[00:00.000 --> 00:05.840]  The following newsflash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing your jelly
[00:05.840 --> 00:13.440]  bulletins for the commodity market, today in history, news updates, and the inside scoop
[00:13.440 --> 00:21.520]  into the tides of the alternative.
[00:21.520 --> 00:28.040]  Markets for the 28th of August, 2015 open up with gold at $1,131.16 an ounce, silver
[00:28.040 --> 00:34.760]  at $14.55 an ounce, Texas crude at $42.56 an ounce, and Bitcoin is currently sitting
[00:34.760 --> 00:43.780]  in about 225 U.S. currency.
[00:43.780 --> 00:49.160]  Today in history, Wednesday, August 28, 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. delivers his I Have
[00:49.160 --> 00:58.000]  a Dream speech before a civil rights march at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.
[00:58.000 --> 01:01.900]  In recent news, McDonald's and Tyson Foods have both cut business ties with the Tennessee
[01:01.900 --> 01:06.000]  Farmer where workers were captured brutally stabbing, clubbing, and stomping on chickens
[01:06.000 --> 01:08.920]  by an undercover video obtained by animal rights activists.
[01:08.920 --> 01:13.200]  A Tyson spokesperson stated that animal well-being is a priority at our company and we will not
[01:13.200 --> 01:16.480]  tolerate the unacceptable animal treatment shown in this video.
[01:16.480 --> 01:20.160]  McDonald's stated that we are committed to working with animal welfare and industry experts
[01:20.160 --> 01:24.320]  to inform our policies that promote better management, strong employee education, and
[01:24.320 --> 01:26.040]  verifications of practices.
[01:26.040 --> 01:30.200]  The weekly county sheriff's office also stated that it had opened an investigation into the
[01:30.200 --> 01:31.200]  farm.
[01:31.200 --> 01:35.040]  Nathan Runkle, president of Mercy for Animals, said at a news conference to remember for
[01:35.040 --> 01:39.440]  the last five years in a row Tyson awarded Grower of the Year to this facility.
[01:39.440 --> 01:41.260]  So it's too little, too late.
[01:41.260 --> 01:44.240]  One does have to wonder if investigations into the treatment of animals by the other
[01:44.240 --> 01:53.400]  contracted farmers and ranchers ever take place.
[01:53.400 --> 01:58.000]  The Texas Civil Rights Project and the Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid are representing 17 Mexican
[01:58.000 --> 02:02.200]  and Central American families in a lawsuit against the Lone Star State because the Texas
[02:02.200 --> 02:06.960]  County's registrar's office has been refusing to accept parents who present foreign national
[02:06.960 --> 02:09.200]  passports as a valid form of identification.
[02:09.200 --> 02:12.560]  Subsequently, they are being denied birth certificates to their children.
[02:12.560 --> 02:16.400]  The families are claiming that the registrars are violating the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection
[02:16.400 --> 02:19.260]  Clause as well as violating the Supremacy Clause.
[02:19.260 --> 02:23.080]  The Texas Attorney General's office has apparently asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit saying
[02:23.080 --> 02:26.800]  the agency is protected from litigation by the 11th Amendment and that the state cannot
[02:26.800 --> 02:30.160]  be taken to federal court under its sovereign immunity provisions.
[02:30.160 --> 02:38.760]  Legal experts, however, are saying that the case is likely to go forward to court.
[02:38.760 --> 02:42.680]  Tomorrow night, August 29th, we'll host the first supermoon of the three expected this
[02:42.680 --> 02:43.680]  fall.
[02:43.680 --> 02:44.680]  What does this mean?
[02:44.680 --> 02:48.320]  Well, the full moon cycle coincides with the moon's closest approach to Earth during its
[02:48.320 --> 02:49.320]  orbit.
[02:49.320 --> 02:53.280]  The moon appears slightly larger than usual and usually makes for a spectacular view.
[03:19.320 --> 03:46.320]  Today, I'm going to start out with a document that I prepared recently based on a strategy
[03:46.320 --> 03:51.200]  following from a recent Supreme Court ruling, the Jesunowski case.
[03:51.200 --> 04:00.480]  The Jesunowski case defined what rescission was and the way the Supreme Court defined
[04:00.480 --> 04:04.160]  it was a holy mackerel.
[04:04.160 --> 04:12.160]  This turns out to be a really big deal and it seems that I don't hear much from the banks
[04:12.160 --> 04:13.160]  about it.
[04:13.160 --> 04:17.640]  I don't think that they're trying to pretend like this is not there and maybe nobody will
[04:17.640 --> 04:31.000]  notice it, but this is a case where we helped someone and he's in foreclosure and in order
[04:31.000 --> 04:38.640]  to help him, we took a quick claim so we would have standing to address his issues and filed
[04:38.640 --> 04:44.520]  a notice of rescission because the bank had filed a notice of acceleration.
[04:44.520 --> 04:52.760]  When the bank files a notice of acceleration according to the court's foreclosure begins.
[04:52.760 --> 04:59.560]  Once the foreclosure begins, then you have certain rights under the Truth in Lending
[04:59.560 --> 05:09.040]  Act and specifically if you can show an error in the billing from the bank or financial error
[05:09.040 --> 05:16.240]  in excess of $35, the right to rescind is reinvigorated.
[05:16.240 --> 05:29.440]  Similarly, you have three days after entering into a residential mortgage contract to rescind
[05:29.440 --> 05:35.040]  the contract for no reason at all, just because you want to.
[05:35.040 --> 05:39.080]  It's called the Kulevon period.
[05:39.080 --> 05:44.920]  After the three days, you have three years in which to rescind the contract if the bank
[05:44.920 --> 05:53.880]  or the lender has failed to provide all of the necessary notifications.
[05:53.880 --> 06:00.840]  And then after foreclosure, if the bank has charged you more than $35 over what it should
[06:00.840 --> 06:06.040]  have, then your right to rescind is reinvigorated.
[06:06.040 --> 06:13.680]  So we're acting from the right to rescind in foreclosure and I'm going to go through
[06:13.680 --> 06:16.800]  this document that we prepared.
[06:16.800 --> 06:25.240]  There are some interesting issues in here that may give someone an idea or a strategy
[06:25.240 --> 06:26.640]  of how to handle their banks.
[06:26.640 --> 06:32.480]  In this case, a petitioner is named herein as the holder of an uncontested quit claim
[06:32.480 --> 06:38.440]  deed filed with a recorder on the first day of July 2015 given document number blah, blah,
[06:38.440 --> 06:39.440]  blah.
[06:39.440 --> 06:45.640]  The right to bring the above claim was secured by petitioner in an agreement in Champerty
[06:45.640 --> 06:52.600]  giving standing to petitioner to bring any claim plaintiff could bring and Kenneth is
[06:52.600 --> 06:56.560]  the guy's name who had the property and used his name there.
[06:56.560 --> 07:06.400]  But the term Champerty, Champerty is not legal in all states, but it is legal in Texas.
[07:06.400 --> 07:13.920]  And what Champerty is, it's where you take your claim and you transfer it or sell it
[07:13.920 --> 07:15.840]  to someone else.
[07:15.840 --> 07:20.400]  Lawyers go around buying your claims, you probably hear these advertisements on TV,
[07:20.400 --> 07:26.640]  if you have a claim, then we'll buy it from you, then we'll adjudicate the claim for you.
[07:26.640 --> 07:35.000]  So the lawyers buy the claim, they go to the opposing party and offer a deal, make a deal
[07:35.000 --> 07:37.200]  and take the money home with them.
[07:37.200 --> 07:46.160]  So that's legal in Texas and in this case by having the lender write us a quit claim,
[07:46.160 --> 07:53.520]  a quit claim deed transfers any claim the lender would have, I'm sorry, the quit claim
[07:53.520 --> 07:59.480]  transfers any claim the borrower would have against the lender to the holder of the quit
[07:59.480 --> 08:01.120]  claim which is me.
[08:01.120 --> 08:05.600]  The quit claim rests in the record unopposed.
[08:05.600 --> 08:10.400]  So long as it's unopposed, the courts must consider it as valid.
[08:10.400 --> 08:17.840]  I was in court and a lawyer objected to my quit claim warranty deed, he said, your honor,
[08:17.840 --> 08:20.520]  that warranty deed is bogus.
[08:20.520 --> 08:29.420]  I said, well, maybe it is, but it is in the record and it is unopposed, therefore you
[08:29.420 --> 08:32.160]  must treat it as valid.
[08:32.160 --> 08:40.040]  So in this case, the quit claim is in, it's unopposed and once it's filed in the public
[08:40.040 --> 08:49.960]  record, everyone has either actual or imputed knowledge of its presence.
[08:49.960 --> 08:57.920]  Then I state, on the sixth day of July, 2015, petition afforded Wells Fargo Bank ENA, a
[08:57.920 --> 09:05.760]  document titled notice of rescission, since notice was made to Wells Fargo by certified
[09:05.760 --> 09:14.600]  bail of evidence by the United States Postal Service Certified Return Receipt Number 705-064-0007,
[09:14.600 --> 09:23.840]  blah, blah, blah, included in Exhibit C.
[09:23.840 --> 09:28.240]  As of the date of this filing, Wells Fargo has failed to give notice of objected to said
[09:28.240 --> 09:30.280]  notice of rescission.
[09:30.280 --> 09:34.000]  In the exercise of the county clerk's official duties as the county clerk for Tarrant County,
[09:34.000 --> 09:41.240]  hearing has referred to the recorder, received and filed or filed and recorded a document,
[09:41.240 --> 09:46.040]  given document, instrument number 10, blah, blah, blah, said document is attached here
[09:46.040 --> 09:55.080]  to said C, said document purports to create a lien or assert a claim against real property
[09:55.080 --> 10:01.400]  or an interest in real property in which movement holds the above reference recorded interest.
[10:01.400 --> 10:13.240]  Okay, this language, when I read it, it seems kind of clunky and convoluted, but this language
[10:13.240 --> 10:24.080]  comes out of the quiet title document form that is in the code.
[10:24.080 --> 10:31.640]  If you look at 51-903, you will find this form in there and essentially what I did was
[10:31.640 --> 10:34.000]  fill in the blanks.
[10:34.000 --> 10:40.280]  Movement alleges that the purported claim is fraudulent as the term fraudulent is described
[10:40.280 --> 10:48.320]  in section 51-901C2B, government code, therefore, the unsecured instrument should not be accorded
[10:48.320 --> 10:51.560]  actionable status as shown herein.
[10:51.560 --> 11:06.760]  Okay, what 51-901C2B says is that if a document is filed in the record affecting real property
[11:06.760 --> 11:15.880]  and there is nothing in the record granting the filer authority to file documents affecting
[11:15.880 --> 11:25.120]  title, then this document has a limited definition of fraudulent and by limited the definition
[11:25.120 --> 11:26.120]  is limited.
[11:26.120 --> 11:33.320]  They're not saying that the document is itself fraudulent, they're saying because there's
[11:33.320 --> 11:39.840]  nothing showing that the filer had authority to file, it must be presumed as fraudulent
[11:39.840 --> 11:41.560]  for this case.
[11:41.560 --> 11:46.960]  Okay, issues, petitioner alleges that the above document is void and of no force and
[11:46.960 --> 11:52.240]  effect as the herein reference deed of trust and associated note was rescinded in accordance
[11:52.240 --> 12:02.640]  with 15 USC 1635 I, which reads as follows, rescission rights in foreclosure, everybody
[12:02.640 --> 12:07.080]  should know these who's in or facing foreclosure.
[12:07.080 --> 12:15.240]  In general, notwithstanding section 1649 and 1649 goes to mortgages that were written before
[12:15.240 --> 12:23.240]  1995 when this act was passed, notwithstanding section 1649 in this title and subject to
[12:23.240 --> 12:29.360]  the time period provided in subsection F of this section in addition to any other right
[12:29.360 --> 12:34.640]  of decision available under this section for a transaction after the initiation of any
[12:34.640 --> 12:41.120]  judicial or non-judicial foreclosure process on the primary dwelling of an obligor securing
[12:41.120 --> 12:42.560]  an extension of credit.
[12:42.560 --> 12:48.280]  The obligor shall have the right to rescind the transaction equivalent to other rescission
[12:48.280 --> 12:54.880]  rights provided by this section if a mortgage broker fee is not included in the finance
[12:54.880 --> 13:00.000]  charge in accordance with the laws and regulations in effect at the time that the consumer credit
[13:00.000 --> 13:07.080]  transaction was consummated or the form of notice of rescission for the transaction is
[13:07.080 --> 13:12.520]  not the appropriate form of written notice published and adopted by the Bureau or a comparable
[13:12.520 --> 13:17.800]  notice and otherwise complied with all the laws and requirements of this section notice.
[13:17.800 --> 13:26.440]  Notwithstanding section 1605F of this title subject to the time period provided in section
[13:26.440 --> 13:32.240]  F of this section for the purpose of exercising any decision rights after the initiation of
[13:32.240 --> 13:38.600]  a judicial or non-judicial foreclosure process on the principal dwelling of the obligor securing
[13:38.600 --> 13:44.480]  the extension of credit, the disclosure of the finance charge and other disclosures affecting
[13:44.480 --> 13:49.520]  any finance charge shall be treated as accurate for purposes of this section if the amount
[13:49.520 --> 13:54.320]  disclosed as the finance charge does not vary from the actual finance charge by more than
[13:54.320 --> 13:59.000]  $35 or is greater than the amount required to be disclosed under the subject.
[13:59.000 --> 14:10.680]  So if you can show that you were charged more than $35 improperly that wasn't properly
[14:10.680 --> 14:19.640]  noticed to you, if they charged you more than they said they would up to $35 or they charged
[14:19.640 --> 14:25.120]  you more than they gave you proper notice of, you write to a scenery news and you can
[14:25.120 --> 14:30.520]  always find $35 piece of cake.
[14:30.520 --> 14:37.800]  So in effect what we did in this case, if I get time I'll get to that, our phone lines
[14:37.800 --> 14:46.520]  are open, we'll have them open all night, the call-in number is 512-646-1984 so if you
[14:46.520 --> 14:52.560]  have a question or comment give us a call, we'll be taking your calls, I'll bore you
[14:52.560 --> 14:57.080]  with this until somebody calls in and we start taking calls, but anyway I think you'll find
[14:57.080 --> 15:01.720]  this interesting, Points and Authorities, statutory right to a sin, patches of the Truth
[15:01.720 --> 15:08.080]  and Lending Act 1958 culminated several years of Congressional study and debate as to the
[15:08.080 --> 15:15.880]  proprietary and usefulness of imposing mandatory disclosure requirements on those who extend
[15:15.880 --> 15:24.040]  credit to consumers in the American market, Morning Dew, Family Publishers, Service, Inc.
