[00:00.000 --> 00:04.760]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Next.
[00:04.760 --> 00:10.880]  America's UN Ambassador Susan Rice said Thursday U.S. support for Israel is not negotiable
[00:10.880 --> 00:12.480]  and it never will be.
[00:12.480 --> 00:18.440]  U.S. backing comes as Israel faces intense international criticism over attacking a Gaza-bound
[00:18.440 --> 00:21.640]  aid ship and killing nine activists aboard.
[00:21.640 --> 00:27.000]  Israeli Trade Minister Benjamin Ben-Aleezer said last month the world was, quote, tired
[00:27.000 --> 00:35.080]  of hearing our explanations of showing empathy for our troubles, even if they're real troubles.
[00:35.080 --> 00:41.200]  More than 20 people were killed Thursday and over 100 injured in the Iranian city of Zahedan
[00:41.200 --> 00:47.000]  after two bombs exploded minutes apart in front of the city's grand mosque.
[00:47.000 --> 00:53.280]  Ten people were killed Thursday and several others injured in a U.S. drone attack in Pakistan's
[00:53.280 --> 00:58.680]  tribal region of north Waziristan. A drone fired three missiles at a house allegedly
[00:58.680 --> 01:04.880]  used by militants, but local sources told press TV the house belonged to a tribesman.
[01:04.880 --> 01:10.600]  Nearly 1,000 people have been killed in more than 100 drone strikes in Pakistan since August
[01:10.600 --> 01:11.600]  2008.
[01:11.600 --> 01:18.520]  A federal judge Thursday increased the sentence of Lynn Stewart, a disbarred lawyer convicted
[01:18.520 --> 01:24.840]  of assisting terrorism, to 10 years, nearly five times longer than her original sentence.
[01:24.840 --> 01:30.520]  Ms. Stewart was convicted in 2005 of assisting terrorism by smuggling information from an
[01:30.520 --> 01:36.120]  imprisoned client to followers in Egypt. Ms. Stewart, 70, who has breast cancer and was
[01:36.120 --> 01:40.720]  given time to seek treatment before her first sentencing, said Thursday imprisonment was
[01:40.720 --> 01:42.280]  wearing her down.
[01:42.280 --> 01:47.440]  The case was closely watched in legal circles as Ms. Stewart presented herself as a martyr
[01:47.440 --> 01:53.440]  for lawyers who vigorously defended terrorism suspects in the post-9-11 era.
[01:53.440 --> 01:58.520]  Following her original sentencing, Ms. Stewart told the media she could do 28 months, quote,
[01:58.520 --> 02:03.160]  standing on my head and that she would do it all again. The judge said those comments
[02:03.160 --> 02:10.520]  indicated a lack of remorse and that the original sentence was not sufficient.
[02:10.520 --> 02:15.280]  The true extent of the British government's involvement in the illegal abduction and torture
[02:15.280 --> 02:22.080]  of its own citizens after 9-11 has been revealed in high court proceedings. Previously, secret
[02:22.080 --> 02:27.440]  papers have implicated former Prime Minister Tony Blair's office in many events that are
[02:27.440 --> 02:33.000]  to be the subject of a judicial inquiry. Among the most damning documents are interrogation
[02:33.000 --> 02:39.200]  reports from MI5 officers that show their disregard for the suffering of a British resident
[02:39.200 --> 02:42.640]  they were questioning at a US base in Afghanistan.
[02:42.640 --> 02:48.800]  The UK Guardian says one of the most startling documents is an MI6 manual, which advises
[02:48.800 --> 02:54.240]  officers that among the particular sensitivities they need to consider is the question of whether
[02:54.240 --> 02:58.040]  detention rather than killing is the objective of the operation.
[02:58.040 --> 03:01.040]  This news break brought to you by the New York Times.
[03:01.040 --> 03:08.280]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at ruleoflawradio.com, live free speech
[03:08.280 --> 03:15.280]  talk radio at its best.
[03:38.280 --> 04:05.600]  Okay, folks. We're back. This is the Rule of Law. Whatever is good for the gander is
[04:05.600 --> 04:11.080]  going to work for the goose. We're taking your calls. We've got Gary, Mark, and Mike.
[04:11.080 --> 04:15.040]  We're going to go to Gary first. Gary, thanks for calling in. What's on your mind tonight?
[04:15.040 --> 04:22.200]  Evening. One issue, I've got two issues I'd like to discuss. One is about mortgages. And
[04:22.200 --> 04:28.920]  as Randy was saying, it's like a non-judicial foreclosure state. If a person knows he's
[04:28.920 --> 04:36.880]  going to get behind in his mortgage, the first thing he needs to do is see if the other side
[04:36.880 --> 04:49.040]  is complied with a Freddie Mac arrest book and all the necessary laws for mortgages.
[04:49.040 --> 04:56.840]  And so in a non-judicial foreclosure state, usually you'll have a law firm and they show
[04:56.840 --> 05:04.040]  up on a courthouse test about every second, I think it's the first Tuesday of every month
[05:04.040 --> 05:12.320]  to sell up a mortgage. But however, they haven't shown that they even have standing. And that's
[05:12.320 --> 05:21.160]  the most important thing. And by all of our dealing with a government such as FCC, IRS,
[05:21.160 --> 05:28.800]  and especially if it's federal, they have to show a case of controversy that the court
[05:28.800 --> 05:35.520]  does have jurisdiction before they can even move forward. So in a non-judicial foreclosure
[05:35.520 --> 05:44.760]  state, I recommend that people just go ahead and sue them because if you don't do that,
[05:44.760 --> 05:50.440]  you'll write to the mortgage company and especially the attorneys. They completely ignore you
[05:50.440 --> 05:57.960]  and just keep going right ahead. The person stays in the house the next day and all. You're
[05:57.960 --> 06:03.880]  in magistrate court for dispossessed reaction, which is in rem action against the property
[06:03.880 --> 06:09.880]  itself. And the magistrate, he completely ignores you and poor person doesn't know what
[06:09.880 --> 06:18.640]  to do. So in a mortgage, absolutely, just start doing your pre-trial discovery and start
[06:18.640 --> 06:27.040]  asking for documents. Now, another issue I want to bring up to the listeners is about
[06:27.040 --> 06:35.960]  which I'm sure Randy and Eddie know about the famous case of Federal Crop Insurance
[06:35.960 --> 06:43.640]  versus Merrill. It was decided against in 1947 against the Idaho Farmers with the Supreme
[06:43.640 --> 06:50.160]  Court and it's been cited over a thousand times. Now, it has some very good gems in
[06:50.160 --> 06:56.080]  there that anyone can use that's going to the government. And one of the first things
[06:56.080 --> 07:05.480]  that the law against the stopple and the issues in Federal Crop was is that Federal Crop Insurance
[07:05.480 --> 07:11.720]  is a U.S. government corporation. They had an agent that told the farmers that, yes,
[07:11.720 --> 07:15.680]  you guys got a claim because they had a bad wheat.
[07:15.680 --> 07:17.480]  Wait a minute, Gary.
[07:17.480 --> 07:19.080]  Yes, sir.
[07:19.080 --> 07:24.520]  What happened was is the guy planted summer wheat and he wanted to insure his winter wheat
[07:24.520 --> 07:30.760]  crop. And he asked the guy, can I plant winter wheat after summer wheat? Will it be insured?
[07:30.760 --> 07:38.360]  And the guy said, sure. And he bought the insurance, had a drought, made the claim and
[07:38.360 --> 07:43.960]  the government come back and said, had you bought insurance from a private company, you
[07:43.960 --> 07:49.960]  would have a claim. But the government is bound to abide by law no matter what its agent
[07:49.960 --> 07:58.800]  says. We can't violate law just because the agent misrepresented the truth to you. Therefore,
[07:58.800 --> 08:06.200]  when you deal with the government, you do so at your peril. You must insure that an
[08:06.200 --> 08:13.320]  agent has the authority to make the representations that he makes.
[08:13.320 --> 08:22.480]  Very well said. And so that's one of the points. And it goes to the law of a stopple. And another
[08:22.480 --> 08:35.120]  important thing in that particular case, which they quote, Justice Holmes says long ago pointed
[08:35.120 --> 08:40.120]  out that men must turn square corners when dealing with the government. However, sir,
[08:40.120 --> 08:44.800]  I also have cases that the government must turn square corners when they're dealing
[08:44.800 --> 08:52.680]  with the people. So this goes to like in the traffic issue and the IRS issue, where we
[08:52.680 --> 08:59.080]  get these faceless people, we have received payment to be asked to not sue or whatever
[08:59.080 --> 09:07.600]  it may be. It's an authenticated document from nobody. So what the document says is
[09:07.600 --> 09:13.760]  that people must turn square corners when dealing with the government.
[09:13.760 --> 09:22.120]  The most important significance of that case, sir, is that people are charged with the knowledge
[09:22.120 --> 09:28.880]  of the statutes at large and the implementing the legislative regulations published in the
[09:28.880 --> 09:39.480]  Federal Register. And that's what my point I'm bringing up is that these traffic regulations,
[09:39.480 --> 09:45.880]  if people would go with their charge, if they got a license, they have to go through the
[09:45.880 --> 09:53.600]  administrative process like in my state with the Department of Drive or Services and ask
[09:53.600 --> 10:03.400]  for the, he wants a self-authenticated, he wants a dedicated copy of the regulation that
[10:03.400 --> 10:12.320]  has the implements to law. So it would have to be, you want to ask for a copy of the certified
[10:12.320 --> 10:20.480]  copy of the legislative regulations and the force effects of law relative to private individual
[10:20.480 --> 10:27.120]  to get a driver's license, to get tags for taxes and those issues.
[10:27.120 --> 10:36.080]  Now on the other side, one other point is the tax issue. And remember what the Federal
[10:36.080 --> 10:45.400]  Crop Insurance said, everyone is charged with the knowledge of the contents of the Federal
[10:45.400 --> 10:55.360]  Register and charged with the contents of the statutes at large, which is the law, right?
[10:55.360 --> 11:03.760]  It's Congress, what Congress said. And then you look at the intent of Congress and by
[11:03.760 --> 11:10.880]  the unambiguous intent of Congress, I must have said to you in about 35 cases that just
[11:10.880 --> 11:18.160]  got those phrases in, at least 30 of them are your Supreme Court case. So what I'm saying,
[11:18.160 --> 11:26.360]  Randy, is that there's no wiggle room for these public servants to do anything if you
[11:26.360 --> 11:33.360]  just read those particular cases. And I also have the same issue as you talk about private
[11:33.360 --> 11:40.840]  private. Well, I have a case which you have also Allstate Fire Insurance Company for the
[11:40.840 --> 11:51.160]  11th Circuit. And it says that the people must pay attention. And what the government
[11:51.160 --> 11:58.440]  said, anyway, Allstate did not have to pay. So I want to bring you to your attention when
[11:58.440 --> 12:06.200]  you get a chance, take a look at those cases, and it will be tremendous on the FCC cases
[12:06.200 --> 12:13.120]  to look at the implementing regulations. They have a force effect law because the regulations
[12:13.120 --> 12:22.120]  published in the Federal Register has to be codified in the CFRs. And the CFRs got to
[12:22.120 --> 12:29.120]  have the authority there. And I'll give a good example for the income tax. They only
[12:29.120 --> 12:38.320]  have 26 U.S.C. Section 7805 as the statutory authority to make regulations. Remember, agencies
[12:38.320 --> 12:44.760]  cannot make laws. They can only make regulations, and that's governed by the Federal Register
[12:44.760 --> 12:59.840]  Act of 1935, the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946, and one CFR where the antenna
[12:59.840 --> 13:09.000]  of Congress in 1935 put down what agencies must do, and they delegated that authority
[13:09.000 --> 13:16.720]  to the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register, which is one CFR. Yeah, like specifically
[13:16.720 --> 13:27.520]  1.8. All these things top of the head, but there is no law relative to private individuals
[13:27.520 --> 13:36.680]  because what we have, sir, we have rights versus duties. So in that vein, always enjoy
[13:36.680 --> 13:46.800]  your show, and I'll let somebody else talk. I want to address one thing you said about
[13:46.800 --> 13:54.240]  turning square corners. What the Court meant when they said we must turn square corners
[13:54.240 --> 14:02.600]  is we must turn square corners around the document that contains the law, that we must
[14:02.600 --> 14:08.400]  follow what the law says. We don't get to add to it or take away from it, and especially
[14:08.400 --> 14:16.080]  the courts don't, and public officials don't. They must follow the square corners of the
[14:16.080 --> 14:24.200]  documents empowering them. All right. Okay. Very well said, and one thing before I sign
[14:24.200 --> 14:33.440]  off here, I do need someone beside my thoughts, like a counterclaim. If someone were to say,
[14:33.440 --> 14:42.640]  sue me, and I don't put a counterclaim immediately in my reply, what's the time limitation to
[14:42.640 --> 14:48.680]  make a counterclaim? Now, I'd like to give you my answer, then just listen to your theory
[14:48.680 --> 14:57.240]  on it. A person can make a counterclaim at any time, I guess, his opposing party, until
[14:57.240 --> 15:04.120]  there's a judgment. Now, if I'm wrong, please correct me and tell me what has been...
[15:04.120 --> 15:10.560]  I think you are exactly correct. Thank you, sir. I can have counterclaims against you,
[15:10.560 --> 15:18.280]  and I can make those counterclaims if I choose to, but I'm not compelled to. And since I
[15:18.280 --> 15:25.120]  always have those claims, there's nothing that I know of in the law that restricts me
[15:25.120 --> 15:30.320]  from bringing up a counterclaim whenever it comes to my attention, or whenever I determine
[15:30.320 --> 15:39.680]  that it's appropriate. Very well said, because this gentleman here, and all the person that
[15:39.680 --> 15:45.160]  looks like you're doing it out of spite maliciously, anyway, they sued him, and all they wrote
[15:45.160 --> 15:53.280]  on his bullet plate form as a pleading was, I said, rent, dash, or appearance, and handwriting.
[15:53.280 --> 16:00.320]  Well, really, the fellow said a claim, because you got to meet all the elements of a particular
[16:00.320 --> 16:10.680]  claim. So I thought perhaps I should, because of time constraints, I did not get in to do
[16:10.680 --> 16:17.440]  the counterclaim immediately with it, but it was my contention, because under Rule 13,
[16:17.440 --> 16:24.040]  you have compulsive counterclaims, and then you got the other discretionary. And so then...
[16:24.040 --> 16:31.960]  Oh, and Randy, one of the things, too, I see cases about shall, about non-discretionary
[16:31.960 --> 16:38.400]  duties, and they're really, really good, sir. So take a look at them, and God bless you
[16:38.400 --> 16:43.920]  guys. Good night. All right. Good night. Thank you, Gary.
[16:43.920 --> 16:49.360]  Okay. When we get back on the other side, we're going to go to Mark from Wisconsin.
[16:49.360 --> 16:53.480]  We're going to go to Mark from Wisconsin, and then we got Mike from Texas. And after
[16:53.480 --> 17:03.200]  that, we've got open phone lines. So folks, call in 512-646-1984.
[17:03.200 --> 17:07.640]  Capital Coin and Bullions is your local source for rare coins, precious metals, and coin
[17:07.640 --> 17:13.200]  supplies in the Austin metro area. We also ship worldwide. We are a family-owned and
[17:13.200 --> 17:17.760]  operated business that offers competitive prices on your coin and metals purchases.
[17:17.760 --> 17:23.240]  We buy, sell, trade, and consign rare coins, gold and silver coin collections, precious
[17:23.240 --> 17:28.680]  metals, and scrap gold. We will purchase and sell gold and jewelry items as well. We offer
[17:28.680 --> 17:35.480]  daily specials on coins and bullions. We're located at 5448 Barnett Road, Suite 3, and
[17:35.480 --> 17:41.040]  we're open Monday through Friday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturdays, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. You
[17:41.040 --> 17:48.600]  are welcome to stop in our shop during regular business hours or call 512-646-6440 with any
[17:48.600 --> 17:54.160]  questions. Ask for Chad and say you heard about us on Rule of Law Radio or 90.1 FM.
[17:54.160 --> 17:59.160]  That's Capital Coin and Bullion, 512-646-6440.
