 --> 01:31:35.000]  Come on, J.
[01:31:35.000 --> 01:31:42.000]  I can smell the cold shoulder, I can smell the cold shoulder.
[01:31:42.000 --> 01:31:49.000]  Now let go shoulder from 200 miles away
[01:31:49.000 --> 01:31:55.000]  Oh lorra lorra when me say me miss me darling me say me miss me honey
[01:31:55.000 --> 01:31:59.000]  But I don't have no phone me say to call she
[01:31:59.000 --> 01:32:03.000]  Me street me A-A-T-E-N-T not work for me
[01:32:03.000 --> 01:32:07.000]  NCIS say glad dem won't take me
[01:32:07.000 --> 01:32:11.000]  But dem say that me pretty no good you see
[01:32:11.000 --> 01:32:15.000]  So dem don't want me call me say my name honey
[01:32:15.000 --> 01:32:17.000]  200 miles away is...
[01:32:17.000 --> 01:32:23.000]  Alright, we are back. The rule of law Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens.
[01:32:23.000 --> 01:32:29.000]  Alright, we are speaking with David in New Brunswick, Canada.
[01:32:29.000 --> 01:32:32.000]  Okay, so David please continue.
[01:32:32.000 --> 01:32:47.000]  Hi, just coming back to this. I'm just wondering like please find and close a most of examination with respect to the above matter along with a list of under caking.
[01:32:47.000 --> 01:32:58.000]  Okay, you know according to this she's agreed to under cake to provide a complete copy of this and this and this and this.
[01:32:58.000 --> 01:33:02.000]  You know it goes down through the numbers.
[01:33:02.000 --> 01:33:14.000]  And like the undertakes, if you undertake something, is it an agreement that has to be done? Is there a time frame to this? Is there a...
[01:33:14.000 --> 01:33:21.000]  If you're in a court situation, absolutely there's going to be time requirements.
[01:33:21.000 --> 01:33:25.000]  There's going to be a rule that applies to it.
[01:33:25.000 --> 01:33:33.000]  Okay, now the rules in Canada are basically kind of the same as...
[01:33:33.000 --> 01:33:36.000]  I'm sorry, that's amusing. Basically kind of the same.
[01:33:36.000 --> 01:33:45.000]  No, there isn't a rule. I know I've been there. I know what you're laughing about.
[01:33:45.000 --> 01:33:52.000]  It's not humorous, but it's very funny.
[01:33:52.000 --> 01:33:59.000]  Like right now we're going through multiple losses. I've had my children stolen.
[01:33:59.000 --> 01:34:06.000]  I've had everything thrown at me but the kitchen sink.
[01:34:06.000 --> 01:34:16.000]  Every one of those things that they've thrown at you must have either a statute or a regulation or a procedure someplace printed in law.
[01:34:16.000 --> 01:34:24.000]  And you need to look up whatever procedure they're acting under and familiarize yourself with what's available.
[01:34:24.000 --> 01:34:34.000]  Even in Canada, I can't even imagine that they don't write opposition prep, basically some sort of pause of action book like I was talking about down here,
[01:34:34.000 --> 01:34:39.000]  where somebody has said, okay, if somebody accuses you of this, here's the defense against it.
[01:34:39.000 --> 01:34:47.000]  Some lawyer or some law school has probably done that somewhere in exactly what you're doing. Almost nobody has a due cause of action.
[01:34:47.000 --> 01:34:51.000]  It's always usually the same old just different names.
[01:34:51.000 --> 01:34:56.000]  Are you familiar with any litigation guides?
[01:34:56.000 --> 01:35:01.000]  Publication.
[01:35:01.000 --> 01:35:09.000]  Call in a local attorney and ask them if they have a litigation guide. You mentioned your children.
[01:35:09.000 --> 01:35:12.000]  Do you have an old copy?
[01:35:12.000 --> 01:35:17.000]  I've had my children back. They couldn't have them for a year, but I've had so much.
[01:35:17.000 --> 01:35:19.000]  Whatever the nature.
[01:35:19.000 --> 01:35:31.000]  I was on my home that they made like 29 affidavits in one day, and my lawyer said that there was no way he could do more than 15.
[01:35:31.000 --> 01:35:39.000]  I went and pulled up all my computer files, and I presented him with so much of this and so much of that.
[01:35:39.000 --> 01:35:42.000]  He said, this can't go on. You know what I mean?
[01:35:42.000 --> 01:35:51.000]  He knew it was wrong, but he just straightened things out. The difference is that I had all this stuff recorded.