[15:24.040 --> 15:29.280]  Congressional hearings leading to the passage of the statute reveal that and this is a quote
[15:29.280 --> 15:35.240]  from the hearings, because of the divergent and at times fraudulent lending practices
[15:35.240 --> 15:40.760]  many consumers were prevented from shopping for the best terms available and at times
[15:40.760 --> 15:46.280]  were prompted to assume liabilities they could not reach.
[15:46.280 --> 15:51.360]  We had a caller the other day that felt like he was forced into signing a document he was
[15:51.360 --> 15:58.800]  not comfortable with, that is exactly one of the reasons Truth and Lending Act was passed.
[15:58.800 --> 16:05.000]  Practices resulting in the uninformed and inefficient use of credit included vicious
[16:05.000 --> 16:13.520]  secondary mortgage schemes that victimized and defrauded homeowners, 114 Congress Recitation
[16:13.520 --> 16:19.080]  1611 1968 Statement of Republican Cahill.
[16:19.080 --> 16:24.760]  Such blind economic activity is inconsistent with the efficient functioning of a free economic
[16:24.760 --> 16:34.920]  system such as ours, Morning 411 U.S., this is what I'm saying in reference, the Truth
[16:34.920 --> 16:42.800]  and Lending Act was designed to remedy these problems, Congress found that economic stabilization
[16:42.800 --> 16:48.160]  would be enhanced and the competition among various financial institutions and other firms
[16:48.160 --> 16:55.160]  engaged in the extension of consumer credit would be strengthened by the informed use
[16:55.160 --> 16:56.160]  of credit.
[16:56.160 --> 17:00.680]  It stated that we are about to go to bed.
[17:00.680 --> 17:06.720]  Through advances in technology our lives have greatly improved except in the area of nutrition.
[17:06.720 --> 17:11.440]  People feed their pets better than they feed themselves and it's time we changed all that.
[17:11.440 --> 17:17.160]  Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[17:17.160 --> 17:23.480]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated and mutilated, young Jevity can
[17:23.480 --> 17:25.640]  provide the nutrients you need.
[17:25.640 --> 17:30.600]  Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which
[17:30.600 --> 17:31.600]  we reject.
[17:31.600 --> 17:36.960]  We have come to trust young Jevity so much we became a marketing distributor along with
[17:36.960 --> 17:39.760]  Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs and many others.
[17:39.760 --> 17:46.160]  When you order from logosradionetwork.com your health will improve as you help support
[17:46.160 --> 17:47.160]  quality radio.
[17:47.160 --> 17:51.640]  As you realize the benefits of young Jevity you may want to join us.
[17:51.640 --> 17:57.720]  As a distributor you can experience improved health, help your friends and family and increase
[17:57.720 --> 17:58.720]  your income.
[17:58.720 --> 17:59.720]  Order now.
[17:59.720 --> 18:05.320]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters or even losses?
[18:05.320 --> 18:09.440]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method.
[18:09.440 --> 18:13.720]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you
[18:13.720 --> 18:14.720]  can win too.
[18:14.720 --> 18:19.560]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal
[18:19.560 --> 18:25.320]  civil rights statutes, what to do when contacted by phones, mail or court summons, how to answer
[18:25.320 --> 18:29.960]  letters and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the
[18:29.960 --> 18:34.160]  financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[18:34.160 --> 18:39.280]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:39.280 --> 18:41.400]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[18:41.400 --> 18:46.960]  For more information please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner
[18:46.960 --> 18:57.560]  or email michaelmears at yahoo.com, that's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-n at yahoo.com
[18:57.560 --> 19:23.680]  to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[19:23.680 --> 19:29.480]  We are back, Randy Kelton with Rule of Law Radio and I'm going to move on down, we've
[19:29.480 --> 19:34.160]  got some callers already so I don't want to spend too much time on this.
[19:34.160 --> 19:40.840]  You have a statutory right to rescind, the bar is exercised with the right to rescind,
[19:40.840 --> 19:47.040]  sets in motion a series of automatic steps to unwind the transaction imposing obligations
[19:47.040 --> 19:49.760]  on both creditor and borrower.
[19:49.760 --> 20:04.760]  Without citing all these codes what it says is once you give notice of rescind, you don't
[20:04.760 --> 20:11.280]  give notice of intent to rescind, it's not a motion to rescind, you're not asking them
[20:11.280 --> 20:17.960]  to rescind, you actually have the authority to rescind the document yourself.
[20:17.960 --> 20:25.440]  So when you give notice, this is what the Jeff Sinowsky case said, when you give notice
[20:25.440 --> 20:37.760]  of rescind, the document is rescinded, the note is rescinded, it's over, the note and
[20:37.760 --> 20:46.960]  the deed of trust are extinguished, not even the rescinding party can undo the rescind.
[20:46.960 --> 20:58.000]  When a borrower exercises his right to rescind under 1635A, he is not liable for any finance
[20:58.000 --> 21:03.320]  or other charge and any security interest given by the borrower becomes void upon such
[21:03.320 --> 21:09.460]  a rescission, this is the good part.
[21:09.460 --> 21:16.560]  It next provides that within 20 days after receipt of a notice of rescission, the creditor
[21:16.560 --> 21:23.000]  shall return to the borrower any money or property given as down payment and shall take
[21:23.000 --> 21:29.560]  any action necessary or appropriate to reflect the termination of any security interest created
[21:29.560 --> 21:31.600]  under the transaction.
[21:31.600 --> 21:37.440]  Subsequently, upon performance of the creditor's obligations under this section, the borrower
[21:37.440 --> 21:43.600]  shall tender the property to the creditor, but if the creditor does not take possession
[21:43.600 --> 21:49.280]  of the property within 20 days after tendered by the borrower, ownership of the property
[21:49.280 --> 21:54.800]  vests in the borrower without obligation on his part to pay for it.
[21:54.800 --> 22:01.960]  This is right out of the code, the procedures prescribed to 1635B shall apply except when
[22:01.960 --> 22:08.880]  otherwise ordered by the court, so the only way they can avoid this is to seek an order
[22:08.880 --> 22:09.880]  of the court.
[22:09.880 --> 22:16.000]  So they've got 20 days, the right to rescind beyond the three year limitation is reanimated
[22:16.000 --> 22:25.440]  upon notice of acceleration of the underlying loan obligation C15 US code 1635I.
[22:25.440 --> 22:36.320]  What we did here is we rescinded the note, Bank of America, Fort Worth, Wells Fargo,
[22:36.320 --> 22:43.160]  I'll get this right in a second, Wells Fargo received the recension and I think they had
[22:43.160 --> 22:46.480]  no idea what to do with it.
[22:46.480 --> 22:53.760]  I am relatively certain that whoever got it, whatever lawyer they showed it to, had no
[22:53.760 --> 23:01.920]  idea what champerty was, it's not something that most lawyers I talked to have no idea
[23:01.920 --> 23:04.560]  what champerty is.
[23:04.560 --> 23:11.720]  So he didn't understand that the quit claim gave me standing.
[23:11.720 --> 23:17.540]  So they pretended like what they received was a qualified written request and responded
[23:17.540 --> 23:21.720]  to a qualified written request, except they didn't respond to me.
[23:21.720 --> 23:27.820]  They responded to Kenneth, the holder of the property, the original holder.
[23:27.820 --> 23:30.680]  So their 20 days are up.
[23:30.680 --> 23:39.160]  Then what I just read to you is a petition for quiet title.
[23:39.160 --> 23:41.600]  This is all a strategy.
[23:41.600 --> 23:46.360]  You know, I talk about on here how you'll never win your case simply because you have
[23:46.360 --> 23:49.120]  the law and the facts on your side.
[23:49.120 --> 23:52.040]  Think so is naive.
[23:52.040 --> 23:57.520]  In this case, we have the law and the facts on our side, but we are not naive enough to
[23:57.520 --> 24:05.600]  think that that will win our case for us because we have judges coming in and saying, I'm not
[24:05.600 --> 24:09.360]  going to give you a free property.
[24:09.360 --> 24:10.360]  Judges say that to me.
[24:10.360 --> 24:17.480]  I want his behind off that bench because that's not a power he has.
[24:17.480 --> 24:21.120]  If he's not there to determine the facts in accordance with the rule of evidence and didn't
[24:21.120 --> 24:28.320]  apply the law to the facts as they come to him, then he needs to get out off that bench
[24:28.320 --> 24:32.360]  and have himself replaced by the fair and competent jurists who have a right to in the
[24:32.360 --> 24:34.520]  first instance.
[24:34.520 --> 24:37.520]  But in the real world, that's not going to happen.
[24:37.520 --> 24:43.960]  In the real world, the judge is going to do pretty much what he wants to.
[24:43.960 --> 24:51.920]  Even though you're coming in with the facts in the law, 100% dead bang on your side, the
[24:51.920 --> 24:56.040]  court's a crap shoot.
[24:56.040 --> 25:03.360]  It's so much of a crap shoot that even the bank who has essentially bought and paid for
[25:03.360 --> 25:11.640]  these corrupt judges, even the bank knows they are so corrupt that even when you think
[25:11.640 --> 25:20.040]  you got them bought and paid for, they will change with every political wind.
[25:20.040 --> 25:23.760]  So even for the banks, it's a crap shoot.
[25:23.760 --> 25:32.680]  They rolled the dice on Jesunowski and the Supreme clobbered them big time.
[25:32.680 --> 25:40.520]  The Supreme in the Jesunowski case stipulated that.
[25:40.520 --> 25:47.720]  What they were saying was is you could file for rescission, but then you had to sue within
[25:47.720 --> 25:53.000]  three years and that's what went to the Supreme.
[25:53.000 --> 25:59.240]  The Code, the Truth in Lending Act said that you could rescind within three years and this
[25:59.240 --> 26:02.040]  is not considering the foreclosure aspect.
[26:02.040 --> 26:07.520]  That you had three years you could rescind based on failure to provide proper notice.
[26:07.520 --> 26:12.960]  And what the banks are saying, nah, you filed a rescind and then you got three years to
[26:12.960 --> 26:15.600]  file a lawsuit.
[26:15.600 --> 26:20.080]  And the Supreme said, no, there's nothing in the Code about a lawsuit.
[26:20.080 --> 26:26.760]  The Code said that when the notice of rescission is filed, rescission is accomplished and the
[26:26.760 --> 26:30.640]  bank must tender first.
[26:30.640 --> 26:36.080]  They were also saying that in order to rescind, you had to tender the property and the courts
[26:36.080 --> 26:38.720]  were going along with it.
[26:38.720 --> 26:42.680]  And the Supreme said, no, you don't.
[26:42.680 --> 26:49.760]  That the bank has to tender first, then they have to take possession of the property.
[26:49.760 --> 26:56.800]  If they don't get that done within 20 days, you get to keep the property without obligation.
[26:56.800 --> 27:00.840]  So that's what we did.
[27:00.840 --> 27:05.720]  We give them notice, they did not tender.
[27:05.720 --> 27:08.920]  We get to keep the property, right?
[27:08.920 --> 27:09.920]  Not.
[27:09.920 --> 27:16.000]  The judges are just not going to give us a win on this.
[27:16.000 --> 27:21.760]  However, somebody took a crap shoot on Justinowski and got clobbered good.
[27:21.760 --> 27:30.600]  So the question for the lenders is this, do you want to risk these corrupt judges?
[27:30.600 --> 27:38.000]  Even though you think you got them bought and paid for, they just don't stay bought.
[27:38.000 --> 27:44.280]  So it's not only a crap shoot for me, it's a crap shoot for you.
[27:44.280 --> 27:49.720]  All of this is about bringing them to the table, to the table to make a deal.
[27:49.720 --> 27:57.480]  And it's not bailing on the issues, it's not yielding to the pressure taking a deal.
[27:57.480 --> 28:01.080]  It's understanding how the system works.
[28:01.080 --> 28:06.960]  If you're going to come away with anything positive, for the most part, the only way
[28:06.960 --> 28:17.760]  you're going to do it is by making a deal and profiting by the fact that the bank, even
[28:17.760 --> 28:25.960]  if they win, will have such high litigation costs that they would be better off to grant
[28:25.960 --> 28:33.080]  you a deal and let you walk away with some of those litigation costs and both sides save
[28:33.080 --> 28:34.080]  money.
[28:34.080 --> 28:38.040]  Because if you fight it to the end, the only one who wins are the lawyers.
[28:38.040 --> 28:40.680]  They come away with all the money.
[28:40.680 --> 28:46.960]  Both sides work both their clients so they can extract all the funds out of their clients
[28:46.960 --> 28:51.880]  they can before they will bring a case to culmination.
[28:51.880 --> 28:59.400]  And once they have used up all your funds, they will throw you under the bus in a heartbeat
[28:59.400 --> 29:02.880]  because they don't want to spend any more money adjudicating your case.
[29:02.880 --> 29:09.040]  That may not be right, but unfortunately, that's how it works in the world we live in.
[29:09.040 --> 29:12.240]  Hang on, we're about to go to the bottom of the hour break.
[29:12.240 --> 29:13.240]  Rob, I see you there.
[29:13.240 --> 29:15.440]  We'll pick you up on the other side.
[29:15.440 --> 29:22.360]  This is Randy Kelton, the rule of our radio on this Friday, the 28th day of August, 2015.
[29:22.360 --> 29:31.080]  And this is a little longer break so you've got time to go check out our sponsors on LogosRadioNetwork.com
[29:31.080 --> 29:33.400]  and help us support this network.
[29:33.400 --> 29:37.120]  Goodness knows we need all the help we can get.
[29:37.120 --> 29:38.120]  Thank you for listening.
[29:38.120 --> 30:01.800]  We'll be right back.
[30:01.800 --> 30:06.640]  Maryland motorists hated speed cameras so much they took it out on the cameras themselves.
[30:06.640 --> 30:09.880]  The government solution and cameras to watch the cameras.
[30:09.880 --> 30:15.720]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht back with the people's battle against surveillance where after this.
[30:15.720 --> 30:17.440]  Privacy is under attack.
[30:17.440 --> 30:21.040]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[30:21.040 --> 30:26.040]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:26.040 --> 30:31.680]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[30:31.680 --> 30:33.800]  Privacy it's worth hanging on to.
[30:33.800 --> 30:39.360]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google,
[30:39.360 --> 30:41.120]  Yahoo and Bing.
[30:41.120 --> 30:44.720]  Start over with StartPage.
[30:44.720 --> 30:48.280]  Folks don't care for speed cameras in Prince George's County, Maryland.
[30:48.280 --> 30:49.280]  How do I know?
[30:49.280 --> 30:51.720]  Well, citizens have done a number on six of them.
[30:51.720 --> 30:56.360]  The first one was shot, the next flipped over, a third had its legs cut off and a fourth
[30:56.360 --> 30:57.720]  got torched.
[30:57.720 --> 31:02.040]  Imagine 30,000 bucks of government surveillance equipment up in smoke.
[31:02.040 --> 31:06.640]  Then police had a thought, why not have cameras watch the cameras?
[31:06.640 --> 31:10.520]  The police chief who brainstormed that one assured citizens the new cameras were not
[31:10.520 --> 31:12.320]  a case of big brother.
