[00:00.000 --> 00:10.000]  The following news flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing the daily bulletins for the commodities market.
[00:10.000 --> 00:18.000]  Today in history, news updates and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative.
[00:18.000 --> 00:39.000]  Markets for the 11th of November, 2015 opened up with gold at $1,084.79 an ounce, silver $14.30 an ounce, Texas crude $44.21 a barrel, and Bitcoin is currently sitting at about $310 U.S. currency.
[00:39.000 --> 00:59.000]  Today in history, Friday November 11th, Memorial Day 1921, President Warren G. Harding officiated at the interment ceremonies at the Memorial Amphitheater at Arlington National Cemetery of one of the four caskets exhumed from American cemeteries in France.
[00:59.000 --> 01:03.000]  This was the commemoration of the unknown soldier of World War I.
[01:03.000 --> 01:15.000]  In recent news, the Chinese e-commerce company Alibaba broke records with $14.3 billion in sales on Singles Day, November 11th.
[01:15.000 --> 01:22.000]  11-11 is Singles Day in China because 11-11 looked like bear branches, a term used for bachelors in Chinese.
[01:22.000 --> 01:27.000]  The Alibaba Group holding limited said mobile sales alone made up about 70% of it.
[01:27.000 --> 01:38.000]  While Alibaba Jack Ma has said that he'd like to export Singles Day to the United States, it's not likely, say experts, since it would turn a solemn day of remembrance into a day of frivolous spending.
[01:38.000 --> 01:48.000]  You know, like Thanksgiving and Christmas, Alibaba was able to make $14-plus billion in sales in a single day in a country that spends a third of what we do on military armament.
[01:48.000 --> 02:05.000]  The world's most popular social media site, Facebook, will now be charged 250,000 euros a day if it doesn't change the way it uses tracking cookies after a lawsuit was raised in one by a Belgian's privacy watchdog group.
[02:05.000 --> 02:10.000]  Frederic de Bouchière, the lawyer behind the case, has stated that he is anticipating other cases to follow.
[02:10.000 --> 02:20.000]  The Belgian privacy watchdog successfully argued that Facebook was infringing on the privacy rights of the country's citizens by tracking them around the Internet, even if they hadn't signed up to the site.
[02:20.000 --> 02:30.000]  Apparently, Facebook had been enabling cookies which would load onto a user's browser if they went onto their Facebook page, even if they weren't logged in, and then used them to track them when they came back to the site.
[02:30.000 --> 02:37.000]  Facebook's defense is that it was only collecting computer IP addresses and other unique identifiers via these cookies.
[02:37.000 --> 02:42.000]  However, the court ruled that that information was personal data and should not be tracked.
[02:42.000 --> 02:49.000]  Facebook does plan to appeal the case, stating that only EU courts and not Belgian courts have the authority to make such rulings.
[02:49.000 --> 03:08.000]  This is your lowdown for November 11, 2013.
[03:08.000 --> 03:23.000]  This is your lowdown for November 11, 2013.
[03:23.000 --> 03:38.000]  This is your lowdown for November 11, 2013.
[03:38.000 --> 03:53.000]  This is your lowdown for November 11, 2013.
[03:53.000 --> 04:08.000]  This is your lowdown for November 11, 2013.
[04:08.000 --> 04:23.000]  This is your lowdown for November 11, 2013.
[04:23.000 --> 04:38.000]  This is your lowdown for November 11, 2013.
[04:38.000 --> 04:56.000]  Okay, back to where we were, the 20th day of November, and we have a special guest today, Marshall Denning, we've had him on before, he is dealing with a gun range issue in, was it Oregon?
[04:56.000 --> 04:58.000]  Washington State.
[04:58.000 --> 05:00.000]  Washington State.
[05:00.000 --> 05:08.000]  Would you kind of bring us up to speed on what has gone on up to this point?
[05:08.000 --> 05:09.000]  Sure.
[05:09.000 --> 05:11.000]  And good evening, Randy.
[05:11.000 --> 05:18.000]  Well, our gun range has been having issues with Kitsap County for a very, very long time.