[01:35:51.000 --> 01:35:59.000]  I cut this one line and that one line and this one line. You know what I mean?
[01:35:59.000 --> 01:36:04.000]  Just for clarity, you're talking about audio recording?
[01:36:04.000 --> 01:36:08.000]  Video, too. Video, both.
[01:36:08.000 --> 01:36:12.000]  The biggest thing on all of this kind of stuff is you have to catalog it.
[01:36:12.000 --> 01:36:17.000]  If you have audio recordings, you need to reduce it to a transcript.
[01:36:17.000 --> 01:36:21.000]  Right as soon as you do it. It's one of the things that we talk about all the time here,
[01:36:21.000 --> 01:36:25.000]  is people record stuff and then they get into a rushing court where they need it,
[01:36:25.000 --> 01:36:30.000]  and then they've got to sit down and try to transcribe a whole bunch of tapes overnight.
[01:36:30.000 --> 01:36:39.000]  See, the court will almost always exclude your tape recordings or your videos.
[01:36:39.000 --> 01:36:43.000]  They don't want to sit there and have to go through all the trouble of getting the video set up
[01:36:43.000 --> 01:36:45.000]  and everybody sitting and watching the video.
[01:36:45.000 --> 01:36:47.000]  And that's real time.
[01:36:47.000 --> 01:36:53.000]  Yes, so you reduce whatever it is to a transcript.
[01:36:53.000 --> 01:37:00.000]  I very much like to get before these guys and quote exactly what the officer said.
[01:37:00.000 --> 01:37:01.000]  And they'll ask me.
[01:37:01.000 --> 01:37:03.000]  I've done those.
[01:37:03.000 --> 01:37:05.000]  Because what I want them to do.
[01:37:05.000 --> 01:37:13.000]  I've taken those that are important and wrote that down or typed it out.
[01:37:13.000 --> 01:37:17.000]  It sounds like you're no chump when it comes to this.
[01:37:17.000 --> 01:37:29.000]  Well, I've been well since about 2004. We've been maybe earlier.
[01:37:29.000 --> 01:37:31.000]  I don't want to put too many things.
[01:37:31.000 --> 01:37:36.000]  I would email it to Debra or you because I've been watching you for the both.
[01:37:36.000 --> 01:37:43.000]  I don't know how long now on either Alex Jones or on Tower Hour or whatever.
[01:37:43.000 --> 01:37:49.000]  I don't remember where I first saw you, but I've seen you for quite a while now.
[01:37:49.000 --> 01:37:59.000]  And what you're doing is there is no explanation for what you're doing.
[01:37:59.000 --> 01:38:06.000]  I don't really know where you guys have come from because it's incredible what you're doing.
[01:38:06.000 --> 01:38:14.000]  Both problems today are so complex.
[01:38:14.000 --> 01:38:23.000]  They throw all this legal stuff at you and it's basically papers full of stuff that really don't mean anything.
[01:38:23.000 --> 01:38:30.000]  And there might be one or two things on that piece of paper that actually mean something.
[01:38:30.000 --> 01:38:34.000]  That's what the entire process of law is.
[01:38:34.000 --> 01:38:40.000]  My background was I was actually on my way to law school,
[01:38:40.000 --> 01:38:45.000]  but I had some medical problems so I didn't get to go to law school.
[01:38:45.000 --> 01:38:53.000]  So I started seeing the problems in the courts and that's how I met Randy.
[01:38:53.000 --> 01:38:59.000]  Randy and I kind of had the mutual, we're tired of this crap, we want to change it, we want to fix it.
[01:38:59.000 --> 01:39:04.000]  I've been a lobbyist for a number of years on environmental issues in Texas,
[01:39:04.000 --> 01:39:08.000]  so I knew my way around the state capitol fairly well.
[01:39:08.000 --> 01:39:13.000]  So that's a little bit of background that maybe the listeners would appreciate.
[01:39:13.000 --> 01:39:21.000]  But one of the things that I noticed most of my life was that I bumped into a number of court situations
[01:39:21.000 --> 01:39:26.000]  and I found with few exceptions everybody doing the right thing.
[01:39:26.000 --> 01:39:34.000]  It seemed to happen almost like 1990 or 1989 in the state of Texas as well as the federal courts
[01:39:34.000 --> 01:39:37.000]  where everything started going haywire.
[01:39:37.000 --> 01:39:45.000]  Now that's not to say it didn't happen before then, but I didn't see great examples of it before then.
[01:39:45.000 --> 01:39:48.000]  I found a lot of justice in court when I was there before.
[01:39:48.000 --> 01:39:53.000]  And I've said this to many people with cases that I've actually done on my own.