[31:12.320 --> 31:15.880]  Major Robert Liberati, no, I'm not making that name up.
[31:15.880 --> 31:20.120]  He explained the state was simply trying to keep the public safe from themselves.
[31:20.120 --> 31:26.320]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[31:26.320 --> 31:35.280]  Did you know there are three million edible food plants on earth and none have the nutritional
[31:35.280 --> 31:36.960]  value of a hemp plant?
[31:36.960 --> 31:39.840]  HempUSA.org offers you hemp protein powder.
[31:39.840 --> 31:45.400]  It does not contain chemicals or THC, is non-GMO and is 100% gluten free.
[31:45.400 --> 31:50.560]  Hemp protein powder burns fat, builds muscle, contains 53% protein and feeds the body the
[31:50.560 --> 31:52.040]  nutrients it needs.
[31:52.040 --> 32:02.480]  Call 888-910-4367 and see what our powder, seeds and oil can do for you, only at HempUSA.org.
[32:02.480 --> 32:05.200]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the rule of law traffic seminar.
[32:05.200 --> 32:08.800]  In today's America, we live in an us against them society and if we the people are ever
[32:08.800 --> 32:12.640]  going to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[32:12.640 --> 32:16.200]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act
[32:16.200 --> 32:19.840]  in our own private capacity and most importantly, the right to due process of law.
[32:19.840 --> 32:24.080]  Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve
[32:24.080 --> 32:25.640]  our rights through due process.
[32:25.640 --> 32:29.440]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the
[32:29.440 --> 32:33.220]  most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process
[32:33.220 --> 32:35.600]  is and how to hold courts to the rule of law.
[32:35.600 --> 32:39.600]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and
[32:39.600 --> 32:40.600]  ordering your copy today.
[32:40.600 --> 32:44.280]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code,
[32:44.280 --> 32:48.680]  The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research
[32:48.680 --> 32:51.000]  documents and other useful resource material.
[32:51.000 --> 32:54.960]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com.
[32:54.960 --> 33:03.960]  Order your copy today and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[33:03.960 --> 33:08.960]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com.
[33:08.960 --> 33:33.960]  Okay, we are back, Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio, and we're going to go to callers, we're
[33:33.960 --> 33:40.960]  going to cut the callers on the board, we're going to go to Rob in New Mexico.
[33:40.960 --> 33:44.960]  Rob, what do you have for us today?
[33:44.960 --> 33:49.320]  All right, a brief refresher.
[33:49.320 --> 33:58.000]  Back in 2012, I entered into a seller-financed real estate contract after failing to get
[33:58.000 --> 34:06.920]  qualified for a mortgage to buy the house, the seller agreed to obtain the hazard insurance
[34:06.920 --> 34:14.440]  on the property, I paid the seller for the hazard insurance at settlement, about a year
[34:14.440 --> 34:21.080]  and a half later found out the seller never purchased the hazard insurance, I'd been
[34:21.080 --> 34:29.760]  paying monthly hazard insurance escrow payments all that time, sent them the escrow company
[34:29.760 --> 34:36.000]  several letters asking for information that they are required by statute to provide, they
[34:36.000 --> 34:41.840]  did not provide me with any of the information, finally in January I sent the escrow company
[34:41.840 --> 34:50.760]  and the seller a rescission notice and stopped making payments in February.
[34:50.760 --> 35:00.920]  Now, first of all, since I'm still in the house, how am I harmed?
[35:00.920 --> 35:12.320]  You put it at risk, you paid for a product you did not receive, that's sufficient for
[35:12.320 --> 35:19.800]  harm, you don't have to have used the insurance, you're in a house that's not insured, if
[35:19.800 --> 35:28.080]  anything happens to that house you lose everything, so that has to cause you extreme emotional
[35:28.080 --> 35:39.240]  distress, the fact that you paid for something you didn't receive, in this case it was insurance
[35:39.240 --> 35:48.160]  and you don't have to have been unable to use the insurance to be harmed by the transaction,
[35:48.160 --> 35:51.600]  that's enough that you paid for it and didn't receive it.
[35:51.600 --> 35:59.280]  Now, I have sent the escrow company several requests for accounting, requests to view
[35:59.280 --> 36:05.600]  the original instrument, the real estate contract and the warranty deed and special warranty
[36:05.600 --> 36:09.560]  deed, they've ignored all of that, the closest they've come to anything is sending their
[36:09.560 --> 36:16.160]  photocopy of the real estate contract, I suspect the seller never actually placed the real
[36:16.160 --> 36:20.960]  estate contract into escrow, they're just treating me like a renter to try and suck
[36:20.960 --> 36:25.720]  all my equity and then at some point plan to eject me.
[36:25.720 --> 36:35.080]  That's probably exactly what they're going to do, so petition for quiet title, that's
[36:35.080 --> 36:41.240]  exactly what we're doing and we're not doing it because we want to file a quiet title action,
[36:41.240 --> 36:48.480]  now they have to talk to us, now they don't have any option, first thing I want to tell
[36:48.480 --> 36:56.600]  them is look guys, I got your dead bang and you, I paid you this for this, you didn't
[36:56.600 --> 37:03.980]  provide it, that's not only wrongful as criminal, that's theft by deception and I got your dead
[37:03.980 --> 37:14.200]  bang, problem, courts are corrupt, they're corrupt for both of us, do you really want
[37:14.200 --> 37:22.360]  to spend the next five years in court with me, how about you just make me a deal, refinance
[37:22.360 --> 37:31.840]  this and I'll pay for my own insurance and you knock off 20, 30 grand for what you're
[37:31.840 --> 37:37.120]  not going to pay in attorney fees and I'll forget you guys pulled this shenanigan on
[37:37.120 --> 37:49.200]  me, you've been through the foreclosure process and you see how the courts don't follow law
[37:49.200 --> 38:04.280]  to do what they want to, right, so here instead of just fighting for pie in sky and dreaming
[38:04.280 --> 38:12.000]  about a country where the law matters, we need to realize we're in a country where the
[38:12.000 --> 38:19.440]  money matters, it's all about the money, nobody cares about the law, they care about the money,
[38:19.440 --> 38:25.440]  so here you have the potential of costing them a lot of money and you have a history
[38:25.440 --> 38:35.160]  of taking on banks and costing them a lot of money and you have to think of the politics,
[38:35.160 --> 38:41.080]  you made these assertions and the last thing they're going to want to do is admit the
[38:41.080 --> 38:48.840]  assertions, so they're going to keep as much distance as they can, as long as they can
[38:48.840 --> 38:56.400]  hoping you'll just go away, so when you don't go away and the only way you'll demonstrate
[38:56.400 --> 39:04.360]  that you're not going away is to file an action against them, when you file the action then
[39:04.360 --> 39:09.280]  the first thing you do is you want to mediate a settlement because you've got to know the
[39:09.280 --> 39:15.440]  judge doesn't want to waste his time on this case, he'd rather be out playing golf and
[39:15.440 --> 39:24.640]  for the most part their dockets are pretty full, so you come into court making this relatively
[39:24.640 --> 39:32.560]  dead bang accusation against them, but then you don't want to waste the court's time,
[39:32.560 --> 39:39.160]  you want to mediate, if they refuse to mediate with you, then you petition the court to
[39:39.160 --> 39:51.400]  order mediation, now the lender can come to the table and not lose face and it most likely
[39:51.400 --> 40:02.520]  is such that he wants to mediate an outcome that doesn't involve years of litigation,
[40:02.520 --> 40:11.520]  but he needs, he has politics in his office he has to deal with, you know we're talking
[40:11.520 --> 40:19.120]  with real estate agents now trying to get people short sales and we're telling them
[40:19.120 --> 40:25.560]  you're going to an asset manager who's a relatively low level functionary in the bank and you're
[40:25.560 --> 40:35.960]  telling him that you want him to go to his boss and talk his boss into just giving away
[40:35.960 --> 40:46.200]  some of his investors profits because any short sale they give comes right off the top,
[40:46.200 --> 40:49.440]  so the asset manager may want to get rid of this property, he may not want to have this
[40:49.440 --> 40:57.760]  big fight, but he's got people he's got to answer to, he's got to go to these bean counters
[40:57.760 --> 41:05.840]  and show these bean counters why the bank would profit more by the short sale or by
[41:05.840 --> 41:13.640]  decreasing the payoff amount than they would by keeping it the same, so the way you do
[41:13.640 --> 41:19.760]  that is you keep sending him a tort letter, now he has plausible deniability, now he can
[41:19.760 --> 41:23.400]  go to these guys and say look these guys are going to sue us, they're going to sue us for
[41:23.400 --> 41:27.280]  all this money and we're going to be in court with them for the next five years and we're
[41:27.280 --> 41:34.760]  going to be writing documents, it's going to cost us a fortune, now the bean counters
[41:34.760 --> 41:41.280]  have something they can sink their bean counting teeth into, now they have real numbers they
[41:41.280 --> 41:49.560]  can work with and justify giving you a short sale, so I'm talking about the politics, what
[41:49.560 --> 41:59.160]  can you do to give the guys that you're making these accusations against plausible deniability,
[41:59.160 --> 42:02.560]  so they can go to their bosses and say we need to make a deal with this guy and get
[42:02.560 --> 42:08.160]  rid of him, because if we don't it's going to cost us more than it would if we just made
[42:08.160 --> 42:17.680]  a deal with him. Does that make sense Rob? Absolutely. Okay, now I'm on the second servicer
[42:17.680 --> 42:29.000]  now and the second lawyer. Wait, wait, wait, did you bargain the first one? Oh yeah, I
[42:29.000 --> 42:37.880]  sent five. Only five? What did you run out of paper? He ran away after the third one.
[42:37.880 --> 42:51.800]  Since the second servicer is not named in the real estate contract and I have no information
[42:51.800 --> 42:59.560]  whatsoever that this lawyer is an agent for either the servicer or the seller, would the
[42:59.560 --> 43:10.680]  FDCPA apply to either one of them? A change in servicers is required to be noticed to
[43:10.680 --> 43:17.920]  you. Did you get a letter telling you that there's a new servicer? I got a letter from
[43:17.920 --> 43:22.200]  somebody alleging to be the new servicer that they're the new servicer. Yeah, I think that's
[43:22.200 --> 43:27.760]  the notice they're required to give you, but if it's not, if there hasn't been an assignment
[43:27.760 --> 43:33.920]  to the security instrument in the public record, then you'd have reason to believe that that
[43:33.920 --> 43:38.880]  notice is bogus. Hang on, about to go to great Randy Kelton who rules our radio. I call him
[43:38.880 --> 44:06.280]  number 512-646-1984. He'll be right back. Hello, my name is Stuart Smith from naturespureorganics.com
[44:06.280 --> 44:10.840]  and I would like to invite you to come by our store at 1904 Guadalupe Street, Sweet
[44:10.840 --> 44:15.320]  D here in Austin, Texas. I'm Brave New Books and Chase Banks. To see all our fantastic
[44:15.320 --> 44:19.680]  health and wellness products with your very own eyes. Have a look at our Miracle Healing
[44:19.680 --> 44:23.760]  Clay that started our adventure in alternative medicine. Take a peek at some of our other
[44:23.760 --> 44:28.680]  wonderful products including our Australian Emea Oil, Lotion Candles, Olive Oil Soaps
[44:28.680 --> 44:37.120]  and Colloidal Silver and Gold. Call 512-264-4043 or find us online at naturespureorganics.com.
[44:37.120 --> 44:45.160]  That's 512-264-4043, naturespureorganics.com. Don't forget to like us on Facebook for information
[44:45.160 --> 45:04.520]  on events and our products, naturespureorganics.com. Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[45:04.520 --> 45:09.760]  Win your case without an attorney with Juris Dictionary, the affordable, easy to understand
[45:09.760 --> 45:17.240]  and core CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step. If you have a lawyer,
[45:17.240 --> 45:21.640]  know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should
[45:21.640 --> 45:28.400]  do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step by step course and now you can too. Juris
[45:28.400 --> 45:34.920]  Dictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience.
[45:34.920 --> 45:39.440]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the
[45:39.440 --> 45:44.640]  principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio
[45:44.640 --> 45:51.640]  classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much
[45:51.640 --> 45:59.560]  more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866
[45:59.560 --> 46:11.760]  3758-732-7758.
[46:11.760 --> 46:34.520]  I must be careful what I'm wishing for, when I'm hungry I like to know just what I'm fishing
[46:34.520 --> 46:35.520]  for.
[46:35.520 --> 46:36.520]  Okay, we are back.
[46:36.520 --> 46:43.040]  You are radio, you're talking to Rob in New Mexico, and if you have a new lawyer, sending
[46:43.040 --> 46:51.520]  you new documents, you might try just to have some fun with the lawyer and challenge his
[46:51.520 --> 46:52.520]  agency.
[46:52.520 --> 47:00.520]  Send him a letter saying, I don't know, I have no idea who you are.
[47:00.520 --> 47:05.920]  As soon as the second servicer sent me, you know, demand for payment, I sent...
[47:05.920 --> 47:06.920]  Go ahead.
[47:06.920 --> 47:07.920]  What?
[47:07.920 --> 47:08.920]  Hello?
[47:08.920 --> 47:09.920]  I'm here.
[47:09.920 --> 47:10.920]  Go ahead.
[47:10.920 --> 47:11.920]  Okay.
[47:11.920 --> 47:22.280]  As soon as the second servicer contacted me, I sent them a validation demand and a pretty
[47:22.280 --> 47:29.600]  detailed list of accounting information requests, all of which they are required to provide
[47:29.600 --> 47:31.680]  under the escrow company act.
[47:31.680 --> 47:36.000]  I received no response from them, no communication whatsoever.
[47:36.000 --> 47:42.120]  The next thing I got is a letter from a lawyer demanding everything apparently back to February,
[47:42.120 --> 47:44.040]  but there's no accounting on that.
[47:44.040 --> 47:49.800]  So I sent him a validation demand with the same list of accounting and a request for
[47:49.800 --> 47:54.160]  proof of his agency.
[47:54.160 --> 47:57.400]  Did he respond?
[47:57.400 --> 48:00.240]  Not yet, just sent it.
[48:00.240 --> 48:05.240]  So we'll see where that goes.
[48:05.240 --> 48:09.080]  You know, I don't know if you remember a few months ago, I sent you a copy of a letter
[48:09.080 --> 48:17.000]  I was sending to the seller because she had sent me a letter claiming that she had paid
[48:17.000 --> 48:20.440]  the insurance and she didn't know anything after that.
[48:20.440 --> 48:26.720]  So I sent her back a letter demanding that she provide evidence of that payment, which
[48:26.720 --> 48:30.600]  I know there is none because I have an email from the insurance company stating that the
[48:30.600 --> 48:36.840]  policy that she claimed had paid it in to cancel the month before the real estate contract
[48:36.840 --> 48:39.680]  and that they had received no payment since then.