[17:59.160 --> 18:08.880]  Well, don't let nothing get to you. Only the Father can deliver you. So don't let bad
[18:08.880 --> 18:32.320]  people hurt you until they can get behind you. You know what I mean, my friend, Nala Jatchez.
[18:32.320 --> 18:51.800]  You know what I mean, my friend, Nala Jatchez. You know what I mean, my friend, Nala Jatchez.
[18:51.800 --> 19:11.280]  You know what I mean, my friend, Nala Jatchez. You know what I mean, my friend, Nala Jatchez.
[19:11.280 --> 19:30.760]  You know what I mean, my friend, Nala Jatchez. You know what I mean, my friend, Nala Jatchez.
[19:30.760 --> 19:46.040]  You know what I mean, my friend, Nala Jatchez. You know what I mean, my friend, Nala Jatchez.
[19:46.040 --> 19:54.280]  Okay, we are back. We're taking your calls. Trust in God, my friend. Okay, we've got Mark
[19:54.280 --> 19:58.000]  from Wisconsin. Mark, thank you for calling in. What's on your mind tonight?
[19:58.000 --> 20:04.520]  Hi, I was just wondering if Randy could come to Wisconsin and explain that Four Corners
[20:04.520 --> 20:12.680]  thing to our Supreme Court judges out here. Absolutely. I will let them know how those
[20:12.680 --> 20:20.520]  Wisconsin cows ate their Wisconsin cabbage. Feature this, Randy, on the 15th this month
[20:20.520 --> 20:27.600]  there was a decision by the Supreme Court. It was 5 to 2. They decided that these police
[20:27.600 --> 20:33.600]  it was two different cases. These police officers illegally searched a couple of men's cars
[20:33.600 --> 20:40.320]  and they found illegal drugs in them while they were incarcerated or in custody. They
[20:40.320 --> 20:47.760]  said that they knew that it was an unconstitutional search, but they saw no reason to throw the
[20:47.760 --> 20:56.600]  charges out. That was their decision. I've done a cursory search on some of these similar
[20:56.600 --> 21:05.120]  cases in Wisconsin and they had police break into what was known as a reputed drug house.
[21:05.120 --> 21:09.600]  It was an illegal break and they just decided to break down the door. Of course, they found
[21:09.600 --> 21:17.800]  drugs and whatever. They said that they weren't going to throw the evidence out even though
[21:17.800 --> 21:24.480]  it was an unconstitutional search. They're quietly dismantling all the laws that protect
[21:24.480 --> 21:29.200]  us from illegal search and seizure in this state and no one knows it except the attorneys
[21:29.200 --> 21:34.440]  and they're all a bunch of, oh my God. What kind of a scumbag attorney are you to sit
[21:34.440 --> 21:40.160]  there and watch this happen to your country? Why don't you file criminal charges against
[21:40.160 --> 21:46.360]  the Supreme Court justices with a grand jury? Well, I was considering that. I was filling
[21:46.360 --> 21:50.480]  out the judicial complaints right now, but then I look at the bottom and they send the
[21:50.480 --> 21:56.160]  judicial complaints to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, if the complaints are against
[21:56.160 --> 22:03.720]  them, would have a duty under statute to appoint an attorney, a prosecutor pro tem to prosecute
[22:03.720 --> 22:14.760]  them. Okay. It's not even that. It's about making grand jury noises. Wait a minute. Criminal
[22:14.760 --> 22:23.280]  charges against public officials go to the grand jury? I mean, go to the Supreme Court?
[22:23.280 --> 22:32.800]  Yes. Since when does that happen? I don't know, but I just pulled down the judicial
[22:32.800 --> 22:39.880]  complaint form. Oh, I'm not talking about a judicial complaint. I'm talking about official
[22:39.880 --> 22:47.400]  oppression. Oh, okay. Criminal charges. Criminal charges. You start waving what the judges
[22:47.400 --> 22:52.720]  are doing in front of a grand jury. Now, I got all the highest judges in Texas put before
[22:52.720 --> 23:00.600]  a grand jury. Took a while. Took two years almost, but I got them. Did you? I didn't
[23:00.600 --> 23:06.400]  get them indicted, but the grand jury generally takes about 30 minutes for one indictment.
[23:06.400 --> 23:14.200]  They got these complaints the first day of their tenure. They had three months. They
[23:14.200 --> 23:25.320]  no-billed them the last day. It was a crap shoot. Nothing to stop a grand jury from indicting
[23:25.320 --> 23:33.640]  a Supreme Court justice. The criminal charges should be filed along with that judicial complaints
[23:33.640 --> 23:38.480]  because it looks like they'll probably file them in the circular file anyway, and they
[23:38.480 --> 23:44.240]  could get in trouble for not getting a pro temp. Yeah. What I like to do... Oh, the
[23:44.240 --> 23:49.880]  criminal charges would never go to the Supreme Court. You go to the prosecuting attorney
[23:49.880 --> 23:55.720]  and file the charges with him, and he'll refuse to act on them, and then you go to the district
[23:55.720 --> 24:03.360]  judge with charges against the district attorney, accusing the district attorney of obstruction
[24:03.360 --> 24:09.840]  of justice, and the district judge will refuse to act on the complaints, and then you take
[24:09.840 --> 24:16.200]  complaints against the district judge for shielding the district attorney from prosecution
[24:16.200 --> 24:24.120]  to the grand jury. Now who's going to step in front of you? You bushwhack the bailiff
[24:24.120 --> 24:28.240]  and tell the bailiff to instruct the foreman that I have business with the grand jury.
[24:28.240 --> 24:33.560]  May I tell him the nature of the business? Here, give him these. You look at the bailiff
[24:33.560 --> 24:37.680]  and he's going to be thinking about what he should do, and this is what I did in Johnson
[24:37.680 --> 24:43.320]  County. I know what you're thinking, Mr. Bailiff. You're thinking I should call the district
[24:43.320 --> 24:49.680]  attorney. Bad idea. Those complaints involve the district attorney. If you call the district
[24:49.680 --> 24:56.040]  attorney, I'll consider that an act of obstruction of justice. I'll just give the grand jury
[24:56.040 --> 25:03.200]  a foreman and see what he says. Good idea. So you put the district attorney in a position.
[25:03.200 --> 25:07.320]  He's the only one that would interfere, but when you're going to the grand jury with criminal
[25:07.320 --> 25:17.280]  charges against him and the district judge, who's left to interfere? And anyway, everybody's
[25:17.280 --> 25:22.640]  afraid of the grand jury. What would happen to the Supreme Court justices if they got
[25:22.640 --> 25:28.920]  indictments from a grand jury? It might not end their career, but it's going to be tough
[25:28.920 --> 25:36.480]  on them. Are Supreme Court justices elected in Wisconsin? I don't know. I'm embarrassed
[25:36.480 --> 25:44.720]  to say. Oh, shame on you. You might want to check that. I don't know. I think they are
[25:44.720 --> 25:51.080]  here in Texas. I don't know where you're. But you might check if they're elected. They're
[25:51.080 --> 25:57.320]  going to be real sensitive to politics. And you get people around the state trying to
[25:57.320 --> 26:03.800]  get prosecuting attorneys to present Supreme Courts to grand juries and then going after
[26:03.800 --> 26:10.520]  prosecutors for not doing it. You're likely to get their attention. I was a little shocked.
[26:10.520 --> 26:16.880]  There's a chance. One of the dissent. Go ahead. I was a little shocked because one of the
[26:16.880 --> 26:21.040]  dissenting judges, a Jewish lady, she's known to be one of the most crooked judges and was
[26:21.040 --> 26:26.120]  in Wisconsin. She actually makes decisions on cases from people she's got contributions
[26:26.120 --> 26:33.360]  from. And she actually dissented on it. I think her name is Abramson. And I had another
[26:33.360 --> 26:38.480]  question for you, Randy. Do you think it's too late? Because it almost seems like we're
[26:38.480 --> 26:45.040]  pissing in a fan here. We're going to criminals and asking them for justice. You know what
[26:45.040 --> 26:50.320]  I mean? Does the whole system have to come down? I think that's what's got to happen
[26:50.320 --> 26:55.120]  to you. No, the whole system doesn't have to come down. Use the influence that you have.
[26:55.120 --> 27:02.760]  Grand juries, you know, my prosecutor in Wise County once told me, those darn grand jurors,
[27:02.760 --> 27:08.420]  you never know what they're going to do. The grand jury is really outside the reach of
[27:08.420 --> 27:14.540]  all of these officials. If there's anything they're afraid of, that's it. Because every
[27:14.540 --> 27:18.760]  time you try to get to a grand jury with a criminal complaint, it's like playing Russian
[27:18.760 --> 27:26.960]  roulette with these guys careers. This is a big deal. Just making grand jury noises
[27:26.960 --> 27:33.560]  is a big deal. And we can get a dozen people around the state of Wisconsin trying to get
[27:33.560 --> 27:39.320]  the grand jurors, I mean, the Supreme Court justices indicted in different counties. They
[27:39.320 --> 27:46.760]  got to figure they're going to run across a PO prosecutor who's about to retire and
[27:46.760 --> 27:55.120]  just doesn't care. And go ahead and push for indictment so he can retire famous. You know,
[27:55.120 --> 28:01.840]  this is a risk they're taking. So let's use the pressure we have.
[28:01.840 --> 28:08.200]  Okay, well, if anybody's in Wisconsin, I think I'm going to take this on because, you know,
[28:08.200 --> 28:12.680]  there's only so much we can take here, Randy. This is ridiculous. You can contact me at
[28:12.680 --> 28:20.120]  cross planes radio at hotmail.com. I mean, this has got to end, Randy. This is, I mean,
[28:20.120 --> 28:25.480]  they're setting it up so they can break into anyone's house. And people think, well, that's
[28:25.480 --> 28:28.960]  fine. I'm not a criminal. Nothing's going to happen. Well, what if they change the law?
[28:28.960 --> 28:33.840]  What if it's illegal to have a Bible or a constitution in your house?
[28:33.840 --> 28:39.120]  If you have a constitution, you're already a terrorist. So we're not far away.
[28:39.120 --> 28:43.880]  No, we're not far away at all. And the public's getting excited. They're
[28:43.880 --> 28:50.080]  getting upset. You might have more support than you expected, especially going after
[28:50.080 --> 29:00.880]  Supreme Court justices. That is so outrageous. And it puts the Supreme Court in a paradoxical
[29:00.880 --> 29:07.880]  position. What do you do? Stand up in front of everybody and say, I'm above reproach.
[29:07.880 --> 29:12.680]  I'm above the law. I'm God. I can do what I want.
[29:12.680 --> 29:16.240]  That's what they say. That's essentially what they're saying, Randy. They're not operating
[29:16.240 --> 29:22.200]  within the four corners of the law. Exactly. So that's official oppression, official
[29:22.200 --> 29:31.360]  misconduct. Take them on. You're the sovereign. They work for you. Let's remind them.
[29:31.360 --> 29:33.560]  Thanks a lot. Good night. Okay.
[29:33.560 --> 29:39.960]  All right. Thanks a lot, Mark. Okay, folks, when we get back, we've got Mike from Texas
[29:39.960 --> 29:48.680]  and then Anonymous, the first time caller. Folks, if you'd like to call in, 512-646-1984.
[29:48.680 --> 29:53.120]  We'll be right back. I think I know that Anonymous guy. I've talked
[29:53.120 --> 30:01.080]  to him before. Okay. We'll be right back, folks.
[30:01.080 --> 30:05.840]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[30:05.840 --> 30:10.800]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears Proven Method. Michael Mears has won
[30:10.800 --> 30:16.400]  six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win too. You'll get step-by-step
[30:16.400 --> 30:21.720]  instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes.
[30:21.720 --> 30:26.480]  What to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons. How to answer letters and
[30:26.480 --> 30:29.640]  phone calls. How to get debt collectors out of your credit
[30:29.640 --> 30:34.640]  card. How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[30:34.640 --> 30:39.760]  The Michael Mears Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. Personal
[30:39.760 --> 30:45.160]  consultation is available as well. For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com
[30:45.160 --> 30:50.520]  and click on the blue Michael Mears banner, or email michaelmears at yahoo.com. That's
[30:50.520 --> 30:59.960]  ruleoflawradio.com, or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors
[30:59.960 --> 31:00.960]  now.
[31:00.960 --> 31:21.880]  Okay, folks, we are back. We've got Mike, Anonymous, and Jamie on the line. We're going
[31:21.880 --> 31:26.240]  to Mike next. Mike, thanks for calling in. What's on your mind tonight?
[31:26.240 --> 31:31.520]  Hi. Is this a recording? Is this live today? Is this live?
[31:31.520 --> 31:32.520]  Well, if it was a recording...
[31:32.520 --> 31:33.520]  This is a recording.
[31:33.520 --> 31:34.520]  Yeah.
[31:34.520 --> 31:35.520]  I'm sorry.
[31:35.520 --> 31:39.520]  Yeah, somehow, yeah, we've got computer programs that have recorded different words that we
[31:39.520 --> 31:42.240]  say that interact with people when they're recorded.
[31:42.240 --> 31:45.240]  Wow. You sound very natural.
[31:45.240 --> 31:53.040]  Let's see. I'm not certain where I'm going with this, but I just wanted to sort of use
[31:53.040 --> 32:00.800]  you guys as a sounding board a little bit. I had gotten stopped about a month ago by
[32:00.800 --> 32:07.520]  TSA for water bottle in my bag. I had court today as an arraignment. No charges were filed.
[32:07.520 --> 32:13.560]  There's no information statement provided other than the copy of the citation, which
[32:13.560 --> 32:21.680]  I don't believe is an information statement, because if the person was an officer, I don't
[32:21.680 --> 32:27.640]  know who he is, but I doubt if the average police officer has the ability to make a legal
[32:27.640 --> 32:28.640]  determination.
[32:28.640 --> 32:39.000]  At arraignment, I requested a magistrate. Requested continuously to be magistrated,
[32:39.000 --> 32:49.280]  not to see a judge. I asked for a court reporter. The court reporter was provided. I asked for
[32:49.280 --> 32:55.600]  a charge. No charge was placed in the docket. The only information, as I'd mentioned, was
[32:55.600 --> 33:02.320]  a ticket, which I don't believe satisfies the information statement requirement.
[33:02.320 --> 33:12.040]  I moved for dismissal, which was denied twice. Let's see. I'm not exactly certain who the
[33:12.040 --> 33:19.840]  magistrate or judge I was speaking with. He refused to identify himself verbally. There's
[33:19.840 --> 33:27.040]  a name tag on the counter, which he pointed to. After several queries, he finally was
[33:27.040 --> 33:33.440]  able to elicit a yes, that that was his name on the docket. I don't know if he was being
[33:33.440 --> 33:40.360]  recorded. That's one thing I probably, through a discovery request, if that would satisfy
[33:40.360 --> 33:49.480]  the court reporter statement, but it was never stated that a recording was being made.
[33:49.480 --> 33:58.840]  He entered a plea for me. He initially started off with, you can plead guilty on no contest,
[33:58.840 --> 34:05.400]  not guilty. I said, Your Honor, I believe there's a fourth option, and that is I wish
[34:05.400 --> 34:12.720]  to be magistrated. I've had requests to be magistrated all through this process. I don't
[34:12.720 --> 34:21.960]  believe that things were ever magistrated. I doubt, I think he was actually functioning
[34:21.960 --> 34:28.720]  as a judge. I think finally when a pretrial was arranged, after he decided to function
[34:28.720 --> 34:40.000]  as a prosecutor, judge, court reporter, and also my attorney by entering a plea, and after
[34:40.000 --> 34:46.360]  I had made a comment, well, if you're going to occupy all those offices simultaneously,
[34:46.360 --> 34:52.280]  I will occupy the office of prosecutor who's not present in droppable charges, which my
[34:52.280 --> 34:59.480]  charges were dropped. He said, you know, let me go get a pretrial schedule for you so you
[34:59.480 --> 35:07.160]  can stuff it down your throat. I was just wondering, is there any way that I can prevent
[35:07.160 --> 35:16.520]  this process from moving to pretrial, or request pre-magistration, remagistration again, or
[35:16.520 --> 35:24.600]  if I have satisfied my condition of promissory, my promise to appear. I wonder if those conditions
[35:24.600 --> 35:31.320]  been satisfied, and I did not issue another promise to reappear. However, reading through
[35:31.320 --> 35:39.600]  Austin Municipal Court rules of conduct, it's kind of a double standard. I guess we're not
[35:39.600 --> 35:44.840]  all equal under the law. If I fail to appear, the rules state that a warrant can be issued
[35:44.840 --> 35:50.200]  for my arrest. However, if prosecutor, or a compound effect witness, or police officer,
[35:50.200 --> 35:54.200]  you know, anyone fails to appear, they're just going to issue a continuance and continue
[35:54.200 --> 35:58.800]  to retry me, which almost sounds like, I'm not certain if that's double jeopardy. I was
[35:58.800 --> 36:08.440]  just wondering if you guys had any comments. I suspect both me and Eddie have lots of comments.