[05:18.000 --> 05:23.000]  I forget whether it's been 11 years or 12 years, but a very, very long time.
[05:23.000 --> 05:34.000]  And quite a number of gun ranges have been permanently closed in the regional area, three have been permanently closed in the previous 15 years, something like that.
[05:34.000 --> 05:54.000]  So eventually our disagreements with the county turned into lawsuits, and we're currently in two lawsuits in two different counties before two different judges, both of which originally the county asked to close the gun range permanently.
[05:54.000 --> 05:56.000]  So let's break it down.
[05:56.000 --> 06:07.000]  So the first case, we call it Kitsap 1, was basically brought as a nuisance suit and based on sound.
[06:07.000 --> 06:18.000]  And we went through the case, we did not get a jury trial, the judge decided to close the range permanently and unconditionally.
[06:18.000 --> 06:35.000]  And so we appealed it. And at the appeals court level, while they certainly agreed that we were some sort of nuisance, we had grandfathered rights, we had property rights, we had been in continuous operation for more than 89 years.
[06:35.000 --> 06:48.000]  And we had grandfathered rights that could not be ignored, and that shutting the gun range down was an outrageous and unjustified remedy for the nuisance.
[06:48.000 --> 07:00.000]  And basically the judges said that you're not allowed to shut the gun range down, you have to formulate some remedy far short of shutting the gun range down and handed it back to the first judge.
[07:00.000 --> 07:22.000]  And that judge has taken just a couple of actions since then. The most important one is we wanted to do some additional discovery because the county had done, had paid an expert $17,000 to do a sound study while we were operational on the property of our nearest neighbor.
[07:22.000 --> 07:44.000]  And it turns out that the level of our sound was not as high as they wanted. So they have gone to a great deal of effort to keep that information out of court, even though it's the most, in my opinion, it's the most important and the most technically germane information that could be available to the court to deal with the level of the nuisance.
[07:44.000 --> 08:00.000]  So he stopped not only our most recent request for discovery, but we also placed some very pointed questions to the county and they objected and the judge stopped all discovery in that case completely.
[08:00.000 --> 08:06.000]  We cannot request any discovery without his explicit permission.
[08:06.000 --> 08:19.000]  And so we're currently waiting for summary judgment, a decision on summary judgment or whether we get a trial and that'll be early in December that we'll find out about that.
[08:19.000 --> 08:27.000]  Why did he, what was his cause for stopping all discovery?
[08:27.000 --> 08:38.000]  That was not clearly defined. Of course, the county used the argument that, well, no discovery could generate relevant information.
[08:38.000 --> 08:47.000]  And of course, we took great exception to that. He did not give a clear reason, a clear lawful reason for what he did.
[08:47.000 --> 09:00.000]  And several of us in the club pushed very hard for the lawyers to demand a findings of fact and conclusions at law as it related to this order to stop all discovery.
[09:00.000 --> 09:03.000]  And we have not gotten that yet.
[09:03.000 --> 09:13.000]  Did you, okay. Have they petitioned the court of appeals for mandamus ordering the findings of fact?
[09:13.000 --> 09:24.000]  We have not done that and it would be awfully nice to have that, that finding of fact and conclusions at law before the summary judgment is made.
[09:24.000 --> 09:32.000]  Okay. Question about the information that you're requesting under discovery.
[09:32.000 --> 09:42.000]  Is this proprietary information or information that normally would be excluded from public disclosure?
[09:42.000 --> 09:55.000]  Well, I haven't researched that in detail, but in general, the monies were spent by the county to gather technical information about the level of sounds leaving the range.
[09:55.000 --> 10:03.000]  Okay, hold on. You're doing discovery to find where money went to?
[10:03.000 --> 10:13.000]  Well, we know where the money went to because we've already checked into that to basically prove, we had to prove that the expert was paid by the county.
[10:13.000 --> 10:26.000]  And then our argument is, but even if it is not, even if it's not admissible in the court, we should have access to that technical information because it was paid for by the county.
[10:26.000 --> 10:36.000]  Anything that was paid for by the county belongs to the public and a non-party to the suit could make a request.