[48:39.680 --> 48:43.400]  And I requested that she contact me only by writing.
[48:43.400 --> 48:49.880]  She has come to my house three times trying to talk to me since she received that letter,
[48:49.880 --> 48:52.880]  sent me nothing in writing.
[48:52.880 --> 48:58.280]  Sounds like she's struggling here.
[48:58.280 --> 49:05.560]  You've got her and they know it and they're doing everything they can to avoid the issue.
[49:05.560 --> 49:10.260]  But you rescinded the note.
[49:10.260 --> 49:17.200]  You should file a quiet title action based on the rescindion and their failure to, you
[49:17.200 --> 49:20.400]  have Jasienowski now.
[49:20.400 --> 49:24.280]  Jasienowski was early in 2014.
[49:24.280 --> 49:26.920]  So were you after Jasienowski?
[49:26.920 --> 49:29.920]  When did you rescind?
[49:29.920 --> 49:33.600]  At the very beginning or how at the end are you talking about that?
[49:33.600 --> 49:37.720]  What case is that and how do you spell it?
[49:37.720 --> 49:40.080]  J-E-S-O-N-I-S-K-I I believe.
[49:40.080 --> 49:45.480]  Let me see if I can pull it up here.
[49:45.480 --> 49:50.760]  Now I have to remember where I put it.
[49:50.760 --> 49:52.760]  As you get older that gets worse.
[49:52.760 --> 49:57.760]  I think I've got it under rescission.
[49:57.760 --> 50:02.760]  There we go.
[50:02.760 --> 50:09.360]  J-E-S-I-N-O-S-K-I J-E-S-I-N-O-S-K-I?
[50:09.360 --> 50:17.920]  J-E-S, Joliet Echo Sierra Indian Rim Roster Sierra Kilo India.
[50:17.920 --> 50:18.920]  All right.
[50:18.920 --> 50:21.920]  It needs to be a pilot.
[50:21.920 --> 50:26.880]  Let me read you the order.
[50:26.880 --> 50:28.480]  It's not very long.
[50:28.480 --> 50:29.480]  This is really a short case.
[50:29.480 --> 50:35.480]  It's a little longer than I thought it was.
[50:35.480 --> 50:41.840]  It's kind of long, the final part of it is finally respondents invoked common law.
[50:41.840 --> 50:45.280]  It's true that rescission is traditionally required.
[50:45.280 --> 50:56.080]  What they said was is that under rescission you had to sue and the court kind of explains
[50:56.080 --> 51:02.480]  section 1635A no worse suggests a distinction between disputed and undisputed rescissions
[51:02.480 --> 51:03.480]  to be back up.
[51:03.480 --> 51:04.480]  You'll like this.
[51:04.480 --> 51:06.200]  It needs to be worth it.
[51:06.200 --> 51:14.320]  Nothing in 1635F tells us when the right to rescind must be exercised.
[51:14.320 --> 51:18.640]  It says nothing about how that right is exercised.
[51:18.640 --> 51:26.920]  Our observation in Beech v. Aquin is that the life of the underlying right is beside
[51:26.920 --> 51:28.720]  the point.
[51:28.720 --> 51:30.480]  I'm sorry.
[51:30.480 --> 51:36.080]  Although 1635F tells us when the right to rescind must be exercised, it said nothing
[51:36.080 --> 51:38.080]  about how the right is exercised.
[51:38.080 --> 51:46.440]  Our observation in Beech v. Aquin that governs the life of the underlying right is beside
[51:46.440 --> 51:48.280]  the point.
[51:48.280 --> 51:53.240]  That case concerned a borrower's attempt to rescind in the course of a foreclosure proceeding
[51:53.240 --> 51:57.280]  initiated six years after the loan's consummation.
[51:57.280 --> 52:02.080]  We concluded only that there was no federal right to rescind defensively or otherwise
[52:02.080 --> 52:04.600]  after the three-year period.
[52:04.600 --> 52:09.320]  Not that there was no rescission until a suit is filed, and that's what the bank claims
[52:09.320 --> 52:13.160]  is no rescission until they file suit.
[52:13.160 --> 52:18.840]  Respondents do not dispute that 1635A requires only written notice of rescission.
[52:18.840 --> 52:24.480]  Indeed, they conclude that written notice suffices to rescind a loan within the first
[52:24.480 --> 52:26.680]  few days after the transaction is consummated.
[52:26.680 --> 52:31.280]  They further concede that written notice suffices after that period if the parties agree that
[52:31.280 --> 52:34.440]  the lender failed to make the required disclosures.
[52:34.440 --> 52:37.200]  In years goes to required disclosures.
[52:37.200 --> 52:42.240]  Respondents argue, however, that if the parties dispute the adequacy of the disclosures and
[52:42.240 --> 52:49.720]  thus the continued availability of the right to rescind, then written notice does not suffice.
[52:49.720 --> 52:59.200]  What they're saying is, is if you send a notice of rescission and they object to it, then
[52:59.200 --> 53:04.400]  you're stopped until their objection is handed.
[53:04.400 --> 53:13.960]  Section 1635A nowhere suggests a distinction between disputed and undisputed rescissions,
[53:13.960 --> 53:17.800]  much less than a law suit would be required for the latter.
[53:17.800 --> 53:25.640]  In an effort to sidestep this problem, respondents point to a neighboring provision, 1635G, which
[53:25.640 --> 53:29.080]  they believe provides support for their interpretation of the act.
[53:29.080 --> 53:37.400]  Section 1635G states merely that in any action in which it is determined a creditor has violated
[53:37.400 --> 53:43.040]  this section, in addition to rescission, the court may award relief under 1640 of this
[53:43.040 --> 53:49.360]  title for violations of this subject or not related to the right to rescind.
[53:49.360 --> 53:54.640]  Respondents argue that the phrase award relief in addition to rescission confirms that rescission
[53:54.640 --> 53:57.960]  is a consequence of judicial action.
[53:57.960 --> 54:04.400]  But the fact that it can be a consequence of judicial action when 1635G is triggered
[54:04.400 --> 54:09.000]  in no way suggests that it can only follow from such an action.
[54:09.000 --> 54:14.480]  The act contemplates various situations in which the question of a lender's compliance
[54:14.480 --> 54:18.640]  with the act's disclosure requirements may arise in a lawsuit.
[54:18.640 --> 54:22.760]  For example, a lender's foreclosure action in which a borrower raises inadequate disclosure
[54:22.760 --> 54:25.760]  as an affirmative defense.
[54:25.760 --> 54:31.920]  Section 1635G makes it clear that a court may not only award the decision and thereby relieve
[54:31.920 --> 54:35.600]  the borrower of his financial obligation to the lender, but may also grant any of the
[54:35.600 --> 54:38.960]  remedies available under 1640.
[54:38.960 --> 54:47.680]  It has no bearing on whether and how borrower rescission under 1635A may occur.
[54:47.680 --> 54:51.120]  Finally, respondents invoke the common law.
[54:51.120 --> 54:56.440]  It's true that rescission traditionally required either that the rescinding party return what
[54:56.440 --> 55:04.400]  he received before rescission could be effected, rescission at law, or else that a court affirmatively
[55:04.400 --> 55:09.000]  decree rescission, rescission in equity.
[55:09.000 --> 55:13.120]  This is 2D Dobbs Law of Remedies.
[55:13.120 --> 55:19.480]  It is also true that the act disclaims the common law condition precedent to rescission
[55:19.480 --> 55:27.080]  at law that the borrower tender the proceeds received under the transaction, 15 years code
[55:27.080 --> 55:28.440]  1635B.
[55:28.440 --> 55:38.520]  But the negation of rescission at law tender requirement hardly implies that the act codifies
[55:38.520 --> 55:40.880]  rescission in equity.
[55:40.880 --> 55:49.760]  Nothing in our jurisprudence and no tool of statutory interpretation requires that a congressional
[55:49.760 --> 55:57.320]  act must be construed as implementing its closest common law analog.
[55:57.320 --> 56:06.080]  The clear import of 1635A is that a borrower need only provide written notice to a lender
[56:06.080 --> 56:14.160]  in order to exercise his right to rescind to the extent 1635B alters the traditional process
[56:14.160 --> 56:19.520]  for unwinding such a unilaterally rescinded transaction.
[56:19.520 --> 56:26.960]  This is simply a case in which statutory law modifies the common law practice.
[56:26.960 --> 56:30.760]  As an ASCII mailed respondent's written notice of their intention to rescind within three
[56:30.760 --> 56:35.720]  years of their loan's consummation, because this is all that a borrower must do in order
[56:35.720 --> 56:40.240]  to exercise his right to rescind under the act the court below erred in dismissing the
[56:40.240 --> 56:41.240]  complaint.
[56:41.240 --> 56:45.440]  The court then will reverse the judgment of the 8th Circuit and remand the case for further
[56:45.440 --> 56:47.760]  proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[56:47.760 --> 56:54.560]  All you have to do is send the notice and you did that.
[56:54.560 --> 56:58.080]  Would that apply to a seller finance real estate contract?
[56:58.080 --> 56:59.080]  No.
[56:59.080 --> 57:00.080]  Okay.
[57:00.080 --> 57:10.920]  Unless, unless, I'm not sure if they sold that to a federal lender.
[57:10.920 --> 57:12.400]  No.
[57:12.400 --> 57:17.400]  Did, okay, how do you get this servicer?
[57:17.400 --> 57:22.680]  Does the servicer claim to be collecting for the original lender?
[57:22.680 --> 57:32.400]  Yeah, in New Mexico, a real estate contract is required to be handled by an escrow company.
[57:32.400 --> 57:43.960]  So the original escrow company servicer is named in the contract as the escrow company.
[57:43.960 --> 57:48.640]  So I don't know, I don't know if I can make that, any of that work.
[57:48.640 --> 57:49.640]  It's great.
[57:49.640 --> 57:57.120]  Don't think you can, it doesn't sound like you can, but you can sue for common law rescission.
[57:57.120 --> 58:03.000]  The problem is they get the property back, but you get all the money you're getting back.
[58:03.000 --> 58:04.600]  Hang on, we're back to go to break.
[58:04.600 --> 58:11.040]  Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio, I'll call it number 512-646-1984, this will top the
[58:11.040 --> 58:13.640]  hour break so you can take a little longer.
[58:13.640 --> 58:20.840]  If you have time to go to our sponsors and come to patronize our sponsors and help keep
[58:20.840 --> 58:26.160]  us on the air, Randy Kelton is the funder.
[58:26.160 --> 58:33.320]  So hang on, we'll be right back, I'll call it number 512-646-1984.
[58:33.320 --> 58:34.320]  Thank you for listening.
[58:34.320 --> 58:50.480]  I'm struggling here, I started out too soon, oh well, we'll see you on the other side.
[58:50.480 --> 58:54.600]  Would you like to make more definite progress in your walk with God?
[58:54.600 --> 58:59.800]  Bibles for America is offering a free study Bible and a set of free Christian books that
[58:59.800 --> 59:01.120]  can really help.
[59:01.120 --> 59:05.600]  The New Testament Recovery Version is one of the most comprehensive study Bibles available
[59:05.600 --> 59:06.600]  today.
[59:06.600 --> 59:10.480]  It's an accurate translation and it contains thousands of footnotes that will help you
[59:10.480 --> 59:13.600]  to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[59:13.600 --> 59:18.840]  The free books are a three volume set called Basic Elements of the Christian Life.
[59:18.840 --> 59:23.080]  Chapter by chapter, Basic Elements of the Christian Life clearly presents God's plan
[59:23.080 --> 59:28.040]  of salvation, growing in Christ and how to build up the church.
[59:28.040 --> 59:33.080]  To order your free New Testament Recovery Version and Basic Elements of the Christian
[59:33.080 --> 59:45.840]  Life, call Bibles for America toll free at 888-551-0102, that's 888-551-0102 or visit
[59:45.840 --> 59:48.960]  us online at bfa.org.
[59:48.960 --> 01:00:00.800]  Live, free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:00.800 --> 01:00:06.000]  The following use flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing your daily
[01:00:06.000 --> 01:00:08.000]  bulletins for the commodity market.
[01:00:08.000 --> 01:00:21.640]  Today in history, news updates and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternatives.
[01:00:21.640 --> 01:00:28.200]  Markets for the 28th of August, 2015 open up with gold at $1,131.16 an ounce, silver
[01:00:28.200 --> 01:00:35.240]  $14.55 an ounce, Texas crude $42.56 a barrel and Bitcoin is currently sitting at about
[01:00:35.240 --> 01:00:43.760]  $225 U.S. currency.
[01:00:43.760 --> 01:00:49.320]  Today in history, Wednesday, August 28, 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. delivers his I Have
[01:00:49.320 --> 01:00:58.160]  a Dream speech before a civil rights march at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.
[01:00:58.160 --> 01:01:02.060]  In recent news, McDonald's and Tyson Foods have both cut business ties with the Tennessee
[01:01:02.060 --> 01:01:06.160]  Farmer, where workers were captured brutally stabbing, clubbing and stomping on chickens
[01:01:06.160 --> 01:01:09.040]  by an undercover video obtained by animal rights activists.
[01:01:09.040 --> 01:01:13.320]  A Tyson spokesperson stated that animal well-being is a priority at our company and we will not
[01:01:13.320 --> 01:01:16.320]  tolerate the unacceptable animal treatment shown in this video.
[01:01:16.320 --> 01:01:20.320]  McDonald's stated that we are committed to working with animal welfare and industry experts
[01:01:20.320 --> 01:01:24.440]  to inform our policies that promote better management, strong employee education and
[01:01:24.440 --> 01:01:26.180]  verifications of practices.
[01:01:26.180 --> 01:01:29.960]  The Weekly County Sheriff's Office also stated that it had opened an investigation into the
[01:01:29.960 --> 01:01:30.960]  farm.
[01:01:30.960 --> 01:01:35.200]  Stephen Ruckel, president of Mercy for Animals, said at a news conference to remember for
[01:01:35.200 --> 01:01:39.720]  the last five years in a row Tyson awarded Grow Over the Year to this facility, so it's
[01:01:39.720 --> 01:01:41.400]  too little, too late.
[01:01:41.400 --> 01:01:44.400]  One does have to wonder if investigations into the treatment of animals by the other
[01:01:44.400 --> 01:01:53.560]  contracted farmers and ranchers ever take place.
[01:01:53.560 --> 01:01:58.160]  The Texas Civil Rights Project and the Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid are representing 17 Mexican
[01:01:58.160 --> 01:02:02.320]  and Central American families in a lawsuit against the Lone Star State because the Texas
[01:02:02.320 --> 01:02:07.120]  County's registrar's office has been refusing to accept parents who present foreign national
[01:02:07.120 --> 01:02:09.240]  passports as a valid form of identification.
[01:02:09.240 --> 01:02:12.720]  Subsequently, they are being denied birth certificates to their children.