[36:08.440 --> 36:14.080]  My first one is, is you don't want to be magistrated. Oh, okay. You want an examining
[36:14.080 --> 36:23.680]  trial. Okay. Eddie, you want to pick this up? Well, I would agree. The examining trial
[36:23.680 --> 36:29.160]  is the first thing that you want to have. But they didn't have any charge made against
[36:29.160 --> 36:37.960]  you of any kind, right? No, and they wanted me to plea against no charge. Right. So how
[36:37.960 --> 36:42.800]  is that even possible? If there's no charging instrument, Judge, what are we doing here?
[36:42.800 --> 36:47.840]  Exactly. You know, I did mention that- The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
[36:47.840 --> 36:53.160]  without a charging instrument, and you have none. If you do produce it, I am entitled
[36:53.160 --> 37:02.680]  by law to see a copy of it. That's the first problem. Second problem is, this is in Texas,
[37:02.680 --> 37:08.640]  right? Yes, sir. Okay. The second problem is, is that there must be an information to
[37:08.640 --> 37:15.680]  accompany any criminal charge. That also is pursuant to Texas law. The third problem is,
[37:15.680 --> 37:23.160]  is the Constitution requires that an indictment be made. Despite what the law says, the Constitution
[37:23.160 --> 37:29.040]  says all criminal cases shall be given to a grand jury and indictments handed down for
[37:29.040 --> 37:40.160]  those purposes. They seem to skip that spot for the last 50 or 60 years. But it is a requirement
[37:40.160 --> 37:46.920]  of law and of Constitution that that be done. So what you've got right now is a whole slew
[37:46.920 --> 37:52.280]  of criminal charges against the judge personally and against the prosecutor if there even was
[37:52.280 --> 38:00.640]  one. To my knowledge, there are no prosecutors that have been assigned, only just this judge
[38:00.640 --> 38:07.040]  and assuming he's a judge. And you have direct criminal charges to make and a suit against
[38:07.040 --> 38:15.440]  the judge for proceeding without jurisdiction? I tried to submit a complaint against the
[38:15.440 --> 38:21.440]  supposed arresting officer who never identified himself, didn't produce an author bond. You
[38:21.440 --> 38:28.560]  know, I have just an initial for a first name and a badge number. And he denied that also.
[38:28.560 --> 38:34.040]  So I don't know how I would even, you know. We did through discovery when you file suit.
[38:34.040 --> 38:41.080]  Okay. Yeah, I did. We did discuss discovery and often... Well, on the way, I'm not talking
[38:41.080 --> 38:47.680]  discovery for your case. I'm talking you must file a civil suit and do your own discovery
[38:47.680 --> 38:59.600]  to substantiate your suit. Okay. Yeah. And once you file suit, you move for a temporary
[38:59.600 --> 39:05.880]  restraining order, restraining the city from moving forward until your suit is litigated.
[39:05.880 --> 39:13.600]  If you include in your suit a request for injunctive relief, they can't throw it out.
[39:13.600 --> 39:20.160]  If you only ask for monetary relief, they'll toss it. But if you ask for injunctive relief
[39:20.160 --> 39:33.040]  in joining the city of Austin from failing to follow law, they can't throw it out. Okay.
[39:33.040 --> 39:41.680]  It only costs, I think, like 160, 180 bucks to file in the district court. And good chance
[39:41.680 --> 39:51.320]  they're going to want to make a deal. $192. Okay. That much, huh? Yep. It's less than
[39:51.320 --> 40:00.080]  a ticket. Yeah. But I really appreciate your assistance. Thank you very much for your time,
[40:00.080 --> 40:08.440]  sirs. And ma'am, sorry. All right. Thanks, Mike. Have a nice night. Okay. You too. Okay.
[40:08.440 --> 40:16.160]  We're going now to anonymous. First time caller, thanks for calling in. What's on your mind?
[40:16.160 --> 40:22.440]  My question is, how does a non-contracting party get a remedy against an enforcement
[40:22.440 --> 40:31.160]  of an assumed contract? For instance, the police, the courts, and so forth. I think
[40:31.160 --> 40:37.560]  you assumed a whole lot of facts, not in evidence. Will you explain what you mean by a non-contract?
[40:37.560 --> 40:42.720]  Well, when I get harassed by the police, I look them right in the eye and I'll tell them
[40:42.720 --> 40:47.400]  I'm not interested in what's contract with them or entering their venue. Sometimes they'll
[40:47.400 --> 40:53.680]  leave me alone. Otherwise, they'll throw you in jail for not giving information. Or you
[40:53.680 --> 41:01.320]  go to court and by special appearance and you tell them you're not here to plead your,
[41:01.320 --> 41:04.560]  you're not interested in what's contract and with the court. And they'll just go ahead
[41:04.560 --> 41:14.520]  and proceed anyway. Okay. That was my question. What did you mean by a non-contract? You said
[41:14.520 --> 41:20.840]  you were a non-contract. I refuse the contract with the police or the courts. And they try
[41:20.840 --> 41:29.000]  to enforce you into an assumed contract that you're a citizen and you're already an obligated
[41:29.000 --> 41:41.360]  to go to court. I'm not sure what your question really is. Well, how do you get a remedy against
[41:41.360 --> 41:49.320]  going to jail when they try to enforce a contract on you when you refuse the contract with them?
[41:49.320 --> 41:55.280]  On what basis are you establishing that this is a contract? Well, for instance, my friend
[41:55.280 --> 42:02.280]  got pulled over for no insurance on his car. Well, wait, wait, wait. I'm not asking for
[42:02.280 --> 42:06.560]  an example. I'm talking about on what basis are you making? I mean, if a guy walks up
[42:06.560 --> 42:11.120]  and sticks a gun in my face and tells me to give him his wallet and I do so, did I contract
[42:11.120 --> 42:21.920]  with him? Not consensually. I would say I didn't contract at all. I simply had my property
[42:21.920 --> 42:29.800]  taken. Okay, yeah, you're right. Okay. So again, my question is, on what premise are
[42:29.800 --> 42:35.640]  you basing that there is a contractual element involved here? Well, that's what they're basing
[42:35.640 --> 42:41.920]  this in. And I'm saying I'm... Okay. What is your evidence of that? That I told them
[42:41.920 --> 42:46.280]  I didn't want a contract with them. Okay. The fact that you told them you didn't want
[42:46.280 --> 42:52.080]  a contract is evidence that they offered the contract. No, they're trying to force you
[42:52.080 --> 42:59.960]  into, you know, just keep questioning, trying to get you to contract with them. And sometimes
[42:59.960 --> 43:07.160]  it works. Sometimes they'll ask your name. So what does contract with them mean? They'll
[43:07.160 --> 43:11.000]  get you in a verbal contract and then eventually you get in there and written one with a ticket.
[43:11.000 --> 43:15.680]  Wait, wait, wait. It's real hard to understand a definition when you use the word you're
[43:15.680 --> 43:23.720]  defining in the definition. I've heard this contract argument before. Yeah. And it always
[43:23.720 --> 43:32.320]  seems to be based on unstated presuppositions. What we're looking for is the underlying presuppositions
[43:32.320 --> 43:40.120]  that aren't being stipulated, if that makes any sense. Why don't you hold on anonymous?
[43:40.120 --> 43:46.120]  We'll be back on the other side. This is the rule of law. We've also got Jamie and Bill.
[43:46.120 --> 44:04.240]  We'll be right back after this short break. Attention, an important product from hempusa.org
[44:04.240 --> 44:09.800]  micro plant powder will change your life by removing all types of positive toxins such
[44:09.800 --> 44:14.840]  as heavy metals, parasites, bacteria, viruses, and fungus from the digestive tract and stomach
[44:14.840 --> 44:21.080]  wall so you can absorb nutrients. Micro plant powder is 89% silica and packed with a negative
[44:21.080 --> 44:25.920]  charge that attracts positive toxins from the blood, organs, spine, and brain. This
[44:25.920 --> 44:30.720]  product has the ability to rebuild cartilage and bone which allows synovial fluid to return
[44:30.720 --> 44:36.240]  to the joints. Silica is a precursor to calcium, meaning the body turns silica into calcium
[44:36.240 --> 44:41.320]  and is great for the heart. There is no better time than now to have micro plant powder on
[44:41.320 --> 44:45.920]  your shelf or in your storage shelter. And with an unlimited shelf life, you can store
[44:45.920 --> 44:54.520]  it anywhere. Call 908-691-2608 or visit hempusa.org. It's a great way to change your life. So
[44:54.520 --> 45:18.800]  call 908-691-2608 or visit us at hempusa.org today.
[45:18.800 --> 45:28.800]  Okay we're back. Okay, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens, Randy Kelton, Blue Love Law Radio,
[45:28.800 --> 45:38.080]  we're back. And we were talking about definitions. One thing that's extremely important is when
[45:38.080 --> 45:45.800]  you state a proactive, when you make a proactive statement of law that you understand what
[45:45.800 --> 45:52.600]  the meanings of the terms you're using are. I've heard this phrase of, I don't want a
[45:52.600 --> 46:01.880]  contract a lot of times. And we hear it initially and we think we understand what it means.
[46:01.880 --> 46:06.860]  But when I hear these guys talking about it, obviously there's something else they're implying
[46:06.860 --> 46:13.400]  that they're not saying. And that's what I'm trying to get to. What specifically is the
[46:13.400 --> 46:20.360]  nature of a contract with someone you're having an interaction with? Where you're not in a
[46:20.360 --> 46:26.680]  formal written set down, read the canons and agree to the canons. How else do we enter
[46:26.680 --> 46:33.560]  into a contract? Anonymous, it's up to your court.
[46:33.560 --> 46:40.320]  Assumption of contract. That's what I believe that you're trying to contract with you by
[46:40.320 --> 46:45.160]  assumption or inferring. Well, let's wait, wait, wait a minute. Let's
[46:45.160 --> 46:56.120]  go back. Let's get to what a contract is first. You still have a defined contract. It's been
[46:56.120 --> 47:05.640]  my understanding that a contract is a meeting of minds, an agreement between two individuals.
[47:05.640 --> 47:11.160]  What is your definition of a contract? No, that sounds accurate. And I didn't want
[47:11.160 --> 47:20.080]  to meet with their minds so I refused to contract. A meeting of the minds does not mean holding
[47:20.080 --> 47:26.400]  a discussion with them or answering their questions. A meeting of the minds is for contractual
[47:26.400 --> 47:33.880]  purposes means that you have reached a mutual consideration of agreement and exchange. That
[47:33.880 --> 47:40.400]  you're both accepting a given set of conditions and circumstances to be bound by.
[47:40.400 --> 47:47.400]  Yes, and my understanding of a contract, a contract is not a contract until something
[47:47.400 --> 47:56.040]  of value is exchanged. I think there are people out there in legal reform who are using this
[47:56.040 --> 48:01.440]  term and they have another meaning for it than the normal meaning and that's what I'm
[48:01.440 --> 48:06.400]  trying to get to. Well, what are they doing? We're trying to
[48:06.400 --> 48:09.920]  do. That's what I'm trying to get them to tell
[48:09.920 --> 48:18.960]  me is what is going on here? You're saying I don't want to contract, but I don't know
[48:18.960 --> 48:29.000]  what that means. Well, I don't want to, I don't want to get
[48:29.000 --> 48:35.240]  harassed by the police or the judges. I just want to do my own thing and stay out of their
[48:35.240 --> 48:38.040]  business. Well, that's true of all of us. The problem
[48:38.040 --> 48:41.520]  is that's not the way it's going to work, unfortunately.
[48:41.520 --> 48:47.400]  I noticed. In the real world we live in, I know a lot
[48:47.400 --> 48:53.600]  of people talk about the common law and how there can be no claim unless there's an injured
[48:53.600 --> 49:06.120]  party and the problem with that in my humble personal opinion is that in a perfect world
[49:06.120 --> 49:13.400]  that might work, but then if this were a perfect world, we wouldn't be in it.
[49:13.400 --> 49:21.280]  If I didn't need protection from threats that are outside of my control, I wouldn't need
[49:21.280 --> 49:26.400]  a government and that's the only reason we got it there.
[49:26.400 --> 49:30.240]  If I didn't need protection from 10 armed men who would come and steal everything I
[49:30.240 --> 49:38.680]  have, I wouldn't need policemen and in a perfect world, perhaps we wouldn't need that, but
[49:38.680 --> 49:43.440]  this is not a perfect world and there are a lot of people out there in legal reform
[49:43.440 --> 49:51.880]  who say, well, I don't like the way things are so I just want to opt out.
[49:51.880 --> 49:58.960]  Well, how do you get there? How do you opt out from a society that you
[49:58.960 --> 50:03.440]  engage in? Just calling yourself private doesn't make
[50:03.440 --> 50:08.800]  you private. If you're in your house at home with the
[50:08.800 --> 50:15.840]  doors closed and locked, perhaps you're private, but when you come out of your home and move
[50:15.840 --> 50:23.640]  around amongst the public, you're not in the private anymore, you're in the public and
[50:23.640 --> 50:30.120]  we tend to have an obligation one to another. I have an obligation not to run over the kids
[50:30.120 --> 50:36.120]  walking across the crosswalk. I have an obligation to exercise care and
[50:36.120 --> 50:42.960]  due diligence and I get these guys saying, well, I will if I want to, but if I don't
[50:42.960 --> 50:49.360]  want to, I won't and it's okay because I'm in the private and I haven't contracted in
[50:49.360 --> 51:00.360]  the public. I don't understand how we get there.
[51:00.360 --> 51:08.520]  Does that make sense? I'm just trying to get a remedy out of not
[51:08.520 --> 51:12.920]  get harassed by the police. I don't know how to do it.
[51:12.920 --> 51:20.960]  The reason I went there is because I'm going to say don't run away from the statutory law.
[51:20.960 --> 51:27.880]  The statutory law is your friend. You can use the statutory law to beat the crap out
[51:27.880 --> 51:33.320]  of them. I can't because I won't get a state ID. I
[51:33.320 --> 51:38.600]  can't sue and I can't be sued. You are an outlaw.
[51:38.600 --> 51:45.520]  Code enforcement took everything I had. That makes you outlaw. If you're outside the
[51:45.520 --> 51:53.600]  law, that's a common law term. They exercise by faith, not by law.
[51:53.600 --> 52:02.080]  Now you have to have faith that you won't be harmed. How's that working for you?
[52:02.080 --> 52:10.080]  Well, it works except the only one that harms me is usually the police and the courts.
[52:10.080 --> 52:20.800]  How is this operating from this private non-contractual position working? I tend to be more pragmatic.
[52:20.800 --> 52:27.760]  I want to see what kind of outcomes I can get. I have to do a lot of forgiving.
[52:27.760 --> 52:39.680]  I think we as sovereigns owe a duty to our... give them a better seat than we inherited
[52:39.680 --> 52:49.360]  and opting out of the system I don't think is a viable option. I owe a duty to my grandchildren
[52:49.360 --> 52:57.880]  to ensure that my public officials who work for me abide by my law and it's my law, not
[52:57.880 --> 53:04.800]  theirs. It's your law too because you're one of the sovereigns without subjects, but
[53:04.800 --> 53:13.960]  it's mine. They're my servants and they will abide by my law or we will fight.