[01:39:53.000 --> 01:40:02.000]  If I've had a level playing field and an honest judge, I've never won in front of a jury.
[01:40:02.000 --> 01:40:03.000]  Okay.
[01:40:03.000 --> 01:40:06.000]  I hate that, I always lose.
[01:40:06.000 --> 01:40:08.000]  But you put them on.
[01:40:08.000 --> 01:40:12.000]  But you're always going into the corrupt courts though.
[01:40:12.000 --> 01:40:14.000]  That too.
[01:40:14.000 --> 01:40:19.000]  But they always find me incredibly guilty.
[01:40:19.000 --> 01:40:22.000]  I usually am.
[01:40:22.000 --> 01:40:25.000]  But it's tickets and minor stuff.
[01:40:25.000 --> 01:40:31.000]  The only thing I can suggest for the caller is to go back and look at what you have.
[01:40:31.000 --> 01:40:37.000]  There's almost a provision any time somebody dumps paperwork on you to ask for an extension of time of some sort,
[01:40:37.000 --> 01:40:42.000]  indicating that there's all of these either affidavits or documents or whatever.
[01:40:42.000 --> 01:40:47.000]  There's always the opportunity for extension of time, but you have to look at the cause of action.
[01:40:47.000 --> 01:40:53.000]  Under what authority did they have to do whatever action you want to take the court to sue them for?
[01:40:53.000 --> 01:41:00.000]  Or if they took some kind of action that they didn't have any authority to do.
[01:41:00.000 --> 01:41:02.000]  We initiated them.
[01:41:02.000 --> 01:41:06.000]  I initiated the lawsuit for my new wife.
[01:41:06.000 --> 01:41:07.000]  Okay.
[01:41:07.000 --> 01:41:10.000]  But I can't go in and fight for it.
[01:41:10.000 --> 01:41:12.000]  In Canada you're not allowed to.
[01:41:12.000 --> 01:41:16.000]  What you guys are doing on radio right now, if you could do it here,
[01:41:16.000 --> 01:41:20.000]  you would be in jail a year ago or five years ago.
[01:41:20.000 --> 01:41:21.000]  For what?
[01:41:21.000 --> 01:41:23.000]  Be in jail for what?
[01:41:23.000 --> 01:41:37.000]  Well, you would be railroaded right down for giving legal advice in some sort of way or they would just, I don't know.
[01:41:37.000 --> 01:41:43.000]  They try to do the same kind of stuff here.
[01:41:43.000 --> 01:41:49.000]  There's been like already one person here and he tried to do it for the poor once about three or four years ago
[01:41:49.000 --> 01:41:53.000]  and he got to jail for, I don't know, 20 years or whatever.
[01:41:53.000 --> 01:41:57.000]  Depends on how you do it.
[01:41:57.000 --> 01:41:59.000]  Here it depends on how you do it.
[01:41:59.000 --> 01:42:00.000]  We have a First Amendment right.
[01:42:00.000 --> 01:42:03.000]  We have a right to discuss our laws.
[01:42:03.000 --> 01:42:05.000]  And we're not giving legal advice.
[01:42:05.000 --> 01:42:08.000]  If you came in late on the show, I always say I'm not an attorney.
[01:42:08.000 --> 01:42:14.000]  And anything that you do or consider doing, check out with a qualified counselor or attorney at law.
[01:42:14.000 --> 01:42:16.000]  Make sure you fully understand what's going on.
[01:42:16.000 --> 01:42:22.000]  But this is an attempt to discuss the process and educate people.
[01:42:22.000 --> 01:42:23.000]  That's right.
[01:42:23.000 --> 01:42:26.000]  This is for educational and entertainment purposes only.
[01:42:26.000 --> 01:42:33.000]  And when I talk about these things, I never say you should this or that.
[01:42:33.000 --> 01:42:36.000]  I always say, well, if I were you, I would do that.
[01:42:36.000 --> 01:42:39.000]  So, I mean, we're really not giving legal advice.
[01:42:39.000 --> 01:42:42.000]  I mean, we have the right to discuss our laws.
[01:42:42.000 --> 01:42:46.000]  What we've all told you at this point in time isn't even legal advice.
[01:42:46.000 --> 01:42:51.000]  We've told you to go look up the statutes, look up the rules, study them.
[01:42:51.000 --> 01:42:55.000]  I give legal advice, but it's my opinion.
[01:42:55.000 --> 01:42:57.000]  And that we can do.
[01:42:57.000 --> 01:43:03.000]  You know, no law professor carries a bar card.