[01:02:12.720 --> 01:02:16.560]  The families are claiming that the registrars are violating the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection
[01:02:16.560 --> 01:02:19.400]  Clause as well as violating the Supremacy Clause.
[01:02:19.400 --> 01:02:23.240]  The Texas Attorney General's office has apparently asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit saying
[01:02:23.240 --> 01:02:26.960]  the agency is protected from litigation by the 11th Amendment and that the state cannot
[01:02:26.960 --> 01:02:30.320]  be taken to federal court under its sovereign immunity provisions.
[01:02:30.320 --> 01:02:38.880]  Legal experts, however, are saying that the case is likely to go forward to court.
[01:02:38.880 --> 01:02:42.800]  Tomorrow night, August 29th, we'll host the first supermoon of the three expected this
[01:02:42.800 --> 01:02:43.800]  fall.
[01:02:43.800 --> 01:02:44.800]  What does this mean?
[01:02:44.800 --> 01:02:48.480]  Well, the full moon cycle coincides with the moon's closest approach to Earth during its
[01:02:48.480 --> 01:02:49.480]  orbit.
[01:02:49.480 --> 01:02:55.520]  The moon appears slightly larger than usual and usually makes for a spectacular view.
[01:02:55.520 --> 01:03:02.520]  This was your lowdown for August 28th, 2013.
[01:03:02.520 --> 01:03:29.520]  It's all according to the will of the Almighty, I read His book and it says He cares not for
[01:03:29.520 --> 01:03:34.400]  it.
[01:03:34.400 --> 01:03:42.540]  you're back to common law decision but in common law decision we'd have to give
[01:03:42.540 --> 01:03:53.620]  them back to property what what would you like as an outcome title of the
[01:03:53.620 --> 01:04:05.320]  property you get the property free and clear yeah okay good luck on that what
[01:04:05.320 --> 01:04:12.360]  would for you be an equitable outcome
[01:04:13.360 --> 01:04:21.040]  we turn over everything I've paid and you've been in the property how long do
[01:04:21.040 --> 01:04:26.200]  you not want to stay in the property no I do want to stay in it but if I can't
[01:04:26.200 --> 01:04:30.960]  get title to it then I don't want to deal with these people anymore
[01:04:30.960 --> 01:04:39.320]  okay then so I either I either want to get out or I want title or yeah I'd be
[01:04:39.320 --> 01:04:45.000]  willing to renegotiate it and finance it through somebody else so you didn't have
[01:04:45.000 --> 01:04:53.400]  to deal with these people but you would definitely want to renegotiate at an
[01:04:53.400 --> 01:05:02.280]  amount the decreased by the full amount that you paid these folks well here's
[01:05:02.280 --> 01:05:08.440]  the thing this goes to my final two questions I only owe $75,000 on the place
[01:05:08.440 --> 01:05:17.440]  there's a cheap house now with all of the violations all the statutory
[01:05:17.440 --> 01:05:20.480]  violations all the violations of the administrative code that they're
[01:05:20.480 --> 01:05:26.400]  required to respond to information requests I can build a pretty good case
[01:05:26.400 --> 01:05:37.880]  out of that now my question on that is for civil torts versus UDAP can I claim
[01:05:37.880 --> 01:05:44.360]  both on the same issue or do I have to go with one or the other and then part
[01:05:44.360 --> 01:05:49.320]  of it you said UDAP I really hate acronyms unfair deceptive action
[01:05:49.320 --> 01:05:59.200]  practices oh okay how have you looked at similar cases at cases where borrowers
[01:05:59.200 --> 01:06:05.680]  have sued lenders for improper practices and what kinds of awards have winners
[01:06:05.680 --> 01:06:14.360]  received I haven't really been able to find much on that the only thing the
[01:06:14.360 --> 01:06:20.400]  only thing really that I have on it is my neighbor former neighbor bought a
[01:06:20.400 --> 01:06:29.440]  trailer from the same people a quarter mile up the road from us they bought it
[01:06:29.440 --> 01:06:40.040]  as is trailer fell off the foundation they sued the seller and won so suing
[01:06:40.040 --> 01:06:46.600]  suing this particular seller apparently is kind of a hobby in my county oh okay
[01:06:46.600 --> 01:06:53.880]  so the seller has been through a losing suit so they probably lost double they
[01:06:53.880 --> 01:07:01.560]  lost on the decision and they lost on the attorney fees so you might calculate
[01:07:01.560 --> 01:07:08.560]  do a calculation on how much you have given them and in a rescission they
[01:07:08.560 --> 01:07:13.560]  would have to give you all of that back principal interest escrow the whole
[01:07:13.560 --> 01:07:18.000]  smear and because you're claiming you gave them money in escrow they didn't
[01:07:18.000 --> 01:07:24.720]  have a right to that's criminal mm-hmm so you have more than just civil action
[01:07:24.720 --> 01:07:29.680]  against so you might calculate how much today have paid you how much you have
[01:07:29.680 --> 01:07:38.000]  paid them sue them for three times that amount and then negotiate down to
[01:07:38.000 --> 01:07:49.280]  something you live with okay now on the civil torch for the violations of the
[01:07:49.280 --> 01:07:55.440]  their statutory administrative requirements versus the unfair
[01:07:55.440 --> 01:07:59.000]  deceptive does that have to be one or the other because they're basically the
[01:07:59.000 --> 01:08:08.360]  same acts what all of your claims would essentially be in one action no I mean
[01:08:08.360 --> 01:08:15.040]  as far as counts go but can I claim a civil tort for one act one specific act
[01:08:15.040 --> 01:08:21.720]  that they committed and claim the same act under unfair deceptive no no you'll
[01:08:21.720 --> 01:08:33.000]  only get remedy or they'll only make you hold for what the action was okay so you
[01:08:33.000 --> 01:08:37.960]  can't say they violated this act so I get one remedy they violated this act I
[01:08:37.960 --> 01:08:45.040]  get another remedy they're gonna give you one remedy based on both of them
[01:08:45.040 --> 01:08:51.840]  they're not going to want you to get unfair enrichment right so no you can't
[01:08:51.840 --> 01:08:57.000]  you claim the harm and then you can claim that it's in violation of both your
[01:08:57.000 --> 01:09:04.920]  advantage to that is if you don't win on one set of statutes you may win on the
[01:09:04.920 --> 01:09:10.600]  other but no you can't get double no I can still claim both just in case they
[01:09:10.600 --> 01:09:19.920]  don't take one yes exactly okay and then for the requirement to respond to written
[01:09:19.920 --> 01:09:30.800]  requests would that be per itemized request or per letter that's kind of
[01:09:30.800 --> 01:09:40.560]  ambiguous per letter if the letter was not a request multiple requests no you
[01:09:40.560 --> 01:09:45.800]  would only get that once if you filed a request and they didn't reply to it and
[01:09:45.800 --> 01:09:49.440]  you sent them letters to try to get them to reply you're still on the one
[01:09:49.440 --> 01:09:59.280]  violation okay that kind of goes to stacking okay and then my final question
[01:09:59.280 --> 01:10:06.960]  and I'll let you go silence equates fraud where there's a duty to respond so
[01:10:06.960 --> 01:10:11.320]  do I have them on constructive fraud for their failure to respond to their
[01:10:11.320 --> 01:10:26.520]  required silence is not fraud silence implies fraud okay so it it you still
[01:10:26.520 --> 01:10:31.680]  have to prove fraud and it just said you're listening he's going to get real
[01:10:31.680 --> 01:10:36.360]  excited you saying fraud and he is very right we should be saying false
[01:10:36.360 --> 01:10:45.400]  and deceptive okay so go for false and deceptive instead of fraud but yeah the
[01:10:45.400 --> 01:10:53.280]  what's the Tweedle Tweedle the US says a failure to respond when there's a duty
[01:10:53.280 --> 01:11:02.920]  respond is equated to fraud it has the it gives the appearance of fraud and
[01:11:02.920 --> 01:11:12.080]  essentially it would go to prima facie but not proof you can claim that because
[01:11:12.080 --> 01:11:20.720]  they didn't respond that creates the adverse inference that the act was what
[01:11:20.720 --> 01:11:26.600]  you said it was you asked them to show evidence that they paid for this
[01:11:26.600 --> 01:11:31.920]  insurance they failed to respond to that request so that gives you prima facie
[01:11:31.920 --> 01:11:41.600]  evidence to it gives you reason to make the adverse inference that in fact they
[01:11:41.600 --> 01:11:48.560]  didn't pay it so this just goes to prima facie that make sense yeah because I'm
[01:11:48.560 --> 01:11:55.140]  just you know I've got the administrative code and statute under the
[01:11:55.140 --> 01:12:02.960]  administrative code they know where to go unauthorized business practice to
[01:12:02.960 --> 01:12:08.760]  refuse to provide information upon written request and then under a statute
[01:12:08.760 --> 01:12:14.320]  within they have to respond within 14 days of a written request okay under the
[01:12:14.320 --> 01:12:20.760]  under that code if someone violates the code what is the remedy it's going to
[01:12:20.760 --> 01:12:29.440]  have one stipulated certain it it does not have any remedy listed is there
[01:12:29.440 --> 01:12:37.080]  anywhere in the business practices code well where it does specify that I found
[01:12:37.080 --> 01:12:45.560]  the the statutory one of the 14 days that's actually goes to just a criminal
[01:12:45.560 --> 01:12:52.640]  that's mr. meter hey are you talking open records I'm sorry are you talking
[01:12:52.640 --> 01:13:00.400]  that an open records act no this is specifically okay yeah reason I was
[01:13:00.400 --> 01:13:06.360]  going to that because Julia open records act is criminal but that only goes to
[01:13:06.360 --> 01:13:12.160]  public officials so you have one that goes specifically to participants in
[01:13:12.160 --> 01:13:19.280]  this process is that correct yeah what's funny about this is the the owner of the
[01:13:19.280 --> 01:13:25.360]  first escrow company actually helped write the state's escrow company act and
[01:13:25.360 --> 01:13:34.760]  is the licensed escrow instructor for the state he screwed up so that he will
[01:13:34.760 --> 01:13:40.200]  probably want to make a deal just to keep his name out of you out of the
[01:13:40.200 --> 01:13:45.400]  papers and out of the court and he's you know he's the one that notified me
[01:13:45.400 --> 01:13:50.480]  personally in writing that they were going to be getting rid of the account
[01:13:50.480 --> 01:13:54.600]  they didn't tell me to who he just said that they were no longer going to be
[01:13:54.600 --> 01:13:58.960]  servicing the account that's probably because he don't want his name on it but
[01:13:58.960 --> 01:14:03.880]  he's already stuck to it yeah it's already that's out of the toothpaste
[01:14:03.880 --> 01:14:08.200]  already and he hurts your feelings because now he don't want to deal with
[01:14:08.200 --> 01:14:14.800]  you now you feel ostracized I know I do I feel really bad I thought you did I
[01:14:14.800 --> 01:14:22.440]  could tell okay all right I'm done thank you very much thank you Rob okay now
[01:14:22.440 --> 01:14:28.080]  we're going to go to market in Wisconsin and mark I know you're having way too
[01:14:28.080 --> 01:14:34.240]  much fun well I could be having more fun you mentioned something called will
[01:14:34.240 --> 01:14:40.120]  versus u.s. about the deception and not fraud we're not going to use the word
[01:14:40.120 --> 01:14:54.880]  fraud how do I spell that twill or we'll T W E L okay great a philosophical
[01:14:54.880 --> 01:15:05.320]  question if I'm going to be pushing for documentation under tombly slash if quick
[01:15:05.320 --> 01:15:13.400]  or you take ball big ball and it ball it ball the tomb yeah if I'm going to push
[01:15:13.400 --> 01:15:20.280]  for our records there is the time that it takes for the courts to make that
[01:15:20.280 --> 01:15:26.640]  decision hold up hold on back up let me understand this are you going for
[01:15:26.640 --> 01:15:35.960]  pre litigation discovery yes oh okay good does that run does my clock
[01:15:35.960 --> 01:15:43.360]  continue to run as to what's going to be covered in the discovery or you know if
[01:15:43.360 --> 01:15:50.200]  I can show fraud not fraud deceptive practices does that the clock start
[01:15:50.200 --> 01:15:55.960]  running and that is revealed in those documents you're talking about tolling
[01:15:55.960 --> 01:16:04.040]  the limitations on being able to file your actions right the clock keeps
[01:16:04.040 --> 01:16:12.080]  running okay that request isn't a pre litigation discovery would not toll the
[01:16:12.080 --> 01:16:20.280]  limitations period all right great then the final thing and I wanted your
[01:16:20.280 --> 01:16:27.760]  philosophical naval games hang on is as we know our judges run for office mostly
[01:16:27.760 --> 01:16:32.040]  in the country federal judges apparently at a certain point don't have to worry
[01:16:32.040 --> 01:16:36.920]  about that all right now you're the music so I'll wait to the other side
[01:16:36.920 --> 01:16:44.520]  okay this is Brandon Kelton use our radio a call-in number 512-646-1984
[01:16:44.520 --> 01:16:49.200]  give us a call we'll keep the phone lines open all night I don't know when
[01:16:49.200 --> 01:16:52.840]  this is going to lay out so I'm probably gonna fall off and click again oh there
[01:16:52.840 --> 01:16:57.200]  we go my clock came back we'll be right back
[01:17:00.240 --> 01:17:04.720]  chances are you've heard of my magic mud but have you used it thousands of
[01:17:04.720 --> 01:17:08.320]  people are blown away by the clean and healthy feeling they experience after
[01:17:08.320 --> 01:17:12.520]  just one use here's what Harlan Dietrich owner of brave new books has to say
[01:17:12.520 --> 01:17:15.920]  about the product everybody this is Harlan Dietrich owner of brave new books
[01:17:15.920 --> 01:17:19.520]  just want to tell everybody about my magic mud I use the product and it makes
[01:17:19.520 --> 01:17:23.680]  my teeth feel clean and healthy I think it makes them stronger I got lots of
[01:17:23.680 --> 01:17:27.040]  customers that come in and say the same thing you can pick yours up at brave new
[01:17:27.040 --> 01:17:31.200]  books if that wasn't enough dr. Griffin Cole DDS who's been featured on the
[01:17:31.200 --> 01:17:35.080]  Alex Jones show loves it too hi I'm dr. Griffin Cole and I got to
[01:17:35.080 --> 01:17:38.840]  tell you I really love this magic mud product because charcoal is so absorbent
[01:17:38.840 --> 01:17:42.240]  it's very effective at taking off all the sticky plaque and debris that gets
[01:17:42.240 --> 01:17:45.640]  stuck on our teeth every day I highly recommend my magic mud if you haven't
[01:17:45.640 --> 01:17:49.680]  yet experienced my magic mud it's never too late to brighten your smile and
[01:17:49.680 --> 01:17:53.760]  strengthen your teeth get your jar of my magic mud today at brave new books
[01:17:53.760 --> 01:18:01.560]  located at 1904 Guadalupe Street or order online today at mymagicmud.com
[01:18:01.560 --> 01:18:04.760]  at capital coin and bullion our mission is to be your preferred shopping
[01:18:04.760 --> 01:18:08.280]  destination by delivering excellent customer service and outstanding value at
[01:18:08.280 --> 01:18:11.820]  an affordable price we provide a wide assortment of favorite products
[01:18:11.820 --> 01:18:15.200]  featuring a great selection of high quality coins and precious metals we
[01:18:15.200 --> 01:18:19.040]  cater to beginners in coin collecting as well as large transactions for investors
[01:18:19.040 --> 01:18:23.080]  we believe in educating our customers with resources from top accredited
[01:18:23.080 --> 01:18:26.680]  metals dealers and journalists if we don't have what you're looking for we
[01:18:26.680 --> 01:18:30.940]  can find it in addition we carry popular young Jeopardy products such as beyond
[01:18:30.940 --> 01:18:35.040]  tangy tangerine and polymbers we also offer one world wave mountain house
[01:18:35.040 --> 01:18:39.360]  storable foods birky water products ammunition at 10% above wholesale and
[01:18:39.360 --> 01:18:43.480]  more we broke for metals IRA accounts and we also accept bitcoins as payment
[01:18:43.480 --> 01:18:50.480]  call us at 512-646-6440 we're located at 7304 Burnett Road Suite A about a half
[01:18:50.480 --> 01:18:54.840]  mile south of Anderson we're open Monday through Friday 10 to 6 Saturdays 10 to 2
[01:18:54.840 --> 01:19:01.480]  visit us at capital coin and bullion.com or call 512-646-6440
[01:19:01.480 --> 01:19:21.480]  This is the Logos Radio Network.
