[00:00.000 --> 00:04.280]  This news brief brought to you by the International Newsnet.
[00:04.280 --> 00:08.600]  Wiki leaked US diplomatic cables revealed the US ambassador to Egypt
[00:08.600 --> 00:12.800]  told Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, President Hosni Mubarak,
[00:12.800 --> 00:16.840]  will win his re-election bid next year in a rigged election.
[00:16.840 --> 00:21.080]  Mubarak has ruled Egypt for nearly 30 years and the ambassador predicted he
[00:21.080 --> 00:22.240]  will rule for life.
[00:22.240 --> 00:26.280]  Mubarak's government receives 1.3 billion dollars annually
[00:26.280 --> 00:30.360]  in military aid from the US. Egypt's recent parliamentary elections
[00:30.360 --> 00:33.840]  were widely dismissed as fraudulent.
[00:33.840 --> 00:37.520]  A coalition of beekeepers and environmentalists asked the US
[00:37.520 --> 00:39.840]  Environmental Protection Agency this week
[00:39.840 --> 00:43.880]  to remove a pesticide from the market because it might kill honey bees.
[00:43.880 --> 00:48.000]  The request was in response to the leak of an internal EPA document
[00:48.000 --> 00:52.920]  that questioned the scientific basis of the EPA's 2003 approval
[00:52.920 --> 00:57.840]  of Clothianidin, a Bayer crop science product used extensively on corn.
[00:57.840 --> 01:01.800]  Senate Republicans Thursday blocked a bill
[01:01.800 --> 01:05.760]  to provide up to 7.4 billion dollars in health care benefits
[01:05.760 --> 01:09.200]  to 9-11 rescue workers demanding that first
[01:09.200 --> 01:12.200]  Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy be extended.
[01:12.200 --> 01:16.080]  The bill was blocked on the same day as a funeral for a police officer
[01:16.080 --> 01:21.080]  who died of lung cancer contracted from working at ground zero.
[01:21.080 --> 01:24.880]  Several prominent members of the left who supported Barack Obama's campaign
[01:24.880 --> 01:25.720]  for president
[01:25.720 --> 01:29.880]  have written an open letter calling for protests against the president.
[01:29.880 --> 01:33.720]  Signers include filmmaker Michael Moore, journalist Barbara
[01:33.720 --> 01:36.800]  Ehrenreich and civil rights leader Jesse Jackson.
[01:36.800 --> 01:40.680]  The letter reads, with the Obama administration beginning its third year
[01:40.680 --> 01:44.720]  it is by now painfully obvious that the predictions of even the most sober
[01:44.720 --> 01:46.000]  Obama supporters
[01:46.000 --> 01:49.200]  were overly optimistic. Rather than an ally
[01:49.200 --> 01:53.240]  the administration has shown itself to be an implacable enemy of reform.
[01:53.240 --> 01:57.880]  The letter cites assaults on social security, lackluster health care reform,
[01:57.880 --> 02:01.800]  the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as quote
[02:01.800 --> 02:06.680]  the expanded bailout further enriching an already bloated financial services and
[02:06.680 --> 02:08.080]  insurance industry
[02:08.080 --> 02:11.800]  as causes for protest. Critics say the letter is a clear sign
[02:11.800 --> 02:16.080]  Obama's progressive base has turned against him.
[02:16.080 --> 02:19.760]  The US military is cutting ties with an Afghan security firm
[02:19.760 --> 02:22.760]  run by relatives of president Hamid Karzai
[02:22.760 --> 02:26.200]  that has been accused of bribing both government officials and Taliban
[02:26.200 --> 02:27.360]  commanders.
[02:27.360 --> 02:31.520]  The move is part of US efforts to clean up a contracting process
[02:31.520 --> 02:35.720]  in Afghanistan that has been riddled with corruption and allowed US funds
[02:35.720 --> 02:39.560]  to pass to insurgents. It follows a congressional report in June
[02:39.560 --> 02:42.760]  that said the Waitang group bribed Afghan officials
[02:42.760 --> 02:47.880]  to get exclusive control over a key NATO supply route in southern Afghanistan
[02:47.880 --> 03:15.680]  and paid Taliban commanders not to attack on the highway.
[03:17.880 --> 03:34.880]  Well I received my remedy today
[03:34.880 --> 03:42.880]  It came in a box just like the thing I accepted for value right away
[03:42.880 --> 03:49.880]  It's not too young, not later We are originators
[03:49.880 --> 03:54.880]  And the pathway seems to get straighter every day
[03:54.880 --> 03:58.880]  And I can take anything that belongs to me
[03:58.880 --> 04:01.880]  And put it to good use
[04:01.880 --> 04:05.880]  Well I was good for the gander
[04:05.880 --> 04:10.880]  Okay folks, we are back. We're speaking with our good friend Don Zimmerman.
[04:10.880 --> 04:13.880]  We're promoting his book tonight, How to Swing Votes.
[04:13.880 --> 04:16.880]  You can get that at brave new bookstore dot com.
[04:16.880 --> 04:19.880]  Call Harlan at Brave New Books.
[04:19.880 --> 04:22.880]  You can also get the electronic version on Amazon.
[04:22.880 --> 04:25.880]  How to Swing Votes by Don Zimmerman.
[04:25.880 --> 04:28.880]  Okay, so we are talking about this outrageous,
[04:28.880 --> 04:32.880]  almost comedic US Supreme Court case.
[04:32.880 --> 04:38.880]  And Don, you were saying that this is illustrative
[04:38.880 --> 04:43.880]  of why we need to do more than just file lawsuits ourselves
[04:43.880 --> 04:45.880]  in our own personal situations or whatever.
[04:45.880 --> 04:49.880]  Because we have to get ourselves elected
[04:49.880 --> 04:52.880]  and be public servants ourselves
[04:52.880 --> 04:56.880]  in order to have standing to make even bigger changes
[04:56.880 --> 05:00.880]  through the court system and put a stop to all this just craziness.
[05:00.880 --> 05:02.880]  Craziness, yeah.
[05:02.880 --> 05:06.880]  To make some points about this and what is really interesting
[05:06.880 --> 05:09.880]  and really influential about an elected office,
[05:09.880 --> 05:12.880]  even a tiny elected office like a utility district.
[05:12.880 --> 05:15.880]  It's probably one of the lowest offices out there.
[05:15.880 --> 05:20.880]  And my political subdivision only covered about 1,300 homes.
[05:20.880 --> 05:24.880]  You know, we're talking 3,000 to 4,000 people.
[05:24.880 --> 05:29.880]  And within this neighborhood of the 1,300 homes,
[05:29.880 --> 05:33.880]  there were reactions to this Supreme Court case
[05:33.880 --> 05:36.880]  that just were beyond ridiculous.
[05:36.880 --> 05:39.880]  You know, I had people claiming to be college-educated
[05:39.880 --> 05:45.880]  who were livid, who were vitriolic in hate language towards me,
[05:45.880 --> 05:49.880]  accusing me of being a crazy Republican racist
[05:49.880 --> 05:52.880]  that wants to stop black people from voting.
[05:52.880 --> 05:56.880]  You know, people have these ideological beliefs
[05:56.880 --> 05:59.880]  that are 100% erroneous.
[05:59.880 --> 06:04.880]  You know, not a shred of truth or fact of what they're talking about.
[06:04.880 --> 06:07.880]  They're just knee-jerk political reactions.
[06:07.880 --> 06:12.880]  If someone is challenging any part of the Voting Rights Act,
[06:12.880 --> 06:17.880]  they must be a racist and a bigot and a fanatic and extremist, you know?
[06:17.880 --> 06:22.880]  And their ears are closed to just some simple reasoning and simple logic.
[06:22.880 --> 06:25.880]  They're smart enough rationally, if they would look at the facts,
[06:25.880 --> 06:31.880]  they would go, oh, this case has absolutely nothing to do with race.
[06:31.880 --> 06:34.880]  And I've got to tell you quickly what it did have to do with.
[06:34.880 --> 06:36.880]  The reason there was such a furor over this
[06:36.880 --> 06:39.880]  and the reason we were really arguing this at the Supreme Court
[06:39.880 --> 06:43.880]  is because the Department of Justice and federal judges
[06:43.880 --> 06:47.880]  have been using this antiquated 1965 law
[06:47.880 --> 06:53.880]  to control federal redistricting of congressional districts.
[06:53.880 --> 06:55.880]  That's what this is really all about, Deb.
[06:55.880 --> 06:59.880]  They're using this old antiquated 1965 law
[06:59.880 --> 07:05.880]  to justify federal control of the congressional redistricting process.
[07:05.880 --> 07:07.880]  That's what this is really all about.
[07:07.880 --> 07:08.880]  Oh, boy.
[07:08.880 --> 07:11.880]  Yeah, it has nothing to do with minorities voting.
[07:11.880 --> 07:12.880]  It has nothing to do with it.
[07:12.880 --> 07:16.880]  Well, so, Don, did you file this lawsuit?
[07:16.880 --> 07:17.880]  Absolutely not.
[07:17.880 --> 07:19.880]  I wouldn't even know where to begin.
[07:19.880 --> 07:23.880]  Well, I mean, did the Mudd file?
[07:23.880 --> 07:25.880]  The Mudd complained about it,
[07:25.880 --> 07:28.880]  and I kind of bitterly complained about it at the time.
[07:28.880 --> 07:32.880]  You see, the board, of course, was unanimous with me
[07:32.880 --> 07:35.880]  to get this election moved back to the school.
[07:35.880 --> 07:39.880]  Guess what happened when we wanted to move the election back to the school?
[07:39.880 --> 07:40.880]  What happened?
[07:40.880 --> 07:42.880]  We had to file with the Department of Justice.
[07:42.880 --> 07:43.880]  Okay.
[07:43.880 --> 07:46.880]  We had to go through another Section 5 pre-clearance process.
[07:46.880 --> 07:47.880]  Okay.
[07:47.880 --> 07:49.880]  So y'all did that.
[07:49.880 --> 07:52.880]  And then how did this whole thing turn into a lawsuit?
[07:52.880 --> 07:53.880]  Who filed against who?
[07:53.880 --> 07:55.880]  We got the thing moved back there,
[07:55.880 --> 07:58.880]  but I was complaining to our good friend, Mr. Coleman,
[07:58.880 --> 08:01.880]  about the absurdity of this process.
[08:01.880 --> 08:05.880]  And this is another example of government-run amok.
[08:05.880 --> 08:10.880]  But I didn't really want to, you know, lean on this guy.
[08:10.880 --> 08:13.880]  He was already helping us to fight the City of Austin in court.
[08:13.880 --> 08:14.880]  Right.
[08:14.880 --> 08:17.880]  And, you know, I didn't want to just load it on his back,
[08:17.880 --> 08:20.880]  but he came to me in 2006 and he said,
[08:20.880 --> 08:23.880]  you know, I may be able to help you with this
[08:23.880 --> 08:27.880]  because there are some groups that are interested in funding
[08:27.880 --> 08:29.880]  some of the legal expenses.
[08:29.880 --> 08:33.880]  He says, so I could do this for you pro bono.
[08:33.880 --> 08:36.880]  You would just need to, you know, agree to carry the case,
[08:36.880 --> 08:38.880]  and we could challenge this.
[08:38.880 --> 08:42.880]  And what we would be asking for is a bailout of this provision
[08:42.880 --> 08:45.880]  based on the fact that we had a perfect record
[08:45.880 --> 08:47.880]  of encouraging everyone to vote,
[08:47.880 --> 08:49.880]  and there had never been any cases
[08:49.880 --> 08:51.880]  of any kind of racial discrimination.
[08:51.880 --> 08:53.880]  Well, wait a minute. Hold on. I'm confused.
[08:53.880 --> 08:55.880]  Okay, so you guys filed with the DOJ
[08:55.880 --> 08:57.880]  to get the polling place moved back to the school.
[08:57.880 --> 08:59.880]  Did the DOJ say no?
[08:59.880 --> 09:01.880]  I don't know. They approved it, of course.
[09:01.880 --> 09:04.880]  Okay, so then where did the lawsuit come from?
[09:04.880 --> 09:09.880]  The lawsuit came from the fact that we, you know, as a Mudd Director,
[09:09.880 --> 09:12.880]  you know, I was offended at this whole idea
[09:12.880 --> 09:15.880]  that we have to ask the Department of Justice for permission
[09:15.880 --> 09:20.880]  to move our polling place because we're all racists from 1965.
[09:20.880 --> 09:22.880]  Right, right, right. It's ridiculous.
[09:22.880 --> 09:25.880]  It's ridiculous that we should have to ask the Fed's permission
[09:25.880 --> 09:27.880]  for anything like that anyway.
[09:27.880 --> 09:29.880]  Right, right, right. It's ridiculous, just ridiculous.
[09:29.880 --> 09:31.880]  But, of course, you've got to pick your battles, right?
[09:31.880 --> 09:34.880]  This was not a battle that I'm willing to spend money on,
[09:34.880 --> 09:36.880]  and if you're going to take it to the federal courts
[09:36.880 --> 09:38.880]  and the Supreme Court, you know what?
[09:38.880 --> 09:41.880]  You could be talking about a million bucks, you know?
[09:41.880 --> 09:44.880]  It was almost a million bucks just to get your other case
[09:44.880 --> 09:46.880]  to the third court of appeals.
[09:46.880 --> 09:50.880]  Right. Well, we had only paid $15,000, but that's another story.
[09:50.880 --> 09:51.880]  Okay.
[09:51.880 --> 09:54.880]  We only paid that guy $15,000 for eight years of work.
[09:54.880 --> 09:55.880]  But still.
[09:55.880 --> 09:56.880]  But still. But you're right, but you're right,
[09:56.880 --> 09:58.880]  and that's another interesting thing.
[09:58.880 --> 10:00.880]  The financial burden stops a lot of people
[10:00.880 --> 10:03.880]  from successfully bringing these cases,
[10:03.880 --> 10:05.880]  but it turned out that there was another group
[10:05.880 --> 10:08.880]  that was willing to pay his legal expenses.
[10:08.880 --> 10:12.880]  And again, again, what this is all about
[10:12.880 --> 10:17.880]  is the federal government, you know, abusing this 1965 law
[10:17.880 --> 10:20.880]  in order to control the redrawing
[10:20.880 --> 10:24.880]  of congressional districts every ten years.
[10:24.880 --> 10:27.880]  Okay, so did the Mudd file the suit?
[10:27.880 --> 10:31.880]  Yeah, the Mudd was the plaintiff.
[10:31.880 --> 10:32.880]  And who was the defendant?
[10:32.880 --> 10:37.880]  The defendant was Eric Holder of the Department of Justice.
[10:37.880 --> 10:38.880]  Okay.
[10:38.880 --> 10:41.880]  It was Alberto Gonzales, I think was the original.
[10:41.880 --> 10:46.880]  He was the Bush attorney general, right?
[10:46.880 --> 10:48.880]  Basically, y'all sued the federal government.
[10:48.880 --> 10:49.880]  We sued the federal government, yeah.
[10:49.880 --> 10:50.880]  Over this law.
[10:50.880 --> 10:53.880]  Right. And it reads that way now.
[10:53.880 --> 10:55.880]  It says Northwest Austin Mudd Number 1,
[10:55.880 --> 10:58.880]  that's the name of our local political subdivision,
[10:58.880 --> 11:01.880]  versus Eric Holder in the Department of Justice
[11:01.880 --> 11:02.880]  and the federal government.
[11:02.880 --> 11:03.880]  Right.
[11:03.880 --> 11:05.880]  So that's how the case was filed.
[11:05.880 --> 11:09.880]  But it was all handled by this brilliant attorney,
[11:09.880 --> 11:10.880]  you know, all the particulars.
[11:10.880 --> 11:12.880]  Okay, so y'all were basically saying it's unconstitutional
[11:12.880 --> 11:15.880]  that we should have to ask permission of the DOJ
[11:15.880 --> 11:18.880]  to hold a polling place in a reasonable location.
[11:18.880 --> 11:19.880]  That's right.
[11:19.880 --> 11:22.880]  You could imagine that the complexities
[11:22.880 --> 11:26.880]  of how the complaint was actually filed, right,
[11:26.880 --> 11:31.880]  and all the complexities of, you know, 40 years of case law
[11:31.880 --> 11:34.880]  that had been argued behind this 1965 law.
[11:34.880 --> 11:36.880]  It was remarkably complex.
[11:36.880 --> 11:39.880]  So this case, y'all filed this, I assume,
[11:39.880 --> 11:42.880]  in the Western District of Texas.
[11:42.880 --> 11:46.880]  No, no, it has to be filed in Washington, D.C., federal court.
[11:46.880 --> 11:48.880]  You have to file it in the D.C. court?
[11:48.880 --> 11:51.880]  You have to file it in the D.C. court.
[11:51.880 --> 11:53.880]  The way the law was written in 1965,
[11:53.880 --> 11:59.880]  see, they didn't trust any of the circuit federal courts back then.
[11:59.880 --> 12:00.880]  Oh, brother.
[12:00.880 --> 12:02.880]  Right, right, because, you know, everybody's a racist.
[12:02.880 --> 12:05.880]  So you had to take it up to Washington, D.C.
[12:05.880 --> 12:06.880]  So we did.
[12:06.880 --> 12:08.880]  We took it to Washington, D.C., and they argued it,
[12:08.880 --> 12:11.880]  and there was, like, two Democrat judges
[12:11.880 --> 12:13.880]  that were appointed by Bill Clinton.
[12:13.880 --> 12:19.880]  So, you know, when we filed the case in the federal court,
[12:19.880 --> 12:23.880]  it was like a 100% chance that they would deny, you know,
[12:23.880 --> 12:26.880]  our bailout request, the bailout request.
[12:26.880 --> 12:29.880]  And then, of course, the interesting thing about that
[12:29.880 --> 12:33.880]  is that by denying it, we pretty much got an automatic appeal
[12:33.880 --> 12:35.880]  to the U.S. Supreme Court,
[12:35.880 --> 12:38.880]  so the chances were very good that we were going to be heard.
[12:38.880 --> 12:41.880]  And, of course, I'm telling you, it really helped
[12:41.880 --> 12:45.880]  that our attorney was personal friends with Clarence Thomas
[12:45.880 --> 12:46.880]  because he worked with him,
[12:46.880 --> 12:49.880]  and he had a great deal of respect for him.
[12:49.880 --> 12:51.880]  So I got to think that that was part of the reason
[12:51.880 --> 12:54.880]  why this particular case got heard by the Supreme Court
[12:54.880 --> 12:57.880]  because, you know, our attorney had worked there.
[12:57.880 --> 12:58.880]  Right.
[12:58.880 --> 12:59.880]  Very interesting, right?
[12:59.880 --> 13:03.880]  So that kind of goes back to the idea that relationships
[13:03.880 --> 13:06.880]  are very important, right, everywhere that you look.
[13:06.880 --> 13:08.880]  I got to say one more thing about this
[13:08.880 --> 13:10.880]  that's really, really fascinating
[13:10.880 --> 13:12.880]  and I think encouraging for our side.
[13:12.880 --> 13:15.880]  You would think that a Supreme Court case
[13:15.880 --> 13:20.880]  that was being editorialized by the New York Times,
[13:20.880 --> 13:24.880]  the Los Angeles Times, I mean, it was nationwide news, right?
[13:24.880 --> 13:26.880]  The Wall Street Journal.
[13:26.880 --> 13:29.880]  I got interviewed by a reporter from the Wall Street Journal,
[13:29.880 --> 13:32.880]  and they wrote up a big story on it.
[13:32.880 --> 13:34.880]  My name was actually on the front page
[13:34.880 --> 13:36.880]  of the Wall Street Journal, okay?
[13:36.880 --> 13:38.880]  That's how big the story was.
[13:38.880 --> 13:42.880]  There was another news team that came down here from ABC News,
[13:42.880 --> 13:47.880]  and I got interviewed for a national news segment on ABC News.
[13:47.880 --> 13:49.880]  They ended up not playing it
[13:49.880 --> 13:51.880]  because the day that they had planned to run it
[13:51.880 --> 13:56.880]  was the same day that Barack Obama had his 100 days in office.
[13:56.880 --> 13:59.880]  So they ran a national story on Obama
[13:59.880 --> 14:01.880]  on his 100 days in office,
[14:01.880 --> 14:04.880]  and they scrapped the story they had done on this case here.
[14:04.880 --> 14:07.880]  So we almost wound up on national news.