[01:43:03.000 --> 01:43:06.000]  You don't have to have a bar card to teach law.
[01:43:06.000 --> 01:43:07.000]  Yeah.
[01:43:07.000 --> 01:43:09.000]  So I'm teaching the things that I know.
[01:43:09.000 --> 01:43:10.000]  Yeah, that's right.
[01:43:10.000 --> 01:43:14.000]  Whether they're right or wrong, I teach them.
[01:43:14.000 --> 01:43:20.000]  So, you know, it's about how you handle yourself.
[01:43:20.000 --> 01:43:22.000]  We work within the law that exists.
[01:43:22.000 --> 01:43:24.000]  We don't try to go around it.
[01:43:24.000 --> 01:43:28.000]  And we take the law that's here and beat them over the head with it.
[01:43:28.000 --> 01:43:31.000]  And they tend not to want to come after us.
[01:43:31.000 --> 01:43:34.000]  Well, what you've learned, you've learned the hard way, too.
[01:43:34.000 --> 01:43:38.000]  Sometimes Randy does have to learn the hard way.
[01:43:38.000 --> 01:43:39.000]  I guess we all do.
[01:43:39.000 --> 01:43:41.000]  All right, listen, we're going to break, David.
[01:43:41.000 --> 01:43:42.000]  Thank you for calling in.
[01:43:42.000 --> 01:43:44.000]  I only spent one day in jail this morning.
[01:43:44.000 --> 01:43:45.000]  Hey, get the question before he goes.
[01:43:45.000 --> 01:43:46.000]  Okay.
[01:43:46.000 --> 01:43:47.000]  How cold is it up there?
[01:43:47.000 --> 01:43:48.000]  Yes.
[01:43:48.000 --> 01:43:52.000]  It's minus five.
[01:43:52.000 --> 01:43:54.000]  Okay, we'll be right back.
[01:43:54.000 --> 01:43:55.000]  We're going to break.
[01:43:55.000 --> 01:43:57.000]  Plus nine, and then it comes back.
[01:43:57.000 --> 01:43:59.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:43:59.000 --> 01:44:02.000]  Stock markets are taking hit after hit.
[01:44:02.000 --> 01:44:06.000]  Corrupt bankers are choking on subprime debt.
[01:44:06.000 --> 01:44:10.000]  The Fed is busy printing dollars, dollars, and more dollars
[01:44:10.000 --> 01:44:14.000]  to bail out Wall Street, banks, and the U.S. car industry.
[01:44:14.000 --> 01:44:17.000]  As investors scramble for safety in the metals,
[01:44:17.000 --> 01:44:20.000]  in the face of a further devaluation of the dollar,
[01:44:20.000 --> 01:44:23.000]  the price of silver will only increase.
[01:44:23.000 --> 01:44:26.000]  Some of the world's leading financial analysts believe that
[01:44:26.000 --> 01:44:29.000]  silver is one of the world's most important commodities,
[01:44:29.000 --> 01:44:33.000]  with unparalleled investment opportunity for the future.
[01:44:33.000 --> 01:44:39.000]  Now is the time to buy silver before it heads for $75 an ounce,
[01:44:39.000 --> 01:44:44.000]  and the yellow metal roars back past $1,000 an ounce to new highs.
[01:44:44.000 --> 01:44:51.000]  Call Maximus Holdings now at 407-608-5430
[01:44:51.000 --> 01:44:57.000]  to find out how you can turn your IRA and 401K into a solid investment,
[01:44:57.000 --> 01:45:00.000]  silver, without any penalties for early withdrawal.
[01:45:00.000 --> 01:45:03.000]  Even if you don't have a retirement account yet,
[01:45:03.000 --> 01:45:06.000]  we have fantastic investment opportunities for you.
[01:45:06.000 --> 01:45:21.000]  Call Maximus Holdings at 407-608-5430 for more information.
[01:45:21.000 --> 01:45:38.000]  Hello. Oh, man, you're in jail. You got busted, man. Oh, man, I'm close, man.
[01:45:38.000 --> 01:45:42.000]  Some things in this world I will never understand.
[01:45:42.000 --> 01:45:46.000]  Some things I realize fully.
[01:45:46.000 --> 01:45:50.000]  Somebody's gonna police that policeman.
[01:45:50.000 --> 01:45:54.000]  Somebody's gonna police the bully.
[01:45:54.000 --> 01:45:59.000]  There's always a room at the top of the hill.
[01:45:59.000 --> 01:46:03.000]  I hear things are great, fine, and it's lonely left too.