[53:13.960 --> 53:21.840]  I'm not going to try to disappear and hide from them. I owe it to posterity. I owe it
[53:21.840 --> 53:31.120]  to my children and my grandchildren. Besides, from what I've seen so far, I've never seen
[53:31.120 --> 53:38.200]  this commercial process work. According to the revelations, we know how
[53:38.200 --> 53:43.920]  it's going to end anyway. It doesn't matter. Also, according to the Bible, you have a duty
[53:43.920 --> 53:55.440]  to make this place you're in better than it was when you got here. Do the best you can
[53:55.440 --> 54:01.120]  and that's what Debra's doing. That's what Eddie's doing. That's what I'm doing. You
[54:01.120 --> 54:04.560]  will find it much more effective. We all have our parts.
[54:04.560 --> 54:08.720]  Pardon me? We all have parts to do. We've got the faithful
[54:08.720 --> 54:14.280]  people doing their part, the lawful people doing their part, and everybody's got as long
[54:14.280 --> 54:20.120]  as they love each other and do what's right. Exactly. I didn't mean to be difficult with
[54:20.120 --> 54:28.720]  you, but I'm going to real remedy. There is remedy, but it's a little more difficult
[54:28.720 --> 54:39.680]  than backing out. I use the how do you defend yourself against a dog approach. Don't. Dog
[54:39.680 --> 54:44.120]  comes after you try to defend yourself from him. He's going to eat you alive. Just knock
[54:44.120 --> 54:48.160]  the crap out of him. I just took my hand on the throat, but I can't
[54:48.160 --> 54:55.360]  bite you. Exactly. This is what we do here. We don't run from their statutory law, from
[54:55.360 --> 55:03.160]  their contracts. We bind them to it. This contractual obligations is a double-edged
[55:03.160 --> 55:07.760]  sword. Go ahead. I missed that.
[55:07.760 --> 55:12.560]  They'll bamboozle you some way along the line until you pull a toothpick out of your mouth
[55:12.560 --> 55:19.280]  or whatever. All of their antics are simply opportunities
[55:19.280 --> 55:25.560]  for us to do our jobs. Do you have any other questions?
[55:25.560 --> 55:28.520]  No, that would do it. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I didn't mean to be hard
[55:28.520 --> 55:32.680]  on you. Yeah, it's okay. Thank you.
[55:32.680 --> 55:42.800]  Thanks, Anonymous. This brings up an email that I have received. I've received the content
[55:42.800 --> 55:51.400]  or some degree of different emails over the years concerning people saying, well, don't
[55:51.400 --> 55:56.520]  you guys realize that the courts don't have any authority anyway? You guys are missing
[55:56.520 --> 56:00.360]  the point. You can talk about statute all day long, but when are you going to realize
[56:00.360 --> 56:04.760]  that the courts don't have any authority because they're part of the bar and the British accreditation
[56:04.760 --> 56:10.000]  registry and all this kind of stuff? I just don't get that because even if the courts
[56:10.000 --> 56:18.400]  are incorporated and have an EIN number or whatever, we still have a constitution here
[56:18.400 --> 56:26.840]  in Texas. The judicial branch is established in the constitution. Then there's also legislation
[56:26.840 --> 56:31.720]  that establishes different parts of the judicial branch.
[56:31.720 --> 56:39.560]  I'm trying to get how they're throwing that all away. I'm sorry, but there is a constitution
[56:39.560 --> 56:45.840]  and these courts are constitutional courts even if they happen to have also in addition
[56:45.840 --> 56:51.440]  to that incorporated themselves with EIN numbers. That doesn't mean that they're not still established
[56:51.440 --> 56:59.960]  under the constitution. Yes, they are legitimate courts. By being in the state, if you want
[56:59.960 --> 57:04.680]  to call it that, by being within the bounds of the state, we've contracted with the state
[57:04.680 --> 57:13.040]  to be subject to those courts and to this law. If you don't want to contract with them
[57:13.040 --> 57:21.600]  at all, then go somewhere else. There's not any more unconquered territory, physical land
[57:21.600 --> 57:25.560]  unless you want to consider Antarctica and even that I think has been dividend among
[57:25.560 --> 57:31.560]  certain nations. Unless you plan on setting yourself up in some unknown uncharted island
[57:31.560 --> 57:39.000]  where you're going to make yourself king, anywhere you go, any nation you go, any state
[57:39.000 --> 57:43.520]  you go, you're contracting already with the government just by entering within the bounds
[57:43.520 --> 57:49.840]  of the state to their law. If you don't want to contract with any government, then try
[57:49.840 --> 57:54.080]  to set up your own government somewhere if you can. I wouldn't advise it though because
[57:54.080 --> 57:58.840]  like I said, there's no more uncharted unknown territory. Go live at the North Pole. Go live
[57:58.840 --> 58:04.920]  in the South Pole if you want. This is not about if you don't like it, leave. It's about
[58:04.920 --> 58:11.200]  deal with what we have. If you think the laws are wrong, change them. That wasn't my intention
[58:11.200 --> 58:16.240]  that if you don't like it, leave. My intention was to show that we have contracted with the
[58:16.240 --> 58:22.240]  government to be bound to their laws and to be subject to the court system just by being
[58:22.240 --> 58:28.080]  within the bounds of the state. I don't have a problem with the law really. There are some
[58:28.080 --> 58:33.320]  laws that need to be repealed, prohibition and things like this, but as far as the judicial
[58:33.320 --> 58:38.560]  law and the code of criminal procedure, stuff like that, due process laws, it's all very
[58:38.560 --> 58:43.000]  good. It's the people in the government that are acting as the criminals and they are the
[58:43.000 --> 58:46.920]  ones that need to have their feet held to the fire. That's the whole point, but they
[58:46.920 --> 58:53.160]  are constitutional courts. And we're the footholders. We're the footholders and the courts are constitutional
[58:53.160 --> 58:56.400]  and valid and they do have constitutional authority. All right, we'll be back on the
[58:56.400 --> 58:58.400]  other side.
[59:26.960 --> 59:31.960]  Go check it out for yourself. It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street, just south of UT.
[59:31.960 --> 59:37.960]  By UT, there's never anywhere to park down there. Actually, they now offer a free hour
[59:37.960 --> 59:42.960]  of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking facility, just behind the bookstore.
[59:42.960 --> 59:49.960]  It does exist, but when are they open? Monday through Saturday, 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. and 1
[59:49.960 --> 59:56.960]  to 6 p.m. on Sundays. So give them a call at 512-480-2503 or check out their events
[59:56.960 --> 59:58.960]  page at BraveNewBookstore.com.
[59:58.960 --> 01:00:03.960]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Network.
[01:00:03.960 --> 01:00:09.960]  U.S. scientists have succeeded in genetically engineering a malaria-resistant mosquito.
[01:00:09.960 --> 01:00:15.640]  The ultimate aim is to tackle the root cause of malaria spread by releasing parasite-proof
[01:00:15.640 --> 01:00:20.640]  mosquitoes into the environment.
[01:00:20.640 --> 01:00:26.640]  2010 is on track to be the deadliest year ever for U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan.
[01:00:26.640 --> 01:00:31.920]  2010 will also be the worst year for the numbers of U.S. wounded. That number is already approaching
[01:00:31.920 --> 01:00:36.920]  the total of U.S. wounded for all of 2009.
[01:00:36.920 --> 01:00:42.560]  House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers said Thursday an interview with former Justice
[01:00:42.560 --> 01:00:47.840]  Department official Jay Bibe shows the Department did not authorize some of the harsh interrogation
[01:00:47.840 --> 01:00:53.920]  techniques used by the CIA. Conyers says Bibe's statements are highly relevant to an ongoing
[01:00:53.920 --> 01:00:58.920]  criminal investigation of alleged detaining abuse during the Bush administration.
[01:00:58.920 --> 01:01:04.760]  U.S. military officials said Thursday the attack this week on a major Afghan police
[01:01:04.760 --> 01:01:10.200]  base in Kandahar that killed nine, including three U.S. soldiers, was the best planned
[01:01:10.200 --> 01:01:15.320]  and most advanced that U.S. soldiers had seen in the past year. The assault began Tuesday
[01:01:15.320 --> 01:01:20.480]  when at least three attackers blew up a wall of the police compound in a Taliban-dominated
[01:01:20.480 --> 01:01:25.960]  part of Kandahar. As Afghan and U.S. forces rushed to fend off the attack, Taliban fighters
[01:01:25.960 --> 01:01:30.880]  fired rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns. The half-hour battle killed three U.S.
[01:01:30.880 --> 01:01:36.760]  soldiers, one Afghan police officer, and five Afghans working with coalition forces. The
[01:01:36.760 --> 01:01:41.240]  assault, which involved at least three Taliban suicide bombers, was the latest in a series
[01:01:41.240 --> 01:01:47.040]  of well-planned Taliban strikes that are forcing U.S. and Afghan forces to adapt. In the past
[01:01:47.040 --> 01:01:54.360]  two months, Taliban fighters have hit major bases in Kandahar, Bagram, and Jalalabad.
[01:01:54.360 --> 01:02:00.200]  In Afghanistan, battles in and around Kandahar are expected to escalate as U.S.-led forces
[01:02:00.200 --> 01:02:05.720]  gradually clamp down on Taliban-controlled areas. U.S. officials said Wednesday the operation
[01:02:05.720 --> 01:02:11.240]  to clear the area of insurgents will take place by early August and involve 10,000 Afghan
[01:02:11.240 --> 01:02:16.840]  and coalition troops. That effort has been hobbled by another persistent Taliban tactic
[01:02:16.840 --> 01:02:23.600]  – murder and intimidation. Among the victims of the Taliban campaign was 24-year-old Mohammed
[01:02:23.600 --> 01:02:28.740]  Ibrahim, who was shot 36 times and hanged in March because his brother worked as an
[01:02:28.740 --> 01:02:36.160]  interpreter for Western forces. Ibrahim's 70-year-old father, Gholam Saqi, lives in a no-man's
[01:02:36.160 --> 01:02:41.440]  land between the Afghan base that came under attack this week and orchards on the outskirts
[01:02:41.440 --> 01:02:47.280]  of Kandahar, where the Taliban roam freely. Saqi said two Afghan police posts overlooking
[01:02:47.280 --> 01:02:52.040]  the orchard rarely challenge Taliban fighters, who routinely set up checkpoints within a
[01:02:52.040 --> 01:02:59.040]  few hundred yards of Afghan forces.
[01:03:22.040 --> 01:03:29.040]  Ibrahim's father, Gholam Saqi, lives in a no-man's land between the Afghan base that came under
[01:03:52.040 --> 01:03:59.040]  attack this week and orchards on the outskirts of Kandahar, where the Taliban roam freely.
[01:04:22.040 --> 01:04:29.040]  Ibrahim's father, Gholam Saqi, lives in a no-man's land between the Afghan base that
[01:04:29.040 --> 01:04:48.040]  came under attack this week and orchards on the outskirts of Kandahar, where the Taliban
[01:04:48.040 --> 01:04:51.040]  roam freely.
[01:04:51.040 --> 01:04:59.040]  Okay, folks, we're back. We got one more hour here on the rule of law. We're taking your
[01:04:59.040 --> 01:05:06.040]  calls. We've got Jamie, Bill, and John. We're going now to Jamie in California. Jamie, thanks
[01:05:06.040 --> 01:05:09.040]  for calling in. What's on your mind tonight?
[01:05:09.040 --> 01:05:18.040]  Hi. So a couple questions. One is regarding making an appearance. This is a case where
[01:05:18.040 --> 01:05:29.040]  there's a public defender, and somehow the court is requiring a personal appearance.
[01:05:29.040 --> 01:05:35.040]  The person is disabled, and the court is now 1,000 miles away. And even though it seems
[01:05:35.040 --> 01:05:40.040]  like in the law dictionary, you can make appearances without them being personal, it seems like
[01:05:40.040 --> 01:05:47.040]  they're ignoring that, and there's disability laws. But the court seems to be ignoring that.
[01:05:47.040 --> 01:05:54.040]  And also, and he tried to, he wrote up some documents to send to the court, some motions
[01:05:54.040 --> 01:06:05.040]  to request, yeah, to request relinquishment of contracts, but also declaratory order of
[01:06:05.040 --> 01:06:11.040]  privacy, but he wanted to have his appearance be over the phone. But for some reason, the
[01:06:11.040 --> 01:06:17.040]  court doesn't allow it. What can be done to require, you know...
[01:06:17.040 --> 01:06:22.040]  The Americans with Disabilities Act requires that they make accommodation. You need to
[01:06:22.040 --> 01:06:26.040]  look at the Americans with Disabilities Act.
[01:06:26.040 --> 01:06:27.040]  Okay.
[01:06:27.040 --> 01:06:33.040]  The judge is going to do what he wants to unless you give him reason not to. The prosecutor
[01:06:33.040 --> 01:06:39.040]  is probably pushing to force you to come to court knowing how difficult it's going to
[01:06:39.040 --> 01:06:45.040]  be to get you to make a deal, or whoever the individual is.
[01:06:45.040 --> 01:06:46.040]  They don't...
[01:06:46.040 --> 01:06:55.040]  So what you have to do is give the court a way to say no to the prosecutor. Okay, understand
[01:06:55.040 --> 01:07:04.040]  where the judge lives. The trial judge has two primary duties. He must determine the
[01:07:04.040 --> 01:07:10.040]  facts in accordance with the rules of evidence. Then he must apply the law as it comes to
[01:07:10.040 --> 01:07:16.040]  him to the facts in the case. He can't go look up the law. That would be adjudicating
[01:07:16.040 --> 01:07:22.040]  from the bench. The judge will say, yes, I'm learning counsel, and I'm experienced. However,
[01:07:22.040 --> 01:07:28.040]  you can't expect me to memorize the legal library. So I will expect you, if you have
[01:07:28.040 --> 01:07:35.040]  an issue, to vigorously research your issue and bring me all the relevant law.
[01:07:35.040 --> 01:07:40.040]  The other side, I'm going to ask you to do the same thing. It's my job to take these
[01:07:40.040 --> 01:07:46.040]  two and find a just adjudication based on the law. If you don't bring him the law he
[01:07:46.040 --> 01:07:50.040]  needs, he can't give you what he wants, what you want.
[01:07:50.040 --> 01:07:59.040]  I sat in a mock hearing recently for a guy in Massachusetts, and I sat as the judge,
[01:07:59.040 --> 01:08:06.040]  and Pastor Massad was the prosecutor. And poor old Kevin, Pastor Massad just ate his
[01:08:06.040 --> 01:08:13.040]  lunch. And I'm sitting out there as the judge, and I finally realized something about being
[01:08:13.040 --> 01:08:19.040]  a judge. I'm thinking, Kevin, come on, give me what I need. And he's talking about stuff
[01:08:19.040 --> 01:08:26.040]  that's irrelevant. Never did give me what I would have needed to rule in his favor.
[01:08:26.040 --> 01:08:32.040]  I want to, but he's not giving me anything to work with. So sometimes it's got to be
[01:08:32.040 --> 01:08:37.040]  difficult for a judge when he knows what needs to be presented, and the other party's
[01:08:37.040 --> 01:08:42.040]  giving him a bunch of opinion and not giving him any law he can work on.
[01:08:42.040 --> 01:08:44.040]  What's the law?
[01:08:44.040 --> 01:08:51.040]  So look up Americans with Disabilities Act, and they will be required to make reasonable
[01:08:51.040 --> 01:08:53.040]  accommodation.
[01:08:53.040 --> 01:08:58.040]  Okay, well that sounds good. That's what we thought, but then how do we get the motion
[01:08:58.040 --> 01:09:04.040]  to the judge when he refused to even read them because they said ex parte communication
[01:09:04.040 --> 01:09:07.040]  and the prosecutor has to see it and all that.
[01:09:07.040 --> 01:09:13.040]  Yeah, you have to file it in the case. You can't just send it to the judge as a letter.
[01:09:13.040 --> 01:09:16.040]  Right. This is how you do it.
[01:09:16.040 --> 01:09:20.040]  When you file motions, you have to file it with the court and then you have to serve
[01:09:20.040 --> 01:09:24.040]  the other side through certified mail.
[01:09:24.040 --> 01:09:27.040]  That is what we did.