[01:19:21.480 --> 01:19:39.360]  Okay, you are back. Randy Kelton with Logos Radio and it seems I've been giving up too much of what goes on in the
[01:19:39.360 --> 01:19:44.280]  background. You guys are all figuring out what we're doing and when I'm screwing it
[01:19:44.280 --> 01:19:55.720]  up. Anyway, okay Mark. All right, so as we know the judges are mostly elected and
[01:19:55.720 --> 01:20:03.600]  in fact the idea of judges being elected was made as part of a video on HBO's
[01:20:03.600 --> 01:20:11.200]  last week tonight or last week whatever with John Oliver and you can find
[01:20:11.200 --> 01:20:16.440]  references to lawyers hating judicial election season because the lawyers get
[01:20:16.440 --> 01:20:25.000]  hit up by the judges and so my question becomes has anybody considered setting
[01:20:25.000 --> 01:20:33.400]  up packs that ultimately oppose various judges and using their words and
[01:20:33.400 --> 01:20:38.920]  decisions against them and so any of us out there who decide that a particular
[01:20:38.920 --> 01:20:48.920]  judge needs to go setting up a pack to create that situation. Now of course that
[01:20:48.920 --> 01:20:54.400]  would be external political pressure and you know it's a fine line one needs to
[01:20:54.400 --> 01:20:58.640]  walk there I'm sure but you've never really mentioned it in all the years
[01:20:58.640 --> 01:21:04.480]  that idea so I thought I remember it so I thought I'd ask. We certainly thought
[01:21:04.480 --> 01:21:09.640]  about it and we have talked about it a time or two that people should get out
[01:21:09.640 --> 01:21:16.920]  and actively campaign against these corrupt judges and there are sites out
[01:21:16.920 --> 01:21:23.120]  there for that purpose but to put together a pack to get rid of a judge
[01:21:23.120 --> 01:21:32.760]  that I haven't considered but what I suspect would happen is that the lawyers
[01:21:32.760 --> 01:21:40.120]  would contribute to the judges campaign and then they would come and
[01:21:40.120 --> 01:21:46.560]  contribute to the pack to get rid of it. Most certainly especially if there is
[01:21:46.560 --> 01:21:52.680]  the same on the regular campaigning $200 and less don't need to be
[01:21:52.680 --> 01:22:01.600]  disclosed I'm guessing there'd be a lot of $199.95 contributions. I would
[01:22:01.600 --> 01:22:07.000]  think so because the lawyers really don't like judges they're actually
[01:22:07.000 --> 01:22:12.160]  terrified of judges now there are good judges actually the lawyers would weed
[01:22:12.160 --> 01:22:17.760]  out the bad judges because there are good judges out there and even judges
[01:22:17.760 --> 01:22:27.880]  that are tough the lawyers don't seem to begrudge them. What they begrudge is the
[01:22:27.880 --> 01:22:33.960]  judge who forces them to screw their client in order to keep the judge from
[01:22:33.960 --> 01:22:44.160]  screwing them and while we pick on lawyers quite a bit on this show I don't
[01:22:44.160 --> 01:22:51.600]  like the idea of characterizing lawyers as the bad guys. They're not the bad guys
[01:22:51.600 --> 01:22:57.960]  you're stuck in a system they didn't create and you know I doubt that any lawyer
[01:22:57.960 --> 01:23:07.600]  went to law school thinking oh boy I'm gonna spend $182,000 in that I'm
[01:23:07.600 --> 01:23:12.600]  gonna have a student loan to pay off when I get out so that I could spend my
[01:23:12.600 --> 01:23:19.400]  entire professional career kissing some arrogant judges behind. Somehow I don't
[01:23:19.400 --> 01:23:22.120]  think that's what they were thinking when they went to law school but that's
[01:23:22.120 --> 01:23:28.840]  the reality we found when they got out of law school. So I've talked to lawyers
[01:23:28.840 --> 01:23:34.520]  who are incredibly frustrated with these judges. Mark that is a really good
[01:23:34.520 --> 01:23:43.640]  idea. Okay. I got just the guy here in Texas to put that together.
[01:23:43.640 --> 01:23:50.120]  Ken Magnuson can really be a scoundrel but he's good at
[01:23:50.120 --> 01:23:57.480]  lobbying and he really really doesn't like these judges. But that's a great
[01:23:57.480 --> 01:24:07.680]  idea I'm gonna hit Ken up on that one. All right. And further answer some of the
[01:24:07.680 --> 01:24:13.760]  questions. I'm looking at the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation and whether
[01:24:13.760 --> 01:24:20.160]  or not the Supreme Court has anything to do you were asking. I'll take for your
[01:24:20.160 --> 01:24:27.640]  reading pleasure here. SCR 2103 Office of Lawyer Regulation-Director paren 1.
[01:24:27.640 --> 01:24:31.840]  The director of the Office of Lawyer Regulation is appointed by and serves at
[01:24:31.840 --> 01:24:42.280]  the pleasure of the Supreme Court. So they can toss him. I'm thinking of
[01:24:42.280 --> 01:24:50.960]  politics here. Okay. So if you hammer the Supreme Court for putting in a corrupt
[01:24:50.960 --> 01:25:00.760]  head of the Office of Lawyer Regulation, whether the supreme agrees with you or
[01:25:00.760 --> 01:25:10.600]  not, it's you're going to worry the director. And the problem they have is
[01:25:10.600 --> 01:25:18.280]  you're the pro se from hell. And while they can't criticize the supreme, you
[01:25:18.280 --> 01:25:28.440]  can. They can't call the supreme out in the public but you can. Somehow I think
[01:25:28.440 --> 01:25:34.880]  they're really not going to like that. It's been my experience that both the
[01:25:34.880 --> 01:25:42.480]  police and the lawyers are terrified of these judges. I know people say when they
[01:25:42.480 --> 01:25:46.600]  they go after these public officials that they're afraid that the police will
[01:25:46.600 --> 01:25:51.720]  come and harass them. And I tell them no, no, no. The way you stop that from
[01:25:51.720 --> 01:25:56.560]  happening is you want to hammer some high-level judge. You want to ask some
[01:25:56.560 --> 01:26:00.800]  high-level judge or demand that some high-level judge do what the law
[01:26:00.800 --> 01:26:08.920]  requires him to do and get him to refuse. Then you file a complaint against him.
[01:26:08.920 --> 01:26:14.880]  Now you got him set up. First time a policeman says something to you you
[01:26:14.880 --> 01:26:19.560]  don't like, you file a complaint against this judge accusing him of sending that
[01:26:19.560 --> 01:26:30.120]  policeman after you in retaliation. And that terrifies them. You accuse the
[01:26:30.120 --> 01:26:36.320]  judge of ruling against you because this lawyer paid him off or because he's a
[01:26:36.320 --> 01:26:46.560]  friend of this lawyer. Some nonsense like that. They really, really get excited. So
[01:26:46.560 --> 01:26:51.840]  the judges are real sensitive and the lawyers are terrified of these
[01:26:51.840 --> 01:27:00.000]  judges. I'm going to bet it's this idea of a pact to get rid of a judge. That is
[01:27:00.000 --> 01:27:06.680]  a interesting idea. So we may be able to get something done here. I kind of
[01:27:06.680 --> 01:27:14.360]  wondered, I forgot where I was leading from. That's bad because I'm sober.
[01:27:14.360 --> 01:27:22.240]  You've been sober for a while, Randy. Another little tidbit, the director
[01:27:22.240 --> 01:27:26.720]  shall be admitted to practice law, the practice of law in Wisconsin no later
[01:27:26.720 --> 01:27:33.320]  than six months following appointment. So technically, the way I read that, you
[01:27:33.320 --> 01:27:39.800]  became the officer of lawyer regulation, the director. You become a lawyer. Well
[01:27:39.800 --> 01:27:47.880]  you have to become a lawyer. Right. So it's a statistical appointment by the
[01:27:47.880 --> 01:27:54.120]  court so you could have a non-lawyer back door in their bar card. Well no, I
[01:27:54.120 --> 01:28:00.280]  think it's kind of like, you know, here in Texas you can be elected as a sheriff
[01:28:00.280 --> 01:28:08.080]  and not be a certified peace officer. Okay. But if you are elected sheriff and
[01:28:08.080 --> 01:28:12.240]  you're not a certified peace officer, you have a certain amount of time in
[01:28:12.240 --> 01:28:18.960]  which to secure that certification. Okay. And I bet what this was put in for, what
[01:28:18.960 --> 01:28:27.880]  it goes to, is our judges. When a judge takes the bench, he generally drops his
[01:28:27.880 --> 01:28:34.240]  bar card because he doesn't need it for the bench. But if he's a high-level judge
[01:28:34.240 --> 01:28:39.520]  and he retires from the bench and then they appoint him to this position, he's
[01:28:39.520 --> 01:28:45.000]  got to reinstate his bar card within a certain amount of time in order to hold
[01:28:45.000 --> 01:28:51.920]  the position. Okay. I couldn't imagine him appointing a non-lawyer to that
[01:28:51.920 --> 01:29:02.200]  position. Well, who knows? I haven't looked deeply into it. I think that covers
[01:29:02.200 --> 01:29:11.040]  everything I really wanted to mention. I did send criminal complaints off to
[01:29:11.040 --> 01:29:17.120]  five judges. Four of them have utterly ignored it. One of them actually put
[01:29:17.120 --> 01:29:23.000]  something in the record and hasn't responded, but it did at least make it to
[01:29:23.000 --> 01:29:29.640]  the record in one of the cases. What did he put in the record? Did he put...
[01:29:29.640 --> 01:29:38.840]  Okay. In Texas, when a magistrate receives a complaint, he must hold an
[01:29:38.840 --> 01:29:45.520]  examining trial and then issue an order stating whether he found fault with the
[01:29:45.520 --> 01:29:51.840]  cause or didn't. Is that what he put in the record or did he just open a case?
[01:29:51.840 --> 01:30:00.080]  No. I will hit it on the other side. Okay. Randy Kelton, Rue La Radio. I'll call it now.
[01:30:00.080 --> 01:30:07.560]  Is too much Internet driving Americans crazy? New research says the web can make
[01:30:07.560 --> 01:30:12.480]  us lonely and depressed and even psychotic. I'm Dr. Katherine Albrecht and
[01:30:12.480 --> 01:30:18.240]  I'll talk about the Internet's impact on our state of mind in a moment. Privacy is
[01:30:18.240 --> 01:30:22.760]  under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:30:22.760 --> 01:30:27.120]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish
[01:30:27.120 --> 01:30:32.320]  too. So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information
[01:30:32.320 --> 01:30:37.360]  to yourself. Privacy. It's worth hanging on to. This message is brought to you by
[01:30:37.360 --> 01:30:42.520]  StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing.
[01:30:42.520 --> 01:30:49.600]  Start over with StartPage. It's no secret many Americans spend more time tweeting,
[01:30:49.600 --> 01:30:53.440]  texting and emailing than they do sleeping. But can too much time online
[01:30:53.440 --> 01:30:57.960]  make us plum crazy? Proof is piling up that the Internet may be making us
[01:30:57.960 --> 01:31:02.280]  lonelier, more depressed, prone to obsessive compulsive disorders and in
[01:31:02.280 --> 01:31:07.520]  extreme cases even psychotic. Researchers are documenting actual changes in the
[01:31:07.520 --> 01:31:11.840]  brain caused by even moderate web exposure. They're finding that digitized
[01:31:11.840 --> 01:31:16.480]  minds are constantly scanning for a fix, just like drug addicts, with every ping
[01:31:16.480 --> 01:31:20.400]  delivering a squirt of dopamine, that mini reward system for opening that
[01:31:20.400 --> 01:31:24.760]  message. Maybe it's time we stopped answering the call. I'm Dr. Katherine
[01:31:24.760 --> 01:31:31.240]  Alvarez for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine. This is
[01:31:31.240 --> 01:31:36.280]  Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[01:31:36.280 --> 01:31:40.480]  The government says that fire brought it down. However, 1,500 architects and
[01:31:40.480 --> 01:31:44.560]  engineers concluded it was a controlled demolition. Over 6,000 of my fellow
[01:31:44.560 --> 01:31:48.400]  service members have given their lives. Thousands of my fellow first responders
[01:31:48.400 --> 01:31:51.760]  are dying. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm a structural engineer. I'm a New York
[01:31:51.760 --> 01:31:55.520]  City correctional. I'm an Air Force pilot. I'm a father who lost his son. We're
[01:31:55.520 --> 01:32:00.640]  Americans and we deserve the truth. Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[01:32:00.640 --> 01:32:04.400]  Hey, it's Danny here for Hill Country Home Improvements. Did your home receive
[01:32:04.400 --> 01:32:07.600]  hail or wind damage from the recent storms? Come on, we all know the
[01:32:07.600 --> 01:32:10.600]  government caused it with their chemtrails, but good luck getting them to
[01:32:10.600 --> 01:32:14.320]  pay for it. Okay, I might be kidding about the chemtrails, but I'm serious about your
[01:32:14.320 --> 01:32:17.760]  roof. That's why you have insurance and Hill Country Home Improvements can
[01:32:17.760 --> 01:32:21.920]  handle the claim for you with little to no out-of-pocket expense. And we accept
[01:32:21.920 --> 01:32:26.200]  Bitcoin as a multi-year A-plus member of the Better Business Bureau with zero
[01:32:26.200 --> 01:32:29.920]  complaints. You can trust Hill Country Home Improvements to handle your claim
[01:32:29.920 --> 01:32:36.840]  and your roof right the first time. Just call 512-992-8745 or go to
[01:32:36.840 --> 01:32:41.160]  hillcountryhomeimprovements.com. Mention the crypto show and get $100 off and
[01:32:41.160 --> 01:32:44.960]  we'll donate another $100 to the Logos Radio Network to help continue this
[01:32:44.960 --> 01:32:49.360]  programming. So if those out-of-town roofers come knocking, your door should
[01:32:49.360 --> 01:32:56.600]  be locking. That's 512-992-8745 or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[01:32:56.600 --> 01:32:59.920]  Discounts are based on full roof replacement. May not actually be
[01:32:59.920 --> 01:33:06.920]  kidding about chemtrails. Looking for some truth? You found it. Logosradio
[01:33:06.920 --> 01:33:30.920]  Network.com.