[01:46:03.000 --> 01:46:07.000]  They're wishing it was more than I position the bill.
[01:46:07.000 --> 01:46:11.000]  All right, we are back. The rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens.
[01:46:11.000 --> 01:46:15.000]  We're here with Ken Magnuson and callers.
[01:46:15.000 --> 01:46:18.000]  I'm sorry, we're not going to take any more calls for the rest of the evening.
[01:46:18.000 --> 01:46:24.000]  We've only got one more segment left, and I want to turn over the show to Ken.
[01:46:24.000 --> 01:46:28.000]  I want to give it back to Ken so that he can discuss one more topic
[01:46:28.000 --> 01:46:31.000]  concerning the process of selecting a jury.
[01:46:31.000 --> 01:46:32.000]  So, Ken, go ahead.
[01:46:32.000 --> 01:46:35.000]  And callers, Travis and the other callers, please call back Monday.
[01:46:35.000 --> 01:46:38.000]  Thank you. All right, go ahead, Ken.
[01:46:38.000 --> 01:46:43.000]  The first aspect of this is in Texas you'll go into a courthouse
[01:46:43.000 --> 01:46:48.000]  and they'll talk about the selection of a jury and they'll say voir dire.
[01:46:48.000 --> 01:46:53.000]  And everybody that can look up Black Law Dictionary will know that it's a French word, voir dire.
[01:46:53.000 --> 01:46:56.000]  But they call it voir dire in Texas.
[01:46:56.000 --> 01:47:00.000]  So I've won a couple bets with attorneys on that pronunciation.
[01:47:00.000 --> 01:47:08.000]  It's the process of to seek the truth, finding out about the people that are in the jury pool.
[01:47:08.000 --> 01:47:13.000]  And one of the best things that I could do, and it's another spot,
[01:47:13.000 --> 01:47:18.000]  but when I find a little gem out there that helps people, I send them to it.
[01:47:18.000 --> 01:47:26.000]  There's a book on tape by Jerry Spence called How to Argue and Win Every Time.
[01:47:26.000 --> 01:47:29.000]  And he talks about the selection of the jury.
[01:47:29.000 --> 01:47:36.000]  And selection of the jury is pretty much independent of whether it's criminal or civil.
[01:47:36.000 --> 01:47:41.000]  The idea is not to come into the courtroom with a chip on your shoulder.
[01:47:41.000 --> 01:47:45.000]  The idea is to point out the issues that are going to be talked about.
[01:47:45.000 --> 01:47:48.000]  You're not trying to argue the case in front of the jury.
[01:47:48.000 --> 01:47:50.000]  You're just pointing out the issues.
[01:47:50.000 --> 01:47:58.000]  You want to make a list of questions that would be asked if you want to find a person that might be prejudiced.
[01:47:58.000 --> 01:48:02.000]  The easiest example I can give is if you're walking in and you've been given a traffic ticket
[01:48:02.000 --> 01:48:05.000]  and you've got a jury for the traffic ticket trial,
[01:48:05.000 --> 01:48:10.000]  the first thing you want to do is ask if anybody there is a member of law enforcement,
[01:48:10.000 --> 01:48:17.000]  state employee, prosecuting attorney, or is married to one.
[01:48:17.000 --> 01:48:19.000]  And all of those people have to raise their hand.
[01:48:19.000 --> 01:48:23.000]  And you indicate, you know, move to strike their prejudice on their face
[01:48:23.000 --> 01:48:26.000]  because they already think that the, you know,
[01:48:26.000 --> 01:48:31.000]  they've already heard story after story after story about people who lie in court,
[01:48:31.000 --> 01:48:34.000]  lie about their traffic tickets and all of that.
[01:48:34.000 --> 01:48:38.000]  These people think that because you're there, you're automatically guilty.
[01:48:38.000 --> 01:48:41.000]  Now, if the judge doesn't let you get away with that, striking them,
[01:48:41.000 --> 01:48:44.000]  you can go ahead and ask them individual questions.
[01:48:44.000 --> 01:48:47.000]  And every now and then you can find a person, if you ask the right questions,
[01:48:47.000 --> 01:48:53.000]  you may find a person that's educated enough that smells the rat in the system.
[01:48:53.000 --> 01:48:56.000]  I guarantee you the other side will throw them out.
[01:48:56.000 --> 01:49:02.000]  But the key is to make the jury think you're a person like them.
[01:49:02.000 --> 01:49:07.000]  You're here because some process has brought you here,
[01:49:07.000 --> 01:49:11.000]  and that in the American system you have a right to a trial by jury.