[01:09:27.040 --> 01:09:30.040]  Wait, wait, wait, hold on, hold on, wait, stop. Jamie, is there someone else in the
[01:09:30.040 --> 01:09:32.040]  background on your line?
[01:09:32.040 --> 01:09:33.040]  Yeah.
[01:09:33.040 --> 01:09:38.040]  Okay, he needs to either pick up the phone if you have another extension or he needs
[01:09:38.040 --> 01:09:44.040]  to call in on a separate number because we can't understand what's going on.
[01:09:44.040 --> 01:09:45.040]  Okay.
[01:09:45.040 --> 01:09:49.040]  Okay, but y'all can't use a speaker phone, so he either has to pick up another extension
[01:09:49.040 --> 01:09:55.040]  or he needs to call in or y'all need to hand the phone off to each other back and forth
[01:09:55.040 --> 01:09:57.040]  or something.
[01:09:57.040 --> 01:10:01.040]  Okay, so do you mean that the judge wouldn't refuse to see the motion as long as it was
[01:10:01.040 --> 01:10:04.040]  sent by certified mail to the other side?
[01:10:04.040 --> 01:10:08.040]  No, what you do is you send the motion.
[01:10:08.040 --> 01:10:12.040]  The best practice is take three copies of the motion.
[01:10:12.040 --> 01:10:16.040]  Take three envelopes.
[01:10:16.040 --> 01:10:20.040]  Address one envelope to the opposing attorney.
[01:10:20.040 --> 01:10:25.040]  Address one envelope to yourself and one envelope to the judge.
[01:10:25.040 --> 01:10:34.040]  Take one motion and go to the post office and have each, the one to the other side if
[01:10:34.040 --> 01:10:39.040]  it's a prosecutor or if it's an opposing counsel, have it weighed and stamped.
[01:10:39.040 --> 01:10:42.040]  Have the one for you weighed and stamped.
[01:10:42.040 --> 01:10:46.040]  Put them in the envelope with the motion for the court.
[01:10:46.040 --> 01:10:53.040]  Send them all to the court with a letter asking the clerk to stamp all three and return the
[01:10:53.040 --> 01:10:55.040]  two in the respective envelopes.
[01:10:55.040 --> 01:11:01.040]  You have to file with the court and then you have to give opposing counsel notice so that
[01:11:01.040 --> 01:11:08.040]  if they disagree with what's in your motion they have opportunity to prepare a response to it.
[01:11:08.040 --> 01:11:12.040]  Yes, and actually you're not sending it to the judge.
[01:11:12.040 --> 01:11:15.040]  I want to make this clear because Randy you said send one to the judge.
[01:11:15.040 --> 01:11:18.040]  You're not sending the judge anything.
[01:11:18.040 --> 01:11:23.040]  You're filing it with the court which means you send it to the clerk of the court,
[01:11:23.040 --> 01:11:25.040]  the official clerk of the court.
[01:11:25.040 --> 01:11:32.040]  That's different from the judge's clerk sometimes called really the judge's coordinator
[01:11:32.040 --> 01:11:34.040]  or the judge's personal secretary.
[01:11:34.040 --> 01:11:40.040]  The judge's personal secretary or the judge's coordinator or judge's clerk is not the clerk of the court.
[01:11:40.040 --> 01:11:45.040]  The clerk of the court is the record keeper of the court.
[01:11:45.040 --> 01:11:50.040]  When you file documents with the court you send it to the address of the clerk of the court
[01:11:50.040 --> 01:11:52.040]  asking the clerk to file.
[01:11:52.040 --> 01:11:54.040]  The elected clerk of the court.
[01:11:54.040 --> 01:12:02.040]  You have to ask them to file stamp a copy and put it in the self-addressed stamp return envelope
[01:12:02.040 --> 01:12:09.040]  to send it back to you and then you also send a copy to the opposing side via certified mail.
[01:12:09.040 --> 01:12:13.040]  You have to have a certificate of service with all these documents.
[01:12:13.040 --> 01:12:18.040]  Basically you're testifying to the court that you have properly served the other side
[01:12:18.040 --> 01:12:21.040]  but you're not sending a letter to the judge.
[01:12:21.040 --> 01:12:24.040]  They're not going to accept that that's ex parte communication.
[01:12:24.040 --> 01:12:28.040]  Yes and let me re-explain about a motion.
[01:12:28.040 --> 01:12:31.040]  A motion is similar to a business letter.
[01:12:31.040 --> 01:12:34.040]  A business letter has a specific form.
[01:12:34.040 --> 01:12:35.040]  So does a motion.
[01:12:35.040 --> 01:12:37.040]  A motion has the court heading on the top
[01:12:37.040 --> 01:12:43.040]  and then you have a title of what the motion is about.
[01:12:43.040 --> 01:12:45.040]  But the title is not critical.
[01:12:45.040 --> 01:12:48.040]  They won't treat the motion as what you call it.
[01:12:48.040 --> 01:12:51.040]  They'll treat it based on what the content is.
[01:12:51.040 --> 01:12:55.040]  So if you mislabel it they'll still treat it based on the content.
[01:12:55.040 --> 01:13:04.040]  Then you tell them, the judge basically what the controversy is.
[01:13:04.040 --> 01:13:11.040]  You give the judge enough facts to understand the basic principles
[01:13:11.040 --> 01:13:14.040]  or facts around the issue you're bringing.
[01:13:14.040 --> 01:13:20.040]  Then you tell the judge what you want him to do
[01:13:20.040 --> 01:13:26.040]  and give him the law that tells him that based on these facts you need to do these things.
[01:13:26.040 --> 01:13:30.040]  And that's the argument of support or statement of cause.
[01:13:30.040 --> 01:13:34.040]  You start out with a statement of facts and then a statement of cause
[01:13:34.040 --> 01:13:36.040]  and then a conclusion.
[01:13:36.040 --> 01:13:39.040]  You tell the judge this is what I want you to do.
[01:13:39.040 --> 01:13:42.040]  And then you put in a prayer.
[01:13:42.040 --> 01:13:48.040]  In the prayer you ask the judge to do specifically what you want him to do.
[01:13:48.040 --> 01:13:53.040]  And you ask him in a way to where he can check granted or denied.
[01:13:53.040 --> 01:13:58.040]  Don't ask him in a way that he would have to write a narrative.
[01:13:58.040 --> 01:14:01.040]  So you tell him what the facts are.
[01:14:01.040 --> 01:14:06.040]  You tell him basically your take on the case.
[01:14:06.040 --> 01:14:12.040]  Tell him what you want and then specifically ask him to do what you want.
[01:14:12.040 --> 01:14:16.040]  Every motion will essentially have that form.
[01:14:16.040 --> 01:14:23.040]  So it's little more than a sophisticated letter to the judge or to the court.
[01:14:23.040 --> 01:14:28.040]  But it tends to generally, if you put it in that form you'll always be in good shape.
[01:14:28.040 --> 01:14:34.040]  So look up the Americans with Disabilities Act
[01:14:34.040 --> 01:14:39.040]  and show the judge the law where he's required to make a reasonable accommodation.
[01:14:39.040 --> 01:14:41.040]  Which brings me to a question.
[01:14:41.040 --> 01:14:45.040]  Is this a state or a federal issue?
[01:14:45.040 --> 01:14:49.040]  State issue.
[01:14:49.040 --> 01:14:52.040]  Is the litigant in a different state?
[01:14:52.040 --> 01:14:54.040]  Yes.
[01:14:54.040 --> 01:14:56.040]  Okay.
[01:14:56.040 --> 01:15:02.040]  Was the issue that's being brought before the court,
[01:15:02.040 --> 01:15:07.040]  was the litigant in the state when the issue came about?
[01:15:07.040 --> 01:15:11.040]  Yes, back then it's already like three, four years old.
[01:15:11.040 --> 01:15:14.040]  But the whole case is a bogus case anyway.
[01:15:14.040 --> 01:15:18.040]  What I'm looking for here is diversity of jurisdiction.
[01:15:18.040 --> 01:15:22.040]  If she lived in the state in a different county,
[01:15:22.040 --> 01:15:26.040]  she would have the right to be tried in her home venue.
[01:15:26.040 --> 01:15:32.040]  But since she's outside the state and the infraction doesn't involve a federal question,
[01:15:32.040 --> 01:15:38.040]  then she can, the only one that would have jurisdiction is the one that has it.
[01:15:38.040 --> 01:15:44.040]  So you can certainly use the American with Disabilities Act to find remedy.
[01:15:44.040 --> 01:15:47.040]  But you have to give it to the judge.
[01:15:47.040 --> 01:15:48.040]  You have to show him the law.
[01:15:48.040 --> 01:15:51.040]  You can't just say this is right or that's right.
[01:15:51.040 --> 01:15:53.040]  He may agree with you.
[01:15:53.040 --> 01:15:56.040]  But if you don't give him law to work with,
[01:15:56.040 --> 01:16:01.040]  he can't rule in your favor even if he wants to.
[01:16:01.040 --> 01:16:05.040]  Okay, and the defender that's assigned to the case can't stand in the way of it either
[01:16:05.040 --> 01:16:07.040]  because he seems to be?
[01:16:07.040 --> 01:16:10.040]  Yeah, just file a bar grievance against that jerk.
[01:16:10.040 --> 01:16:11.040]  That will take care of him.
[01:16:11.040 --> 01:16:13.040]  A bar grievance, okay.
[01:16:13.040 --> 01:16:17.040]  Yeah, you make up the motion, you tell him you filed this
[01:16:17.040 --> 01:16:22.040]  or I'll file a bar grievance against you every other day until you do.
[01:16:22.040 --> 01:16:25.040]  And if you ask to be removed from this case,
[01:16:25.040 --> 01:16:28.040]  I'll file a bar grievance against you for that.
[01:16:28.040 --> 01:16:33.040]  And you watch your public defender get real excited.
[01:16:33.040 --> 01:16:39.040]  Bar grievances are really, really bad news for attorneys.
[01:16:39.040 --> 01:16:42.040]  Okay, we're going to break.
[01:16:42.040 --> 01:16:45.040]  Do you want to hold over for a little bit on the other side?
[01:16:45.040 --> 01:16:48.040]  We're generally going to give one segment.
[01:16:48.040 --> 01:16:51.040]  Yeah, do you have any other questions, Jamie?
[01:16:51.040 --> 01:16:53.040]  Well, yeah, what about filing a subpoena?
[01:16:53.040 --> 01:16:54.040]  Wait, wait, no time, no time.
[01:16:54.040 --> 01:16:55.040]  Okay, wait, wait, wait.
[01:16:55.040 --> 01:16:57.040]  We just wanted to know if you wanted to hold to this side or not.
[01:16:57.040 --> 01:17:03.040]  Well, we'll be right back.
[01:17:03.040 --> 01:17:06.040]  Capital Coin and Bullion is your local source for rare coins,
[01:17:06.040 --> 01:17:10.040]  precious metals, and coin supplies in the Austin metro area.
[01:17:10.040 --> 01:17:12.040]  We also ship worldwide.
[01:17:12.040 --> 01:17:14.040]  We are a family-owned and operated business
[01:17:14.040 --> 01:17:17.040]  that offers competitive prices on your coin and metals purchases.
[01:17:17.040 --> 01:17:22.040]  We buy, sell, trade, and consign rare coins, gold and silver coin collections,
[01:17:22.040 --> 01:17:24.040]  precious metals, and scrap gold.
[01:17:24.040 --> 01:17:28.040]  We will purchase and sell gold and jewelry items as well.
[01:17:28.040 --> 01:17:31.040]  We offer daily specials on coins and bullion.
[01:17:31.040 --> 01:17:35.040]  We're located at 5448 Barnett Road, Suite 3,
[01:17:35.040 --> 01:17:41.040]  and we're open Monday through Friday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., Saturdays, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
[01:17:41.040 --> 01:17:44.040]  You are welcome to stop in our shop during regular business hours
[01:17:44.040 --> 01:17:49.040]  or call 512-646-6440 with any questions.
[01:17:49.040 --> 01:17:54.040]  Ask for Chad and say you heard about us on Rule of Law Radio or 90.1 FM.
[01:17:54.040 --> 01:18:03.040]  That's Capital Coin and Bullion, 512-646-6440.
[01:18:03.040 --> 01:18:05.040]  Oh, come on.
[01:18:05.040 --> 01:18:26.040]  MUSIC
[01:18:26.040 --> 01:18:31.040]  If I can't get everything I want, yeah
[01:18:31.040 --> 01:18:37.040]  I need to get a range, yeah
[01:18:37.040 --> 01:18:42.040]  If I can't get everything I need, yeah
[01:18:42.040 --> 01:18:48.040]  I need to get a range, yeah
[01:18:48.040 --> 01:18:53.040]  If the people of the world can get happiness and peace
[01:18:53.040 --> 01:19:00.040]  I need to get a range, yeah
[01:19:00.040 --> 01:19:03.040]  I need to get a range, yeah
[01:19:03.040 --> 01:19:06.040]  OK, folks, we are back.
[01:19:06.040 --> 01:19:08.040]  The call board is starting to stack up again.
[01:19:08.040 --> 01:19:10.040]  We only have three segments left.
[01:19:10.040 --> 01:19:13.040]  So, Jamie, quickly, what's your last question?
[01:19:13.040 --> 01:19:18.040]  Well, regarding subpoenas, there's some sort of done a ton of research
[01:19:18.040 --> 01:19:23.040]  and it looks like there's fraudulent kind of like hidden contracts involved.
[01:19:23.040 --> 01:19:29.040]  This is based on a lot of research with the Department of Defense and such
[01:19:29.040 --> 01:19:34.040]  that we're trying to get rid of these contracts because there are people that
[01:19:34.040 --> 01:19:41.040]  it's like we're enrolled in some sort of human experimentation.
[01:19:41.040 --> 01:19:44.040]  OK, that's pretty cryptic.
[01:19:44.040 --> 01:19:48.040]  Where are you going here?
[01:19:48.040 --> 01:19:49.040]  Do you have a question?
[01:19:49.040 --> 01:19:54.040]  I just want to get a copy of these fraudulent contracts that were created in our names
[01:19:54.040 --> 01:19:59.040]  that look like we got enrolled into some sort of human experimentation.
[01:19:59.040 --> 01:20:05.040]  If there are any contracts, you'd have to request them with some specificity.
[01:20:05.040 --> 01:20:08.040]  You know, I've heard these stories about contracts.
[01:20:08.040 --> 01:20:14.040]  I've heard people saying that the birth certificate is a contract.
[01:20:14.040 --> 01:20:20.040]  And I've heard that all of these agents that the birth certificate made me a corporation
[01:20:20.040 --> 01:20:24.040]  while I want to see the articles in corporation.
[01:20:24.040 --> 01:20:25.040]  And I want to see the contracts.
[01:20:25.040 --> 01:20:26.040]  I've never seen the contracts.
[01:20:26.040 --> 01:20:35.040]  I think these are just metaphors people are using and they don't really have any meaning.
[01:20:35.040 --> 01:20:41.040]  The point is you're not going to find the answer by looking for a contract.
[01:20:41.040 --> 01:20:47.040]  What you are more likely to find an answer looking for is an implied duty,
[01:20:47.040 --> 01:20:51.040]  one that's simply implied and not stipulated.
[01:20:51.040 --> 01:20:52.040]  I'm a sovereign.
[01:20:52.040 --> 01:20:55.040]  I don't have any duty implied.
[01:20:55.040 --> 01:20:59.040]  If it's not stipulated, it's not a duty.
[01:20:59.040 --> 01:21:06.040]  And I think a lot of the problems people are having is with the story some legal reform folks
[01:21:06.040 --> 01:21:11.040]  have made up to try to make what's going on make sense.
[01:21:11.040 --> 01:21:17.040]  And they've got lost in their stories and they forgot they were just stories.
[01:21:17.040 --> 01:21:19.040]  You go looking for those contracts.
[01:21:19.040 --> 01:21:23.040]  They're not going to exist.
[01:21:23.040 --> 01:21:24.040]  It's hard to hear.
[01:21:24.040 --> 01:21:25.040]  I can barely hear you.
[01:21:25.040 --> 01:21:31.040]  But these contracts were described in their own documentation of these agents.
[01:21:31.040 --> 01:21:36.040]  What contracts are you talking about?