[10:36.000 --> 10:55.000]  And that's already been done. And one of the club members got a CD with a bunch of technical information from the sound recording, but not the specific conclusions of the expert that was also paid for.
[10:55.000 --> 10:58.000]  Have you sued the expert?
[10:58.000 --> 11:00.000]  I haven't done that.
[11:00.000 --> 11:04.000]  Have you done a Dalbert's hearing on the expert?
[11:04.000 --> 11:11.000]  Well, at this point, we're trying to get his information admitted as opposed to disqualified.
[11:11.000 --> 11:17.000]  So we only want to do a Dalbert's hearing if we want that information thrown out.
[11:17.000 --> 11:29.000]  Okay, for those who don't know what a Dalbert's hearing is, a Dalbert's hearing is a hearing for the purpose of determining the qualifications of an expert witness.
[11:29.000 --> 11:44.000]  If ever they want to do a, if they want to declare you incompetent and they want to do a psych eval, you always ask for a Dalbert's hearing first.
[11:44.000 --> 11:50.000]  Because they generally have a psychiatrist in their pocket and he'll give them whatever they want.
[11:50.000 --> 12:01.000]  But when you ask for a Dalbert's hearing, if he loses one Dalbert's hearing, his career as a expert witness is over.
[12:01.000 --> 12:07.000]  So a Dalbert's hearing is like dropping an atom bomb in the guy's lobby.
[12:07.000 --> 12:20.000]  I was thinking when you were talking about the conclusions, you have information on the decibel level of most all of the weapons that are used on your range, do you not?
[12:20.000 --> 12:23.000]  No, I'm quite sure we don't have that.
[12:23.000 --> 12:41.000]  We resisted, at one point the county had requested to take readings on the range right next to certain firearms and we declined that opportunity as being completely irrelevant as far as us being a nuisance.
[12:41.000 --> 12:50.000]  The best data is the data from the nearest neighbor, which is what established a nuisance.
[12:50.000 --> 13:00.000]  This is where I was going. Since the gun range is shut down, you can't fire the weapons and do your own test.
[13:00.000 --> 13:01.000]  Sure.
[13:01.000 --> 13:08.000]  But you can create the sound another way and do your own test.
[13:08.000 --> 13:14.000]  Sure. But the thing about sound is because this is a very hilly area.
[13:14.000 --> 13:28.000]  It's not flat terrain and there's a lot of trees. So normal simplistic sound propagation models would not necessarily give you a realistic description of what the sound would be at a certain distance.
[13:28.000 --> 13:55.000]  Well, if you recorded another gun range and close up and then set your speaker output to an equivalent decibel level, you should be able to get to simulate the conditions and get your own expert.
[13:55.000 --> 13:59.000]  It doesn't take an expert to stand there with a decibel meter and see how much he's reading.
[13:59.000 --> 14:15.000]  Sure, sure. And that can be done for some firearms, but you got to remember if you're talking about some of the more powerful rifles, let's say 338 Lapua or a 50 BMG, there are probably very few stereo systems.
[14:15.000 --> 14:23.000]  I'm not going to say there's none, but there's very few that will put out that level of volume for that single moment.
[14:23.000 --> 14:27.000]  There's some kids that drive around my house that can do it.
[14:27.000 --> 14:38.000]  Well, it turns out there's a big difference between how loud something is and how loud it sounds can be very, very different.
[14:38.000 --> 14:52.000]  For example, a lot of rock music has distortion on the guitars and non-smooth waveforms coming from synthesizers, which make the sound sounds a lot louder than it actually is.
[14:52.000 --> 14:57.000]  A good counter example is, which one can you hear further away?
[14:57.000 --> 15:02.000]  A rock concert or a 120-piece marching band.
[15:02.000 --> 15:13.000]  And in the vast majority of cases, you can hear the marching band far, farther away than you can the rock concert because the marching band is actually louder.
[15:13.000 --> 15:22.000]  So because they're acoustic instruments, the waveforms are very much smoother and they don't give you the effect in your ears.
[15:22.000 --> 15:26.000]  You don't get to real high peaks.