[14:07.880 --> 14:09.880]  But I got to tell you,
[14:09.880 --> 14:12.880]  you would think that the people in this neighborhood
[14:12.880 --> 14:16.880]  would know and care about a Supreme Court case.
[14:16.880 --> 14:18.880]  How many people in this neighborhood
[14:18.880 --> 14:22.880]  do you think actually knew about the case?
[14:22.880 --> 14:24.880]  Well, I'm thinking very few,
[14:24.880 --> 14:26.880]  but maybe it was more than a few
[14:26.880 --> 14:29.880]  since it was getting such high-profile media coverage.
[14:29.880 --> 14:31.880]  My estimation from walking doors,
[14:31.880 --> 14:34.880]  I had this little newsletter that I kept handing out.
[14:34.880 --> 14:36.880]  I would hand out this newsletter.
[14:36.880 --> 14:41.880]  I'm going to guess that about 60 to 70 percent
[14:41.880 --> 14:45.880]  of the people in this neighborhood had no clue
[14:45.880 --> 14:47.880]  that we were at the U.S. Supreme Court case
[14:47.880 --> 14:51.880]  when a nationwide profile voting rights that case.
[14:51.880 --> 14:55.880]  Probably 70 percent had no idea that it was even going on.
[14:55.880 --> 14:59.880]  And that tells you the disconnect, right,
[14:59.880 --> 15:02.880]  that people have with what's going on in their government.
[15:02.880 --> 15:04.880]  But here's the deal on that.
[15:04.880 --> 15:07.880]  That disconnect works in your favor
[15:07.880 --> 15:09.880]  if you are in an elected office
[15:09.880 --> 15:12.880]  and in a position to do something.
[15:12.880 --> 15:14.880]  Because the realization came to me
[15:14.880 --> 15:18.880]  that if I were not in elected office,
[15:18.880 --> 15:20.880]  there would be absolutely nothing I could do
[15:20.880 --> 15:23.880]  about this case, right, nothing.
[15:23.880 --> 15:24.880]  I could do nothing about it.
[15:24.880 --> 15:26.880]  But since I'm in elected office,
[15:26.880 --> 15:28.880]  the people in this neighborhood who oppose me
[15:28.880 --> 15:30.880]  or think they oppose me,
[15:30.880 --> 15:34.880]  they can do nothing to stop me.
[15:34.880 --> 15:36.880]  Nothing.
[15:36.880 --> 15:38.880]  And then you've got the majority of the people
[15:38.880 --> 15:41.880]  who don't know and don't care.
[15:41.880 --> 15:45.880]  So this is why I make this argument in my book
[15:45.880 --> 15:47.880]  that I don't buy into the argument
[15:47.880 --> 15:50.880]  that we need to educate the masses.
[15:50.880 --> 15:52.880]  I don't believe that at all.
[15:52.880 --> 15:54.880]  I think what we need to do is get elected
[15:54.880 --> 15:57.880]  because the people don't care
[15:57.880 --> 15:58.880]  what their elected officials are doing.
[15:58.880 --> 16:01.880]  You know, the Congress is selling us out.
[16:01.880 --> 16:03.880]  They're trashing the Constitution.
[16:03.880 --> 16:04.880]  They're bankrupting the country.
[16:04.880 --> 16:06.880]  They're taking away our freedoms.
[16:06.880 --> 16:09.880]  And the people are just like anesthetized.
[16:09.880 --> 16:10.880]  They're clueless.
[16:10.880 --> 16:11.880]  They're not plugged in.
[16:11.880 --> 16:14.880]  They're just passionate about it.
[16:14.880 --> 16:18.880]  But I would say that if we got Ron Paul people elected in office,
[16:18.880 --> 16:20.880]  we could save the country.
[16:20.880 --> 16:22.880]  And those same people don't care.
[16:22.880 --> 16:23.880]  They don't care.
[16:23.880 --> 16:24.880]  You want to save my freedom?
[16:24.880 --> 16:25.880]  I don't care.
[16:25.880 --> 16:26.880]  You want to take my freedom?
[16:26.880 --> 16:27.880]  I don't care.
[16:27.880 --> 16:32.880]  There's just this incredible and unfathomable apathy out there.
[16:32.880 --> 16:36.880]  But that can also work in our favor if we just get elected office.
[16:36.880 --> 16:37.880]  Right.
[16:37.880 --> 16:39.880]  Well, we need to educate at least to the point
[16:39.880 --> 16:42.880]  that we inspire enough people to do things
[16:42.880 --> 16:44.880]  that will make a real difference.
[16:44.880 --> 16:46.880]  Well, that's what you do with this radio show.
[16:46.880 --> 16:47.880]  Thank you, Don.
[16:47.880 --> 16:48.880]  Okay, Don, stay there, please.
[16:48.880 --> 16:49.880]  One more segment.
[16:49.880 --> 16:50.880]  I want to finish up on this Supreme Court case,
[16:50.880 --> 16:52.880]  and we have a couple of callers for you.
[16:52.880 --> 16:53.880]  Okay, great. Thanks.
[16:53.880 --> 16:58.880]  We'll be right back, folks.
[17:23.880 --> 17:26.880]  We will purchase and sell gold and jewelry items as well.
[17:26.880 --> 17:29.880]  We offer daily specials on coins and bullion.
[17:29.880 --> 17:33.880]  We're located at 5448 Barnett Road, Suite 3,
[17:33.880 --> 17:36.880]  and we're open Monday through Friday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.,
[17:36.880 --> 17:39.880]  Saturdays, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
[17:39.880 --> 17:42.880]  You are welcome to stop in our shop during regular business hours
[17:42.880 --> 17:47.880]  or call 512-646-6440 with any questions.
[17:47.880 --> 17:52.880]  Ask for Chad and say you heard about us on Rule of Law Radio or 90.1 FM.
[17:52.880 --> 17:59.880]  That's Capital Coin and Bullion, 512-646-6440.
[17:59.880 --> 18:01.880]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors
[18:01.880 --> 18:04.880]  with phone calls, letters, or even losses?
[18:04.880 --> 18:08.880]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method.
[18:08.880 --> 18:12.880]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors,
[18:12.880 --> 18:14.880]  and now you can win, too.
[18:14.880 --> 18:16.880]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English
[18:16.880 --> 18:20.880]  on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes,
[18:20.880 --> 18:24.880]  what to do when contacted by phones, mail, or court summons,
[18:24.880 --> 18:26.880]  how to answer letters and phone calls,
[18:26.880 --> 18:28.880]  how to get debt collectors out of your credit report,
[18:28.880 --> 18:33.880]  how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[18:33.880 --> 18:38.880]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:38.880 --> 18:40.880]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[18:40.880 --> 18:44.880]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com
[18:44.880 --> 18:46.880]  and click on the blue Michael Mears banner
[18:46.880 --> 18:49.880]  or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[18:49.880 --> 18:51.880]  That's ruleoflawradio.com.
[18:51.880 --> 18:56.880]  Or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-m at yahoo.com
[18:56.880 --> 19:01.880]  to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[19:01.880 --> 19:03.880]  Well, don't let nothing get to you.
[19:03.880 --> 19:06.880]  Only the Father can give it to you.
[19:06.880 --> 19:09.880]  So don't let bad-minded people hurt you.
[19:09.880 --> 19:12.880]  Until Satan gets behind you.
[19:12.880 --> 19:15.880]  Know what I mean, my friend?
[19:15.880 --> 19:18.880]  Okay, folks, we've got one more segment with our friend John Zimmerman,
[19:18.880 --> 19:23.880]  and I want to thank him so much for giving us so much of his time tonight.
[19:23.880 --> 19:28.880]  Okay, so I have just a couple more questions about the Supreme Court case.
[19:28.880 --> 19:31.880]  Okay, you filed, the MUD filed.
[19:31.880 --> 19:39.880]  The MUD was the plaintiff and the MUD filed in this D.C. district court,
[19:39.880 --> 19:43.880]  and then it got appealed directly to the Supreme Court from there.
[19:43.880 --> 19:45.880]  The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
[19:45.880 --> 19:47.880]  How did the ACLU get involved?
[19:47.880 --> 19:58.880]  The ACLU and the NAACP, MALDEF, LULAC, basically every race-based group got involved in this,
[19:58.880 --> 20:03.880]  and they flew high-priced lawyers down here to our neighborhood from New York and elsewhere,
[20:03.880 --> 20:05.880]  and they canvassed our neighborhood,
[20:05.880 --> 20:12.880]  looking for people that they could represent in amicus fashion, right?
[20:12.880 --> 20:16.880]  I don't know all the legal terminology of that, but of course there is a way, right,
[20:16.880 --> 20:17.880]  for parties.
[20:17.880 --> 20:20.880]  Okay, that's amicus curiae.
[20:20.880 --> 20:21.880]  Friend of the court.
[20:21.880 --> 20:23.880]  And that stands as a friend of the court.
[20:23.880 --> 20:31.880]  Okay, so they were looking to garner testimony to submit paperwork as amicus curiae.
[20:31.880 --> 20:37.880]  They looked for and found a few people in our neighborhood, right here in my neighborhood.
[20:37.880 --> 20:41.880]  Yes, and ironically one of the ones that they found that they wanted to be on their side,
[20:41.880 --> 20:46.880]  this guy gives the testimony that you're the one that showed them how to get to the polls.
[20:46.880 --> 20:47.880]  Okay.
[20:47.880 --> 20:50.880]  That was the comedy, a lot of the comedy in the case.
[20:50.880 --> 20:51.880]  Right, right.
[20:51.880 --> 20:54.880]  And they kind of, they kept pounding away at the race,
[20:54.880 --> 21:00.880]  and they were desperate to make it into a race case, but it was not.
[21:00.880 --> 21:03.880]  And that became patently clear.
[21:03.880 --> 21:06.880]  When I was sitting there in the Supreme Court,
[21:06.880 --> 21:11.880]  all of that stuff just fell to the floor really as comedy in the end.
[21:11.880 --> 21:17.880]  So we got depositions that were submitted as part of the public record,
[21:17.880 --> 21:19.880]  and I still have those depositions.
[21:19.880 --> 21:20.880]  They're kind of interesting to look at.
[21:20.880 --> 21:22.880]  I got copies of them.
[21:22.880 --> 21:26.880]  Well, tell us about your experience in the Supreme Court.
[21:26.880 --> 21:32.880]  What was it like to actually be involved as a plaintiff in a case in front of the Supreme Court,
[21:32.880 --> 21:36.880]  and not just on paper, because a lot of times in the federal court systems
[21:36.880 --> 21:38.880]  there's never even a hearing or oral arguments or anything.
[21:38.880 --> 21:41.880]  It's just people file papers, the defendants are the plaintiffs,
[21:41.880 --> 21:44.880]  and then the court issues a ruling, and then it's just appeal.
[21:44.880 --> 21:46.880]  It's just everything is done through the mail.
[21:46.880 --> 21:50.880]  So you are actually in front of the Supreme Court of the United States,
[21:50.880 --> 21:53.880]  witnessing these arguments on both sides.
[21:53.880 --> 21:54.880]  So what was it like?
[21:54.880 --> 21:55.880]  What was the atmosphere?
[21:55.880 --> 21:56.880]  Tell us a little about your experience.
[21:56.880 --> 21:58.880]  No, it's hard to describe that.
[21:58.880 --> 22:06.880]  In the first place, the tickets for seating in that Supreme Court are incredibly difficult to get,
[22:06.880 --> 22:09.880]  and we wound up getting three seats.
[22:09.880 --> 22:14.880]  Our attorney got three seats for us, my board members.
[22:14.880 --> 22:18.880]  So there were three board members, me and two others, that got to go.
[22:18.880 --> 22:21.880]  You get a priority number.
[22:21.880 --> 22:24.880]  So I think it holds somewhere around 300 people,
[22:24.880 --> 22:30.880]  but you get a sequential number and they line you up sequentially to go in there.
[22:30.880 --> 22:36.880]  And senators and congressmen get the first row, and we were seated on the third row,
[22:36.880 --> 22:39.880]  so we were very close to the front of the courtroom.
[22:39.880 --> 22:44.880]  Of course, they have a lot of security there and the guys with the earpieces and what have you.
[22:44.880 --> 22:49.880]  Very, very, very intense feeling and a lot of excitement.
[22:49.880 --> 22:57.880]  And when you stand up and the justices come up, there's kind of a little bit of theater.
[22:57.880 --> 23:01.880]  It's like you're on Olympia or something and the gods are coming out.
[23:01.880 --> 23:08.880]  They come out in groups of threes and they walk up these steps in order to get behind this giant bench
[23:08.880 --> 23:12.880]  and to sit in these enormous, enormous chairs.
[23:12.880 --> 23:19.880]  And it was kind of comical because Ruth Bader Ginsburg was kind of one of the closest ones to where we were.
[23:19.880 --> 23:21.880]  She's what, 4'11"?
[23:21.880 --> 23:22.880]  Yeah, yeah.
[23:22.880 --> 23:25.880]  You could barely see her in that gargantuan chair.
[23:25.880 --> 23:30.880]  I think the chair is about six feet tall and she looked like a comical character.
[23:30.880 --> 23:33.880]  She barely had her head above the table.
[23:33.880 --> 23:35.880]  It's really, really, really interesting.
[23:35.880 --> 23:45.880]  And what strikes you as a person in the audience here is the intensity that the Supreme Court justices
[23:45.880 --> 23:50.880]  rudely abuse these attorneys that are standing up there.
[23:50.880 --> 23:53.880]  There's no civility in that Supreme Court.
[23:53.880 --> 23:56.880]  Those guys cut somebody off in the middle of the Senate.
[23:56.880 --> 24:00.880]  Their attitude and their voice is accusatory.
[24:00.880 --> 24:02.880]  They make threatening comments.
[24:02.880 --> 24:10.880]  If you read the transcript, it really doesn't do it justice as to how vicious those Supreme Court justices are.
[24:10.880 --> 24:13.880]  And they brutalize both sides, you know.
[24:13.880 --> 24:15.880]  Just a total air of contempt.
[24:15.880 --> 24:16.880]  Oh, man.
[24:16.880 --> 24:18.880]  Like, why are you guys even bothering me?
[24:18.880 --> 24:21.880]  I wish we weren't even here kind of a thing.
[24:21.880 --> 24:23.880]  Yeah, there's a lot of attitude there.
[24:23.880 --> 24:27.880]  I don't know how those attorneys keep their cool.
[24:27.880 --> 24:31.880]  And so as the oral arguments went on, how many days did this go on?
[24:31.880 --> 24:32.880]  Was it just one day?
[24:32.880 --> 24:33.880]  I don't know.
[24:33.880 --> 24:36.880]  This was about, what, 30 minutes per side.
[24:36.880 --> 24:37.880]  Oh, so that's it.
[24:37.880 --> 24:40.880]  You all got 30 minutes per side, and then the case is done.
[24:40.880 --> 24:41.880]  That's pretty much it.
[24:41.880 --> 24:47.880]  I think, well, they had a ceremony before it starts where people get admitted to the bar.
[24:47.880 --> 24:50.880]  You know, there's some ceremonial stuff that goes on.
[24:50.880 --> 24:54.880]  But the whole thing was probably an hour and a half.
[24:54.880 --> 24:55.880]  Okay.
[24:55.880 --> 24:58.880]  And that was all they were doing for the whole day.
[24:58.880 --> 25:04.880]  And so then it became evident at what point during these oral arguments did it become
[25:04.880 --> 25:06.880]  obvious that you guys were going to win, or did it?
[25:06.880 --> 25:08.880]  It really wasn't obvious.
[25:08.880 --> 25:12.880]  And there were two attorneys arguing against us.
[25:12.880 --> 25:15.880]  The one for the government was pretty lame.
[25:15.880 --> 25:19.880]  Actually, the guy that did the best job was the attorney for the NAACP.
[25:19.880 --> 25:22.880]  That guy was, he was pretty good.
[25:22.880 --> 25:25.880]  And his rationale and arguments were pretty good.
[25:25.880 --> 25:30.880]  But he got beat up really bad by Alito and Roberts.
[25:30.880 --> 25:31.880]  You know, they didn't make pointed questions.
[25:31.880 --> 25:33.880]  He said something, cut the guy off and said,
[25:33.880 --> 25:39.880]  so do you think that the people in the South are more racist than people in the North or something?
[25:39.880 --> 25:43.880]  Just like politically charged statements.
[25:43.880 --> 25:47.880]  I mean, I was waiting for some kind of legal mumbo jumbo,
[25:47.880 --> 25:52.880]  but he just kind of throws a political question at them, you know?
[25:52.880 --> 25:53.880]  That's strange.
[25:53.880 --> 25:54.880]  Right, it's strange.
[25:54.880 --> 25:56.880]  You would think these guys are going to be really academic
[25:56.880 --> 25:59.880]  and be talking over our heads, but no.
[25:59.880 --> 26:05.880]  There was a lot of opinionated political commentary going on there.
[26:05.880 --> 26:10.880]  So then after the oral arguments, did they like go behind closed doors for a few minutes
[26:10.880 --> 26:12.880]  and then come back out and announce the verdict?
[26:12.880 --> 26:13.880]  No, no, no, no.
[26:13.880 --> 26:17.880]  They announced the verdict a couple of months later in June.
[26:17.880 --> 26:18.880]  Oh, okay.
[26:18.880 --> 26:19.880]  Yeah.
[26:19.880 --> 26:21.880]  So they just heard the arguments and went away.
[26:21.880 --> 26:27.880]  Of course, our attorney told us, you know, this stuff of oral argument,
[26:27.880 --> 26:29.880]  it's really not what makes the case.
[26:29.880 --> 26:32.880]  I mean, they're going to make their decision based on the written documentation
[26:32.880 --> 26:36.880]  and kind of conversing amongst themselves or whatever.
[26:36.880 --> 26:39.880]  It was just a fascinating experience.
[26:39.880 --> 26:43.880]  And it was interesting when we got out of there, when I walked out of there,
[26:43.880 --> 26:48.880]  I was mentally exhausted just trying to listen to what they're talking about.
[26:48.880 --> 26:52.880]  I can't imagine how you could stand there as an attorney
[26:52.880 --> 26:56.880]  and field questions that would interrupt you right in the middle of your thought
[26:56.880 --> 26:57.880]  from these nine justices.
[26:57.880 --> 26:58.880]  Okay.
[26:58.880 --> 27:03.880]  So just quickly, to go to the fine point of the legal argument,
[27:03.880 --> 27:08.880]  was it the case that part of this Civil Rights Act was chipped away?
[27:08.880 --> 27:09.880]  Yes.
[27:09.880 --> 27:15.880]  And what had happened was there was this so-called bailout provision
[27:15.880 --> 27:19.880]  that was added sometime after 65, and it kind of basically said,
[27:19.880 --> 27:25.880]  look, if you can show that you have no racial discrimination problem,
[27:25.880 --> 27:29.880]  you can be exempted out of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
[27:29.880 --> 27:31.880]  So you don't have to go to the Department of Justice
[27:31.880 --> 27:34.880]  to ask their permission for changing your elections, right?
[27:34.880 --> 27:36.880]  That was really the point of it.
[27:36.880 --> 27:38.880]  So there were two parts to the legal argument.
[27:38.880 --> 27:43.880]  The first one was saying, well, this law is being unequally applied
[27:43.880 --> 27:45.880]  to southern states, right?
[27:45.880 --> 27:47.880]  All the states aren't being treated equally.
[27:47.880 --> 27:49.880]  So it's unconstitutional on that basis.
[27:49.880 --> 27:51.880]  There were some other final points.
[27:51.880 --> 27:56.880]  And the second point he was arguing was the bailout provision
[27:56.880 --> 27:59.880]  should be applied to our little neighborhood
[27:59.880 --> 28:04.880]  because we had proven that we had no racial discrimination issues.
[28:04.880 --> 28:10.880]  And so what the court was really dealing with was how lower courts
[28:10.880 --> 28:15.880]  and bureaucrats had kind of crafted a bureaucratic and legal policy
[28:15.880 --> 28:17.880]  so that nobody could get out of this.
[28:17.880 --> 28:21.880]  Even if you had a perfect record, they had an argument about,
[28:21.880 --> 28:26.880]  well, the MUD isn't entitled to bailout because they don't register voters.
[28:26.880 --> 28:30.880]  You know, it's like more policy-type questions
[28:30.880 --> 28:34.880]  or just administrative issues, what have you.