[01:49:11.000 --> 01:49:15.000]  And had they called you to come to the jury trial,
[01:49:15.000 --> 01:49:20.000]  you would be there ready to serve for them to provide justice.
[01:49:20.000 --> 01:49:24.000]  That this is not here to inconvenience them.
[01:49:24.000 --> 01:49:26.000]  And you ask them, you ask the question.
[01:49:26.000 --> 01:49:29.000]  Anybody here feel like they've been inconvenienced?
[01:49:29.000 --> 01:49:33.000]  They raise their hands, you essentially ask them questions with regards to
[01:49:33.000 --> 01:49:35.000]  would that affect the outcome of the trial?
[01:49:35.000 --> 01:49:37.000]  Are you wanting to make it shorter?
[01:49:37.000 --> 01:49:40.000]  Would you find me guilty so you wouldn't have to deliberate long?
[01:49:40.000 --> 01:49:45.000]  Anything prejudicial they might say that gives you an indication that they might not be fair
[01:49:45.000 --> 01:49:51.000]  and decide in your favor when presented with all the facts, you try to strike them.
[01:49:51.000 --> 01:49:56.000]  Now, there are certain rules on jury selection and striking in state courts,
[01:49:56.000 --> 01:50:01.000]  and that's going to differ and you're going to have to look that up for your individual case.
[01:50:01.000 --> 01:50:05.000]  But this is the basic process.
[01:50:05.000 --> 01:50:15.000]  You may ask them questions about, well, an example would be for graphic tickets would be like radar.
[01:50:15.000 --> 01:50:18.000]  You would ask them if they have any electronics training.
[01:50:18.000 --> 01:50:22.000]  You would ask people about their education, whether they've got college degrees,
[01:50:22.000 --> 01:50:26.000]  whether there's anybody with a chemical engineering degree or an electrical engineering degree
[01:50:26.000 --> 01:50:29.000]  or works on computer equipment.
[01:50:29.000 --> 01:50:35.000]  The idea is to find people who are technologically savvy so when you present evidence about radar
[01:50:35.000 --> 01:50:39.000]  and the potential faults of radar, they understand it.
[01:50:39.000 --> 01:50:42.000]  And the other side clearly understands what you're doing,
[01:50:42.000 --> 01:50:47.000]  and they're going to try to find these people as well and throw them off the jury for being overly educated
[01:50:47.000 --> 01:50:50.000]  or something, go find some prejudicial reason, you know,
[01:50:50.000 --> 01:50:53.000]  that, oh, do you believe radar is accurate?
[01:50:53.000 --> 01:50:58.000]  And if they say, well, no, then they're going to try to strike them from the jury.
[01:50:58.000 --> 01:51:02.000]  The other aspect of this is if you're involved in a civil litigation,
[01:51:02.000 --> 01:51:06.000]  you don't want people that have been on the jury that have decided against people.
[01:51:06.000 --> 01:51:14.000]  People think that there are common myths out there among the people that everybody is trying to win the lottery
[01:51:14.000 --> 01:51:17.000]  by suing the insurance companies in car accidents.
[01:51:17.000 --> 01:51:19.000]  Do you want to ask them questions about that?
[01:51:19.000 --> 01:51:21.000]  Have you heard about tort reform?
[01:51:21.000 --> 01:51:26.000]  Have you seen issues on television about these kinds of issues?
[01:51:26.000 --> 01:51:30.000]  Do you believe people come into court just for harassment suits?
[01:51:30.000 --> 01:51:33.000]  Do you think I'm here for a harassment suit?
[01:51:33.000 --> 01:51:37.000]  And if anybody answers yes, you move to strike with cause.
[01:51:37.000 --> 01:51:38.000]  You get them off the jury.
[01:51:38.000 --> 01:51:44.000]  The idea is to end up with an individual pool of either 6 or 12, depending on what kind of case it is,
[01:51:44.000 --> 01:51:49.000]  of people that you feel are independent that are going to listen to the evidence
[01:51:49.000 --> 01:51:54.000]  and make a proper and fair determination.
[01:51:54.000 --> 01:52:01.000]  If it's a criminal case, one of the approaches that I've taken is I look at the other side and I don't demonize them.
[01:52:01.000 --> 01:52:06.000]  I don't tell them that these are stormtroopers handing out tickets to make money for the city.
[01:52:06.000 --> 01:52:08.000]  I just say these people are great people.
[01:52:08.000 --> 01:52:12.000]  We need police on the streets to keep the city safe.
[01:52:12.000 --> 01:52:17.000]  The problem is in this case they made a mistake and they don't even know it.