[01:21:36.040 --> 01:21:40.040]  It's like an experimental protocol that they talk about.
[01:21:40.040 --> 01:21:43.040]  What are you – you're being cryptic.
[01:21:43.040 --> 01:21:46.040]  You're not telling me what you're talking about.
[01:21:46.040 --> 01:21:51.040]  Some vague supposed – what are you talking about?
[01:21:51.040 --> 01:21:56.040]  It was described in information operations roadmap from, you know,
[01:21:56.040 --> 01:21:59.040]  Donald Rumsfeld and stuff like that.
[01:21:59.040 --> 01:22:03.040]  I have no idea what you're referring to.
[01:22:03.040 --> 01:22:07.040]  Whatever you're talking about, you haven't given me referential index.
[01:22:07.040 --> 01:22:11.040]  I have nothing to refer this to.
[01:22:11.040 --> 01:22:12.040]  I'm sorry.
[01:22:12.040 --> 01:22:13.040]  We really need to move on.
[01:22:13.040 --> 01:22:21.040]  We're running out of time and we've got a bunch of callers stacking up.
[01:22:21.040 --> 01:22:22.040]  Okay.
[01:22:22.040 --> 01:22:26.040]  We're going to go to John from Colorado.
[01:22:26.040 --> 01:22:27.040]  John, are you there?
[01:22:27.040 --> 01:22:28.040]  Yes, I am.
[01:22:28.040 --> 01:22:29.040]  Thank you for taking my call.
[01:22:29.040 --> 01:22:30.040]  You all are doing it.
[01:22:30.040 --> 01:22:31.040]  Thank you for your show.
[01:22:31.040 --> 01:22:34.040]  I caught a couple months ago about a property tax issue.
[01:22:34.040 --> 01:22:39.040]  I attempted to pay my property tax with dollar coins and they rejected that.
[01:22:39.040 --> 01:22:44.040]  So I sent a certified letter describing what happened, that they rejected it,
[01:22:44.040 --> 01:22:46.040]  and that the debt has been discharged.
[01:22:46.040 --> 01:22:52.040]  And they replied with a certified letter denying that they refused payment.
[01:22:52.040 --> 01:22:56.040]  And then they also said there is no basis in the law for your claim that your
[01:22:56.040 --> 01:23:01.040]  taxes are somehow waived even if your payment wasn't accepted,
[01:23:01.040 --> 01:23:03.040]  which again it was not.
[01:23:03.040 --> 01:23:06.040]  And then this week I got another notice,
[01:23:06.040 --> 01:23:15.040]  and they're threatening to publish, constrain, seize, and sell my property.
[01:23:15.040 --> 01:23:16.040]  So this distresses me.
[01:23:16.040 --> 01:23:21.040]  And I've looked at Title 31, Section 5103.
[01:23:21.040 --> 01:23:22.040]  Wait, wait.
[01:23:22.040 --> 01:23:26.040]  Title 3103 of what?
[01:23:26.040 --> 01:23:30.040]  Title 31 and then Section 5103.
[01:23:30.040 --> 01:23:31.040]  Wait a minute.
[01:23:31.040 --> 01:23:34.040]  Title 31 of what?
[01:23:34.040 --> 01:23:37.040]  This is federal code.
[01:23:37.040 --> 01:23:40.040]  Why are you looking at federal code for property taxes?
[01:23:40.040 --> 01:23:42.040]  Well, this is a legal tender statute.
[01:23:42.040 --> 01:23:43.040]  Okay.
[01:23:43.040 --> 01:23:47.040]  It doesn't apply.
[01:23:47.040 --> 01:23:50.040]  You're in the state.
[01:23:50.040 --> 01:23:51.040]  Okay.
[01:23:51.040 --> 01:23:52.040]  Well, okay.
[01:23:52.040 --> 01:23:57.040]  So on my research I thought that I needed to show that the debt has been
[01:23:57.040 --> 01:23:59.040]  discharged and the legal tender.
[01:23:59.040 --> 01:24:01.040]  You can do that with UCC.
[01:24:01.040 --> 01:24:04.040]  And there will be a state UCC you can do that with.
[01:24:04.040 --> 01:24:08.040]  If you bring in federal law where federal law doesn't apply,
[01:24:08.040 --> 01:24:12.040]  if you're in property taxes you're in an area that's within the authority of
[01:24:12.040 --> 01:24:13.040]  the state itself.
[01:24:13.040 --> 01:24:21.040]  So the federal law is not going to apply unless they violated a civil right.
[01:24:21.040 --> 01:24:22.040]  Okay.
[01:24:22.040 --> 01:24:23.040]  That would be my question.
[01:24:23.040 --> 01:24:24.040]  There's kind of a misnomer.
[01:24:24.040 --> 01:24:29.040]  You can't just always bring in the federal law.
[01:24:29.040 --> 01:24:32.040]  If it's a place where the state has jurisdiction,
[01:24:32.040 --> 01:24:38.040]  if the Fed tried to move into that area that would be preemption.
[01:24:38.040 --> 01:24:42.040]  So you can get there with UCC.
[01:24:42.040 --> 01:24:47.040]  And every state has adopted universal commercial code.
[01:24:47.040 --> 01:24:48.040]  All right.
[01:24:48.040 --> 01:24:49.040]  I'll need to do some research on that.
[01:24:49.040 --> 01:24:54.040]  I also read that it may be useful to file a less pendent against my property to
[01:24:54.040 --> 01:24:58.040]  show that the deed is now my quality.
[01:24:58.040 --> 01:24:59.040]  Okay.
[01:24:59.040 --> 01:25:00.040]  I would be careful with a less pendent.
[01:25:00.040 --> 01:25:01.040]  Okay.
[01:25:01.040 --> 01:25:06.040]  If you file a less pendent and you haven't shown good cause,
[01:25:06.040 --> 01:25:13.040]  then that can be construed as falsely clouding a title.
[01:25:13.040 --> 01:25:15.040]  I forget exactly what the claim is.
[01:25:15.040 --> 01:25:22.040]  But that can come back on you unless you have established a claim against the
[01:25:22.040 --> 01:25:23.040]  property.
[01:25:23.040 --> 01:25:27.040]  And you can do that by filing suit.
[01:25:27.040 --> 01:25:28.040]  Okay.
[01:25:28.040 --> 01:25:37.040]  So once you file a suit, now you have a valid less pendent pending litigation.
[01:25:37.040 --> 01:25:38.040]  Okay.
[01:25:38.040 --> 01:25:45.040]  But if you just go arbitrarily file a less pendent, send you cloud title,
[01:25:45.040 --> 01:25:47.040]  and they can come back on you.
[01:25:47.040 --> 01:25:48.040]  Okay.
[01:25:48.040 --> 01:25:53.040]  So I need to look at my options for filing suit to get this adjudicated.
[01:25:53.040 --> 01:25:54.040]  Yeah.
[01:25:54.040 --> 01:25:56.040]  And it's easier than you think to file suit.
[01:25:56.040 --> 01:25:58.040]  I'm working with people with foreclosures.
[01:25:58.040 --> 01:26:03.040]  And I get most of them to file in the federal court.
[01:26:03.040 --> 01:26:06.040]  And they're surprised at how easy it is.
[01:26:06.040 --> 01:26:10.040]  And when you go in filing civil, it's different than criminal.
[01:26:10.040 --> 01:26:11.040]  Right.
[01:26:11.040 --> 01:26:13.040]  They really are civil.
[01:26:13.040 --> 01:26:17.040]  And they're a lot easier to deal with as a rule.
[01:26:17.040 --> 01:26:24.040]  The judges tend to get uncivil when you don't give them anything to work with.
[01:26:24.040 --> 01:26:28.040]  So it's about how I described earlier what the judge needs in front of him.
[01:26:28.040 --> 01:26:32.040]  You know, we get a lot of people complaining that the judges rule against them.
[01:26:32.040 --> 01:26:36.040]  And then when I get down for the most part and read their pleadings,
[01:26:36.040 --> 01:26:44.040]  they told the judge a really great story, but they didn't give him any law.
[01:26:44.040 --> 01:26:50.040]  You cannot make a proactive statement of law out of your own mouth.
[01:26:50.040 --> 01:26:53.040]  You must make it out of the mouth of the courts.
[01:26:53.040 --> 01:26:58.040]  If you always keep that in mind when you're writing a motion,
[01:26:58.040 --> 01:27:04.040]  you can say they're dirty rotten scoundrels, but they must do this certain thing.
[01:27:04.040 --> 01:27:11.040]  You have to write that of where the appeals court or Supreme Court has said,
[01:27:11.040 --> 01:27:14.040]  in this circumstance they must do that certain thing.
[01:27:14.040 --> 01:27:22.040]  And if you read the court cases, you read the decisions, they do that all the time.
[01:27:22.040 --> 01:27:26.040]  You'll read whole paragraphs that one sentence is a quote out of a case,
[01:27:26.040 --> 01:27:28.040]  the next sentence is a quote out of another case.
[01:27:28.040 --> 01:27:31.040]  Everything is quotes out of cases.
[01:27:31.040 --> 01:27:35.040]  This is how you need to write your motions.
[01:27:35.040 --> 01:27:37.040]  Be careful with your own opinions.
[01:27:37.040 --> 01:27:40.040]  Always put in the law and look at the law.
[01:27:40.040 --> 01:27:43.040]  You've probably got everything you need in the commercial code,
[01:27:43.040 --> 01:27:45.040]  the uniform commercial code.
[01:27:45.040 --> 01:27:47.040]  I'll look into that for my state.
[01:27:47.040 --> 01:27:49.040]  And I had jurisdiction and I've been going through that,
[01:27:49.040 --> 01:27:53.040]  and that's one of the things they stress is that your opinions don't matter.
[01:27:53.040 --> 01:27:55.040]  You need to rely on the law.
[01:27:55.040 --> 01:27:57.040]  Yeah, yeah.
[01:27:57.040 --> 01:28:07.040]  I'm glad that I got Dr. Graves straight on that point.
[01:28:07.040 --> 01:28:11.040]  Okay, I'm glad Dr. Graves got me straight on that point.
[01:28:11.040 --> 01:28:12.040]  Exactly.
[01:28:12.040 --> 01:28:19.040]  So I have a related question about what is practicing law without a license?
[01:28:19.040 --> 01:28:25.040]  If you want to avoid the accusation, you can help people prepare documents.
[01:28:25.040 --> 01:28:30.040]  Do not file anything for them with your name on it.
[01:28:30.040 --> 01:28:37.040]  Don't put your name on anything and don't go into court and try to sit with them
[01:28:37.040 --> 01:28:41.040]  when they're in court and try to talk to them while they're in court.
[01:28:41.040 --> 01:28:47.040]  Short of that, there's almost no way they can come back after you.
[01:28:47.040 --> 01:28:49.040]  Okay.
[01:28:49.040 --> 01:28:50.040]  Thank you for your radio show.
[01:28:50.040 --> 01:28:52.040]  Thank you for your time, Stephen.
[01:28:52.040 --> 01:28:53.040]  You are welcome.
[01:28:53.040 --> 01:28:57.040]  All right, thanks, John.
[01:28:57.040 --> 01:29:01.040]  Okay, we're about to go to break here in just a minute.
[01:29:01.040 --> 01:29:05.040]  We've got Dave in California.
[01:29:05.040 --> 01:29:07.040]  We've got Carlos in California.
[01:29:07.040 --> 01:29:11.040]  Also, there's a bill from Texas that's been calling in a few times
[01:29:11.040 --> 01:29:16.040]  and then dropping off the line throughout the show this evening.
[01:29:16.040 --> 01:29:21.040]  So Bill, if you would like to call back in, we will put you to the front of the line.
[01:29:21.040 --> 01:29:22.040]  We've got a half an hour left.
[01:29:22.040 --> 01:29:31.040]  So folks, if you would like to call in, the number is 512-646-1984.
[01:29:31.040 --> 01:29:33.040]  We've got Dave and Carlos next.
[01:29:33.040 --> 01:29:37.040]  We'll be going to your calls as soon as we get back on the other side.
[01:29:37.040 --> 01:29:40.040]  This is the Rule of Law, Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, and Deborah Stevens.
[01:29:40.040 --> 01:30:01.040]  We'll be right back.
[01:30:01.040 --> 01:30:04.040]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:30:04.040 --> 01:30:07.040]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary,
[01:30:07.040 --> 01:30:12.040]  the affordable, easy-to-understand, 4-CD course that will show you how
[01:30:12.040 --> 01:30:15.040]  in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[01:30:15.040 --> 01:30:19.040]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:30:19.040 --> 01:30:23.040]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:30:23.040 --> 01:30:28.040]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:30:28.040 --> 01:30:34.040]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:30:34.040 --> 01:30:39.040]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[01:30:39.040 --> 01:30:43.040]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:30:43.040 --> 01:30:49.040]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[01:30:49.040 --> 01:30:52.040]  pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:30:52.040 --> 01:31:05.040]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:31:05.040 --> 01:31:29.040]  Okay, folks, we are coming back.
[01:31:29.040 --> 01:31:32.040]  We've got Dave and Carlos.
[01:31:32.040 --> 01:31:35.040]  Dave, thanks for calling in. What's on your mind tonight?
[01:31:35.040 --> 01:31:36.040]  Thank you.
[01:31:36.040 --> 01:31:46.040]  I have a question about statute of limitations on a code enforcement violation in an incorporated city.
[01:31:46.040 --> 01:31:48.040]  What is the code enforcement?
[01:31:48.040 --> 01:31:57.040]  Is there a statute of limitations in California?
[01:31:57.040 --> 01:32:02.040]  I don't know. I haven't studied California law for code violation statutes.
[01:32:02.040 --> 01:32:07.040]  Is there a statute of limitations in Texas?
[01:32:07.040 --> 01:32:09.040]  It depends on what you're being charged with.
[01:32:09.040 --> 01:32:12.040]  If you're being charged criminally as a misdemeanor,
[01:32:12.040 --> 01:32:19.040]  the statute of limitations for them to bring it to trial or to file a complaint is two years.
[01:32:19.040 --> 01:32:22.040]  If what you're talking about is a civil infraction,
[01:32:22.040 --> 01:32:27.040]  then it really depends on whether or not they have a statute of limitations written into the law.
[01:32:27.040 --> 01:32:32.040]  If not, then it can be anywhere from 12 months to two years.
[01:32:32.040 --> 01:32:40.040]  Okay, so what took place was a vehicle that was unregistered or non-operative,
[01:32:40.040 --> 01:32:44.040]  which wasn't mine, but it was on my property.
[01:32:44.040 --> 01:32:52.040]  I got cited in 2007, and they sent a notice.
[01:32:52.040 --> 01:32:57.040]  The car didn't belong to me. I figured, well, it's not mine. It's something else.
[01:32:57.040 --> 01:33:08.040]  Then they brought it back up last month to make me pay or put it on my property taxes.
[01:33:08.040 --> 01:33:13.040]  So it was like close to three years old.
[01:33:13.040 --> 01:33:16.040]  So how would it work in Texas?
[01:33:16.040 --> 01:33:20.040]  Well, the first thing is you have to find out what's the charge.
[01:33:20.040 --> 01:33:23.040]  Is it a civil? Is it a criminal? What is it?
[01:33:23.040 --> 01:33:24.040]  Civil.
[01:33:24.040 --> 01:33:29.040]  And you need to read the statute under which it was allegedly made.
[01:33:29.040 --> 01:33:32.040]  Okay. I'm writing it.
[01:33:32.040 --> 01:33:38.040]  But if the objective here is the collection of a debt,
[01:33:38.040 --> 01:33:44.040]  and they haven't made any effort to recover the debt, then they may have other issues here.
[01:33:44.040 --> 01:33:49.040]  And that would be the case if it's a civil thing.
[01:33:49.040 --> 01:33:54.040]  But if it's allegedly a criminal thing that they're trying to fine you for,
[01:33:54.040 --> 01:34:00.040]  or it's a violation of a city ordinance, then they have a whole other problem.
[01:34:00.040 --> 01:34:06.040]  California has an enacting clause in its Constitution just like Texas does.