[28:34.880 --> 28:38.880]  So basically this had to do, you guys won on the point that
[28:38.880 --> 28:44.880]  this so-called bailout provision was not being applied equally.
[28:44.880 --> 28:46.880]  Right, that it should be applied to us.
[28:46.880 --> 28:48.880]  And that's the point that we won.
[28:48.880 --> 28:50.880]  And we did get exempted from that.
[28:50.880 --> 28:56.880]  And we were the only political subdivision in those seven southern states
[28:56.880 --> 28:59.880]  that had gotten out of that Section 5 preclearance requirement.
[28:59.880 --> 29:04.880]  So I think a key to you guys winning your case here is that y'all were not
[29:04.880 --> 29:09.880]  asking the court to make a constitutional ruling or to actually strike down
[29:09.880 --> 29:12.880]  a large part of this Civil Rights Act.
[29:12.880 --> 29:14.880]  Well, no, no, we did ask for that.
[29:14.880 --> 29:15.880]  Oh, you did?
[29:15.880 --> 29:20.880]  But when they wrote the opinion, they said, we're not going to answer.
[29:20.880 --> 29:24.880]  They just said, we're not going to answer the constitutionality question.
[29:24.880 --> 29:26.880]  So they just refused to answer it.
[29:26.880 --> 29:30.880]  And then they went on to answer the bailout thing, and then they gave that to us.
[29:30.880 --> 29:34.880]  So they didn't actually strike down part of the Civil Rights Act itself?
[29:34.880 --> 29:37.880]  Well, again, that's a matter of interpretation,
[29:37.880 --> 29:42.880]  because our opponents were furious that we won what we did.
[29:42.880 --> 29:43.880]  Okay.
[29:43.880 --> 29:45.880]  And that was the chipping away at the law.
[29:45.880 --> 29:47.880]  All right, Don, can you just stay a few more minutes for the callers?
[29:47.880 --> 29:48.880]  Sure.
[29:48.880 --> 29:49.880]  Okay, great.
[29:49.880 --> 29:50.880]  Sorry to keep you so long.
[29:50.880 --> 29:52.880]  All right, folks, we'll be right back with Don Zimmerman.
[29:52.880 --> 30:00.880]  We're going to take your calls.
[30:00.880 --> 30:03.880]  Come down and enjoy Austin's own piece of the Caribbean
[30:03.880 --> 30:05.880]  right on the banks of the Colorado River.
[30:05.880 --> 30:08.880]  One Love Kitchen, jerk chicken and vegetarian food.
[30:08.880 --> 30:10.880]  3109 East Cesar Chavez.
[30:10.880 --> 30:13.880]  That's 3109 East 1st Street, right next door to Planet K.
[30:13.880 --> 30:15.880]  Lunch and dinner plate starting at $5.
[30:15.880 --> 30:16.880]  You can't beat that.
[30:16.880 --> 30:20.880]  Serving the real thing, jerk chicken, vegetarian, and seafood Saturdays.
[30:20.880 --> 30:24.880]  Monday through Wednesday, Friday and Saturday, late night with Emperor Sound Crew.
[30:24.880 --> 30:27.880]  All right, also link up at OneLoveKitchen.net.
[30:27.880 --> 30:30.880]  That's OneLoveKitchen.net.
[30:30.880 --> 30:34.880]  Alzheimer's disease and dementia are on the rise in our aging population,
[30:34.880 --> 30:36.880]  and researchers are scrambling to find cures.
[30:36.880 --> 30:39.880]  Could the humble purple beach be the solution?
[30:39.880 --> 30:42.880]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll tell you more in just a moment.
[30:42.880 --> 30:46.880]  Your search engine is watching you, recording all your searches
[30:46.880 --> 30:50.880]  and creating a massive database of your personal information.
[30:50.880 --> 30:51.880]  That's creepy.
[30:51.880 --> 30:53.880]  But it doesn't have to be that way.
[30:53.880 --> 30:56.880]  Startpage.com is the world's most private search engine.
[30:56.880 --> 30:58.880]  Startpage doesn't store your IP address,
[30:58.880 --> 31:01.880]  make a record of your searches or use tracking cookies,
[31:01.880 --> 31:03.880]  and they're third-party certified.
[31:03.880 --> 31:07.880]  If you don't like big brother spying on you, start over with Startpage.
[31:07.880 --> 31:09.880]  Great search results and total privacy.
[31:09.880 --> 31:13.880]  Startpage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[31:13.880 --> 31:18.880]  The beet is a root vegetable known for its vivid fuchsia color and earthy taste.
[31:18.880 --> 31:21.880]  Now researchers have found another distinctive quality.
[31:21.880 --> 31:25.880]  Drinking beet juice may help slow or prevent Alzheimer's disease and dementia.
[31:25.880 --> 31:31.880]  Doctors believe mental decline is caused by decreased blood flow to the brain as people age.
[31:31.880 --> 31:35.880]  Beet juice is high in nitrates that the body turns into nitrites.
[31:35.880 --> 31:39.880]  Those open up blood vessels and increase the flow of oxygen-rich blood
[31:39.880 --> 31:41.880]  into the part of the brain that handles cognition.
[31:41.880 --> 31:43.880]  But don't drink it straight.
[31:43.880 --> 31:48.880]  Beet juice is intense and can cause side effects like temporary paralysis of vocal cords and hives.
[31:48.880 --> 31:52.880]  Mix beet juice with other fruit and veggie juices and drink up.
[31:52.880 --> 31:56.880]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[31:56.880 --> 32:17.880]  Music
[32:17.880 --> 32:19.880]  Okay folks, we're back with Don Zimmerman.
[32:19.880 --> 32:21.880]  He's going to give us a few more minutes.
[32:21.880 --> 32:25.880]  We're just going to finish up talking about this case.
[32:25.880 --> 32:32.880]  Okay, so basically they didn't actually strike down any provisions of the Civil Rights Act.
[32:32.880 --> 32:39.880]  They just said that basically the lower courts are going to have to comply?
[32:39.880 --> 32:44.880]  They're going to have to comply with these bailout provisions that allow political subdivisions
[32:44.880 --> 32:49.880]  to get out from under federal supervision, you know, for their election processes.
[32:49.880 --> 32:54.880]  Right, so the Civil Rights Act, I mean, was it really changed or affected by this case?
[32:54.880 --> 32:57.880]  It really wasn't. It really wasn't.
[32:57.880 --> 33:02.880]  So everybody, the ACLU, all these NAACP's making a big brouhaha over nothing.
[33:02.880 --> 33:05.880]  Absolutely. Absolutely.
[33:05.880 --> 33:12.880]  What they're really doing is I think they're providing political front for the real issue.
[33:12.880 --> 33:17.880]  What the real issue always was in this was the power of the Department of Justice
[33:17.880 --> 33:23.880]  and the power of federal judges to be involved in state congressional redistricting.
[33:23.880 --> 33:25.880]  And that is a very dangerous thing.
[33:25.880 --> 33:27.880]  That's what this was really all about.
[33:27.880 --> 33:32.880]  All these Democrat front groups were afraid that we would either get that thing struck down
[33:32.880 --> 33:37.880]  or that we would get it sufficiently modified that the judges would lose their power
[33:37.880 --> 33:39.880]  to control state redistricting.
[33:39.880 --> 33:40.880]  As they should.
[33:40.880 --> 33:43.880]  Yeah, that's what they were really afraid of.
[33:43.880 --> 33:44.880]  But that didn't happen though.
[33:44.880 --> 33:45.880]  It didn't happen.
[33:45.880 --> 33:49.880]  And y'all weren't really after that or were you?
[33:49.880 --> 33:57.880]  One of the possible outcomes would be to get that Section 5 provision declared unconstitutional,
[33:57.880 --> 34:01.880]  and it would have gotten the federal judges out of redistricting.
[34:01.880 --> 34:08.880]  If you think about it, the federal judges have no redistricting power in the majority of the states, right?
[34:08.880 --> 34:12.880]  Like 41 states, it's none of their business how those states do redistricting.
[34:12.880 --> 34:17.880]  So we were trying to get to a level where we would be on par with those other states,
[34:17.880 --> 34:19.880]  and we did not get that.
[34:19.880 --> 34:29.880]  But your point about what a gargantuan battle they put up for something that seems relatively insignificant,
[34:29.880 --> 34:36.880]  I think that speaks volumes to the commitment of the enemies of constitutional freedom.
[34:36.880 --> 34:37.880]  Absolutely.
[34:37.880 --> 34:38.880]  It really does.
[34:38.880 --> 34:41.880]  Well, the danger was there that you could have gotten that Section 5 struck down.
[34:41.880 --> 34:42.880]  Right, right, right.
[34:42.880 --> 34:44.880]  They were terrified of that.
[34:44.880 --> 34:51.880]  And the funny thing again is that the testimony was clear in those live arguments that this whole thing,
[34:51.880 --> 34:55.880]  we kept saying that it's not 1965.
[34:55.880 --> 34:56.880]  Right.
[34:56.880 --> 34:58.880]  In 1965, you know, you did have these arguments.
[34:58.880 --> 35:00.880]  You don't have them anymore.
[35:00.880 --> 35:01.880]  Exactly.
[35:01.880 --> 35:06.880]  But the other side kept trying to make the case that it is 1965, but they lost that.
[35:06.880 --> 35:08.880]  And that's what it really ultimately came down to,
[35:08.880 --> 35:13.880]  and that's why I think there was huge progress really made politically.
[35:13.880 --> 35:17.880]  And another funny thing, the day of the case,
[35:17.880 --> 35:22.880]  we were speculating about how many protesters were going to be out at the Supreme Court.
[35:22.880 --> 35:27.880]  Right, because it was a case of nationwide attention.
[35:27.880 --> 35:30.880]  And when I walked up to the Supreme Court building,
[35:30.880 --> 35:34.880]  I was kind of stunned at how few people were out there.
[35:34.880 --> 35:35.880]  Interesting.
[35:35.880 --> 35:37.880]  Yeah, how few people.
[35:37.880 --> 35:42.880]  And that was another telltale sign to me that this whole thing about race politics
[35:42.880 --> 35:45.880]  is just really losing steam.
[35:45.880 --> 35:48.880]  It's a big trumped-up dog-and-pony show.
[35:48.880 --> 35:49.880]  Yeah, big trumped-up thing.
[35:49.880 --> 35:54.880]  Yeah, and then when it really comes, you know what, guys, the truth ultimately comes out.
[35:54.880 --> 35:57.880]  This has got nothing to do with racial discrimination.
[35:57.880 --> 35:58.880]  Right.
[35:58.880 --> 36:01.880]  It has to do with people hanging on to their power,
[36:01.880 --> 36:06.880]  the federal judges hanging on to power to control redistricting lines.
[36:06.880 --> 36:07.880]  Amazing.
[36:07.880 --> 36:09.880]  Well, good job, Don.
[36:09.880 --> 36:13.880]  Two major wins in both state and federal court.
[36:13.880 --> 36:17.880]  All right, let's see if we can jam in a couple of calls here before we let you go.
[36:17.880 --> 36:21.880]  Jason from Texas, what is your question or comment for Don Zimmerman?
[36:21.880 --> 36:22.880]  Hey, guys.
[36:22.880 --> 36:26.880]  You know, y'all normally blow me away on a regular due process night,
[36:26.880 --> 36:33.880]  but I'm not kind of scary because the topic seems like y'all might have been sitting in the same room I was in this past week.
[36:33.880 --> 36:39.880]  The reason I'm calling is because I want to talk about the occurrence that has happened at an executive committee meeting.
[36:39.880 --> 36:42.880]  Don, you're right on as far as how you started the show, you know,
[36:42.880 --> 36:48.880]  talking about getting into the party and, you know, working your way up and doing all that stuff.
[36:48.880 --> 36:50.880]  That's what I'm doing right now.
[36:50.880 --> 36:51.880]  Excellent.
[36:51.880 --> 36:59.880]  This past week we had an executive committee meeting, and of course it's a Republican party.
[36:59.880 --> 37:05.880]  And when I walked into the meeting, I noticed that a gentleman had a video camera set up in the back room,
[37:05.880 --> 37:10.880]  and actually he was squeezed into another room and was filming through the doorway.
[37:10.880 --> 37:16.880]  I guess that's where the people, the powers that be told him where he needed to be recorded.
[37:16.880 --> 37:17.880]  So I know the gentleman.
[37:17.880 --> 37:22.880]  As a matter of fact, he's the one that introduced me to the y'all's radio show about a year and a half ago.
[37:22.880 --> 37:23.880]  Excellent.
[37:23.880 --> 37:24.880]  And so I went by.
[37:24.880 --> 37:32.880]  The meeting was called to order, and, you know, after the pledge and all the normal stuff,
[37:32.880 --> 37:39.880]  the first order of business, the first thing that happened was our SREC committee man stood up
[37:39.880 --> 37:49.880]  and made a motion to bar any audio or video recording of the meeting, and we had debate on it.
[37:49.880 --> 37:59.880]  And, of course, there's a very small minority, I should say, of rule-of-law-minded people.
[37:59.880 --> 38:06.880]  So, of course, we got shouted down, and I stood and raised a point of order after the motion passed,
[38:06.880 --> 38:14.880]  and I stated that, you know, it was the intention of the chair to tell me that, you know,
[38:14.880 --> 38:19.880]  this body can basically make a motion and pass it to violate state law,
[38:19.880 --> 38:23.880]  because at that time I believed it was in violation of the Open Meetings Act.
[38:23.880 --> 38:26.880]  No, I don't think so.
[38:26.880 --> 38:33.880]  When I served on my utility district as a mud director, we were under Open Meetings Act,
[38:33.880 --> 38:37.880]  and people did come in with video cameras, and they taped us,
[38:37.880 --> 38:42.880]  especially when we were talking about the Supreme Court cases on the Voting Rights Act.
[38:42.880 --> 38:45.880]  Yeah, but Jason, you're referring to an executive committee meeting
[38:45.880 --> 38:49.880]  that was a meeting of part of the Republican Party?
[38:49.880 --> 38:50.880]  Yes.
[38:50.880 --> 38:52.880]  Yeah, they can set their own rules.
[38:52.880 --> 38:57.880]  Yeah, and Republican Party executive committee meetings don't fall under the Open Meetings Act
[38:57.880 --> 38:59.880]  because they're a private entity.
[38:59.880 --> 39:00.880]  That's right.
[39:00.880 --> 39:02.880]  That's right, okay, but this has a twist that I'm getting to.
[39:02.880 --> 39:03.880]  Okay.
[39:03.880 --> 39:06.880]  Okay, and which is really the reason I'm calling for my question.
[39:06.880 --> 39:13.880]  So anyways, the chair told me I was out of order, and I filled her decision
[39:13.880 --> 39:16.880]  based on the fact that I believed it was a violation of the law.
[39:16.880 --> 39:19.880]  And of course, the committee voted me down on the appeal.
[39:19.880 --> 39:22.880]  So Jason, are you a precinct chair?
[39:22.880 --> 39:23.880]  Yes.
[39:23.880 --> 39:24.880]  Okay, go ahead, go ahead.
[39:24.880 --> 39:27.880]  Okay, so yeah, if I'm leaving out anything or...
[39:27.880 --> 39:28.880]  No, no, go ahead, go ahead.
[39:28.880 --> 39:31.880]  Okay, yeah, feel free to stop me.
[39:31.880 --> 39:36.880]  Okay, so anyways, that happened, and it all went down.
[39:36.880 --> 39:39.880]  And then, of course, the sergeant in arms marches over and does everything
[39:39.880 --> 39:44.880]  but assaults the guy that was recording and kicked him out, threw him out the door.
[39:44.880 --> 39:47.880]  Okay, so we went through the meeting.
[39:47.880 --> 39:51.880]  As soon as that happened, of course, we had standing room,
[39:51.880 --> 39:56.880]  and there was about 20 observers, I guess you'd say, that weren't executive committee members.
[39:56.880 --> 40:01.880]  And the same SRAC chairman stood up and called for us to go into executive session,
[40:01.880 --> 40:05.880]  which everybody in this committee, you know, he's pretty much the leader,
[40:05.880 --> 40:09.880]  and if he says it, then they second it, and I, and there we go.
[40:09.880 --> 40:12.880]  So we go into executive session to appoint committee chairs.
[40:12.880 --> 40:16.880]  I didn't understand that, but anyways, we get out of the executive session
[40:16.880 --> 40:20.880]  after the appointing committee chairs, and people come back in.
[40:20.880 --> 40:24.880]  And the meeting's over, and of course, there's a couple of us
[40:24.880 --> 40:28.880]  that called the attorney general's office and the secretary of state's office
[40:28.880 --> 40:32.880]  where they did confirm that you were right.
[40:32.880 --> 40:37.880]  A local party executive committee is not a governmental body.
[40:37.880 --> 40:38.880]  That's what it came down to.
[40:38.880 --> 40:39.880]  Right, uh-huh.
[40:39.880 --> 40:41.880]  But here's the twist.
[40:41.880 --> 40:46.880]  I sat on a bylaws committee, I guess it's been a couple months ago,
[40:46.880 --> 40:53.880]  and we set forth, we approved to present to the committee the state-recommended bylaws.
[40:53.880 --> 40:54.880]  Right.
[40:54.880 --> 41:00.880]  The chairman of that committee had co-authored some bylaws back in the 80s
[41:00.880 --> 41:03.880]  that he was trying to force in on our meeting.
[41:03.880 --> 41:06.880]  And of course, there was four members of this committee, and he was the chair.
[41:06.880 --> 41:09.880]  He doesn't have a vote unless it comes to a breakout time.
[41:09.880 --> 41:10.880]  Uh-huh.
[41:10.880 --> 41:15.880]  So three of us voted to use the state-recommended bylaws,
[41:15.880 --> 41:18.880]  and he stomped out of the meeting, the course meeting was over,
[41:18.880 --> 41:25.880]  and in between our bylaws committee meeting and our next executive committee meeting,
[41:25.880 --> 41:30.880]  he sent out a letter that basically torpedoed the actions of that bylaws committee,
[41:30.880 --> 41:34.880]  saying that the bylaws we were presenting were no good for our party and this and that.
[41:34.880 --> 41:37.880]  And at the next executive committee meeting,
[41:37.880 --> 41:43.880]  whenever he was supposed to present the bylaws that the committee wanted to bring forth,
[41:43.880 --> 41:46.880]  he presented his own.
[41:46.880 --> 41:51.880]  Of course, the people, most of the people in the executive committee had already gotten his letter,
[41:51.880 --> 41:55.880]  which I, or nor the other two members that voted against his bylaws,
[41:55.880 --> 41:58.880]  we didn't get a copy of that letter in the mail.
[41:58.880 --> 42:01.880]  But everybody was pretty much lockstep, and they voted for his bylaws.
[42:01.880 --> 42:03.880]  Now, here's a twist.
[42:03.880 --> 42:08.880]  In his bylaw, it says, transparency requirement.
[42:08.880 --> 42:12.880]  All meetings of the executive committee, standing committees, special committees,
[42:12.880 --> 42:19.880]  and temporary committees shall be open as required by the Texas statute on open meetings.
[42:19.880 --> 42:24.880]  These are in the bylaws that he authored in the 80s and forced through in that committee meeting.
[42:24.880 --> 42:32.880]  So my question is, if an organization is voluntarily running under the Open Meetings Act,
[42:32.880 --> 42:37.880]  do they have, can we hold them accountable for it when they don't?
[42:37.880 --> 42:38.880]  No.
[42:38.880 --> 42:39.880]  Because, what's that?
[42:39.880 --> 42:40.880]  No.
[42:40.880 --> 42:41.880]  No.
[42:41.880 --> 42:46.880]  They just agreed to follow those rules instead of like Robert's Rules of Order.
[42:46.880 --> 42:51.880]  That gives the rules no legal purchase.
[42:51.880 --> 42:58.880]  So what can be done if these entities do not abide by their own bylaws?
[42:58.880 --> 43:01.880]  That's going to be what's listed in their bylaws.
[43:01.880 --> 43:05.880]  How, I mean, can they be held accountable within their own organization?
[43:05.880 --> 43:06.880]  Absolutely.
[43:06.880 --> 43:08.880]  Don, what would be the remedy there?
[43:08.880 --> 43:14.880]  If I could ask maybe a different question on a different angle,
[43:14.880 --> 43:22.880]  then that would be just to back up and ask what would be the motivation for filming it in the first place
[43:22.880 --> 43:28.880]  because most of those executive committee meetings are as boring as watching grass grow.