[01:52:17.000 --> 01:52:22.000]  That was one ploy that I used in a ticket that I got many, many years ago.
[01:52:22.000 --> 01:52:32.000]  And as it turned out, as the case went along, it turned out that the mistake became evident and the case was dismissed.
[01:52:32.000 --> 01:52:38.000]  They found out their mistake in the cross-examination and they moved to dismiss the case themselves.
[01:52:38.000 --> 01:52:44.000]  So that goes a long way to showing the jury what you're doing and why you're doing it.
[01:52:44.000 --> 01:52:51.000]  Any questions from Randy or Deborah?
[01:52:51.000 --> 01:52:52.000]  No, it sounds pretty clear.
[01:52:52.000 --> 01:52:56.000]  Randy?
[01:52:56.000 --> 01:52:58.000]  Randy, go ahead.
[01:52:58.000 --> 01:53:02.000]  Jury selection was always the hardest part for me.
[01:53:02.000 --> 01:53:16.000]  It was hard for me to find a way to ask a jury a question in a way that he wouldn't be embarrassed to answer in the negative.
[01:53:16.000 --> 01:53:24.000]  To turn it upside down and ask them another question, something that's parallel, that has no issue with it,
[01:53:24.000 --> 01:53:28.000]  but would give you an indication or reading how he would answer the other question.
[01:53:28.000 --> 01:53:30.000]  I can't think of an example off the top of my head.
[01:53:30.000 --> 01:53:35.000]  There's a whole slew of books out there about answering questions.
[01:53:35.000 --> 01:53:43.000]  But the biggest thing Jerry Spence points out in his argument is you've got the cases won or lost with the jury selection.
[01:53:43.000 --> 01:53:53.000]  The jury selection right then and there, if the jury likes you, believes you're sincere, believes that you're an honest person,
[01:53:53.000 --> 01:54:05.000]  believes that you're not one of these lunatic, fringe-type individuals, obviously this also goes to the issue of dressing for court.
[01:54:05.000 --> 01:54:12.000]  If you show up in Bermuda shorts and a Hawaiian shirt, chances are they're not going to take you too seriously.
[01:54:12.000 --> 01:54:21.000]  So you always dress for the environment, which is for men, suit and tie, for a woman, a business suit,
[01:54:21.000 --> 01:54:24.000]  or something that looks like you would go to church on Sunday.
[01:54:24.000 --> 01:54:37.000]  The idea is to look like you're one of the pillars of the community so that your words have impact on the jury, that they believe you.
[01:54:37.000 --> 01:54:43.000]  Being well dressed shows a sign of respect.
[01:54:43.000 --> 01:54:52.000]  If you dress well for the jury, they will appreciate it and take it as a sign that you have respect for them.
[01:54:52.000 --> 01:54:58.000]  Which also goes to the idea of dressing that way any time you have a hearing.
[01:54:58.000 --> 01:55:04.000]  The idea that if you're just filing paperwork with a clerk, generally you can just go up there and just file it.
[01:55:04.000 --> 01:55:06.000]  They don't even ask you who you are.
[01:55:06.000 --> 01:55:09.000]  They may know who you are or they may not care.
[01:55:09.000 --> 01:55:16.000]  But any time you make an appearance in court, you should look professional.
[01:55:16.000 --> 01:55:21.000]  I always look like an attorney when I walk into court, always.
[01:55:21.000 --> 01:55:25.000]  And I'm frequently mistaken for an attorney as I walk around the courthouse.
[01:55:25.000 --> 01:55:36.000]  That's why he's always having trouble getting the stains off his knees and off the belly of his shirt from slithering in on his stomach.
[01:55:36.000 --> 01:55:41.000]  Are you making a disparaging comment to snakes?
[01:55:41.000 --> 01:55:46.000]  Yes, I was.
[01:55:46.000 --> 01:55:52.000]  I resent those remarks and ask you to revise and withdraw them.
[01:55:52.000 --> 01:55:53.000]  That's right.
[01:55:53.000 --> 01:56:00.000]  Ken's a herpetologist and he don't like us disparaging snakes.
[01:56:00.000 --> 01:56:10.000]  The entire process of selecting a jury can make all the difference in the world between whether or not you win or you lose.
[01:56:10.000 --> 01:56:13.000]  It's to be taken seriously.
[01:56:13.000 --> 01:56:18.000]  This is just like any of the other processes which I've talked about, which is if you really want to see how it's done,
[01:56:18.000 --> 01:56:22.000]  go in for a jury selection on a trial and watch how the attorneys do it.