[01:33:37.920 --> 01:33:45.920]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton uses our radio. And we're talking to Mark in Wisconsin.
[01:33:45.920 --> 01:33:48.920]  Okay, Mark.
[01:33:48.920 --> 01:33:54.920]  All right, let's see here. The record actually says, letter from citizen
[01:33:54.920 --> 01:33:58.920]  petitioning the court to issue a criminal complaint with attachments.
[01:33:58.920 --> 01:34:03.920]  Which is not actually what I asked for. What I asked for was the complaint to be
[01:34:03.920 --> 01:34:09.920]  signed and at the point where the complaint is signed, it can then be dropped
[01:34:09.920 --> 01:34:17.920]  on the floor by the DA or the judge could go ahead and call a grand jury. But,
[01:34:17.920 --> 01:34:25.920]  you know, they're basically going to not sign, have me witness be signing it and
[01:34:25.920 --> 01:34:30.920]  have it drop on the floor that way. But that's all right. In my criminal
[01:34:30.920 --> 01:34:35.920]  complaint, I'm pointing out how judge's orders were being blown off by the
[01:34:35.920 --> 01:34:42.920]  person in question and how he has a history of blowing off judge's direct
[01:34:42.920 --> 01:34:50.920]  orders and the resultant they're in. So they don't sign it. You know, it shows
[01:34:50.920 --> 01:34:55.920]  exactly how much worth a judge's order has.
[01:34:55.920 --> 01:35:03.920]  What does the code in Wisconsin say about what the process is concerning a
[01:35:03.920 --> 01:35:05.920]  criminal complaint?
[01:35:05.920 --> 01:35:12.920]  Well, what it says is one of the definitions of complaint says that a
[01:35:12.920 --> 01:35:18.920]  complaint can only be issued from the district attorney. However, at the very
[01:35:18.920 --> 01:35:29.920]  start of the section on the complaint, it says any person can make a complaint
[01:35:29.920 --> 01:35:34.920]  on information or belief. That complaint then needs to be witnessed, not
[01:35:34.920 --> 01:35:41.920]  witnessed, but then either a DA or a judge needs to witness the signing of
[01:35:41.920 --> 01:35:48.920]  that to make it a complaint. The second part is the John Doe proceeding. If a
[01:35:48.920 --> 01:35:53.920]  person, I was told this verbally, it needs to be a John Doe. Well, the John
[01:35:53.920 --> 01:36:01.920]  Doe's are controlled by the head judge for the county. And the John Doe first
[01:36:01.920 --> 01:36:08.920]  part says a district attorney requests it. The second part is if a person who
[01:36:08.920 --> 01:36:12.920]  is not a district attorney, moi, complains to a judge that he is reasonably
[01:36:12.920 --> 01:36:15.920]  that crime has been committed within judge's jurisdiction, the judge shall
[01:36:15.920 --> 01:36:20.920]  refer the complaint to the district attorney. Well, of course, a complaint
[01:36:20.920 --> 01:36:26.920]  needs to have a witnessed signature. And where this is right now in the court
[01:36:26.920 --> 01:36:31.920]  system is I wrote a wonderful cover letter explaining I know how busy judges
[01:36:31.920 --> 01:36:39.920]  are. And when they had time, please come and arrange a date and time certain
[01:36:39.920 --> 01:36:45.920]  for me to come in and witness this. And knowing full well that they're not going
[01:36:45.920 --> 01:36:47.920]  to bother.
[01:36:47.920 --> 01:36:53.920]  You might try bushwhacking them when they have motion hearings.
[01:36:53.920 --> 01:36:59.920]  This is just setting up, for me this is setting up a fight to bushwhack an
[01:36:59.920 --> 01:37:05.920]  entirely different judge and then kick it right to the feds. I'm just going to
[01:37:05.920 --> 01:37:13.920]  take it right to the feds and go, you know, I guess the law that was used for
[01:37:13.920 --> 01:37:18.920]  Reconstruction and Voting Rights Act where the state is a bunch of screw ups,
[01:37:18.920 --> 01:37:25.920]  feds step in is the path on which I was looking at. Because if they can't bother
[01:37:25.920 --> 01:37:31.920]  to get this, you know, something as simple as witnessing the signing of a
[01:37:31.920 --> 01:37:36.920]  sheet of paper, you guys need to step in. And since it would touch lawyer
[01:37:36.920 --> 01:37:44.920]  regulation, which is otherwise held by the Supreme Court, you know, and I have
[01:37:44.920 --> 01:37:51.920]  evidence that local newspaper points out how lawyer regulation is a vacuous
[01:37:51.920 --> 01:38:00.920]  amount of suck in our state. So there's plenty of someone needs to step in here
[01:38:00.920 --> 01:38:05.920]  and I'm sure that will get everyone's underwear all tightened up.
[01:38:05.920 --> 01:38:15.920]  Well, how are you going to get the feds to want to step in? In the end it's all
[01:38:15.920 --> 01:38:21.920]  political. So how do you get the politics that would induce the feds to get into
[01:38:21.920 --> 01:38:25.920]  a controversy with the state?
[01:38:25.920 --> 01:38:30.920]  That's the problem I haven't quite figured out yet. But I mean, all I can do
[01:38:30.920 --> 01:38:34.920]  is ask and then them blowing me off and they're pretty good at blowing me off.
[01:38:34.920 --> 01:38:39.920]  I'm used to that.
[01:38:39.920 --> 01:38:42.920]  I consider a WICO action.
[01:38:42.920 --> 01:38:47.920]  Well, in fact, against the attorneys in question with what they did,
[01:38:47.920 --> 01:38:53.920]  ultimately they were saying that they filed paperwork saying that the
[01:38:53.920 --> 01:38:59.920]  gentleman in question was not the owner. And I'm now in possession of emails
[01:38:59.920 --> 01:39:04.920]  from the attorneys talking about bankrupting the company that he was
[01:39:04.920 --> 01:39:09.920]  otherwise the general manager of. The attorneys submitted documentation
[01:39:09.920 --> 01:39:14.920]  saying he was not the owner and was never the owner.
[01:39:14.920 --> 01:39:19.920]  Wait a minute. Who was discussing bankrupting the company? The individual
[01:39:19.920 --> 01:39:20.920]  or the lawyers?
[01:39:20.920 --> 01:39:25.920]  The general manager with a group of lawyers who ultimately sent me a sheet
[01:39:25.920 --> 01:39:30.920]  of paper saying that this general manager was not an owner and was never an
[01:39:30.920 --> 01:39:36.920]  owner. And yet he was negotiating rates and other things for Chapter 11
[01:39:36.920 --> 01:39:41.920]  bankruptcy.
[01:39:41.920 --> 01:39:43.920]  Okay, I missed something.
[01:39:43.920 --> 01:39:45.920]  Okay.
[01:39:45.920 --> 01:39:52.920]  I got the impression that he was suggesting forcing the company into
[01:39:52.920 --> 01:39:57.920]  bankruptcy. Was he actually talking about a bankruptcy proceeding for the
[01:39:57.920 --> 01:40:02.920]  company and not conspiring to bankrupt the company? Did I miss that?
[01:40:02.920 --> 01:40:06.920]  No, he was conspiring to bankrupt the company. In fact, in the civil action
[01:40:06.920 --> 01:40:11.920]  and in different county, the judge at one point said,
[01:40:11.920 --> 01:40:15.920]  it appears to me you're attempting to bankrupt this company.
[01:40:15.920 --> 01:40:20.920]  The judge has no idea how close he hit the mark there because he didn't have
[01:40:20.920 --> 01:40:25.920]  this email discussion with copies of it with one of the lawyers.
[01:40:25.920 --> 01:40:30.920]  This has come out subsequent.
[01:40:30.920 --> 01:40:34.920]  Okay, how are you going to get this to the Fed?
[01:40:34.920 --> 01:40:35.920]  I'm not sure.
[01:40:35.920 --> 01:40:37.920]  I haven't figured out yet.
[01:40:37.920 --> 01:40:46.920]  I'm not sure how you're trying to get the Fed on the stage because the state's
[01:40:46.920 --> 01:40:49.920]  not taking action against these individuals.
[01:40:49.920 --> 01:40:55.920]  Well, better than that, ultimately the state, if they had done a proper
[01:40:55.920 --> 01:41:00.920]  investigation, would know about this and ultimately this one lawyer who was
[01:41:00.920 --> 01:41:09.920]  negotiating the bankruptcy was a shareholder, he up and quit, left the firm
[01:41:09.920 --> 01:41:14.920]  after I did my bar grievance.
[01:41:14.920 --> 01:41:21.920]  So you think you shined a light on something that he didn't want to get
[01:41:21.920 --> 01:41:23.920]  caught up in?
[01:41:23.920 --> 01:41:29.920]  Right, and he's the only honest man that I can see in this whole thing where
[01:41:29.920 --> 01:41:33.920]  he followed what the Supreme Court rules say.
[01:41:33.920 --> 01:41:39.920]  You need to run away very fast from this individual and since the firm was
[01:41:39.920 --> 01:41:44.920]  unwilling to drop him like a hot potato, he left the firm.
[01:41:44.920 --> 01:41:52.920]  Ultimately, another person who joined the firm in their bankruptcy division as
[01:41:52.920 --> 01:41:58.920]  a shareholder about the time my bar grievance hit, he left the firm as a
[01:41:58.920 --> 01:42:03.920]  shareholder and is now clerking for a bankruptcy, one of the bankruptcy
[01:42:03.920 --> 01:42:06.920]  judges.
[01:42:06.920 --> 01:42:07.920]  That is interesting.
[01:42:07.920 --> 01:42:11.920]  Do they have to be lawyers to be the clerk?
[01:42:11.920 --> 01:42:15.920]  Don't know if they have to be lawyers to be the clerk but it's an interesting
[01:42:15.920 --> 01:42:16.920]  thing.
[01:42:16.920 --> 01:42:17.920]  Let me back up.
[01:42:17.920 --> 01:42:22.920]  I have another question about that because oftentimes federal judges have
[01:42:22.920 --> 01:42:29.920]  clerks that actually prepare their legal documents for them.
[01:42:29.920 --> 01:42:34.920]  Is that the capacity this clerk is in or is she just a filing clerk?
[01:42:34.920 --> 01:42:41.920]  Oh, she, the particular bankruptcy judge has two clerks, both of them appear
[01:42:41.920 --> 01:42:47.920]  to hold bar cards and the particular clerk who was a shareholder and then
[01:42:47.920 --> 01:42:56.920]  left, she's one of the 15 lawyers who's on the bankruptcy advisory committee
[01:42:56.920 --> 01:42:59.920]  for this Eastern District.
[01:42:59.920 --> 01:43:07.920]  Okay, so she's probably a law clerk as opposed to like a district clerk or one
[01:43:07.920 --> 01:43:09.920]  that takes care of the records.
[01:43:09.920 --> 01:43:14.920]  I wasn't, I thought I had misunderstood what kind of clerk she was so she
[01:43:14.920 --> 01:43:18.920]  didn't give up a bar card or her practice, she became a law clerk for the
[01:43:18.920 --> 01:43:20.920]  courts.
[01:43:20.920 --> 01:43:25.920]  Right, she did however stop as far as I can tell being a shareholder in the
[01:43:25.920 --> 01:43:33.920]  firm in question and she would otherwise make sure she was very scarce when
[01:43:33.920 --> 01:43:37.920]  hearings would be happening that I was touching.
[01:43:37.920 --> 01:43:39.920]  That's good to hear.
[01:43:39.920 --> 01:43:41.920]  Okay, we're about to go to break.
[01:43:41.920 --> 01:43:43.920]  Do you have any more for us, Mark?
[01:43:43.920 --> 01:43:45.920]  No, no, I think that's about it.
[01:43:45.920 --> 01:43:46.920]  Thanks.
[01:43:46.920 --> 01:43:48.920]  Okay, thank you, Mark.
[01:43:48.920 --> 01:43:49.920]  This is Randy Kelton.
[01:43:49.920 --> 01:43:50.920]  You have our radio.
[01:43:50.920 --> 01:43:54.920]  I call the number 512-646-1984.
[01:43:54.920 --> 01:43:59.920]  We'll be right back.
[01:43:59.920 --> 01:44:03.920]  Do you feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics?
[01:44:03.920 --> 01:44:04.920]  Boring.
[01:44:04.920 --> 01:44:07.920]  I'm confused by words like the Constitution or the Federal Reserve.
[01:44:07.920 --> 01:44:08.920]  What?
[01:44:08.920 --> 01:44:11.920]  If so, you may be diagnosed with the deadliest disease known today,
[01:44:11.920 --> 01:44:12.920]  stupidity.
[01:44:12.920 --> 01:44:16.920]  Hi, my name is Steve Holt and like millions of other Americans, I was
[01:44:16.920 --> 01:44:18.920]  diagnosed with stupidity at an early age.
[01:44:18.920 --> 01:44:22.920]  I had no idea that the number one cause of the disease is found in almost
[01:44:22.920 --> 01:44:24.920]  every home in America, the television.
[01:44:24.920 --> 01:44:28.920]  Unfortunately, that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity but
[01:44:28.920 --> 01:44:29.920]  there is hope.
[01:44:29.920 --> 01:44:32.920]  The staff at Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other
[01:44:32.920 --> 01:44:35.920]  foxaholics suffering from sports zombieism recover.
[01:44:35.920 --> 01:44:39.920]  And because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading and watching educational
[01:44:39.920 --> 01:44:42.920]  documentaries without feeling tired or uninterested.
[01:44:42.920 --> 01:44:46.920]  So if you or anybody you know suffers from stupidity, then you need to call
[01:44:46.920 --> 01:44:54.920]  512-480-2503 or visit them in 1904 Guadalupe or bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:44:54.920 --> 01:44:56.920]  Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include discernment and
[01:44:56.920 --> 01:45:00.920]  enlarged vocabulary and an overall increase in mental functioning.