[43:28.880 --> 43:31.880]  That's true.
[43:31.880 --> 43:35.880]  Well, wait, Don, I know we keep hanging you on segment after segment, but can you stay on?
[43:35.880 --> 43:38.880]  I would like to hang on because this is interesting because I've been to a lot of these,
[43:38.880 --> 43:40.880]  and I'm an SREC member myself.
[43:40.880 --> 43:42.880]  I don't know if you know that.
[43:42.880 --> 43:43.880]  Okay.
[43:43.880 --> 43:44.880]  All right.
[43:44.880 --> 43:45.880]  Jason, stay there.
[43:45.880 --> 43:46.880]  Dan from Connecticut, stay there.
[43:46.880 --> 43:49.880]  We're going to go into the next segment with Don Zimmerman,
[43:49.880 --> 43:55.880]  and I would like to know for myself what kind of internal accountability can we be holding these people
[43:55.880 --> 43:57.880]  for violating their own bylaws?
[43:57.880 --> 44:00.880]  We'll be right back.
[44:00.880 --> 44:02.880]  More energy.
[44:02.880 --> 44:04.880]  Stronger immune power.
[44:04.880 --> 44:07.880]  Improved sense of well-being.
[44:07.880 --> 44:11.880]  How many supplements have you heard boast of these benefits?
[44:11.880 --> 44:16.880]  The team behind Shentrition believes that supplements should over-deliver on their promises,
[44:16.880 --> 44:20.880]  and Shentrition does just that.
[44:20.880 --> 44:24.880]  Shentrition utilizes the ancient healing wisdom of Chinese medicine.
[44:24.880 --> 44:30.880]  In conjunction with the science of modern nutrition, adaptogenic herbs serve as the healing component,
[44:30.880 --> 44:36.880]  and organic hemp protein and greens and superfoods act as a balanced nutrient base.
[44:36.880 --> 44:40.880]  Plus, Shentrition tastes great in just water.
[44:40.880 --> 44:46.880]  This powder supplement is everything you'd want in a product, and it's all natural.
[44:46.880 --> 44:54.880]  Visit Shentrition.com to order yours or call 1-866-497-7436.
[44:54.880 --> 44:58.880]  After you use Shentrition, you'll believe in supplements again.
[44:58.880 --> 45:02.880]  Special Roast Hemp Coffee from HempUSA.org.
[45:02.880 --> 45:06.880]  Our coffee grows in the dense volcanic-rich soil, herbicide and pesticide-free,
[45:06.880 --> 45:12.880]  and in the high altitudes of Guatemala in conditions that are ideal for natural growth of this high-quality coffee.
[45:12.880 --> 45:17.880]  Try our mellow cup of coffee that is ground and roasted with 25% hemp seed from Canada.
[45:17.880 --> 45:21.880]  With a wonderful nutty flavor that contains 18% protein,
[45:21.880 --> 45:26.880]  our roasters bring a unique flavor that makes this the best cup of coffee you'll ever have.
[45:26.880 --> 45:32.880]  Try our new Special Roast Hemp Coffee from HempUSA.org and wake up your brain without the jitters.
[45:32.880 --> 45:35.880]  Our customers look forward to their next cup of hemp coffee.
[45:35.880 --> 45:42.880]  Visit us at HempUSA.org or call 908-691-2608.
[45:42.880 --> 45:49.880]  That's 908-691-2608, and see if you'll change your mind about drinking coffee again.
[45:49.880 --> 45:54.880]  Taste the difference, feel the difference at HempUSA.org today.
[45:54.880 --> 46:20.880]  Music
[46:20.880 --> 46:21.880]  Are you there?
[46:21.880 --> 46:25.880]  Hi folks, we are back.
[46:25.880 --> 46:32.880]  We're here with Don Zimmerman and our caller Jason from Texas.
[46:32.880 --> 46:36.880]  Okay, Don, you were asking Jason a question right before we went to break.
[46:36.880 --> 46:45.880]  Yeah, so it was maybe a little background on the need for filming a county executive committee
[46:45.880 --> 46:47.880]  because they're typically so boring.
[46:47.880 --> 46:52.880]  Just to let you know, we had a case like that some years ago here in Travis County,
[46:52.880 --> 46:58.880]  and the SREC member was the guy trying to film the meeting.
[46:58.880 --> 47:03.880]  And the reason he was trying to film the meeting was because he wanted to expose some violations
[47:03.880 --> 47:08.880]  in Robert's Rules of Order that the county chair was engaging in.
[47:08.880 --> 47:09.880]  Exactly.
[47:09.880 --> 47:14.880]  And he was subjected to actually exactly the same thing you just described.
[47:14.880 --> 47:19.880]  In fact, the sergeant of arms went out and put him in a headlock,
[47:19.880 --> 47:28.880]  and that turned out to be a physical assault, and there was a criminal complaint filed against the sergeant of arms.
[47:28.880 --> 47:36.880]  But you know what the solution to that problem was ultimately is we replaced the county chair.
[47:36.880 --> 47:37.880]  Right.
[47:37.880 --> 47:40.880]  And order was restored to the county executive committee.
[47:40.880 --> 47:45.880]  Now we have meaningful, productive meetings.
[47:45.880 --> 47:47.880]  We've got good meetings again.
[47:47.880 --> 47:48.880]  Right.
[47:48.880 --> 47:56.880]  Well, to address that, let me take you back to the 2008 county convention in which people,
[47:56.880 --> 48:02.880]  multiple members were raising points of order, and they were completely ignored.
[48:02.880 --> 48:03.880]  Oh, my gosh.
[48:03.880 --> 48:05.880]  Are you in Nueces County?
[48:05.880 --> 48:06.880]  I am.
[48:06.880 --> 48:07.880]  Oh, my gosh.
[48:07.880 --> 48:08.880]  Well, that explains it.
[48:08.880 --> 48:10.880]  Well, that's where they illegally added delegates.
[48:10.880 --> 48:11.880]  Yeah.
[48:11.880 --> 48:13.880]  We knew all about that when we were there.
[48:13.880 --> 48:17.880]  So that's why the filming.
[48:17.880 --> 48:26.880]  And you know, the meetings were pretty much ran the same way when they were even called.
[48:26.880 --> 48:28.880]  There was a year when they didn't even have a meeting.
[48:28.880 --> 48:31.880]  So you know, it's a lockstep process.
[48:31.880 --> 48:36.880]  Those meetings, you know, in the past have taken 30 minutes to, you know, push the agenda through.
[48:36.880 --> 48:40.880]  Everybody says aye, and they get on off the door.
[48:40.880 --> 48:46.880]  So what we're doing now is, you know, trying to, we're filming because there are still violations
[48:46.880 --> 48:47.880]  or adverse rules of order.
[48:47.880 --> 48:52.880]  And you know, at the moment, when you're sitting there in that chair, things start flying through your mind,
[48:52.880 --> 48:55.880]  and before you know it, things have been voted on.
[48:55.880 --> 48:59.880]  And you always reflect back thinking, man, I should have done this or I should have said that.
[48:59.880 --> 49:01.880]  So the recording helps.
[49:01.880 --> 49:04.880]  It's an educational tool for your next meeting.
[49:04.880 --> 49:07.880]  Okay, that's making some sense.
[49:07.880 --> 49:16.880]  But I think we've already pointed out that if you have a majority of voices in the body that prohibit the recording,
[49:16.880 --> 49:20.880]  they're probably going to continue to do that by law, changes or not.
[49:20.880 --> 49:23.880]  Well, so yeah, Don, that was my next question.
[49:23.880 --> 49:27.880]  If the bylaws say that recordings shall be allowed,
[49:27.880 --> 49:34.880]  can, you know, the body itself just vote to throw that out on any particular meeting?
[49:34.880 --> 49:40.880]  I mean, what's the point of having bylaws if it's just willy-nilly whatever we want from one meeting to the next?
[49:40.880 --> 49:46.880]  Well, yeah, bylaws are supposed to be modified with a two-thirds vote, not a simple majority.
[49:46.880 --> 49:51.880]  Okay, so if it's in the bylaws where it says recordings shall be allowed, then they would need,
[49:51.880 --> 49:54.880]  according to what you're saying, two-thirds of the...
[49:54.880 --> 49:57.880]  They would need two-thirds to prohibit recording.
[49:57.880 --> 50:02.880]  But let me back up here a little more because I was involved in some of these discussions
[50:02.880 --> 50:09.880]  about possible remedies for the abuse of the UASIS Convention, right?
[50:09.880 --> 50:12.880]  I mean, there were clear violations of rules and...
[50:12.880 --> 50:13.880]  Oh, sure.
[50:13.880 --> 50:15.880]  It was an absolute outrage.
[50:15.880 --> 50:16.880]  Okay.
[50:16.880 --> 50:20.880]  Now, there's two ways to respond to this, really, two directions you can take.
[50:20.880 --> 50:27.880]  One direction is to attempt to get people to follow the rules, the people that are breaking the rules,
[50:27.880 --> 50:34.880]  to force them to follow the rules with restraining orders from a judge, right, suing them in court,
[50:34.880 --> 50:39.880]  you know, recording them and busting them on violations.
[50:39.880 --> 50:44.880]  There's kind of an enforcement or mandamus idea, I'm going to make you do the right thing.
[50:44.880 --> 50:46.880]  That's one course of action.
[50:46.880 --> 50:57.880]  What I recommend in my book is kind of an opposite course of action, which is get them all unelected.
[50:57.880 --> 51:01.880]  You go after them in the popular vote to kick them out.
[51:01.880 --> 51:02.880]  Right.
[51:02.880 --> 51:07.880]  Because my contention is that if you got people that are committed to corrupt behavior,
[51:07.880 --> 51:10.880]  they will always figure out a way to cheat.
[51:10.880 --> 51:14.880]  They'll invent creative ways to circumvent laws.
[51:14.880 --> 51:16.880]  They'll tell lies, you know.
[51:16.880 --> 51:22.880]  It's just an endless stream of frustration trying to get corrupt people to follow the rules.
[51:22.880 --> 51:27.880]  Well, Don, is there any way to remove these people from their positions within the body
[51:27.880 --> 51:33.880]  if they're violating the bylaws and violating, you know, the other rules of procedure?
[51:33.880 --> 51:36.880]  You know, in theory, there probably is.
[51:36.880 --> 51:39.880]  In practice, there probably isn't.
[51:39.880 --> 51:44.880]  So I made this argument back in 2008. I said, you know what?
[51:44.880 --> 51:49.880]  I would take every dollar that you intend to plan to file a lawsuit
[51:49.880 --> 51:53.880]  or whatever enforcement strategies you have in tactics,
[51:53.880 --> 52:00.880]  take all those dollars and start spending them right now on getting precinct chairs elected
[52:00.880 --> 52:04.880]  and trying to get somebody to run for county chair to knock out the person that was in there.
[52:04.880 --> 52:11.880]  Okay, so there's really no way to like appeal like say to the state entity of the party with proof
[52:11.880 --> 52:18.880]  to say this county official within the party is violating the rules and the bylaws
[52:18.880 --> 52:24.880]  and to get him removed at a higher level, there's really, is that just impractical?
[52:24.880 --> 52:27.880]  It's impractical. I mean, in theory, that's possible.
[52:27.880 --> 52:30.880]  So I'm on that board, the State Republican Executive Committee.
[52:30.880 --> 52:36.880]  I'm part of that board, that body. And I'm very well acquainted with Steve Munisteri,
[52:36.880 --> 52:39.880]  our new state chair. I work with him a lot.
[52:39.880 --> 52:42.880]  And I kind of know what goes on in here and how this works.
[52:42.880 --> 52:46.880]  But think about what's going to happen at that next level.
[52:46.880 --> 52:49.880]  Let's say that you get your videotape documentation.
[52:49.880 --> 52:52.880]  You've got people that are violating Robert's Rules of Order, right?
[52:52.880 --> 52:55.880]  The county chair is out of order and they're doing all these shenanigans.
[52:55.880 --> 53:00.880]  So you bring that case to the state party and you bring it to the SREC.
[53:00.880 --> 53:03.880]  The first problem you got is to get them to pay attention
[53:03.880 --> 53:08.880]  because the meetings are already about eight hours with all kinds of junk.
[53:08.880 --> 53:11.880]  The day is already full. Where are we going to fit this in?
[53:11.880 --> 53:16.880]  So if we get past that hurdle and we get you up there and you make a case about it,
[53:16.880 --> 53:20.880]  they don't want to do anything with it.
[53:20.880 --> 53:22.880]  It's like no matter what they do, they lose.
[53:22.880 --> 53:26.880]  Once you bring that case to them and you expose the corruption,
[53:26.880 --> 53:30.880]  if they try to discipline the county chair or reprimand them
[53:30.880 --> 53:34.880]  or try to get them to follow the rules,
[53:34.880 --> 53:39.880]  that's going to hack off the establishment powers that are in the county.
[53:39.880 --> 53:42.880]  Because obviously the people doing these dirty tricks
[53:42.880 --> 53:45.880]  have got some pretty significant political power in the county, right?
[53:45.880 --> 53:47.880]  Or they wouldn't get away with it.
[53:47.880 --> 53:48.880]  No doubt.
[53:48.880 --> 53:50.880]  So they've got some power there already.
[53:50.880 --> 53:53.880]  If our state SREC rules against them,
[53:53.880 --> 53:58.880]  it causes acrimony and some fighting and bickering back and forth there.
[53:58.880 --> 54:03.880]  If the state party doesn't discipline or reprimand the county chair,
[54:03.880 --> 54:07.880]  it makes you guys mad because there's an injustice going on, right?
[54:07.880 --> 54:11.880]  And you want it fixed and you have a right to have it fixed.
[54:11.880 --> 54:16.880]  So no matter what the county or no matter what the state organization does,
[54:16.880 --> 54:20.880]  the acrimony actually increases.
[54:20.880 --> 54:21.880]  There's more arguing.
[54:21.880 --> 54:23.880]  There's more contention.
[54:23.880 --> 54:31.880]  So my argument is the way to solve this is to get the local people to have enough power,
[54:31.880 --> 54:35.880]  people like yourself, your faction, that once the rules followed,
[54:35.880 --> 54:39.880]  you build up enough political muscle to where you kick out the people
[54:39.880 --> 54:44.880]  who won't follow the rules at the polling place, at the election box.
[54:44.880 --> 54:49.880]  And by getting good precinct chairs in and delegates and stuff like that,
[54:49.880 --> 54:54.880]  so eventually you can take over those positions within the party just by sheer numbers.
[54:54.880 --> 54:56.880]  By sheer numbers, you take over.
[54:56.880 --> 55:00.880]  Let me tell you something I shared with Deborah Medina years ago,
[55:00.880 --> 55:05.880]  because they took the case to court about the state party not following the rules.
[55:05.880 --> 55:06.880]  Remember that?
[55:06.880 --> 55:07.880]  Right.
[55:07.880 --> 55:08.880]  And they filed a lawsuit.
[55:08.880 --> 55:13.880]  And so I said, look, you're after a just cause.
[55:13.880 --> 55:14.880]  Get them to follow the rules.
[55:14.880 --> 55:15.880]  It's a good thing.
[55:15.880 --> 55:16.880]  They ought to be following the rules.
[55:16.880 --> 55:17.880]  No question.
[55:17.880 --> 55:20.880]  But look at what happens if you go to court.
[55:20.880 --> 55:25.880]  My argument is if you go to court, you lose no matter what happens.
[55:25.880 --> 55:29.880]  Because if the judge rules against you, well, you lose because the judge rules against you.
[55:29.880 --> 55:35.880]  If the judge rules in your favor and orders the Republican Party of Texas to follow the rules
[55:35.880 --> 55:39.880]  and do this and that, you become a pariah.
[55:39.880 --> 55:43.880]  Because in the first place, Republicans, we generally don't trust the courts
[55:43.880 --> 55:47.880]  because there's a lot of Democrats on the courts and they frequently don't follow the law.
[55:47.880 --> 55:49.880]  We don't trust the courts.
[55:49.880 --> 55:52.880]  We don't want those courts involved.
[55:52.880 --> 55:58.880]  So even if you get a victory and you get a judge to order the state party to do it,
[55:58.880 --> 56:04.880]  they're going to find new creative ways to circumvent the laws, or they might change the rules.
[56:04.880 --> 56:07.880]  They'll just change the rules on you.
[56:07.880 --> 56:13.880]  The point I keep getting at is something that Ron Paul told me personally many years ago.
[56:13.880 --> 56:19.880]  But if you have an elected official or a party official, somebody in a position of power,
[56:19.880 --> 56:24.880]  and they're committed to cheating and breaking the rules and everything else,
[56:24.880 --> 56:28.880]  you're not going to be able to fix that person with rules and laws.
[56:28.880 --> 56:33.880]  You have to get somebody else in that position of authority.
[56:33.880 --> 56:35.880]  That's the way to fix it.
[56:35.880 --> 56:37.880]  All right, Jason, do you have anything else?
[56:37.880 --> 56:39.880]  Yeah, yeah, just real quick to end that.
[56:39.880 --> 56:41.880]  We did get another county chairman elected.
[56:41.880 --> 56:45.880]  He served for about four months and for one reason or another resigned.
[56:45.880 --> 56:50.880]  I think he found that the people who were pretty much in control of the party
[56:50.880 --> 56:53.880]  had cut him off at the knees by trying to do a whole bunch of different things.
[56:53.880 --> 56:55.880]  But that's a whole different story.
[56:55.880 --> 57:01.880]  Real quick before I go, I was going to ask, have you guys heard from that kid Anthony and his dad here lately?
[57:01.880 --> 57:06.880]  He hasn't called in for a couple of weeks, but hopefully he'll be calling back soon.
[57:06.880 --> 57:09.880]  Okay, well, if he's listening, I've got an email up at the right.
[57:09.880 --> 57:14.880]  If I can throw it out there, it's noasiscountycorruption.yahoo.com.
[57:14.880 --> 57:15.880]  If you're listening, would you contact me?
[57:15.880 --> 57:18.880]  Because I'd like to start networking with people who are like-minded,
[57:18.880 --> 57:20.880]  especially with this rule of law stuff.
[57:20.880 --> 57:21.880]  All right, that sounds great.
[57:21.880 --> 57:22.880]  Thank you, Jason.
[57:22.880 --> 57:23.880]  Thank you.
[57:23.880 --> 57:24.880]  All right, we only have about a minute left.
[57:24.880 --> 57:27.880]  We've got one more caller, Dan from Connecticut.
[57:27.880 --> 57:31.880]  Dan, do you have any quick comments for Don?
[57:31.880 --> 57:36.880]  Yeah, I was actually just wondering what he thought about the negative campaigning,
[57:36.880 --> 57:39.880]  which has gotten increasingly prevalent,
[57:39.880 --> 57:44.880]  especially with Linda McMahon and all those people with $50 million to waste on an election.
[57:44.880 --> 57:47.880]  And I actually had something for Eddie later on.
[57:47.880 --> 57:51.880]  Okay, well, yeah, we're about a minute until the break, and I don't know if Don can stay any longer.
[57:51.880 --> 57:53.880]  So, Don, you have any comments on that?
[57:53.880 --> 57:59.880]  On the negative campaigning, it's part of the territory, right?
[57:59.880 --> 58:03.880]  It comes with the job of being involved in elections and campaigning,
[58:03.880 --> 58:06.880]  and you have to weather the storms and learn how to fight back.
[58:06.880 --> 58:11.880]  And actually, there were some campaign shenanigans going on at a state Senate race in Alabama
[58:11.880 --> 58:19.880]  where the incumbent hired people to call at 11 o'clock at night, the night before the election,
[58:19.880 --> 58:22.880]  to campaign for his opponents.
[58:22.880 --> 58:25.880]  And so that made a lot of people mad because they're like,
[58:25.880 --> 58:28.880]  I'm not going to vote for this guy because these people are calling me at 11 o'clock.
[58:28.880 --> 58:34.880]  So it was a reverse trick, and it did cost his opponent a lot of votes.
[58:34.880 --> 58:37.880]  So it was an interesting tactic, but the guy lost in the end.
[58:37.880 --> 58:40.880]  Don, thank you for joining us tonight.
[58:40.880 --> 58:45.880]  And again, folks, you can get his book at bravenewbookstore.com.
[58:45.880 --> 58:46.880]  Thank you, Don.
[58:46.880 --> 58:48.880]  Thank you, Deb, for having me on. You have a good night.
[58:48.880 --> 58:53.880]  Okay, you too.