[01:34:06.040 --> 01:34:14.040]  And ordinances by the definition of that enacting clause cannot be law effectuating anything upon the people,
[01:34:14.040 --> 01:34:18.040]  because the law must have the enacting clause in it,
[01:34:18.040 --> 01:34:28.040]  and the enacting clause says that that law must be passed by the legislature of that state.
[01:34:28.040 --> 01:34:31.040]  So I should look at the enacting clause.
[01:34:31.040 --> 01:34:38.040]  Of the state Constitution, and then you should also look at the statute that they're allegedly charging you with and find out.
[01:34:38.040 --> 01:34:40.040]  Is it city code? Is it state law?
[01:34:40.040 --> 01:34:43.040]  What is it they're attempting to charge you under, and what does it say?
[01:34:43.040 --> 01:34:54.040]  If it's city code or city ordinance or county ordinance, then the enacting clause is a proper defense.
[01:34:54.040 --> 01:34:56.040]  Okay. I will go and check that out.
[01:34:56.040 --> 01:35:04.040]  Now, if they're trying to collect the debt, then I should be looking at Michael Mears' packet. Is that correct?
[01:35:04.040 --> 01:35:06.040]  That's correct. That is correct.
[01:35:06.040 --> 01:35:10.040]  Okay. Thank you very much. You guys have a great program.
[01:35:10.040 --> 01:35:11.040]  All right. Thank you, Dave.
[01:35:11.040 --> 01:35:12.040]  Thank you. Bye-bye.
[01:35:12.040 --> 01:35:16.040]  Okay. We're going now to Carlos in California.
[01:35:16.040 --> 01:35:20.040]  Carlos, thanks for calling in. What's on your mind tonight?
[01:35:20.040 --> 01:35:22.040]  Good evening, everybody.
[01:35:22.040 --> 01:35:30.040]  In California, if you file anything on title, they call it slander of title, and they'll sue you before you sue them.
[01:35:30.040 --> 01:35:33.040]  That's a little tip from the other caller before the break.
[01:35:33.040 --> 01:35:39.040]  But anyway, I have a question for Mr. Randy.
[01:35:39.040 --> 01:35:51.040]  When a judge on a foreclosure issue, when a judge says, when he really just denies you your right, your due process, and he clearly just chimes you off,
[01:35:51.040 --> 01:35:59.040]  and he says, I don't care, I don't care of whatever you bring up to the court pertaining to the unlawful detainer.
[01:35:59.040 --> 01:36:02.040]  I'm sorry, unlawful foreclosure.
[01:36:02.040 --> 01:36:09.040]  If he says, I don't care, I mean, is there anything you can legally do if you did everything by the book and he denies you?
[01:36:09.040 --> 01:36:13.040]  Yes. Okay. Was it an unlawful detainer hearing?
[01:36:13.040 --> 01:36:17.040]  No. It wasn't an unlawful detainer hearing.
[01:36:17.040 --> 01:36:26.040]  His home was foreclosed, and he went up to the judge and says, well, I tried to do a loan modification, and he says, no, no, how long have you been in there?
[01:36:26.040 --> 01:36:30.040]  He says, well, I've been there for eight months, but they did not comply with the loan modification.
[01:36:30.040 --> 01:36:34.040]  He says, I don't care. You didn't pay for the home, case closed.
[01:36:34.040 --> 01:36:37.040]  What was the issue before the court?
[01:36:37.040 --> 01:36:42.040]  Before the court, he was trying to do a loan modification.
[01:36:42.040 --> 01:36:48.040]  No, wait, wait. The loan modification is not before the court. What was the issue the court was dealing with?
[01:36:48.040 --> 01:36:51.040]  Well, yeah, that was the unlawful detainer.
[01:36:51.040 --> 01:37:06.040]  Okay. In an unlawful detainer, the only issue before the court is who has a right to possession, and any issues concerning the foreclosure are not within the jurisdiction of this court.
[01:37:06.040 --> 01:37:10.040]  The only thing they can determine is who has a right to possession.
[01:37:10.040 --> 01:37:19.040]  So effectively, the judge was right because he was bringing issues before the court that this court could not hear.
[01:37:19.040 --> 01:37:20.040]  Okay.
[01:37:20.040 --> 01:37:29.040]  He had to have filed an action in the district court and then ask for a stay in this court.
[01:37:29.040 --> 01:37:30.040]  Right.
[01:37:30.040 --> 01:37:40.040]  Or made a title claim in this court, and a title claim would exceed the jurisdiction of this court, and that will bring it back to the district court.
[01:37:40.040 --> 01:37:47.040]  Right. That's exactly what I told him. But no, so the judge was right.
[01:37:47.040 --> 01:37:48.040]  The judge was right.
[01:37:48.040 --> 01:37:49.040]  Okay, great.
[01:37:49.040 --> 01:37:59.040]  And frankly, a lot of times people get mad at the judge, but he's not really allowed to give you legal advice.
[01:37:59.040 --> 01:38:05.040]  I know. It's not his fault that we are ignorant. It's not his fault. Right.
[01:38:05.040 --> 01:38:12.040]  And I did a mock hearing the other day, and I was really surprised at how hard that can be.
[01:38:12.040 --> 01:38:17.040]  Okay. What can be that hard?
[01:38:17.040 --> 01:38:18.040]  Any other questions?
[01:38:18.040 --> 01:38:26.040]  Yes, yes. Okay. Now, is there any way I can get the contacts to Agenda 21?
[01:38:26.040 --> 01:38:35.040]  Yes. Their email is admin at agenda21talk.com.
[01:38:35.040 --> 01:38:39.040]  Okay. Very good. Thank you, guys. Great job.
[01:38:39.040 --> 01:38:41.040]  Okay. Thanks, Carlos.
[01:38:41.040 --> 01:38:42.040]  Well, Carlos.
[01:38:42.040 --> 01:38:52.040]  Okay. We don't have any other callers on the line right now, so folks, if you'd like to call in, we've got about 20 more minutes, 512-646-1984.
[01:38:52.040 --> 01:39:02.040]  A little for Carlos, if you're still listening, I'm going to be in San Diego on the 24th doing a seminar there in San Diego.
[01:39:02.040 --> 01:39:05.040]  So if you want to come down, you might holler at me.
[01:39:05.040 --> 01:39:12.040]  If anybody else is in San Diego and they have mortgage issues, you might want to give me an email and come down.
[01:39:12.040 --> 01:39:16.040]  I think you'll be surprised at what we have to offer.
[01:39:16.040 --> 01:39:24.040]  And that's my shameless self-promotion for the day.
[01:39:24.040 --> 01:39:25.040]  I'm done.
[01:39:25.040 --> 01:39:30.040]  Ain't he good?
[01:39:30.040 --> 01:39:36.040]  Well, the foreclosure issue is really moving along.
[01:39:36.040 --> 01:39:43.040]  We put together a program that is stopping foreclosures everywhere.
[01:39:43.040 --> 01:39:49.040]  Not a magic cure-all, catch-all, wave your magic wand and everything goes away.
[01:39:49.040 --> 01:39:54.040]  But it sure does stop the lender in their tracks.
[01:39:54.040 --> 01:39:58.040]  And the only way to do that is to sue them.
[01:39:58.040 --> 01:40:03.040]  And we put together one Jim Dandy suit to sue the lender with.
[01:40:03.040 --> 01:40:11.040]  We just had a guy go in in California, went to the court today and handed in his motion for no answer default.
[01:40:11.040 --> 01:40:15.040]  This is three we've gotten the last week.
[01:40:15.040 --> 01:40:20.040]  The other side didn't even bother to answer the pleading.
[01:40:20.040 --> 01:40:37.040]  So unless they can come up with a real good reason, the guy could win about five times the original amount of the principle and also get clear title.
[01:40:37.040 --> 01:40:40.040]  So this has been fun.
[01:40:40.040 --> 01:40:41.040]  That sounds awesome.
[01:40:41.040 --> 01:40:42.040]  Busy but fun.
[01:40:42.040 --> 01:40:43.040]  That's great, Randy.
[01:40:43.040 --> 01:40:45.040]  Okay, we've got some callers on the line again.
[01:40:45.040 --> 01:40:47.040]  It looks like Bill from Texas has called back in.
[01:40:47.040 --> 01:40:49.040]  Bill, thanks for calling back in.
[01:40:49.040 --> 01:40:50.040]  What's on your mind tonight?
[01:40:50.040 --> 01:41:03.040]  Well, I forgot to ask you if you could expand upon the filing of bar grievances, where, how, why, all of that sort of stuff.
[01:41:03.040 --> 01:41:10.040]  My favorite subject I thought you would never ask in every state.
[01:41:10.040 --> 01:41:18.040]  Every state will have a state bar and you can go to the state bar site and pull down a grievance form.
[01:41:18.040 --> 01:41:25.040]  And the thing about filing bar grievances, you should file them quick and file them often.
[01:41:25.040 --> 01:41:30.040]  Let the other side know that you're the pro se from hell.
[01:41:30.040 --> 01:41:37.040]  You're the pro se that makes attorneys hate pro se's.
[01:41:37.040 --> 01:41:44.040]  See, the courts and attorneys hate pro se's, but they don't hate pro se's because they come in and hand in stupid pleadings.
[01:41:44.040 --> 01:41:50.040]  They hate pro se's because every once in a while they come across the pro se from hell.
[01:41:50.040 --> 01:42:02.040]  And the pro se from hell is the one who knows how to file bar grievances and judicial conduct complaints and does so at the drop of a hat.
[01:42:02.040 --> 01:42:05.040]  When you file a bar grievance, it becomes secret.
[01:42:05.040 --> 01:42:07.040]  You can't reveal it.
[01:42:07.040 --> 01:42:09.040]  And that's a good thing.
[01:42:09.040 --> 01:42:19.040]  Now, the attorneys who had these laws passed intended that that would protect them from everybody finding out about the rotten crappy stuff they do.
[01:42:19.040 --> 01:42:23.040]  But everything has its consequences.
[01:42:23.040 --> 01:42:33.040]  And the consequence in this case goes to their insurance carrier, the one that carries their malpractice insurance.
[01:42:33.040 --> 01:42:36.040]  When you file a bar grievance, it becomes secret.
[01:42:36.040 --> 01:42:37.040]  You can't reveal it.
[01:42:37.040 --> 01:42:39.040]  Neither can the attorney on the other side.
[01:42:39.040 --> 01:42:42.040]  Neither one of us could say anything about it.
[01:42:42.040 --> 01:42:43.040]  Not a word.
[01:42:43.040 --> 01:42:45.040]  In the courts.
[01:42:45.040 --> 01:42:51.040]  So how is the insurance company supposed to determine their level of risk?
[01:42:51.040 --> 01:42:53.040]  By valid bar grievances?
[01:42:53.040 --> 01:42:56.040]  Heck, they throw them all in the trash.
[01:42:56.040 --> 01:42:59.040]  You file a crap bar grievance, they throw it in the trash.
[01:42:59.040 --> 01:43:04.040]  You file a well-constructive bar grievance, they're going to throw it in the trash.
[01:43:04.040 --> 01:43:06.040]  It doesn't make any difference.
[01:43:06.040 --> 01:43:08.040]  The lender knows that.
[01:43:08.040 --> 01:43:13.040]  So they cannot gauge their level of risk by valid bar grievances.
[01:43:13.040 --> 01:43:17.040]  They can only gauge it by the numbers.
[01:43:17.040 --> 01:43:23.040]  One bar, there's nine, from what I understand, there's only nine companies in the United States that do malpractice insurance.
[01:43:23.040 --> 01:43:28.040]  And they are all that underwrite malpractice insurance.
[01:43:28.040 --> 01:43:32.040]  And all of those are underwritten by Lloyds of London.
[01:43:32.040 --> 01:43:37.040]  And they all have essentially the same requirements.
[01:43:37.040 --> 01:43:43.040]  And since we're pushing up on break, I'll go into those requirements when we get back.
[01:43:43.040 --> 01:43:48.040]  This is Randy Calpin, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens, Rooted Law Radio.
[01:43:48.040 --> 01:43:50.040]  We'll be right back.
[01:43:50.040 --> 01:44:18.040]  MUSIC
[01:44:18.040 --> 01:44:21.040]  On how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes.
[01:44:21.040 --> 01:44:25.040]  What to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons.
[01:44:25.040 --> 01:44:27.040]  How to answer letters and phone calls.
[01:44:27.040 --> 01:44:29.040]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit report.
[01:44:29.040 --> 01:44:34.040]  How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[01:44:34.040 --> 01:44:39.040]  The Michael Mears Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[01:44:39.040 --> 01:44:41.040]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[01:44:41.040 --> 01:44:47.040]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner.
[01:44:47.040 --> 01:44:50.040]  Or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[01:44:50.040 --> 01:44:52.040]  That's ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:44:52.040 --> 01:44:58.040]  Or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com.
[01:44:58.040 --> 01:45:02.040]  To learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[01:45:02.040 --> 01:45:08.040]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:45:08.040 --> 01:45:12.040]  Live free speech talk radio at its best.
[01:45:12.040 --> 01:45:17.040]  Thank you for listening.
[01:45:42.040 --> 01:46:04.040]  Okay, we're back.
[01:46:04.040 --> 01:46:08.040]  Randy Calton, Eddie Craig, Debra Stevens, Rule of Law Radio.
[01:46:08.040 --> 01:46:10.040]  And we were talking about bar grievances.
[01:46:10.040 --> 01:46:14.040]  One of my favorite subjects.
[01:46:14.040 --> 01:46:20.040]  When you file a bar grievance, it doesn't matter to the insurer
[01:46:20.040 --> 01:46:24.040]  whether it's a valid bar grievance or not because they have nowhere telling.
[01:46:24.040 --> 01:46:29.040]  So, they gauge their level of risk by the numbers.
[01:46:29.040 --> 01:46:31.040]  One bar grievance your first year of practice.
[01:46:31.040 --> 01:46:34.040]  They'll cancel your malpractice insurance immediately.
[01:46:34.040 --> 01:46:38.040]  Two bar grievances any one year of practice, they cancel.
[01:46:38.040 --> 01:46:43.040]  Three bar grievances, they'll cancel your law firm's malpractice insurance.
[01:46:43.040 --> 01:46:48.040]  That is the second worst thing you can do to an attorney.
[01:46:48.040 --> 01:46:56.040]  Now, by your law firm, do you mean the firm that that particular lawyer is working for?
[01:46:56.040 --> 01:46:57.040]  Yes.
[01:46:57.040 --> 01:46:59.040]  Okay, all right.
[01:46:59.040 --> 01:47:02.040]  Yes, if he happens to be working for a law firm.
[01:47:02.040 --> 01:47:05.040]  If he's not, he's probably not ever going to be working for a law firm
[01:47:05.040 --> 01:47:09.040]  because they're not going to hire one with lots of bar grievances.
[01:47:09.040 --> 01:47:10.040]  Gotcha.
[01:47:10.040 --> 01:47:12.040]  And this sounds outrageous.
[01:47:12.040 --> 01:47:13.040]  It's not.
[01:47:13.040 --> 01:47:17.040]  Consider you buy a new car and you get collision, full coverage on it,
[01:47:17.040 --> 01:47:21.040]  and you pull into a shopping center and you go in the store
[01:47:21.040 --> 01:47:24.040]  and you come out and somebody's bashed you in your bumper.
[01:47:24.040 --> 01:47:26.040]  Call the insurance company, they're going to fix it.
[01:47:26.040 --> 01:47:28.040]  They're going to up your rates.
[01:47:28.040 --> 01:47:33.040]  Your fault, somebody else's fault, nobody's fault, they're going to up your rates.
[01:47:33.040 --> 01:47:36.040]  You come out a second time and it's been bashed in again,
[01:47:36.040 --> 01:47:39.040]  they're going to cancel your insurance.
[01:47:39.040 --> 01:47:40.040]  That's how it works.
[01:47:40.040 --> 01:47:41.040]  Right.
[01:47:41.040 --> 01:47:46.040]  It works for auto insurance, it works for malpractice insurance.
[01:47:46.040 --> 01:47:50.040]  So you file a bar grievance against an attorney, you sting him good.
[01:47:50.040 --> 01:47:51.040]  Okay.
[01:47:51.040 --> 01:47:55.040]  Judicial conduct complaints, they'll throw him out the same way.