[01:45:00.920 --> 01:45:03.920]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:03.920 --> 01:45:07.920]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable,
[01:45:07.920 --> 01:45:13.920]  easy to understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours,
[01:45:13.920 --> 01:45:14.920]  step-by-step.
[01:45:14.920 --> 01:45:18.920]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:45:18.920 --> 01:45:22.920]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:22.920 --> 01:45:27.920]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course and now you can too.
[01:45:27.920 --> 01:45:32.920]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning
[01:45:32.920 --> 01:45:33.920]  experience.
[01:45:33.920 --> 01:45:37.920]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should
[01:45:37.920 --> 01:45:41.920]  understand about the principles and practices that control our American
[01:45:41.920 --> 01:45:42.920]  courts.
[01:45:42.920 --> 01:45:47.920]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for
[01:45:47.920 --> 01:45:51.920]  civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:45:51.920 --> 01:45:56.920]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free
[01:45:56.920 --> 01:46:01.920]  866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:01.920 --> 01:46:29.920]  We are back.
[01:46:29.920 --> 01:46:35.920]  Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio, and we're going to Sonny in Georgia.
[01:46:35.920 --> 01:46:38.920]  Hello, Sonny.
[01:46:38.920 --> 01:46:39.920]  Hello, Randy.
[01:46:39.920 --> 01:46:40.920]  Hello.
[01:46:40.920 --> 01:46:43.920]  What do you have for us tonight?
[01:46:43.920 --> 01:46:50.920]  Well, I've got a question on revoking the power of attorney in a non-judicial
[01:46:50.920 --> 01:46:57.920]  state on whether you think that would then sort of turn it into a judicial
[01:46:57.920 --> 01:47:04.920]  state type of scenario where they would then have to prove they have standing,
[01:47:04.920 --> 01:47:08.920]  they're the real party of interest, et cetera, et cetera.
[01:47:08.920 --> 01:47:10.920]  We've addressed this issue before.
[01:47:10.920 --> 01:47:18.920]  I take it you're, okay, whose power of attorney are you attempting to revoke?
[01:47:18.920 --> 01:47:28.920]  It would be in the, I guess it would be in the security deed to the lender.
[01:47:28.920 --> 01:47:35.920]  What power of attorney are you referring to?
[01:47:35.920 --> 01:47:51.920]  That gives them the right to have the foreclosure, I guess, through a type of
[01:47:51.920 --> 01:47:56.920]  consent judgment where they can just...
[01:47:56.920 --> 01:47:57.920]  Okay.
[01:47:57.920 --> 01:47:58.920]  Okay.
[01:47:58.920 --> 01:47:59.920]  Well, now I think I'm getting it.
[01:47:59.920 --> 01:48:05.920]  I think that's a misconception of what power of attorney is.
[01:48:05.920 --> 01:48:13.920]  Power of attorney is authorization for one person to act in the place of
[01:48:13.920 --> 01:48:20.920]  another, and here in a foreclosure, the lender acts in his own capacity.
[01:48:20.920 --> 01:48:27.920]  Now, we did have some guys out there in the legal reform movement filing
[01:48:27.920 --> 01:48:35.920]  documents in the public record that purported to fire the trustee and then
[01:48:35.920 --> 01:48:38.920]  replace the trustee.
[01:48:38.920 --> 01:48:45.920]  Well, in most states they're forbidden to do that and in equity they have no
[01:48:45.920 --> 01:48:48.920]  power to do that.
[01:48:48.920 --> 01:48:56.920]  When they create the deed of trust, it is the borrower who appoints the
[01:48:56.920 --> 01:49:00.920]  original trustee.
[01:49:00.920 --> 01:49:05.920]  Well, actually it's in the deed of trust when he gets it, and by affirming
[01:49:05.920 --> 01:49:08.920]  the deed of trust, he affirms the appointment of the trustee, whether he
[01:49:08.920 --> 01:49:13.920]  knows who that trustee is or not, and for the most part they don't.
[01:49:13.920 --> 01:49:16.920]  But he does appoint that first trustee.
[01:49:16.920 --> 01:49:24.920]  Once the document is consummated, once it becomes a contract, then the
[01:49:24.920 --> 01:49:29.920]  borrower no longer has standing to change the trustee.
[01:49:29.920 --> 01:49:35.920]  It's in the contract that only the lender has power to substitute a
[01:49:35.920 --> 01:49:37.920]  trustee.
[01:49:37.920 --> 01:49:42.920]  So we had some guys doing that, and in California they have a specific
[01:49:42.920 --> 01:49:50.920]  statute that makes it a crime to file a document purporting to replace the
[01:49:50.920 --> 01:49:56.920]  trustee if you're not a fiduciary, if you're not in a position to be able to
[01:49:56.920 --> 01:49:57.920]  do that.
[01:49:57.920 --> 01:50:01.920]  So it's criminal in California.
[01:50:01.920 --> 01:50:07.920]  If it's criminal in California for a clerk to file a document that's
[01:50:07.920 --> 01:50:12.920]  improper, that's not a document that's including in those documents that are
[01:50:12.920 --> 01:50:18.920]  filed with the counter recorder, if a recorder files a wrong document, it's
[01:50:18.920 --> 01:50:21.920]  a class A misdemeanor.
[01:50:21.920 --> 01:50:31.920]  So while it's not a crime in every state to file these, they have no force
[01:50:31.920 --> 01:50:37.920]  and effect because the borrower doesn't have the power to do that.
[01:50:37.920 --> 01:50:41.920]  I don't know of any power of attorney that you can revoke.
[01:50:41.920 --> 01:50:51.920]  However, there are powers of attorney that you can request, and we certainly
[01:50:51.920 --> 01:50:54.920]  have people do that.
[01:50:54.920 --> 01:51:00.920]  You might want to look at every document that is filed in the public record,
[01:51:00.920 --> 01:51:08.920]  see who the affirmant is, who signed it, and then send the company for whom
[01:51:08.920 --> 01:51:13.920]  they signed a request for power of attorney for that person because that's
[01:51:13.920 --> 01:51:15.920]  what power of attorney is about.
[01:51:15.920 --> 01:51:20.920]  The person is signing this document for this company, and in order to do that,
[01:51:20.920 --> 01:51:23.920]  they have to have power of attorney from the company.
[01:51:23.920 --> 01:51:25.920]  So you request it.
[01:51:25.920 --> 01:51:32.920]  You can go into the court and say, Your Honor, this guy's a robo-signer.
[01:51:32.920 --> 01:51:36.920]  His name's splattered all over the internet, and the judge is going to say,
[01:51:36.920 --> 01:51:42.920]  So, what does that have to do with this document?
[01:51:42.920 --> 01:51:46.920]  How does that in any way establish that this person did not have authority
[01:51:46.920 --> 01:51:49.920]  to affirm this document?
[01:51:49.920 --> 01:51:56.920]  So what you do is you request an evidence of power of attorney for this person
[01:51:56.920 --> 01:52:04.920]  to act for this company, and we've never had anybody respond to that.
[01:52:04.920 --> 01:52:07.920]  They get to literally throw it in trash.
[01:52:07.920 --> 01:52:12.920]  And that's exactly what we want them to do because now you go to the court
[01:52:12.920 --> 01:52:14.920]  and say, Your Honor, this guy's a robo-signer.
[01:52:14.920 --> 01:52:16.920]  His name's splattered all over the internet.
[01:52:16.920 --> 01:52:23.920]  So we requested of the company evidence of power of attorney.
[01:52:23.920 --> 01:52:27.920]  The company failed to provide evidence of power of attorney,
[01:52:27.920 --> 01:52:32.920]  creating the adverse inference that the guy's a robo-signer.
[01:52:32.920 --> 01:52:35.920]  Does that make sense?
[01:52:35.920 --> 01:52:37.920]  It does. It does.
[01:52:37.920 --> 01:52:47.920]  And so it sort of leads me to, I guess, my next thought of approach would be
[01:52:47.920 --> 01:52:51.920]  taking on the breach of contract.
[01:52:51.920 --> 01:52:57.920]  Now, that's, in my opinion, show me the note,
[01:52:57.920 --> 01:53:07.920]  and MERS was like a red herring drawn across our path to the county clerk's office.
[01:53:07.920 --> 01:53:13.920]  The banks drug these red herrings across our path to send us down these rabbit holes
[01:53:13.920 --> 01:53:16.920]  because those are the issues they wanted to fight,
[01:53:16.920 --> 01:53:22.920]  and they did that to keep us from getting to the county clerk's office.
[01:53:22.920 --> 01:53:27.920]  The breaches of contract that are evidenced by the records in the county clerk's office,
[01:53:27.920 --> 01:53:32.920]  that's the place they don't want to go.
[01:53:32.920 --> 01:53:38.920]  Those are the issues that it's very easy for the judge to wrap his head around.
[01:53:38.920 --> 01:53:42.920]  And all of this securitization, argumentation,
[01:53:42.920 --> 01:53:52.920]  man, forget that, go to the severability and the governing law clause,
[01:53:52.920 --> 01:53:55.920]  where both parties, it's generally covenant 16.
[01:53:55.920 --> 01:53:59.920]  I think if it's FHA, it may be 15.
[01:53:59.920 --> 01:54:05.920]  It moves around a little, but it's right in that neighborhood.
[01:54:05.920 --> 01:54:16.920]  In that clause, that covenant, both parties agree to abide by all relevant law.
[01:54:16.920 --> 01:54:19.920]  That's kind of a catchall.
[01:54:19.920 --> 01:54:24.920]  When you say that they didn't give notice when they were required to give notice,
[01:54:24.920 --> 01:54:27.920]  and you make your complaint under FDCPA,
[01:54:27.920 --> 01:54:32.920]  the courts are going to say, well, the FDCPA time limitations are so short,
[01:54:32.920 --> 01:54:35.920]  you missed the time limitations.
[01:54:35.920 --> 01:54:41.920]  Our legislators passed what appeared to be consumer protection laws.
[01:54:41.920 --> 01:54:47.920]  And they made this big show of protecting us consumers from the dirty rotten bankers.
[01:54:47.920 --> 01:54:50.920]  But then they set the statute of limitations so short
[01:54:50.920 --> 01:54:54.920]  that by the time you got this figured out, you were already out of time.
[01:54:54.920 --> 01:54:58.920]  So it was all a scam.
[01:54:58.920 --> 01:55:01.920]  But they have a problem.
[01:55:01.920 --> 01:55:04.920]  They don't claim a remedy.
[01:55:04.920 --> 01:55:11.920]  You claim a violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act,
[01:55:11.920 --> 01:55:16.920]  but you don't claim the remedy codified in the act.
[01:55:16.920 --> 01:55:23.920]  The legislature created these remedies,
[01:55:23.920 --> 01:55:26.920]  but they created the restrictions.
[01:55:26.920 --> 01:55:30.920]  And because they created the restrictions, they're not constitutional,
[01:55:30.920 --> 01:55:34.920]  the legislature can also prescribe the remedy.
[01:55:34.920 --> 01:55:39.920]  And they did prescribe a remedy, deliberately prescribed it to be short.
[01:55:39.920 --> 01:55:41.920]  Problem.
[01:55:41.920 --> 01:55:49.920]  You still have the relevant law and severability covenant
[01:55:49.920 --> 01:55:54.920]  where the lender agreed to abide by all law.
[01:55:54.920 --> 01:56:01.920]  So you claim your remedy and breach a contract rather than under Federal Collections Practices Act.
[01:56:01.920 --> 01:56:05.920]  Does that make sense, Sonny?
[01:56:05.920 --> 01:56:08.920]  Somewhat.
[01:56:08.920 --> 01:56:17.920]  My mind was kind of racing when you were talking about both parties agreeing to abide by all the laws.
[01:56:17.920 --> 01:56:27.920]  I know you mentioned that the securitization and all that was something maybe not really to focus on,
[01:56:27.920 --> 01:56:32.920]  but I couldn't help but think of where they didn't follow those laws,
[01:56:32.920 --> 01:56:37.920]  especially in New York, in the securitization practices.
[01:56:37.920 --> 01:56:38.920]  Yes.
[01:56:38.920 --> 01:56:45.920]  So you don't really, you claim your remedy under breach of contract.
[01:56:45.920 --> 01:56:48.920]  You know, the securitization is all going to show me the note.
[01:56:48.920 --> 01:56:51.920]  What the heck with that?
[01:56:51.920 --> 01:56:53.920]  Breach of contract.
[01:56:53.920 --> 01:57:04.920]  All of these sophisticated statutory and securities requirements are put in place to protect you.
[01:57:04.920 --> 01:57:13.920]  And when you came to the table, you had a right to a reasonable expectation that they would protect you.
[01:57:13.920 --> 01:57:20.920]  And that's why you put in this clause to ensure that all of these laws were,
[01:57:20.920 --> 01:57:28.920]  right now we have a case in California where the Glassky and Jenkins case are being discussed.
[01:57:28.920 --> 01:57:41.920]  What Jenkins says is you as the borrower have no power to challenge the validity of an assignment of the security instrument.
[01:57:41.920 --> 01:57:53.920]  Well, under the governing law statutes, covenant, you don't have to show standing.
[01:57:53.920 --> 01:58:03.920]  You say we insisted that both parties abide by all law so that I wouldn't have this issue.
[01:58:03.920 --> 01:58:06.920]  I wouldn't have to worry about fraudulent assignments.
[01:58:06.920 --> 01:58:11.920]  They're already covered under the catch-all governing law claims.
[01:58:11.920 --> 01:58:21.920]  So you make all your claims in that regard, claims of remedy under breach of contract rather than under the statute itself.
[01:58:21.920 --> 01:58:25.920]  Does that make sense?
[01:58:25.920 --> 01:58:27.920]  It does somewhat.
[01:58:27.920 --> 01:58:34.920]  I've got the big picture that, I mean, you've got to take them on the breach of contract.
[01:58:34.920 --> 01:58:38.920]  Okay, hang on. We're about to go to break. We'll pick this up on the other side.
[01:58:38.920 --> 01:58:49.920]  This is Randy Kelton from Wheel of Law Radio. Our call-in number is 512-646-1984. We'll be right back.
[01:58:49.920 --> 01:58:57.920]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it.
[01:58:57.920 --> 01:59:05.920]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the Scripture.
[01:59:05.920 --> 01:59:08.920]  Enter the recovery version.
[01:59:08.920 --> 01:59:17.920]  First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes.
[01:59:17.920 --> 01:59:21.920]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way,
[01:59:21.920 --> 01:59:27.920]  providing an entrance into the riches of the Word beyond which you've ever experienced before.
[01:59:27.920 --> 01:59:32.920]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking.
[01:59:32.920 --> 01:59:42.920]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll-free at 1-888-551-0102,
[01:59:42.920 --> 01:59:49.920]  or by ordering online at freestudybible.com. That's freestudybible.com.
[01:59:49.920 --> 01:59:55.920]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com.