[58:53.880 --> 58:59.880]  Okay. We'll be right back, folks.
[58:59.880 --> 59:03.880]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world,
[59:03.880 --> 59:07.880]  yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it.
[59:07.880 --> 59:11.880]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text,
[59:11.880 --> 59:16.880]  but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the Scripture.
[59:16.880 --> 59:18.880]  Enter the recovery version.
[59:18.880 --> 59:22.880]  First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate,
[59:22.880 --> 59:27.880]  but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes.
[59:27.880 --> 59:31.880]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way,
[59:31.880 --> 59:34.880]  providing an entrance into the riches of the Word
[59:34.880 --> 59:37.880]  beyond which you've ever experienced before.
[59:37.880 --> 59:42.880]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking.
[59:42.880 --> 59:48.880]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll-free
[59:48.880 --> 59:57.880]  at 1-888-551-0102 or by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[59:57.880 --> 59:59.880]  That's freestudybible.com.
[59:59.880 --> 01:00:03.880]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Network.
[01:00:03.880 --> 01:00:06.880]  Several Pakistani newspapers expressed regret Friday
[01:00:06.880 --> 01:00:11.880]  for publishing fake U.S. diplomatic cables containing propaganda against India,
[01:00:11.880 --> 01:00:16.880]  confirming many right-wing Pakistani views and conspiracy theories about India.
[01:00:16.880 --> 01:00:21.880]  The fake dispatches included details about India's alleged anti-Pakistan activities
[01:00:21.880 --> 01:00:28.880]  in the country's tribal areas, Afghanistan, and the disputed territory of Kashmir.
[01:00:28.880 --> 01:00:31.880]  Fifteen people were killed Friday and several dozen wounded
[01:00:31.880 --> 01:00:35.880]  when a suicide bomber detonated a trailer packed with explosives
[01:00:35.880 --> 01:00:38.880]  outside a hospital in northwest Pakistan.
[01:00:38.880 --> 01:00:42.880]  It was the fourth such attack in Pakistan since Monday.
[01:00:42.880 --> 01:00:47.880]  Around 4,000 people have died in suicide and bomb attacks across Pakistan
[01:00:47.880 --> 01:00:54.880]  since government forces raided a hard-line mosque in Islamabad in 2007.
[01:00:54.880 --> 01:00:58.880]  The U.S. military is cutting ties with an Afghan security firm
[01:00:58.880 --> 01:01:01.880]  run by relatives of President Hamid Karzai
[01:01:01.880 --> 01:01:06.880]  that has been accused of bribing both government officials and Taliban commanders.
[01:01:06.880 --> 01:01:11.880]  The move is part of U.S. efforts to clean up a contracting process in Afghanistan
[01:01:11.880 --> 01:01:17.880]  that has been riddled with corruption and allowed U.S. funds to pass to insurgents.
[01:01:17.880 --> 01:01:22.880]  A U.S. diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks shows drug giant Pfizer
[01:01:22.880 --> 01:01:26.880]  hired investigators to dig up dirt on Nigeria's Attorney General
[01:01:26.880 --> 01:01:30.880]  to dissuade him from taking legal action against the corporation.
[01:01:30.880 --> 01:01:33.880]  During a meningitis outbreak in 1996,
[01:01:33.880 --> 01:01:38.880]  Pfizer's doctors tested Nigerian children with the experimental drug Trovan.
[01:01:38.880 --> 01:01:42.880]  Later it was asserted Pfizer did not have consent from parents
[01:01:42.880 --> 01:01:44.880]  to test the drug on their children
[01:01:44.880 --> 01:01:47.880]  and there were questions over the documentation of the trial.
[01:01:47.880 --> 01:01:50.880]  Trovan was licensed for adults in Europe
[01:01:50.880 --> 01:01:53.880]  but later withdrawn because of fears of liver toxicity.
[01:01:53.880 --> 01:01:57.880]  Pfizer was sued by Nigerian state and federal authorities
[01:01:57.880 --> 01:02:02.880]  and in 2009 came to a tentative settlement of $75 million with the government.
[01:02:02.880 --> 01:02:06.880]  But the leaked cable shows Pfizer was not eager to pay
[01:02:06.880 --> 01:02:10.880]  and hired investigators to uncover evidence of corruption
[01:02:10.880 --> 01:02:15.880]  against Attorney General Michael Andoaka in order to pressure him to drop the case.
[01:02:15.880 --> 01:02:20.880]  U.S. and Pakistani officials are deliberately overlooking the deaths of civilians
[01:02:20.880 --> 01:02:25.880]  that account for the majority of those killed in CIA drone attacks.
[01:02:25.880 --> 01:02:29.880]  The monthly report of the Conflict Monitoring Center released last week
[01:02:29.880 --> 01:02:35.880]  said 15 drone strikes on North Waziristan in November killed 84 people,
[01:02:35.880 --> 01:02:37.880]  including a large number of civilians.
[01:02:37.880 --> 01:02:41.880]  The report added that despite such large-scale drone strikes,
[01:02:41.880 --> 01:02:43.880]  no top-ranked militant was targeted.
[01:02:43.880 --> 01:02:47.880]  Over 400 casualties were reported during the last three months.
[01:02:47.880 --> 01:02:50.880]  The Brookings Institution revealed last year
[01:02:50.880 --> 01:03:00.880]  drones killed an average of 10 civilians to one militant.
[01:03:20.880 --> 01:03:45.880]  Okay, folks, we are back.
[01:03:45.880 --> 01:03:49.880]  Wrapping up an excellent interview with our good friend Don Zimmerman.
[01:03:49.880 --> 01:03:55.880]  You can get his book, How to Swing Votes, at Brave New Books, bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:03:55.880 --> 01:03:58.880]  All right, we've got Dan from Connecticut on the line.
[01:03:58.880 --> 01:04:00.880]  Okay, Dan, go ahead.
[01:04:00.880 --> 01:04:05.880]  Yeah, I was wondering if Eddie got a chance to read that wonderful stuff
[01:04:05.880 --> 01:04:08.880]  I'd sent him in the last day or so.
[01:04:08.880 --> 01:04:13.880]  I am trying to browse through it along with the 500 other things I've gotten the last two days.
[01:04:13.880 --> 01:04:16.880]  But yes, I am trying to read it.
[01:04:16.880 --> 01:04:20.880]  Excellent. Well, I just want you to know if you see fit to plagiarize it
[01:04:20.880 --> 01:04:22.880]  and use it for someone in Connecticut,
[01:04:22.880 --> 01:04:25.880]  feel free to do so because it was oh, so much fun.
[01:04:25.880 --> 01:04:28.880]  And I know you guys probably have other callers and whatnot,
[01:04:28.880 --> 01:04:29.880]  so I want to keep it short.
[01:04:29.880 --> 01:04:32.880]  But the bottom line of this is simple.
[01:04:32.880 --> 01:04:39.880]  I'm actually suing the DMV commissioner himself personally in small claims over this.
[01:04:39.880 --> 01:04:41.880]  Yeah, I saw that.
[01:04:41.880 --> 01:04:45.880]  Yeah, I figured that might be one of the appropriate things to do
[01:04:45.880 --> 01:04:48.880]  since people generally like to hide behind the state,
[01:04:48.880 --> 01:04:51.880]  and I figure if they made a mistake, sue them personally.
[01:04:51.880 --> 01:04:56.880]  And I'm going to be getting to file my first bar grievance ever.
[01:04:56.880 --> 01:04:57.880]  Cool.
[01:04:57.880 --> 01:04:59.880]  The hearing officer was actually an attorney,
[01:04:59.880 --> 01:05:04.880]  and she refused to actually serve the DMV process.
[01:05:04.880 --> 01:05:10.880]  On top of that, she forgot to put the witness under oath throughout 90 percent of the hearing,
[01:05:10.880 --> 01:05:13.880]  which I thought was immensely entertaining.
[01:05:13.880 --> 01:05:15.880]  All my motions got lost,
[01:05:15.880 --> 01:05:20.880]  and there's a whole bunch of other goodies in there, which they do routinely.
[01:05:20.880 --> 01:05:24.880]  Yeah, I'm attempting to document the way they're doing everything here.
[01:05:24.880 --> 01:05:30.880]  And when I actually go out in my car here in Austin and get them to pull me over,
[01:05:30.880 --> 01:05:38.880]  then the process we're going to go through is going to be a whole lot of fun.
[01:05:38.880 --> 01:05:45.880]  As long as he can avoid getting beaten into unconsciousness.
[01:05:45.880 --> 01:05:49.880]  Well, that part's not too hard.
[01:05:49.880 --> 01:05:54.880]  I'm not a small fella, so I'm not easily intimidated.
[01:05:54.880 --> 01:05:58.880]  So by any means, if they want to beat me up, they're going to have to work at it,
[01:05:58.880 --> 01:06:01.880]  even if there are a lot of them,
[01:06:01.880 --> 01:06:06.880]  which would make for really good video and why it's most likely not going to happen.
[01:06:06.880 --> 01:06:11.880]  Yeah, speaking of video, I did carry an audio recorder to the hearing,
[01:06:11.880 --> 01:06:14.880]  which was supposed to be officially on the record.
[01:06:14.880 --> 01:06:18.880]  Half the administrative hearing was not recorded at all.
[01:06:18.880 --> 01:06:22.880]  And the hearing officer, who is actually an attorney at the bar in Connecticut,
[01:06:22.880 --> 01:06:25.880]  mentioned something about an informal hearing,
[01:06:25.880 --> 01:06:29.880]  which that's not in the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act.
[01:06:29.880 --> 01:06:35.880]  So I pulled out my recorder, and she accused me of being disingenuous for recording it.
[01:06:35.880 --> 01:06:37.880]  Disingenuous.
[01:06:37.880 --> 01:06:44.880]  Yeah, I was disingenuous for wanting to record something that should have been recorded.
[01:06:44.880 --> 01:06:47.880]  Wait a minute, was your recording genuine?
[01:06:47.880 --> 01:06:51.880]  Oh yeah, it was genuine. Everybody was there.
[01:06:51.880 --> 01:06:55.880]  So, are you surprised at this?
[01:06:55.880 --> 01:06:57.880]  Oh no, it was a lot of fun.
[01:06:57.880 --> 01:07:01.880]  I want to find a way to make this recording smaller.
[01:07:01.880 --> 01:07:07.880]  It's about a half hour of let's play with attorneys, and it's also much fun.
[01:07:07.880 --> 01:07:10.880]  You have to hear this to believe it.
[01:07:10.880 --> 01:07:14.880]  Download Audacity 2.
[01:07:14.880 --> 01:07:18.880]  You can go in and get a graphic.
[01:07:18.880 --> 01:07:22.880]  You can see the blank spaces and just clip them out and shorten it up.
[01:07:22.880 --> 01:07:26.880]  You can take a lot out that way.
[01:07:26.880 --> 01:07:32.880]  Okay, yeah, cool. I'll do that, because I figured you guys might find immense entertainment out of what happened.
[01:07:32.880 --> 01:07:37.880]  It was great. She failed to answer all the objections.
[01:07:37.880 --> 01:07:41.880]  She admitted that she didn't put the witness under oath.
[01:07:41.880 --> 01:07:45.880]  She admitted that my pleadings were nowhere to be found.
[01:07:45.880 --> 01:07:53.880]  I mean, basically she just flat out admitted, yeah, I did everything wrong, and I don't care.
[01:07:53.880 --> 01:07:57.880]  Anyway, I'm going to let you get on with the show, but I just wanted to check in on that,
[01:07:57.880 --> 01:08:02.880]  and if you like what you read, feel free to cut, paste, and plagiarize away.
[01:08:02.880 --> 01:08:03.880]  All right, well thanks, Dan.
[01:08:03.880 --> 01:08:04.880]  Thank you, Dan.
[01:08:04.880 --> 01:08:06.880]  Not a problem.
[01:08:06.880 --> 01:08:11.880]  Okay, we're going now to Gerald in Texas. I believe this is Anthony's father, Gerald in Texas.
[01:08:11.880 --> 01:08:14.880]  Thanks for calling in. Is this Anthony's father?
[01:08:14.880 --> 01:08:15.880]  Yeah, sure is.
[01:08:15.880 --> 01:08:18.880]  Oh, well thank you for calling in and checking in with us.
[01:08:18.880 --> 01:08:22.880]  I guess you're responding to Jason, who had called in.
[01:08:22.880 --> 01:08:24.880]  Yeah, what's that email?
[01:08:24.880 --> 01:08:29.880]  You know what, I didn't write it down, but you can get it off of the archive.
[01:08:29.880 --> 01:08:31.880]  Okay.
[01:08:31.880 --> 01:08:35.880]  So give us an update. What's going on?
[01:08:35.880 --> 01:08:38.880]  We're on the third attorney now.
[01:08:38.880 --> 01:08:41.880]  On the third court-appointed attorney?
[01:08:41.880 --> 01:08:51.880]  And she doesn't have any more grasp of the criminal procedures than any of the others did.
[01:08:51.880 --> 01:08:56.880]  Hey, Gerald, you're breaking up pretty bad. Can you try to get to a better location?
[01:08:56.880 --> 01:08:57.880]  Okay, again?
[01:08:57.880 --> 01:08:59.880]  I said you're breaking up pretty bad.
[01:08:59.880 --> 01:09:00.880]  Okay, how's that now?
[01:09:00.880 --> 01:09:02.880]  That's better, thank you.
[01:09:02.880 --> 01:09:07.880]  Okay, now here's my take on the coded criminal procedure that I just want to throw out there,
[01:09:07.880 --> 01:09:12.880]  and you guys can discuss it or you can just tell me to pack.
[01:09:12.880 --> 01:09:24.880]  Systematic step-by-step process having the sole purpose of ensuring all persons are afforded equal protection under the law.
[01:09:24.880 --> 01:09:28.880]  Is that your definition of criminal procedure?
[01:09:28.880 --> 01:09:34.880]  No, that's my synopsis of the code of criminal procedures.
[01:09:34.880 --> 01:09:38.880]  Yeah, it's to outline the rules and regulations to which the courts are to adhere to
[01:09:38.880 --> 01:09:44.880]  to ensure that justice is done and the rights of the accused are protected.
[01:09:44.880 --> 01:09:51.880]  Correct, and at any time that they fail to abide by that,
[01:09:51.880 --> 01:09:56.880]  they are no longer allowing that person to have equal protection under the law.
[01:09:56.880 --> 01:09:59.880]  It depends on what you mean by abide by.
[01:09:59.880 --> 01:10:04.880]  If they violate a ministerial duty, you are absolutely correct.
[01:10:04.880 --> 01:10:12.880]  If they do something that is where they have a discretionary duty, then they will violate your rights.
[01:10:12.880 --> 01:10:15.880]  It's almost a dead bank given.
[01:10:15.880 --> 01:10:20.880]  The problem is proving it.
[01:10:20.880 --> 01:10:28.880]  The second thing is getting them out from under their coat of protection from the other courts for doing it.
[01:10:28.880 --> 01:10:36.880]  Yeah, and what it comes down to though is they're setting themselves up to have everything that they,
[01:10:36.880 --> 01:10:45.880]  every person that they convict having those convictions overturned on constitutional right violations.
[01:10:45.880 --> 01:10:48.880]  If they know how to argue the case, you're exactly right.
[01:10:48.880 --> 01:10:55.880]  That's part of what I'm attempting to do with the traffic stuff.
[01:10:55.880 --> 01:11:01.880]  I think you're doing a stellar job there too.
[01:11:01.880 --> 01:11:04.880]  That's all I had for tonight.
[01:11:04.880 --> 01:11:07.880]  Okay, you say you're on the third attorney.
[01:11:07.880 --> 01:11:08.880]  What is the issue here?
[01:11:08.880 --> 01:11:11.880]  Why the third attorney?
[01:11:11.880 --> 01:11:23.880]  Well, the first one, he didn't want to do anything that would upset any of the judges, such as...
[01:11:23.880 --> 01:11:25.880]  Including defend your son.
[01:11:25.880 --> 01:11:31.880]  Right, because he started off with, let's see if we can talk a deal.
[01:11:31.880 --> 01:11:40.880]  And he said, we're not even getting to the merits of the case because of all these violations.
[01:11:40.880 --> 01:11:43.880]  They won't even hear that.
[01:11:43.880 --> 01:11:45.880]  Who's they?
[01:11:45.880 --> 01:11:52.880]  They being the judge, Richard Hatch.
[01:11:52.880 --> 01:11:55.880]  File a judicial conduct complaint against him.
[01:11:55.880 --> 01:12:02.880]  And if he is an attorney, file a bar grievance for everything he's done that violates the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[01:12:02.880 --> 01:12:10.880]  Well, we intend to.
[01:12:10.880 --> 01:12:14.880]  They make it so easy.
[01:12:14.880 --> 01:12:18.880]  Well, they make it easy to make note of what they're doing wrong.
[01:12:18.880 --> 01:12:23.880]  But they can get away with it because these people are protected by others just like them.
[01:12:23.880 --> 01:12:28.880]  That's the problem.
[01:12:28.880 --> 01:12:32.880]  Yeah.
[01:12:32.880 --> 01:12:34.880]  That's what you're doing.
[01:12:34.880 --> 01:12:36.880]  Yeah, I just wanted to start going after them.
[01:12:36.880 --> 01:12:38.880]  So what was that, Randy?
[01:12:38.880 --> 01:12:43.880]  I said if we're going to get them, we have to start going after them just like you're doing.
[01:12:43.880 --> 01:12:49.880]  Bar grievances, judicial conduct complaints, and make the attorneys do their jobs.
[01:12:49.880 --> 01:12:55.880]  Yeah, because every one of them has a chink in their armor somewhere.
[01:12:55.880 --> 01:12:57.880]  Usually it's their brains.
[01:12:57.880 --> 01:13:01.880]  By the way, Gerald, I just got word from a call screener.
[01:13:01.880 --> 01:13:02.880]  Jason called back in.
[01:13:02.880 --> 01:13:13.880]  His email is nuasiscountycorruption at yahoo.com.
[01:13:13.880 --> 01:13:15.880]  Okay.
[01:13:15.880 --> 01:13:16.880]  At Yahoo?
[01:13:16.880 --> 01:13:20.880]  Yes, nuasiscountycorruption at yahoo.com.
[01:13:20.880 --> 01:13:22.880]  Okay.
[01:13:22.880 --> 01:13:24.880]  Okay, I can find that.
[01:13:24.880 --> 01:13:26.880]  No problem.
[01:13:26.880 --> 01:13:27.880]  That's his email.
[01:13:27.880 --> 01:13:28.880]  That's not a website.
[01:13:28.880 --> 01:13:29.880]  That's his email.
[01:13:29.880 --> 01:13:32.880]  I don't understand that.
[01:13:32.880 --> 01:13:36.880]  But yeah, that's all I had going on for tonight.
[01:13:36.880 --> 01:13:43.880]  But this third attorney says, well, we'll file every motion that you want.
[01:13:43.880 --> 01:13:51.880]  Now getting her to actually adjudicate them is probably going to remain to be seen.
[01:13:51.880 --> 01:13:59.880]  But Anthony was supposed to have a court date Tuesday.
[01:13:59.880 --> 01:14:06.880]  Apparently that has been rescheduled to some kind of just a meeting.
[01:14:06.880 --> 01:14:07.880]  A meeting?
[01:14:07.880 --> 01:14:08.880]  A meeting?
[01:14:08.880 --> 01:14:10.880]  Yeah, I'm not sure what's going on there.
[01:14:10.880 --> 01:14:14.880]  Are they trying to subpoena Anthony to talk to the prosecutor?
[01:14:14.880 --> 01:14:16.880]  No, I don't think so.
[01:14:16.880 --> 01:14:30.880]  I think what's going on is this gal let it out that Anthony isn't just someone that they can push over.
[01:14:30.880 --> 01:14:33.880]  Well, you can't be summoned to a meeting.
[01:14:33.880 --> 01:14:36.880]  I mean, you're summoned before the court for a hearing.
[01:14:36.880 --> 01:14:37.880]  I understand that.
[01:14:37.880 --> 01:14:40.880]  Read 28.01 Code of Criminal Procedure.
[01:14:40.880 --> 01:14:48.880]  It stipulates what you can be summoned to court for and essentially an arraignment
[01:14:48.880 --> 01:14:51.880]  and everything else is about hearing motions.
[01:14:51.880 --> 01:14:52.880]  Yeah, that's just it.