[01:47:55.040 --> 01:47:59.040]  But judicial conduct complaints, not what was filed,
[01:47:59.040 --> 01:48:05.040]  but the fact that it was filed follows that judge his whole career.
[01:48:05.040 --> 01:48:09.040]  And being pro-says, you file a bar grievance against the attorney,
[01:48:09.040 --> 01:48:13.040]  he's forbidden to address it with you.
[01:48:13.040 --> 01:48:16.040]  They don't want you arguing back and forth with the attorney.
[01:48:16.040 --> 01:48:21.040]  So it's like you're in court and both of you get up behind your tables
[01:48:21.040 --> 01:48:24.040]  and before court starts, you walk over to the attorney,
[01:48:24.040 --> 01:48:28.040]  you kick him right square in his behind and walk back to your table
[01:48:28.040 --> 01:48:32.040]  and he's got to stand there and act like he didn't do it.
[01:48:32.040 --> 01:48:38.040]  And I especially like to do it in bushwhack mode.
[01:48:38.040 --> 01:48:40.040]  I love bushwhack.
[01:48:40.040 --> 01:48:43.040]  I don't want him, if he makes me angry,
[01:48:43.040 --> 01:48:46.040]  I'm going to do my best not to let him know.
[01:48:46.040 --> 01:48:48.040]  If he does something I think is inappropriate,
[01:48:48.040 --> 01:48:50.040]  I'm going to do my best not to let him know.
[01:48:50.040 --> 01:48:56.040]  The only way he's going to find out is when he just noticed that I grieved him.
[01:48:56.040 --> 01:48:59.040]  And he's going to wonder where that came from.
[01:48:59.040 --> 01:49:04.040]  Attorneys are very good at taking advantage of human nature.
[01:49:04.040 --> 01:49:10.040]  They know it's in our nature to be fair and to try to explain ourselves.
[01:49:10.040 --> 01:49:13.040]  We don't want to seem like jerks
[01:49:13.040 --> 01:49:20.040]  and we don't want to seem like people who are uncivil and hard to get along with.
[01:49:20.040 --> 01:49:24.040]  Well, when it comes to dealing with public officials,
[01:49:24.040 --> 01:49:29.040]  I find uncivil to be an attribute
[01:49:29.040 --> 01:49:33.040]  because they never know when you're coming at them.
[01:49:33.040 --> 01:49:38.040]  And I like to grieve them over the smallest things.
[01:49:38.040 --> 01:49:43.040]  So every move they make, they're afraid I'm going to grieve them again.
[01:49:43.040 --> 01:49:48.040]  So one other caveat about filing bar grievances,
[01:49:48.040 --> 01:49:56.040]  two other caveats, file a separate grievance for each claim you make.
[01:49:56.040 --> 01:49:59.040]  Don't jumble them all together.
[01:49:59.040 --> 01:50:04.040]  And if you have a number of issues that come out of the same time frame,
[01:50:04.040 --> 01:50:08.040]  file the bar grievances separated in time.
[01:50:08.040 --> 01:50:11.040]  Don't file them all at once.
[01:50:11.040 --> 01:50:20.040]  And when you write the bar grievance, state the claim in the language of the standard,
[01:50:20.040 --> 01:50:22.040]  the standard of ethics.
[01:50:22.040 --> 01:50:26.040]  Read the ethics, read the standard that it matches
[01:50:26.040 --> 01:50:31.040]  and then use that language to construct the complaint.
[01:50:31.040 --> 01:50:34.040]  We have one in Texas where they,
[01:50:34.040 --> 01:50:40.040]  since he didn't state it in the language of the standard,
[01:50:40.040 --> 01:50:46.040]  they treated it as a mediation, as a request for mediation.
[01:50:46.040 --> 01:50:50.040]  The bar is there to protect their members.
[01:50:50.040 --> 01:50:52.040]  They're not there to protect the public,
[01:50:52.040 --> 01:50:56.040]  so they're going to do every song and dance they can.
[01:50:56.040 --> 01:51:02.040]  So if we write it in the terms of the, in the wording of the standard,
[01:51:02.040 --> 01:51:05.040]  then it makes it harder for them to trash it.
[01:51:05.040 --> 01:51:07.040]  Okay.
[01:51:07.040 --> 01:51:09.040]  Any other questions on that?
[01:51:09.040 --> 01:51:11.040]  Yes.
[01:51:11.040 --> 01:51:17.040]  You mentioned the Manila envelope package that I sent to Eddie via the mail.
[01:51:17.040 --> 01:51:20.040]  Once he gets that, I guess my question is,
[01:51:20.040 --> 01:51:27.040]  should I file the bar grievances ahead of the criminal causes of action
[01:51:27.040 --> 01:51:31.040]  or should I just file them all about the same time?
[01:51:31.040 --> 01:51:33.040]  I don't think it matters.
[01:51:33.040 --> 01:51:36.040]  The bar grievance and the criminal are totally separate.
[01:51:36.040 --> 01:51:37.040]  Okay, all right.
[01:51:37.040 --> 01:51:42.040]  So just go ahead and put them together and file, regardless.
[01:51:42.040 --> 01:51:43.040]  Okay.
[01:51:43.040 --> 01:51:47.040]  Just, whether you file early or late, just get them filed.
[01:51:47.040 --> 01:51:48.040]  All right.
[01:51:48.040 --> 01:51:49.040]  Very good.
[01:51:49.040 --> 01:51:51.040]  Thank you so much for your time.
[01:51:51.040 --> 01:51:52.040]  You're welcome.
[01:51:52.040 --> 01:51:54.040]  I was having trouble with my computer.
[01:51:54.040 --> 01:51:56.040]  I was trying to email you some homemade beer,
[01:51:56.040 --> 01:52:02.040]  and I can't figure out how to get that to go over the line.
[01:52:02.040 --> 01:52:05.040]  Yeah, I'm a little short on beer.
[01:52:05.040 --> 01:52:08.040]  It might help this cold.
[01:52:08.040 --> 01:52:10.040]  Well, maybe we can talk about that sometime off air
[01:52:10.040 --> 01:52:12.040]  and figure out how to get that to you.
[01:52:12.040 --> 01:52:13.040]  Thank you.
[01:52:13.040 --> 01:52:14.040]  Yes, sir.
[01:52:14.040 --> 01:52:15.040]  You all have a good night.
[01:52:15.040 --> 01:52:17.040]  Thank you.
[01:52:17.040 --> 01:52:18.040]  All right, thanks, Bill.
[01:52:18.040 --> 01:52:21.040]  Hey, Randy, are you okay over there?
[01:52:21.040 --> 01:52:23.040]  No.
[01:52:23.040 --> 01:52:24.040]  I'm dying.
[01:52:24.040 --> 01:52:27.040]  I'll probably be dead by morning.
[01:52:27.040 --> 01:52:28.040]  Poor me.
[01:52:28.040 --> 01:52:30.040]  I was trying to find the mute button.
[01:52:30.040 --> 01:52:31.040]  I'm on a different computer,
[01:52:31.040 --> 01:52:35.040]  and I can't reach the mute button from where I'm at.
[01:52:35.040 --> 01:52:37.040]  Okay.
[01:52:37.040 --> 01:52:38.040]  All right.
[01:52:38.040 --> 01:52:44.040]  We've got open phone lines right now, 512-646-1984.
[01:52:44.040 --> 01:52:47.040]  We've got about six minutes left, so if somebody wants to call in,
[01:52:47.040 --> 01:52:53.040]  you've got a little bit of time left.
[01:52:53.040 --> 01:52:56.040]  In the meantime, Randy, why don't you give us an update
[01:52:56.040 --> 01:53:01.040]  on what's going on with your mortgage fraud business?
[01:53:01.040 --> 01:53:04.040]  Well, it's moving along really well.
[01:53:04.040 --> 01:53:12.040]  We've got two motions for no answer default today.
[01:53:12.040 --> 01:53:13.040]  One of them got filed today.
[01:53:13.040 --> 01:53:15.040]  The other one will get filed Monday.
[01:53:15.040 --> 01:53:19.040]  We had one filed last week and signed by the clerks.
[01:53:19.040 --> 01:53:24.040]  We've prepared an extensive lawsuit, and it's intended.
[01:53:24.040 --> 01:53:28.040]  What I mentioned earlier about bar grievances being the second thing
[01:53:28.040 --> 01:53:32.040]  that an attorney hates worst, the thing they hate the worst
[01:53:32.040 --> 01:53:36.040]  is an argument they haven't argued before,
[01:53:36.040 --> 01:53:40.040]  because if they misstate an argument before a judge
[01:53:40.040 --> 01:53:44.040]  and he buys their argument and the appeals court looks at it
[01:53:44.040 --> 01:53:47.040]  and says, what's this crap, Olin, sends it back,
[01:53:47.040 --> 01:53:51.040]  the judge is going to be really unhappy at that attorney,
[01:53:51.040 --> 01:53:57.040]  and that's in the standards of ethics, that's cause for disbarment.
[01:53:57.040 --> 01:54:02.040]  So they're terrified of arguing issues they're not familiar with.
[01:54:02.040 --> 01:54:07.040]  So we have stuffed this suit full of unusual arguments.
[01:54:07.040 --> 01:54:10.040]  There are arguments over issues that are not usually taken on,
[01:54:10.040 --> 01:54:16.040]  not normally taken on, to make it difficult for the attorneys to answer them.
[01:54:16.040 --> 01:54:19.040]  And besides, they only got 20 days.
[01:54:19.040 --> 01:54:24.040]  Now, I've had almost a year working on this lawsuit,
[01:54:24.040 --> 01:54:29.040]  making it as complete and in-depth as I possibly could
[01:54:29.040 --> 01:54:33.040]  and as difficult to answer as I could.
[01:54:33.040 --> 01:54:35.040]  They got 20 days.
[01:54:35.040 --> 01:54:37.040]  Good luck, Bubba.
[01:54:37.040 --> 01:54:42.040]  So far, the only answers we've got are one-liners.
[01:54:42.040 --> 01:54:47.040]  We deny all allegations by plaintiffs.
[01:54:47.040 --> 01:54:53.040]  Well, that gets a motion to dismiss,
[01:54:53.040 --> 01:54:57.040]  a motion to strike as non-responsive,
[01:54:57.040 --> 01:55:00.040]  then motion for default judgment.
[01:55:00.040 --> 01:55:04.040]  Now, we probably won't get the default judgment,
[01:55:04.040 --> 01:55:07.040]  but we sure put the other side on the dime
[01:55:07.040 --> 01:55:12.040]  and put them on notice that we fix them to come and kick your behinds.
[01:55:12.040 --> 01:55:15.040]  And so far, it's worked very well.
[01:55:15.040 --> 01:55:18.040]  Only one person lost his house,
[01:55:18.040 --> 01:55:21.040]  and that's because he didn't file suit when I told him to.
[01:55:21.040 --> 01:55:23.040]  And he let it go to a sale.
[01:55:23.040 --> 01:55:24.040]  He wasn't there.
[01:55:24.040 --> 01:55:26.040]  It sold to a third party.
[01:55:26.040 --> 01:55:30.040]  And whenever you, if you're going toward foreclosure,
[01:55:30.040 --> 01:55:32.040]  if you don't do anything else,
[01:55:32.040 --> 01:55:35.040]  go down the courthouse steps with a red envelope full of papers
[01:55:35.040 --> 01:55:39.040]  and hold it up and tell them this house is undersuit,
[01:55:39.040 --> 01:55:42.040]  you buy this house, you buy the suit.
[01:55:42.040 --> 01:55:46.040]  Everybody will bid. The bank will have to buy it back.
[01:55:46.040 --> 01:55:48.040]  Then sue them.
[01:55:48.040 --> 01:55:52.040]  If you sue them, either after foreclosure,
[01:55:52.040 --> 01:55:56.040]  if you force them to buy it back, or prior to foreclosure,
[01:55:56.040 --> 01:56:01.040]  then they can't do anything with the property.
[01:56:01.040 --> 01:56:03.040]  They can't sell it, they can't lease it,
[01:56:03.040 --> 01:56:06.040]  they can't do anything with it because it's in litigation.
[01:56:06.040 --> 01:56:09.040]  So if they continue and force you out of the property,
[01:56:09.040 --> 01:56:11.040]  which by law they can,
[01:56:11.040 --> 01:56:13.040]  but if they do that,
[01:56:13.040 --> 01:56:16.040]  then the property sits empty for a year and a half to two years
[01:56:16.040 --> 01:56:19.040]  because that's how long it takes to get through the litigation.
[01:56:19.040 --> 01:56:24.040]  And you can't insure an empty property.
[01:56:24.040 --> 01:56:27.040]  So this is how we're keeping people in their houses.
[01:56:27.040 --> 01:56:31.040]  We prepare them a suit that they can get and get filed
[01:56:31.040 --> 01:56:34.040]  without having given an attorney $10,000
[01:56:34.040 --> 01:56:38.040]  and then have him see how much of your estate he could steal.
[01:56:38.040 --> 01:56:40.040]  They can get into court quickly.
[01:56:40.040 --> 01:56:43.040]  They can get the lender stopped in his tracks.
[01:56:43.040 --> 01:56:47.040]  They get a year, a year and a half in the property.
[01:56:47.040 --> 01:56:51.040]  And by the time their time runs out,
[01:56:51.040 --> 01:56:55.040]  the value of the property will have bottomed out.
[01:56:55.040 --> 01:56:58.040]  We can expect in the next two years
[01:56:58.040 --> 01:57:02.040]  for the median price for housing
[01:57:02.040 --> 01:57:08.040]  to drop to 30% of its 2008 value
[01:57:08.040 --> 01:57:10.040]  at the height of the bubble.
[01:57:10.040 --> 01:57:14.040]  The bubble has burst and is deflating quickly.
[01:57:14.040 --> 01:57:17.040]  So if you got a $300,000 note on a house,
[01:57:17.040 --> 01:57:20.040]  if you got that four years ago,
[01:57:20.040 --> 01:57:23.040]  you'd be lucky if you can get two for it now.
[01:57:23.040 --> 01:57:28.040]  And within two years, you'd be lucky if you can get 80 for it.
[01:57:28.040 --> 01:57:30.040]  So you sue the lender,
[01:57:30.040 --> 01:57:33.040]  and he's stuck with you for a couple of years.
[01:57:33.040 --> 01:57:37.040]  Right now, these lenders are foreclosing as fast as they can.
[01:57:37.040 --> 01:57:41.040]  Because they know the real estate market's falling off a cliff,
[01:57:41.040 --> 01:57:45.040]  and they're standing here with their equity position in their property,
[01:57:45.040 --> 01:57:46.040]  in your property,
[01:57:46.040 --> 01:57:48.040]  and they're looking up at the equity sky
[01:57:48.040 --> 01:57:50.040]  following them like a stone.
[01:57:50.040 --> 01:57:53.040]  So they got to get it done and get out.
[01:57:53.040 --> 01:57:59.040]  When you sue, you slam that window of opportunity closed in their face.
[01:57:59.040 --> 01:58:06.040]  And they know that by the time this litigation is over,
[01:58:06.040 --> 01:58:09.040]  the real estate market will have bottomed out.
[01:58:09.040 --> 01:58:11.040]  And you're likely to tell them,
[01:58:11.040 --> 01:58:14.040]  okay, you win, you can have it.
[01:58:14.040 --> 01:58:18.040]  I'm going to take the money I didn't pay you for this last year and a half,
[01:58:18.040 --> 01:58:20.040]  put in a savings over here,
[01:58:20.040 --> 01:58:25.040]  and I'm going to go by the house across the street and not have any mortgage.
[01:58:25.040 --> 01:58:29.040]  Or let's make a deal.
[01:58:29.040 --> 01:58:35.040]  Okay, Randy Kelton, Debra Stephens, Eddie Craig, Ula Radio.
[01:58:35.040 --> 01:58:39.040]  I can't see the clock, so I just have to guess.
[01:58:39.040 --> 01:59:00.040]  All right, we'll be back Monday night, folks.
[01:59:09.040 --> 01:59:30.040]  Thank you.
[01:59:30.040 --> 01:59:58.040]  Thank you.
[02:00:00.040 --> 02:00:02.040]  We'll be right back.