[01:56:22.000 --> 01:56:24.000]  Watch several trials.
[01:56:24.000 --> 01:56:27.000]  They can be pretty sloppy in one because nobody really cares.
[01:56:27.000 --> 01:56:34.000]  The attorney may have already sold out his client or the client may already really be guilty and there's really not much they can do.
[01:56:34.000 --> 01:56:36.000]  They're just going through the formality.
[01:56:36.000 --> 01:56:41.000]  But go into a trial where they really care about the case and watch the jury selection process.
[01:56:41.000 --> 01:56:44.000]  And it's not necessarily to find a murder case or anything.
[01:56:44.000 --> 01:56:57.000]  It's just necessary to find a case in which both parties are sincere and motivated to try to win and see what the process is.
[01:56:57.000 --> 01:57:02.000]  If you want to see mistakes made by jury selection, go down to your local J.T. court or municipal court
[01:57:02.000 --> 01:57:07.000]  and watch those that don't generally study the law too often, the amateurs,
[01:57:07.000 --> 01:57:11.000]  and walk in and see them at their first time where they've ever had a jury.
[01:57:11.000 --> 01:57:16.000]  I tell everybody right now, if you're in the sound of my voice and you've never been in the court
[01:57:16.000 --> 01:57:20.000]  and you've been given a ticket or whatever instead of trying to fight it, get it dismissed,
[01:57:20.000 --> 01:57:26.000]  set up a jury trial, prepare, make the argument, select the jury, and see what happens.
[01:57:26.000 --> 01:57:31.000]  It will be the best legal education you could ever get, even if you're found guilty.
[01:57:31.000 --> 01:57:37.000]  Yes, even if you're found guilty, it's still the cheapest education you can get.
[01:57:37.000 --> 01:57:40.000]  Absolutely.
[01:57:40.000 --> 01:57:45.000]  And it's a lot better than law school because it's real time.
[01:57:45.000 --> 01:57:50.000]  Well, that last jury, the last jury case that I had where I was talking about the speeding ticket,
[01:57:50.000 --> 01:57:53.000]  the jury actually took me to lunch afterwards.
[01:57:53.000 --> 01:57:56.000]  So they're allowed to do that afterwards.
[01:57:56.000 --> 01:58:02.000]  They can't take you to lunch before, but they can take you to lunch afterwards.
[01:58:02.000 --> 01:58:05.000]  Yeah, experience is the best education, that's for sure.
[01:58:05.000 --> 01:58:10.000]  Absolutely, and the only thing I can tell people is the first case I ever argued
[01:58:10.000 --> 01:58:13.000]  was a traffic case when I was like 21.
[01:58:13.000 --> 01:58:17.000]  I hadn't gotten any tickets until I was 21.
[01:58:17.000 --> 01:58:20.000]  Yeah, yeah, quickly, Ken, we got about 30 seconds left.
[01:58:20.000 --> 01:58:21.000]  Well, that's about it.
[01:58:21.000 --> 01:58:24.000]  I mean, you know, I won the case and it was a great experience,
[01:58:24.000 --> 01:58:28.000]  and that told me that I might want to contemplate law in the future,
[01:58:28.000 --> 01:58:31.000]  and that motivated me to go back to college and get my degree.
[01:58:31.000 --> 01:58:37.000]  Excellent. All right, Ken, thank you so much for joining us tonight and for staying for the duration of the show.
[01:58:37.000 --> 01:58:39.000]  We've got more segments later.
[01:58:39.000 --> 01:58:41.000]  Okay, we'll be back Monday night.
[01:58:41.000 --> 01:58:47.000]  This is the Rule of Law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens on ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:58:47.000 --> 01:58:49.000]  We'll see you Monday.
[01:58:49.000 --> 01:59:05.000]  If you are a bully, a bully, I beg you, treat me good. I'm like a stepping razor, don't you watch my sights. I'm dangerous, dangerous.
[01:59:05.000 --> 01:59:13.000]  I'm like a stepping razor, don't you watch my sights. I'm dangerous, dangerous.
[01:59:13.000 --> 01:59:28.000]  If you are a chucky, nobody's chucky but me. If you are a chucky, chucky, nobody's chucky but me.
[01:59:28.000 --> 01:59:40.000]  I'm like a stepping razor, don't you watch my sights. I'm dangerous, I'm dangerous. I'm like a stepping razor, don't you watch my sights.
[01:59:40.000 --> 01:59:57.000]  I'm dangerous, dangerous. If you eat nothing, boy, then you treat me good. It's a dream, let's move. You better treat me good.