[01:14:52.880 --> 01:14:59.880]  I'm not even sure if it's for court because Anthony was real scant about the information on that.
[01:14:59.880 --> 01:15:04.880]  Well, try to get the information because if it's a summons and it's just for a meeting,
[01:15:04.880 --> 01:15:08.880]  then that needs to be clarified because you can't be summoned to a meeting.
[01:15:08.880 --> 01:15:14.880]  And if they've canceled or rescheduled the court hearing and they just want him to come to a meeting,
[01:15:14.880 --> 01:15:17.880]  well, then that's at Anthony's discretion.
[01:15:17.880 --> 01:15:26.880]  Yeah, yeah, but a rescheduling would have to actually have proper service.
[01:15:26.880 --> 01:15:27.880]  Right, right.
[01:15:27.880 --> 01:15:28.880]  I don't believe you.
[01:15:28.880 --> 01:15:32.880]  Any kind of notice would have to be timely.
[01:15:32.880 --> 01:15:33.880]  Right.
[01:15:33.880 --> 01:15:40.880]  And I don't believe he's gotten anything in the mail on that, but I stopped by Half Price Books today
[01:15:40.880 --> 01:15:51.880]  and for 398, I picked up the 2007, 2008 edition, Texas Criminal and Traffic Law Manual.
[01:15:51.880 --> 01:15:54.880]  Okay, the problem is it's going to have out-of-date information in it.
[01:15:54.880 --> 01:15:59.880]  They changed a few things that you're going to need to be aware of in 2010 version.
[01:15:59.880 --> 01:16:08.880]  Yeah, but as far as the Code of Criminal Procedures goes, it's all good information.
[01:16:08.880 --> 01:16:14.880]  No, part of that has changed as well, especially 1517 dealing with the examining trial.
[01:16:14.880 --> 01:16:16.880]  That was changed.
[01:16:16.880 --> 01:16:26.880]  Okay, I'll verify it with what it says here against what's up on the state's website.
[01:16:26.880 --> 01:16:28.880]  Yeah, please do that.
[01:16:28.880 --> 01:16:32.880]  Yeah, and make any changes.
[01:16:32.880 --> 01:16:34.880]  Okay, you guys have a good night, okay?
[01:16:34.880 --> 01:16:36.880]  Okay, thank you, Gerald.
[01:16:36.880 --> 01:16:37.880]  Thank you.
[01:16:37.880 --> 01:16:38.880]  All right, folks, we've got open phone lines.
[01:16:38.880 --> 01:16:44.880]  We've got 45 minutes left if you'd like to call in, 512-646-1984.
[01:16:44.880 --> 01:16:46.880]  We've got free phone lines.
[01:16:46.880 --> 01:16:51.880]  They are open and clear at this moment, so call in with your questions.
[01:16:51.880 --> 01:17:01.880]  We'll be right back after this break.
[01:17:01.880 --> 01:17:05.880]  Capital Coin and Bullions is your local source for rare coins, precious metals,
[01:17:05.880 --> 01:17:08.880]  and coin supplies in the Austin metro area.
[01:17:08.880 --> 01:17:10.880]  We also ship worldwide.
[01:17:10.880 --> 01:17:13.880]  We are a family-owned and operated business that offers competitive prices
[01:17:13.880 --> 01:17:15.880]  on your coin and metals purchases.
[01:17:15.880 --> 01:17:20.880]  We buy, sell, trade, and consign rare coins, gold and silver coin collections,
[01:17:20.880 --> 01:17:22.880]  precious metals, and scrap gold.
[01:17:22.880 --> 01:17:26.880]  We will purchase and sell gold and jewelry items as well.
[01:17:26.880 --> 01:17:28.880]  We offer daily specials on coins and bullions.
[01:17:28.880 --> 01:17:33.880]  We're located at 5448 Burnett Road, Suite 3,
[01:17:33.880 --> 01:17:36.880]  and we're open Monday through Friday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.
[01:17:36.880 --> 01:17:39.880]  Saturdays, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
[01:17:39.880 --> 01:17:42.880]  You are welcome to stop in our shop during regular business hours
[01:17:42.880 --> 01:17:47.880]  or call 512-646-6440 with any questions.
[01:17:47.880 --> 01:17:52.880]  As for Chad, say you heard about us on Rule of Law Radio or 90.1 FM,
[01:17:52.880 --> 01:17:59.880]  that's Capital Coin and Bullion, 512-646-6440.
[01:17:59.880 --> 01:18:02.880]  It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM,
[01:18:02.880 --> 01:18:05.880]  but finding things on the Internet isn't so easy,
[01:18:05.880 --> 01:18:08.880]  and neither is finding like-minded people to share it with.
[01:18:08.880 --> 01:18:11.880]  Oh, well, I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books, then.
[01:18:11.880 --> 01:18:12.880]  Brave New Books?
[01:18:12.880 --> 01:18:16.880]  Yes, Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for
[01:18:16.880 --> 01:18:20.880]  by authors like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, and G. Edward Griffin.
[01:18:20.880 --> 01:18:24.880]  They even stock inner food, Berkey products, and Calvin Soaps.
[01:18:24.880 --> 01:18:26.880]  There's no way a place like that exists.
[01:18:26.880 --> 01:18:28.880]  Go check it out for yourself.
[01:18:28.880 --> 01:18:32.880]  It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street, just south of UT.
[01:18:32.880 --> 01:18:35.880]  By UT, there's never anywhere to park down there.
[01:18:35.880 --> 01:18:38.880]  Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking
[01:18:38.880 --> 01:18:41.880]  for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking facility,
[01:18:41.880 --> 01:18:43.880]  just behind the bookstore.
[01:18:43.880 --> 01:18:46.880]  It does exist, but when are they open?
[01:18:46.880 --> 01:18:51.880]  Monday through Saturday, 11 AM to 9 PM, and 1 to 6 PM on Sundays.
[01:18:51.880 --> 01:18:55.880]  So give them a call at 512-480-2503,
[01:18:55.880 --> 01:18:58.880]  or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:18:58.880 --> 01:19:24.880]  Oh, come on
[01:19:24.880 --> 01:19:29.880]  If I can't get everything I want
[01:19:29.880 --> 01:19:35.880]  Should I maybe get a rain chair?
[01:19:35.880 --> 01:19:40.880]  If I can't get everything I need
[01:19:40.880 --> 01:19:46.880]  Should I maybe get a rain chair?
[01:19:46.880 --> 01:19:51.880]  If the people of the world can't get happiness and peace
[01:19:51.880 --> 01:19:58.880]  Should I maybe get a rain chair?
[01:19:58.880 --> 01:20:03.880]  If we can't get all these crazy rewards to see
[01:20:03.880 --> 01:20:21.880]  Should I maybe get a rain chair?
[01:20:21.880 --> 01:20:25.880]  Looking for a little bitty smith in the hole
[01:20:25.880 --> 01:20:32.880]  Should I get a rain chair?
[01:20:32.880 --> 01:20:36.880]  I want to reach the top of the hill, sliding on the slippery slope
[01:20:36.880 --> 01:20:42.880]  Looking for a rain chair
[01:20:42.880 --> 01:20:47.880]  Trying to get away from all this sorrow
[01:20:47.880 --> 01:20:54.880]  Can I get a rain chair?
[01:20:54.880 --> 01:20:58.880]  If not, let's make it some more
[01:20:58.880 --> 01:21:10.880]  Give me a rain chair
[01:21:10.880 --> 01:21:13.880]  Okay, folks, we are back.
[01:21:13.880 --> 01:21:18.880]  And I have a question for Randy here concerning a parent.
[01:21:18.880 --> 01:21:23.880]  I don't know if it would be deemed as election fraud or some kind of fraud.
[01:21:23.880 --> 01:21:30.880]  Maybe we could get this guy for misuse of campaign funds or something.
[01:21:30.880 --> 01:21:36.880]  Because I know there are laws that regulate how candidates spend their campaign funds.
[01:21:36.880 --> 01:21:45.880]  But going back to this issue that I started to bring up with Don right before he left at the end of his interview.
[01:21:45.880 --> 01:21:50.880]  This state senator in Alabama who actually ended up losing the election,
[01:21:50.880 --> 01:21:54.880]  he was in a dead heat race going into the election.
[01:21:54.880 --> 01:22:01.880]  And what he did was he hired some telemarketers the night before the election
[01:22:01.880 --> 01:22:10.880]  to call as many prospective voters as possible at 11 o'clock at night
[01:22:10.880 --> 01:22:16.880]  with a false campaign for his opponent saying here, vote for Shad.
[01:22:16.880 --> 01:22:20.880]  And so what it did was the goal was to make people mad and say,
[01:22:20.880 --> 01:22:24.880]  well, I'm not going to vote for this guy because his people are calling me at 11 o'clock at night.
[01:22:24.880 --> 01:22:27.880]  And so he ended up losing votes.
[01:22:27.880 --> 01:22:31.880]  But the opponent, this guy's opponent ended up losing votes.
[01:22:31.880 --> 01:22:36.880]  But the opponent won in the end because he had so much grassroots support.
[01:22:36.880 --> 01:22:43.880]  But I mean, certainly this is unethical, unscrupulous behavior,
[01:22:43.880 --> 01:22:49.880]  which is to be expected in an election, but is this not also illegal, Randy?
[01:22:49.880 --> 01:22:51.880]  Not that I know of.
[01:22:51.880 --> 01:22:57.880]  It's not illegal to call someone and not specifically illegal to call them late at night
[01:22:57.880 --> 01:23:02.880]  unless there are specific ordinances against solicitation
[01:23:02.880 --> 01:23:05.880]  than generally there is against solicitation after 9 o'clock.
[01:23:05.880 --> 01:23:06.880]  Well, that's not my question.
[01:23:06.880 --> 01:23:12.880]  Obviously it's not illegal for the telemarketers to call people at whatever time they want to call them,
[01:23:12.880 --> 01:23:15.880]  unless there's some specific state laws against that.
[01:23:15.880 --> 01:23:23.880]  My question is, is it illegal for a candidate to spend campaign funds in this manner, in a fraudulent manner?
[01:23:23.880 --> 01:23:25.880]  I don't know.
[01:23:25.880 --> 01:23:27.880]  This depends on the nature of the funds.
[01:23:27.880 --> 01:23:29.880]  This is not my area of knowledge.
[01:23:29.880 --> 01:23:34.880]  It's campaign funds, but maybe.
[01:23:34.880 --> 01:23:42.880]  It depends on if these campaign funds are funds that he raised himself, there probably is nothing.
[01:23:42.880 --> 01:23:44.880]  Well, I know that...
[01:23:44.880 --> 01:23:48.880]  But if he received federal matching funds of some sort, then there's probably restrictions.
[01:23:48.880 --> 01:23:51.880]  Well, there's restrictions on how candidates spend campaign funds
[01:23:51.880 --> 01:23:55.880]  regardless of the source of whether they're federally matched or not.
[01:23:55.880 --> 01:23:59.880]  I mean, you can't just collect a million dollars in campaign funds
[01:23:59.880 --> 01:24:05.880]  and then go on vacation and go buy an airplane and property in Hawaii.
[01:24:05.880 --> 01:24:13.880]  I mean, you have to spend campaign funds legitimately in your campaign.
[01:24:13.880 --> 01:24:17.880]  Well, he was legitimately campaigning. He just wasn't...
[01:24:17.880 --> 01:24:20.880]  I don't know. I'd like to look into this.
[01:24:20.880 --> 01:24:23.880]  That seems to me fraudulent use of campaign funds.
[01:24:23.880 --> 01:24:29.880]  But anyway, I just wanted to put that out there because that's certainly outrageous.
[01:24:29.880 --> 01:24:31.880]  But at any rate, we've got some callers on the line.
[01:24:31.880 --> 01:24:35.880]  We've got Michael from Maryland.
[01:24:35.880 --> 01:24:38.880]  Michael, thank you for calling in. What's on your mind tonight?
[01:24:38.880 --> 01:24:40.880]  Hey, good evening, folks. Two quick things.
[01:24:40.880 --> 01:24:44.880]  One is I don't know very much about Richard Kornforth. I think that's his name.
[01:24:44.880 --> 01:24:50.880]  But I read just recently where one strategy or one point that he tries to say,
[01:24:50.880 --> 01:24:53.880]  and I was curious if you would agree with it,
[01:24:53.880 --> 01:25:00.880]  is that inferior courts do not get jurisdiction except from sufficient pleadings.
[01:25:00.880 --> 01:25:06.880]  I know that's a quick little saying, but have you heard that?
[01:25:06.880 --> 01:25:09.880]  And does it hold any water as far as you're concerned?
[01:25:09.880 --> 01:25:11.880]  Well, of course it holds water.
[01:25:11.880 --> 01:25:17.880]  The pleading before the court has to invoke subject matter jurisdiction of the court
[01:25:17.880 --> 01:25:21.880]  if it is a civil pleading.
[01:25:21.880 --> 01:25:23.880]  And it has to be sufficient.
[01:25:23.880 --> 01:25:30.880]  For instance, a guy came to me with a credit card company had sued him in court.
[01:25:30.880 --> 01:25:36.880]  Well, in the rules, a suit on account must be verified.
[01:25:36.880 --> 01:25:41.880]  That's the only original petition that must be verified, must be notarized.
[01:25:41.880 --> 01:25:43.880]  This one wasn't notarized.
[01:25:43.880 --> 01:25:50.880]  So it didn't meet the rules and therefore was insufficient to invoke subject matter jurisdiction of the court.
[01:25:50.880 --> 01:25:53.880]  The pleading was insufficient.
[01:25:53.880 --> 01:25:55.880]  And Kornforth is absolutely right.
[01:25:55.880 --> 01:25:59.880]  Don't start defending yourself first.
[01:25:59.880 --> 01:26:03.880]  Look at the rules first. Did they follow the rules?
[01:26:03.880 --> 01:26:08.880]  In a criminal action, there has to be a complaint,
[01:26:08.880 --> 01:26:13.880]  and the complaint has to meet the requirements of law in order to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction.
[01:26:13.880 --> 01:26:21.880]  And there are generally other steps in due process that must be followed in order to invoke subject matter jurisdiction.
[01:26:21.880 --> 01:26:28.880]  Well, in Maryland, the rules state that generally, and I'm not sure whether there are any substantial exceptions,
[01:26:28.880 --> 01:26:38.880]  but generally a civil, what is the right term, civil process?
[01:26:38.880 --> 01:26:45.880]  The first petition in either a civil or criminal is generally called a complaint.
[01:26:45.880 --> 01:26:47.880]  Yeah, it is a complaint, right.
[01:26:47.880 --> 01:26:51.880]  And what I'm trying to track down in law, and I haven't quite done it yet,
[01:26:51.880 --> 01:26:58.880]  is what, if anything, in the rules or the code actually qualifies a citation as a complaint.
[01:26:58.880 --> 01:27:05.880]  And as Eddie, I'm sure, would echo, I just don't expect to find it, or if I do, I expect it to have a hole or two in it.
[01:27:05.880 --> 01:27:12.880]  Anyway, without having been said, I want to move on to the CFRA thing, or the C...what is this?
[01:27:12.880 --> 01:27:17.880]  Oh, FFCDRA, I think it is, the fair credit.
[01:27:17.880 --> 01:27:24.880]  I forget the acronyms, but my question is, if someone were to do a forensic mortgage audit
[01:27:24.880 --> 01:27:34.880]  and come back with a very strong set of facts that indict the mortgage companies and the lenders for the fraud,
[01:27:34.880 --> 01:27:38.880]  and you really just have a smoking gun, or at least it looks very strong,
[01:27:38.880 --> 01:27:44.880]  and you go ahead and you initiate the case in the U.S. District Courts and so on,
[01:27:44.880 --> 01:27:54.880]  what, if anything, might exist in the FCRA and the...I forget the acronym for the other one.
[01:27:54.880 --> 01:27:58.880]  Are you talking about federal rules of civil procedure?
[01:27:58.880 --> 01:27:59.880]  No.
[01:27:59.880 --> 01:28:04.880]  I was thinking a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act.
[01:28:04.880 --> 01:28:05.880]  Thank you, Eddie.
[01:28:05.880 --> 01:28:12.880]  Generally, Fair Debt Collections Practices Act is implemented by the states and not the Fed.
[01:28:12.880 --> 01:28:22.880]  The Feds have a general one, but generally, they've pushed the states to pass their own.
[01:28:22.880 --> 01:28:23.880]  Right, right.
[01:28:23.880 --> 01:28:26.880]  Well, okay, that's good to know, and I'll look in a little bit deeper,
[01:28:26.880 --> 01:28:33.880]  but my concern is, if we were to go ahead and push forward with this, my question would be,
[01:28:33.880 --> 01:28:37.880]  if we were to...I've heard different suggestions.
[01:28:37.880 --> 01:28:43.880]  If we were to stop making mortgage payments, which admittedly invites foreclosure proceedings,
[01:28:43.880 --> 01:28:49.880]  if we were to do that, would there be a way to shield ourselves from having our credit dinged left,
[01:28:49.880 --> 01:28:52.880]  right, and up, and down by saying, look, it's in dispute.
[01:28:52.880 --> 01:28:57.880]  We've got very good evidence that there was fraud, and we're adjudicating it in the courts,
[01:28:57.880 --> 01:28:59.880]  so leave our credit rating alone.
[01:28:59.880 --> 01:29:03.880]  The only way you'd be able to do that is with a preliminary injunction,
[01:29:03.880 --> 01:29:09.880]  a petition in the court for an order forbidding them to ding your credit.
[01:29:09.880 --> 01:29:12.880]  Wow, preliminary injunction.
[01:29:12.880 --> 01:29:18.880]  Yeah, because if you stop making payments, they're going to enter negative entries on your credit report,
[01:29:18.880 --> 01:29:22.880]  and then what you could do is you would have to dispute.
[01:29:22.880 --> 01:29:26.880]  You'd have to file dispute letters with the creditor,
[01:29:26.880 --> 01:29:31.880]  and then they would have to mark the account in dispute, which they would not,
[01:29:31.880 --> 01:29:35.880]  and I mean mark it on your credit report as in dispute, which they will not,
[01:29:35.880 --> 01:29:39.880]  and you would have to sue them over that, kind of similar to the Mike Mears method,
[01:29:39.880 --> 01:29:43.880]  but no, there's really no way to keep that from affecting your credit
[01:29:43.880 --> 01:29:48.880]  unless you get a preliminary injunctive order like what Randy's saying.
[01:29:48.880 --> 01:29:52.880]  Yeah, best thing to do is sue them. If you don't sue them, you're not going to get anything.
[01:29:52.880 --> 01:29:57.880]  Yeah, I remember you called into Agenda 21, and I sent a Skype chat to those guys to tell you that.
[01:29:57.880 --> 01:29:59.880]  We'll be right back, folks.
[01:29:59.880 --> 01:30:03.880]  Top ten reasons to question the official story of the Oklahoma City bombing, reason number five.
[01:30:03.880 --> 01:30:07.880]  As witnessed by millions of viewers, the rescue efforts were interrupted several times
[01:30:07.880 --> 01:30:09.880]  due to the presence of other explosives.
[01:30:09.880 --> 01:30:14.880]  Government log entries indicate and witnesses report that after the initial devastating blast,
[01:30:14.880 --> 01:30:18.880]  a bomb complete with timer was discovered and removed from the wreckage by the bomb squad.
[01:30:18.880 --> 01:30:22.880]  Yet we are told it's all due to baseless bomb scares or other contrivances.
[01:30:22.880 --> 01:30:26.880]  So while officials try to sort out their stories, all we ask is who planted these bombs
[01:30:26.880 --> 01:30:28.880]  and why is the government lying about them?
[01:30:28.880 --> 01:30:31.880]  For more information, go to okcbombingtruth.com.
[01:30:31.880 --> 01:30:35.880]  You've probably heard of Wikileaks, the website that's released lots of government documents.
[01:30:35.880 --> 01:30:39.880]  But have you heard of the granddaddy of leaks, Cryptome.org?
[01:30:39.880 --> 01:30:42.880]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be back with more about how Cryptome
[01:30:42.880 --> 01:30:45.880]  holds governments and corporations accountable.
[01:30:45.880 --> 01:30:50.880]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:30:50.880 --> 01:30:55.880]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:30:55.880 --> 01:31:00.880]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[01:31:00.880 --> 01:31:03.880]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[01:31:03.880 --> 01:31:06.880]  This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com,
[01:31:06.880 --> 01:31:10.880]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[01:31:10.880 --> 01:31:13.880]  Start over with Startpage.
[01:31:13.880 --> 01:31:17.880]  The website Cryptome.org has been archiving leaked and whistleblower documents
[01:31:17.880 --> 01:31:21.880]  for over 14 years to keep governments and big business in check.
[01:31:21.880 --> 01:31:25.880]  Back in 2003, the site's owner, John Young, came to my rescue
[01:31:25.880 --> 01:31:30.880]  when my spy chips co-author and I dug up explosive confidential documents.
[01:31:30.880 --> 01:31:34.880]  They told how businesses like Procter & Gamble planned to pacify consumers
[01:31:34.880 --> 01:31:38.880]  who would be outraged by RFID, a new tracking technology.
[01:31:38.880 --> 01:31:41.880]  The information was so scandalous, we were sure it would disappear
[01:31:41.880 --> 01:31:44.880]  the moment someone found out it was publicly accessible.
[01:31:44.880 --> 01:31:47.880]  We were also worried we might be accused of hacking.
[01:31:47.880 --> 01:31:50.880]  Cryptome came to our rescue, and the documents are still mirrored there today.
[01:31:50.880 --> 01:31:55.880]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:32:21.880 --> 01:32:26.880]  Okay, folks, we're back.
[01:32:26.880 --> 01:32:29.880]  Okay, Michael from Maryland.
[01:32:29.880 --> 01:32:31.880]  So, yeah, to continue.
[01:32:31.880 --> 01:32:35.880]  So based on what you said, I guess these follow-up questions come to mind.
[01:32:35.880 --> 01:32:39.880]  First of all, the disputing and the preliminary injunctions,
[01:32:39.880 --> 01:32:45.880]  are they going against both the credit reporting agencies and the lender,
[01:32:45.880 --> 01:32:47.880]  or just one or the other?
[01:32:47.880 --> 01:32:50.880]  So when you dispute, you dispute with the creditor.
[01:32:50.880 --> 01:32:52.880]  You send a dispute letter with the creditor.
[01:32:52.880 --> 01:32:54.880]  To the mortgage company or whatnot.
[01:32:54.880 --> 01:33:00.880]  Okay, so not the credit reporting agency unless they fail to adequately investigate.
[01:33:00.880 --> 01:33:05.880]  Well, yeah, but investigating means they're just going to check with the creditor,
[01:33:05.880 --> 01:33:09.880]  and the creditor is going to say, no, I'm not reporting erroneous information.
[01:33:09.880 --> 01:33:15.880]  And in a sense, they would not be reporting erroneous information at that point,
[01:33:15.880 --> 01:33:18.880]  because if you're late on the payments or not making them or whatever,
[01:33:18.880 --> 01:33:23.880]  then for them to report that you were late or that you didn't make the payment,
[01:33:23.880 --> 01:33:25.880]  it would not be erroneous information.
[01:33:25.880 --> 01:33:27.880]  So I don't think you're going to get anywhere with that.
[01:33:27.880 --> 01:33:28.880]  Right, okay.
[01:33:28.880 --> 01:33:32.880]  And the preliminary injunction, what's the, is the venue the U.S. District Court
[01:33:32.880 --> 01:33:34.880]  or is it a state court?
[01:33:34.880 --> 01:33:37.880]  I'm sorry, you kind of threw me for a loop with that comment about the CFRA
[01:33:37.880 --> 01:33:40.880]  and everything and how it's actually administered.
[01:33:40.880 --> 01:33:44.880]  Well, it depends on what action you have before the court.
[01:33:44.880 --> 01:33:50.880]  The only time you can ask a court for an injunction is if you filed a complaint
[01:33:50.880 --> 01:33:55.880]  in the court and you've given the court jurisdiction over the parties.
[01:33:55.880 --> 01:33:59.880]  So have you filed or are you anticipating filing a civil action?
[01:33:59.880 --> 01:34:02.880]  Yes, I anticipate doing so, yes.
[01:34:02.880 --> 01:34:08.880]  Then whichever court you filed the action into, you would file, along with it,
[01:34:08.880 --> 01:34:12.880]  you would file a petition for preliminary injunction.
[01:34:12.880 --> 01:34:17.880]  Okay, and that preliminary injunction would be to the effect that, you know,
[01:34:17.880 --> 01:34:25.880]  restraining the creditor from making any advances or any mentions
[01:34:25.880 --> 01:34:30.880]  in the credit reporting agencies as to anything related to this loan.
[01:34:30.880 --> 01:34:31.880]  Exactly.
[01:34:31.880 --> 01:34:32.880]  I see.
[01:34:32.880 --> 01:34:36.880]  All right, what's your gut reaction as to, you know, how likely that is to be,
[01:34:36.880 --> 01:34:39.880]  you know, permitted?
[01:34:39.880 --> 01:34:45.880]  Well, generally they don't like to give these kinds,
[01:34:45.880 --> 01:34:49.880]  they don't like to restrict people, but if you can make a good argument.
[01:34:49.880 --> 01:34:52.880]  One of the things we're suggesting people do is if you sue,
[01:34:52.880 --> 01:34:58.880]  also ask for a loan modification because then you can go to the court
[01:34:58.880 --> 01:35:02.880]  and ask for preliminary injunction telling them that it is a common practice
[01:35:02.880 --> 01:35:09.880]  of the lenders to pretend to go into loan modification
[01:35:09.880 --> 01:35:17.880]  and give you partial disclosure of an intent to enter into loan modification
[01:35:17.880 --> 01:35:21.880]  but not give you full disclosure in failing to disclose
[01:35:21.880 --> 01:35:24.880]  that they have no intention of giving you a loan modification,
[01:35:24.880 --> 01:35:30.880]  but rather intend to use the modification procedure to lead you up to foreclosure.
[01:35:30.880 --> 01:35:32.880]  Yes, sir.
[01:35:32.880 --> 01:35:39.880]  So to ensure that the lender negotiates in good faith on the loan modification,
[01:35:39.880 --> 01:35:45.880]  which, if it is fruitful, will render the civil action moot
[01:35:45.880 --> 01:35:48.880]  and you won't have to deal with it,
[01:35:48.880 --> 01:35:54.880]  we ask the judge to enjoin them against foreclosure procedures
[01:35:54.880 --> 01:36:00.880]  until such time as the modification negotiations are brought to completion
[01:36:00.880 --> 01:36:06.880]  or until the culmination of the civil litigation.
[01:36:06.880 --> 01:36:11.880]  This is kind of an after the fact question, but if you do that
[01:36:11.880 --> 01:36:16.880]  and then down the line it becomes evident or the creditors try to argue in court
[01:36:16.880 --> 01:36:21.880]  that they feel that you dealt in bad faith
[01:36:21.880 --> 01:36:24.880]  because when it came to negotiating a loan modification,
[01:36:24.880 --> 01:36:28.880]  you negotiated so far down that you might as well say that you were going for rescission.
[01:36:28.880 --> 01:36:32.880]  Would the judge very possibly look at that as operating in bad faith
[01:36:32.880 --> 01:36:37.880]  to put in that stipulation the way you're suggesting?
[01:36:37.880 --> 01:36:39.880]  Yes, of course.
[01:36:39.880 --> 01:36:44.880]  If you're outrageous, everything you've got to consider,
[01:36:44.880 --> 01:36:49.880]  always think what's going to look good in front of a jury.
[01:36:49.880 --> 01:36:55.880]  So if it looks good to a jury, it'll pretty well look good to the judge.
[01:36:55.880 --> 01:37:04.880]  Even if, you know, what we do is we run the numbers on the note
[01:37:04.880 --> 01:37:09.880]  and come up with a very large fraud claim against the lender.
[01:37:09.880 --> 01:37:11.880]  Generally, if it's a $300,000 note,
[01:37:11.880 --> 01:37:16.880]  we'll generally get one to 1.2 million claim against the lender.
[01:37:16.880 --> 01:37:21.880]  We'll run the modification and say, look, guys, we're really reasonable.
[01:37:21.880 --> 01:37:24.880]  Look at all this crap all of you pulled on us.
[01:37:24.880 --> 01:37:29.880]  I'll tell you what, you pay me three times the amount of the original principal
[01:37:29.880 --> 01:37:34.880]  and give me clear title and I'll drop all the rest of this.
[01:37:34.880 --> 01:37:37.880]  And they're going to say, holy crap, that's not reasonable.
[01:37:37.880 --> 01:37:41.880]  And you're going to go to the judge and say, look at this, jury read this?
[01:37:41.880 --> 01:37:43.880]  They're going to be ticked off with these guys.
[01:37:43.880 --> 01:37:45.880]  They're going to give me the full amount.
[01:37:45.880 --> 01:37:46.880]  Who's being reasonable?
[01:37:46.880 --> 01:37:49.880]  So it's an argument of who's being reasonable and who's not.
[01:37:49.880 --> 01:37:50.880]  I see.
[01:37:50.880 --> 01:37:54.880]  So you kind of front load it with the best and most reasonable argument you can
[01:37:54.880 --> 01:38:00.880]  as to how much the fraud would amount to so that when it comes to the bargaining table,
[01:38:00.880 --> 01:38:03.880]  you can whittle your way down to what amounts to a very good deal for you.
[01:38:03.880 --> 01:38:04.880]  Exactly.
[01:38:04.880 --> 01:38:05.880]  I see. I see.
[01:38:05.880 --> 01:38:06.880]  Okay.
[01:38:06.880 --> 01:38:09.880]  This is all extremely good and I'll have to go back and listen to the archive.
[01:38:09.880 --> 01:38:10.880]  Okay.
[01:38:10.880 --> 01:38:14.880]  Keep in mind, this is poker.
[01:38:14.880 --> 01:38:15.880]  It's poker.
[01:38:15.880 --> 01:38:17.880]  The courts are a crap shoot.
[01:38:17.880 --> 01:38:18.880]  Yeah.
[01:38:18.880 --> 01:38:19.880]  They are corrupt.
[01:38:19.880 --> 01:38:23.880]  Everything is about the deal.
[01:38:23.880 --> 01:38:26.880]  Does it matter in your opinion whether I try to push this into, you know,
[01:38:26.880 --> 01:38:31.880]  the original civil proceedings into state court versus federal court?
[01:38:31.880 --> 01:38:32.880]  Do you think it matters that much?
[01:38:32.880 --> 01:38:34.880]  Depends on the state you're in.
[01:38:34.880 --> 01:38:35.880]  Look at what's happening.
[01:38:35.880 --> 01:38:36.880]  Okay.
[01:38:36.880 --> 01:38:37.880]  Look what's happening in the state.
[01:38:37.880 --> 01:38:41.880]  Is the attorney general going after the lenders?
[01:38:41.880 --> 01:38:47.880]  Massachusetts, they're passing laws hammering the lenders.
[01:38:47.880 --> 01:38:50.880]  New York is taking action against the lenders.
[01:38:50.880 --> 01:38:55.880]  If your state is getting impatient with these lenders,
[01:38:55.880 --> 01:39:00.880]  investigating them for criminal acts and their shenanigans,
[01:39:00.880 --> 01:39:05.880]  then likely the courts will begin to rule more in your favor.
[01:39:05.880 --> 01:39:06.880]  It's hard to tell.
[01:39:06.880 --> 01:39:08.880]  You have to look at the jurisdiction.
[01:39:08.880 --> 01:39:13.880]  We generally prefer the federal courts because one thing,
[01:39:13.880 --> 01:39:16.880]  they treat you differently in the federal courts,
[01:39:16.880 --> 01:39:24.880]  and we can do research on one set of law instead of 50 states.
[01:39:24.880 --> 01:39:25.880]  Yeah.
[01:39:25.880 --> 01:39:27.880]  Because of the variability,
[01:39:27.880 --> 01:39:35.880]  we make a product available to the borrower that's relatively inexpensive
[01:39:35.880 --> 01:39:40.880]  compared to what lawyers would cost that allows them to get into court,
[01:39:40.880 --> 01:39:44.880]  pro se, and handle the stuff on the front end.
[01:39:44.880 --> 01:39:48.880]  They'll eventually need an attorney, almost certainly.
[01:39:48.880 --> 01:39:52.880]  But not for the bulk of the work on the front end.
[01:39:52.880 --> 01:39:54.880]  Pro se can do that.
[01:39:54.880 --> 01:39:59.880]  It saves a lot, but we can't research out all 50 states.
[01:39:59.880 --> 01:40:00.880]  Wow.
[01:40:00.880 --> 01:40:01.880]  Okay.
[01:40:01.880 --> 01:40:06.880]  This is an excellent advice because I think we'd still like to push forward
[01:40:06.880 --> 01:40:07.880]  with the whole process,
[01:40:07.880 --> 01:40:12.880]  but it definitely makes it sweeter if we can somehow whittle our way into
[01:40:12.880 --> 01:40:15.880]  no longer making mortgage payment because every month it goes by,
[01:40:15.880 --> 01:40:17.880]  that's extra money in our pocket.
[01:40:17.880 --> 01:40:20.880]  I don't think that there's going to be any way for you to get around that
[01:40:20.880 --> 01:40:24.880]  without messing up your credit and possibly throwing you into foreclosure.
[01:40:24.880 --> 01:40:26.880]  I seriously doubt that a court,
[01:40:26.880 --> 01:40:31.880]  any judge is going to award a preliminary injunction like that to prohibit
[01:40:31.880 --> 01:40:35.880]  the creditor from making negative entries on your credit report
[01:40:35.880 --> 01:40:41.880]  so that you can stop making payments when the litigation has just barely started.
[01:40:41.880 --> 01:40:44.880]  I mean, you're going to have to make a decision that either you're going to
[01:40:44.880 --> 01:40:47.880]  stop making the payments and take the risk of foreclosure and bad credit
[01:40:47.880 --> 01:40:49.880]  and then try to repair it later,
[01:40:49.880 --> 01:40:53.880]  or just keep making the payments and then just get the money back later.
[01:40:53.880 --> 01:40:56.880]  That's really your only option if you want to be safe.
[01:40:56.880 --> 01:40:59.880]  You can certainly take the shot at them.
[01:40:59.880 --> 01:41:03.880]  I mean, all the judges do say yes or no.
[01:41:03.880 --> 01:41:04.880]  Yes, that's what you mean.
[01:41:04.880 --> 01:41:06.880]  Just keep making payments until the judge says yes or no.
[01:41:06.880 --> 01:41:08.880]  Are you up to date?
[01:41:08.880 --> 01:41:09.880]  Oh, yes.
[01:41:09.880 --> 01:41:10.880]  That's a good time to go after.
[01:41:10.880 --> 01:41:14.880]  It's better to just stay up to date because otherwise you're going to put
[01:41:14.880 --> 01:41:20.880]  yourself in a situation of harming your credit and you're going to limit your
[01:41:20.880 --> 01:41:25.880]  time as far as your time schedule being able to deal with this.
[01:41:25.880 --> 01:41:29.880]  Actually, if you're not in foreclosure when you file the suit,
[01:41:29.880 --> 01:41:31.880]  it's a whole lot easier to get a preliminary injunction.
[01:41:31.880 --> 01:41:32.880]  Exactly.
[01:41:32.880 --> 01:41:33.880]  That's the whole point.
[01:41:33.880 --> 01:41:42.880]  So if you're up to date going in, then even if you stop paying the payments,
[01:41:42.880 --> 01:41:48.880]  the court will almost never allow them to pursue foreclosure because you can
[01:41:48.880 --> 01:41:50.880]  say to the court, look at this claim I've got against them.
[01:41:50.880 --> 01:41:54.880]  If I win this claim, they're just going to have to give me all of this money
[01:41:54.880 --> 01:41:55.880]  back with interest.
[01:41:55.880 --> 01:41:58.880]  The court may not allow them to pursue foreclosure,
[01:41:58.880 --> 01:42:01.880]  but whether or not the court's going to prohibit them from making negative
[01:42:01.880 --> 01:42:04.880]  interest on your credit report, that's another story.
[01:42:04.880 --> 01:42:08.880]  All you can do is ask, and if the judge says no, then you make your decision.
[01:42:08.880 --> 01:42:12.880]  Well, you two have been a very good yin and yang to me in this respect,
[01:42:12.880 --> 01:42:16.880]  and I thank you for your opposing strategies and thoughts on that,
[01:42:16.880 --> 01:42:21.880]  Deborah, for your sage advice and, Randy, for your go-get-em-tiger kind of thing.
[01:42:21.880 --> 01:42:25.880]  Well, I'm saying go get them, too, but I'm just being realistic.
[01:42:25.880 --> 01:42:29.880]  I mean, you can ask, but I just don't think it's likely that you're going to
[01:42:29.880 --> 01:42:31.880]  get that.
[01:42:31.880 --> 01:42:32.880]  That's all.
[01:42:32.880 --> 01:42:35.880]  And with that in mind, it does argue for just not stopping the payments until
[01:42:35.880 --> 01:42:39.880]  you get that preliminary injunction should you be able to whittle it out of
[01:42:39.880 --> 01:42:40.880]  them.
[01:42:40.880 --> 01:42:44.880]  And not stopping the payments certainly argues for, like you said,
[01:42:44.880 --> 01:42:47.880]  going in with a strong hand, you know.
[01:42:47.880 --> 01:42:49.880]  Well, it just makes you look better.
[01:42:49.880 --> 01:42:53.880]  You go in when you're not behind, you've got a really strong hand.
[01:42:53.880 --> 01:42:55.880]  Yeah, good, good, good.
[01:42:55.880 --> 01:42:56.880]  Okay, thanks, folks.
[01:42:56.880 --> 01:42:58.880]  Okay, thank you, Michael.
[01:42:58.880 --> 01:42:59.880]  All righty, take it.
[01:42:59.880 --> 01:43:02.880]  Okay, we're going to Michael Anthony in New York.
[01:43:02.880 --> 01:43:05.880]  Michael Anthony, what is your question?
[01:43:05.880 --> 01:43:06.880]  Hey, guys, how you doing tonight?
[01:43:06.880 --> 01:43:07.880]  Pretty good.
[01:43:07.880 --> 01:43:09.880]  Good show, good show.
[01:43:09.880 --> 01:43:13.880]  A while ago, Randy, when he was in California, brought a guest on,
[01:43:13.880 --> 01:43:16.880]  and he was talking about associations.
[01:43:16.880 --> 01:43:19.880]  And you folks were going to investigate that, I think.
[01:43:19.880 --> 01:43:21.880]  Did you ever do anything with it?
[01:43:21.880 --> 01:43:25.880]  What is your determination and status on that?
[01:43:25.880 --> 01:43:29.880]  We, I've set up a couple of these associations.
[01:43:29.880 --> 01:43:34.880]  But at this point, I haven't found sufficient standing to make me as
[01:43:34.880 --> 01:43:38.880]  comfortable with them as I would like to be.
[01:43:38.880 --> 01:43:39.880]  Okay.
[01:43:39.880 --> 01:43:44.880]  There's very little case law on it, and that was really the best argument
[01:43:44.880 --> 01:43:48.880]  in their favor, but it's not really good enough for me to...
[01:43:48.880 --> 01:43:50.880]  I still like the trust set up.
[01:43:50.880 --> 01:43:53.880]  I've studied a lot of cases, and generally the government does not
[01:43:53.880 --> 01:43:55.880]  break the trust.
[01:43:55.880 --> 01:43:57.880]  They just find that people are fraudulently using them.
[01:43:57.880 --> 01:44:00.880]  We'll be right back.
[01:44:00.880 --> 01:44:02.880]  More energy.
[01:44:02.880 --> 01:44:04.880]  Stronger immune power.
[01:44:04.880 --> 01:44:07.880]  Improved sense of well-being.
[01:44:07.880 --> 01:44:11.880]  How many supplements have you heard boast of these benefits?
[01:44:11.880 --> 01:44:14.880]  The team behind Centrition believes that supplements should
[01:44:14.880 --> 01:44:16.880]  over-deliver on their promises.
[01:44:16.880 --> 01:44:20.880]  And Centrition does just that.
[01:44:20.880 --> 01:44:24.880]  Centrition utilizes the ancient healing wisdom of Chinese medicine.
[01:44:24.880 --> 01:44:28.880]  In conjunction with the science of modern nutrition, adaptogenic herbs
[01:44:28.880 --> 01:44:32.880]  serve as the healing component, and organic hemp protein and greens
[01:44:32.880 --> 01:44:36.880]  and superfoods act as a balanced nutrient base.
[01:44:36.880 --> 01:44:40.880]  Plus, Centrition tastes great in just water.
[01:44:40.880 --> 01:44:43.880]  This powder supplement is everything you'd want in a product,
[01:44:43.880 --> 01:44:46.880]  and it's all natural.
[01:44:46.880 --> 01:44:54.880]  Visit Centrition.com to order yours or call 1-866-497-7436.
[01:44:54.880 --> 01:44:59.880]  After you use Centrition, you'll believe in supplements again.
[01:44:59.880 --> 01:45:02.880]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:02.880 --> 01:45:06.880]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary,
[01:45:06.880 --> 01:45:11.880]  the affordable, easy-to-understand 4-CD course that will show you how
[01:45:11.880 --> 01:45:14.880]  in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[01:45:14.880 --> 01:45:18.880]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:45:18.880 --> 01:45:22.880]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:22.880 --> 01:45:27.880]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can, too.
[01:45:27.880 --> 01:45:31.880]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years
[01:45:31.880 --> 01:45:33.880]  of case-winning experience.
[01:45:33.880 --> 01:45:37.880]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should
[01:45:37.880 --> 01:45:42.880]  understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:42.880 --> 01:45:46.880]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials,
[01:45:46.880 --> 01:45:51.880]  forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:45:51.880 --> 01:45:55.880]  Please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com and click on the banner
[01:45:55.880 --> 01:46:01.880]  or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:25.880 --> 01:46:48.880]  Okay, we are back.
[01:46:48.880 --> 01:46:49.880]  We've got one more segment.
[01:46:49.880 --> 01:46:51.880]  We're going to try to blaze through your calls.
[01:46:51.880 --> 01:46:53.880]  We've got four callers on the board right now,
[01:46:53.880 --> 01:46:57.880]  so everyone must try to be as succinct as possible.
[01:46:57.880 --> 01:47:03.880]  Michael, yeah, from my perspective, I still like the trust setups better
[01:47:03.880 --> 01:47:07.880]  because we're talking hundreds of years of jurisprudence
[01:47:07.880 --> 01:47:13.880]  and court cases to support it, and as far as the government breaking trust,
[01:47:13.880 --> 01:47:18.880]  my research has shown that, well, in general when it comes to IRS issues,
[01:47:18.880 --> 01:47:21.880]  the IRS does not try to break the trust.
[01:47:21.880 --> 01:47:24.880]  The government never really tries to break the trust.
[01:47:24.880 --> 01:47:26.880]  The government hardly ever breaks the trust.
[01:47:26.880 --> 01:47:28.880]  I've never seen a case where it did.
[01:47:28.880 --> 01:47:32.880]  They just find that people are fraudulently using trust to hide income
[01:47:32.880 --> 01:47:37.880]  and stuff like that, so, you know, it's how you use a setup.
[01:47:37.880 --> 01:47:40.880]  It's not so much whether a setup is legal or legitimate or something.
[01:47:40.880 --> 01:47:45.880]  It's how it's used, but I still advocate for the tried and true,
[01:47:45.880 --> 01:47:48.880]  and I guess Randy's saying he hasn't seen enough information yet
[01:47:48.880 --> 01:47:50.880]  as far as associations.
[01:47:50.880 --> 01:47:55.880]  So you're saying then the association appears as though it could be kind of underhanded?
[01:47:55.880 --> 01:47:56.880]  Well, no, not necessarily.
[01:47:56.880 --> 01:47:57.880]  No, not at all.
[01:47:57.880 --> 01:47:58.880]  Not at all.
[01:47:58.880 --> 01:48:00.880]  It's a legitimate setup, and there are state laws
[01:48:00.880 --> 01:48:03.880]  that govern associations pretty much in every state.
[01:48:03.880 --> 01:48:08.880]  I mean, an association in and of itself is no more underhanded than a trust.
[01:48:08.880 --> 01:48:10.880]  It's no more underhanded than a corporation.
[01:48:10.880 --> 01:48:12.880]  It's no more underhanded than any other kind of entity.
[01:48:12.880 --> 01:48:16.880]  It's how you use it is the issue.
[01:48:16.880 --> 01:48:23.880]  The only thing I was saying is I haven't seen enough information
[01:48:23.880 --> 01:48:30.880]  to show that they are bulletproof.
[01:48:30.880 --> 01:48:34.880]  You know, these guys are saying, oh, RR has never come after any of my trusts.
[01:48:34.880 --> 01:48:36.880]  I said, well, okay.
[01:48:36.880 --> 01:48:38.880]  That just means they've never, I mean, any of these associations,
[01:48:38.880 --> 01:48:42.880]  that just means they haven't come after his associations.
[01:48:42.880 --> 01:48:50.880]  That doesn't mean they're any less vulnerable to an IRS claim than a trust.
[01:48:50.880 --> 01:48:54.880]  So I haven't seen anything to establish much of a difference.
[01:48:54.880 --> 01:48:58.880]  Okay, well, I had a situation with my Social Security check.
[01:48:58.880 --> 01:49:04.880]  The IRS came in and took about almost $200 out of my Social Security check.
[01:49:04.880 --> 01:49:10.880]  And I was thinking with the association, if that money got put into the association,
[01:49:10.880 --> 01:49:13.880]  I thought there would be a way to stop them from doing that
[01:49:13.880 --> 01:49:16.880]  because there's been no court judification on nothing.
[01:49:16.880 --> 01:49:20.880]  Not necessarily because the check is still written to you
[01:49:20.880 --> 01:49:24.880]  and then you would have to endorse it over to the association.
[01:49:24.880 --> 01:49:27.880]  That's not necessarily going to help.
[01:49:27.880 --> 01:49:30.880]  Yeah, the way we're using an association,
[01:49:30.880 --> 01:49:34.880]  the association is the entity creating the income
[01:49:34.880 --> 01:49:38.880]  or through which the income originates.
[01:49:38.880 --> 01:49:40.880]  Now, the Social Security check is coming from the government.
[01:49:40.880 --> 01:49:42.880]  Yeah, and it's going directly to you.
[01:49:42.880 --> 01:49:43.880]  I don't even think a trust can help that.
[01:49:43.880 --> 01:49:47.880]  No, because they're taking the money out before the check's even cut.
[01:49:47.880 --> 01:49:51.880]  Right, right.
[01:49:51.880 --> 01:49:56.880]  I mean, they're taking their piece before the Social Security Administration even writes you the check.
[01:49:56.880 --> 01:50:01.880]  I mean, the only way to get around that is you're just going to have to deal with the IRS directly.
[01:50:01.880 --> 01:50:06.880]  Okay, with the business then, we'll say, for instance, with the tractor trailer,
[01:50:06.880 --> 01:50:13.880]  if there was an association and the money went right into the association from what the truck made,
[01:50:13.880 --> 01:50:16.880]  that would be a way whereby they wouldn't be able to take it, correct?
[01:50:16.880 --> 01:50:23.880]  That, this is not my area, but that would seem to give you a level of isolation.
[01:50:23.880 --> 01:50:24.880]  Right.
[01:50:24.880 --> 01:50:31.880]  I'm not, the IRS is, I know quite a bit about it, but it's not my area of study,
[01:50:31.880 --> 01:50:36.880]  so I'm reluctant to speak definitively about that.
[01:50:36.880 --> 01:50:39.880]  There are other guys who are much better at that than me.
[01:50:39.880 --> 01:50:42.880]  Okay, I just thought I'd run it by and see what you thought.
[01:50:42.880 --> 01:50:47.880]  Okay, another point that I had was when we file a lawsuit, we have to file three documents.
[01:50:47.880 --> 01:50:51.880]  Number one, we have to file a cover sheet, we have to file a notice and a complaint,
[01:50:51.880 --> 01:50:56.880]  and then we have to file an affidavit to go along with it to give the court jurisdiction and the cover sheet.
[01:50:56.880 --> 01:50:58.880]  No, it depends on the nature of the lawsuit.
[01:50:58.880 --> 01:51:06.880]  If you file an affidavit, you generally have to file that if you're asking for an emergency restraining order.
[01:51:06.880 --> 01:51:09.880]  If you're talking about a federal court, I'm not sure about a state court.
[01:51:09.880 --> 01:51:13.880]  You know, the various states may be somewhat different.
[01:51:13.880 --> 01:51:19.880]  Okay, well, the point I was trying to make, what I was going to get to was in a traffic citation,
[01:51:19.880 --> 01:51:24.880]  when they take us into court with just a little yellow piece of paper for a summons,
[01:51:24.880 --> 01:51:30.880]  say a tail light out or inspection or seat belt or talking on the phone or whatever,
[01:51:30.880 --> 01:51:35.880]  they just take us in and they claim jurisdiction with just that piece of paper,
[01:51:35.880 --> 01:51:38.880]  and it's never brought to the attention of the court to my knowledge.
[01:51:38.880 --> 01:51:41.880]  It's going to depend from state to state.
[01:51:41.880 --> 01:51:42.880]  You're in New York.
[01:51:42.880 --> 01:51:45.880]  In some states, the citation is enough.
[01:51:45.880 --> 01:51:49.880]  In other states, it's not.
[01:51:49.880 --> 01:51:51.880]  But what the administrative...
[01:51:51.880 --> 01:51:53.880]  Eddie knows more about this.
[01:51:53.880 --> 01:51:56.880]  And we only have like six minutes left.
[01:51:56.880 --> 01:51:57.880]  We've got three other callers.
[01:51:57.880 --> 01:51:59.880]  So can we maybe...
[01:51:59.880 --> 01:52:04.880]  Eddie, do you have a quick answer or can we address this on Monday night, on traffic night?
[01:52:04.880 --> 01:52:09.880]  As far as I know, in New York, the citation is not a valid complaint.
[01:52:09.880 --> 01:52:12.880]  Right, right.
[01:52:12.880 --> 01:52:22.880]  And so therefore, a 12B6, you could bring that into the court by not having a statement upon which a relief could be granted.
[01:52:22.880 --> 01:52:24.880]  No, that's a whole different issue.
[01:52:24.880 --> 01:52:31.880]  Was 12B6 the same as the federal rules adopted in New York as the state rules?
[01:52:31.880 --> 01:52:33.880]  It's pretty close.
[01:52:33.880 --> 01:52:40.880]  If it's pretty close, then, yeah, 12B6 is essentially a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction.
[01:52:40.880 --> 01:52:41.880]  Correct.
[01:52:41.880 --> 01:52:45.880]  They don't have jurisdiction because they don't have all the necessary foundation documents.
[01:52:45.880 --> 01:52:46.880]  Exactly.
[01:52:46.880 --> 01:52:56.880]  Well, look at what constitutes not just a complaint. In Texas, for instance, a proper charging instrument and a complaint are not the same thing.
[01:52:56.880 --> 01:53:03.880]  In fact, a charging instrument cannot exist without a valid complaint existing first.
[01:53:03.880 --> 01:53:05.880]  Right, with a damaged party.
[01:53:05.880 --> 01:53:12.880]  And the charging instrument is what conveys jurisdiction to the courts of Texas, not the complaint.
[01:53:12.880 --> 01:53:13.880]  Correct.
[01:53:13.880 --> 01:53:18.880]  Okay, Michael, why don't you call back in on Monday because we let you have three questions and we've got very limited time.
[01:53:18.880 --> 01:53:19.880]  Very good.
[01:53:19.880 --> 01:53:20.880]  And we need to take some other calls.
[01:53:20.880 --> 01:53:21.880]  Thank you.
[01:53:21.880 --> 01:53:22.880]  Okay.
[01:53:22.880 --> 01:53:25.880]  Okay, we're going now to Mark in Wisconsin.
[01:53:25.880 --> 01:53:28.880]  Okay, Mark, what is your question or comment?
[01:53:28.880 --> 01:53:32.880]  Oh, I was just going to mention that guy called the FDCPA and SCRA.
[01:53:32.880 --> 01:53:39.880]  The SCRA is federal, but they do have parallel statutes that kind of are the same.
[01:53:39.880 --> 01:53:43.880]  I'm unaware of any states that have better statutes than the Fed.
[01:53:43.880 --> 01:53:44.880]  Right.
[01:53:44.880 --> 01:53:49.880]  As far as him getting that stuff off his credit report, I don't think an injunction is going to do anything.
[01:53:49.880 --> 01:53:52.880]  He can get that in a settlement agreement when he goes to sue them.
[01:53:52.880 --> 01:53:54.880]  Right. That's what I was thinking.
[01:53:54.880 --> 01:54:03.880]  You want to dispute with the original creditor and the credit bureaus, and you verify and validate with third parties.
[01:54:03.880 --> 01:54:05.880]  Right.
[01:54:05.880 --> 01:54:09.880]  So if I was him, I would send a dispute letter definitely to the original creditor
[01:54:09.880 --> 01:54:15.880]  because he can stack up $1,000 a month per credit bureau if they don't mark his account in dispute.
[01:54:15.880 --> 01:54:16.880]  That's all I had.
[01:54:16.880 --> 01:54:17.880]  Thanks a lot.
[01:54:17.880 --> 01:54:20.880]  Mark's the pro in this area.
[01:54:20.880 --> 01:54:21.880]  I got one going right now.
[01:54:21.880 --> 01:54:22.880]  This will be my third one, Betty.
[01:54:22.880 --> 01:54:24.880]  Good for you, Mark.
[01:54:24.880 --> 01:54:25.880]  Have a good night.
[01:54:25.880 --> 01:54:26.880]  Okay.
[01:54:26.880 --> 01:54:30.880]  All right, we're going now to JD in Texas.
[01:54:30.880 --> 01:54:37.880]  Deborah, this is JD here in Austin, and Randy, we've got something in common.
[01:54:37.880 --> 01:54:40.880]  We're both Korean vets.
[01:54:40.880 --> 01:54:42.880]  And I was wanting to comment on...
[01:54:42.880 --> 01:54:43.880]  Wait a minute.
[01:54:43.880 --> 01:54:44.880]  Wait a minute.
[01:54:44.880 --> 01:54:45.880]  Ouch.
[01:54:45.880 --> 01:54:48.880]  He's a Vietnam vet.
[01:54:48.880 --> 01:54:52.880]  Why don't you stick me now with a sharp stick?
[01:54:52.880 --> 01:54:57.880]  Now I am old because I do have dirt out in the front yard.
[01:54:57.880 --> 01:54:59.880]  But you're not that old.
[01:54:59.880 --> 01:55:00.880]  Okay.
[01:55:00.880 --> 01:55:01.880]  Okay.
[01:55:01.880 --> 01:55:02.880]  I stand corrected.
[01:55:02.880 --> 01:55:05.880]  Actually, Eddie's a Korean vet.
[01:55:05.880 --> 01:55:06.880]  Oh, is that right?
[01:55:06.880 --> 01:55:08.880]  No, he's not.
[01:55:08.880 --> 01:55:09.880]  I've been to Korea.
[01:55:09.880 --> 01:55:13.880]  I didn't fight in Korea unless you count downtown after hours.
[01:55:13.880 --> 01:55:14.880]  Well, I didn't fight either.
[01:55:14.880 --> 01:55:16.880]  I was there, but I didn't fight.
[01:55:16.880 --> 01:55:22.880]  What I wanted to comment on was last week we was talking about your discussion whether
[01:55:22.880 --> 01:55:28.880]  or not we was fighting against a corporation or what we was fighting against.
[01:55:28.880 --> 01:55:32.880]  I contend that we're fighting a mafia.
[01:55:32.880 --> 01:55:33.880]  Indeed.
[01:55:33.880 --> 01:55:39.880]  And the executive branch, the Congress, the Senate, Supreme Court, and all the government
[01:55:39.880 --> 01:55:42.880]  departments are just...
[01:55:42.880 --> 01:55:43.880]  They're...
[01:55:43.880 --> 01:55:46.880]  Oh, what are you?
[01:55:46.880 --> 01:55:47.880]  Fronts.
[01:55:47.880 --> 01:55:48.880]  They're fronts.
[01:55:48.880 --> 01:55:49.880]  Okay?
[01:55:49.880 --> 01:55:54.880]  This includes the Republican Party, the Democratic Party.
[01:55:54.880 --> 01:56:01.880]  And I've always said ever since 1964, treason is the reason.
[01:56:01.880 --> 01:56:05.880]  Anybody have any comments?
[01:56:05.880 --> 01:56:08.880]  You have a good point about the mafia side.
[01:56:08.880 --> 01:56:10.880]  It's organized crime.
[01:56:10.880 --> 01:56:14.880]  And it is very organized and it is very criminal.
[01:56:14.880 --> 01:56:15.880]  Well, yes.
[01:56:15.880 --> 01:56:20.880]  And we're cooking up RICO lawsuits and state RICO, which in Texas it's called the Street
[01:56:20.880 --> 01:56:21.880]  Gang Statute.
[01:56:21.880 --> 01:56:22.880]  Oh, good.
[01:56:22.880 --> 01:56:33.880]  That's what they're all guilty of, mafia tactics, wherever you find them.
[01:56:33.880 --> 01:56:40.880]  Well, I grew up in Chicago and I knew a lot of the wise guys.
[01:56:40.880 --> 01:56:46.880]  And what our government's doing now is far, far worse.
[01:56:46.880 --> 01:56:48.880]  Yes, treason.
[01:56:48.880 --> 01:56:55.880]  Yeah, if you treated these guys with a little bit of respect and didn't try to steal from
[01:56:55.880 --> 01:56:59.880]  them, you'd never have any problem with them.
[01:56:59.880 --> 01:57:03.880]  The government doesn't make any difference what you do.
[01:57:03.880 --> 01:57:05.880]  You have a problem with it.
[01:57:05.880 --> 01:57:06.880]  Correct.
[01:57:06.880 --> 01:57:11.880]  Doesn't matter how much you pay them, you didn't pay them enough.
[01:57:11.880 --> 01:57:16.880]  Well, yeah, because they're not going to stop until they take all of our property and kill
[01:57:16.880 --> 01:57:18.880]  80% of us.
[01:57:18.880 --> 01:57:20.880]  Because that's their agenda.
[01:57:20.880 --> 01:57:25.880]  I mean, at least with the mafias on the streets of Chicago, they're not out to wipe out 80%
[01:57:25.880 --> 01:57:32.880]  of the city's population and steal everyone's land and property.
[01:57:32.880 --> 01:57:35.880]  So yeah, we're dealing with something much more serious here.
[01:57:35.880 --> 01:57:38.880]  Yeah, but they're using mafia tactics.
[01:57:38.880 --> 01:57:40.880]  Of course.
[01:57:40.880 --> 01:57:42.880]  Okay, that's all I have.
[01:57:42.880 --> 01:57:43.880]  Well, thank you.
[01:57:43.880 --> 01:57:44.880]  Thank you.
[01:57:44.880 --> 01:57:45.880]  Thank you, JD.
[01:57:45.880 --> 01:57:46.880]  Bye-bye.
[01:57:46.880 --> 01:57:47.880]  Bye-bye.
[01:57:47.880 --> 01:57:48.880]  Okay.
[01:57:48.880 --> 01:57:49.880]  That just about wraps it up tonight.
[01:57:49.880 --> 01:57:51.880]  We don't have time for any more callers.
[01:57:51.880 --> 01:57:52.880]  Robin from Florida, sorry.
[01:57:52.880 --> 01:57:56.880]  Maybe you could call back in on Monday or next week.
[01:57:56.880 --> 01:57:59.880]  Folks, don't forget to support our sponsors.
[01:57:59.880 --> 01:58:05.880]  Get Eddie's Traffic Seminar, the Mike Miras Method for debt collectors and creditors, how
[01:58:05.880 --> 01:58:06.880]  to deal with them.
[01:58:06.880 --> 01:58:13.880]  Of course, Juris Dictionary, Learning the Basics, Get Our CDs, Route 1 and Three Shoes
[01:58:13.880 --> 01:58:15.880]  Posse, Chintrician.
[01:58:15.880 --> 01:58:21.880]  Please support our sponsors, Capricoin and Boolean, of course.
[01:58:21.880 --> 01:58:25.880]  We will be back on Monday for Eddie's Traffic Night.
[01:58:25.880 --> 01:58:27.880]  Thank you for joining us tonight.
[01:58:27.880 --> 01:58:44.880]  We hope you folks have a very blessed weekend.
[01:58:44.880 --> 01:59:12.880]  Thank you so much.
[01:59:12.880 --> 01:59:14.880]  Bye-bye.
[01:59:42.880 --> 01:59:57.880]  Bye-bye.