[15:26.000 --> 15:28.000]  Exactly.
[15:28.000 --> 15:31.000]  How important is that?
[15:31.000 --> 15:42.000]  Well, in my opinion, it's very important going forward because Kitsap 1 is going to be a permanent injunction limiting what we can do on the range.
[15:42.000 --> 15:44.000]  It's based on a sound nuisance.
[15:44.000 --> 15:59.000]  So if we have an actual technical measurement on the nearest property, now we've got a technical standard by which we can make an argument that we have become louder, we've become quieter, or we can say, no, we haven't become quieter.
[15:59.000 --> 16:03.000]  And you take another measurement and it's no louder than it used to be.
[16:03.000 --> 16:07.000]  Then we can defend ourselves from a technical standpoint.
[16:07.000 --> 16:09.000]  Question.
[16:09.000 --> 16:13.000]  Okay, the gun range has been shut down.
[16:13.000 --> 16:14.000]  Correct.
[16:14.000 --> 16:20.000]  Is it illegal in that part of the county to discharge a weapon on your own property?
[16:20.000 --> 16:22.000]  It is not.
[16:22.000 --> 16:26.000]  Then you don't have to open the gun range.
[16:26.000 --> 16:30.000]  You can just go out there and fire the weapons.
[16:30.000 --> 16:45.000]  Well, the current injunction outlines the lot number of the property and bars discharge of firearms by anyone for any reason on that parcel of the property.
[16:45.000 --> 17:00.000]  But we could, if we found a sympathetic neighbor that has enough property, I think you're going to have at least five acres to shoot on their own land, if we found a sympathetic neighbor, which there are a number of them.
[17:00.000 --> 17:16.000]  Non-GMOsolutions.com is now a proud sponsor of the Logos Radio Network with promo code LOGOS.
[17:16.000 --> 17:30.000]  We offer free options, and all products are free from high fructose corn syrup, aspartame, soy, and MSG.
[17:30.000 --> 17:39.000]  Whether you're on a tight budget, looking for options to reduce food costs without compromising health, or securing long-term 25-year storable food for an uncertain future, then Non-GMOsolutions.com is your common-sense answer.
[17:39.000 --> 17:46.000]  No longer will you compromise taste and quality for full-term shelf life or eat poor quality food due to cost.
[17:46.000 --> 17:51.000]  Check out our FlexPay options and design a no-contract plan to satisfy your needs.
[17:51.000 --> 17:56.000]  Go to Non-GMOsolutions.com today and get 10% off with promo code LOGOS.
[17:56.000 --> 18:01.000]  That's Non-GMOsolutions.com with promo code LOGOS.
[18:01.000 --> 18:12.000]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area of nutrition. People feed their pets better than they feed themselves, and it's time we changed all that.
[18:12.000 --> 18:18.000]  Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[18:18.000 --> 18:26.000]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need.
[18:26.000 --> 18:32.000]  Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject.
[18:32.000 --> 18:40.000]  We have come to trust young Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[18:40.000 --> 18:48.000]  When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio.
[18:48.000 --> 18:52.000]  As you realize the benefits of young Jevity, you may want to join us.
[18:52.000 --> 18:59.000]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and increase your income.
[18:59.000 --> 19:02.000]  Order now.
[19:02.000 --> 19:30.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, the LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[19:30.000 --> 19:45.000]  Okay, we are back. We survived our run off the cliff there. That was my fault.
[19:45.000 --> 19:56.000]  Anyway, we're talking to Marshall Denney, and on the break we were talking about the possibility of getting this thing into a different,
[19:56.000 --> 20:06.000]  and possibly less interested court, because it sounds like this court has pretty well has things stacked against you.
[20:06.000 --> 20:15.000]  So what is the likelihood of being able to file a countersuit with a federal claim and move it to federal court?
[20:15.000 --> 20:27.000]  Well, in the second case, I think the thing I've been looking for up to this point is a really clear, unambiguous example of a violation of due process rights.
[20:27.000 --> 20:36.000]  And we may well have that in the second case, but I haven't seen one that was really clear cut in the first case.
[20:36.000 --> 20:42.000]  So that's where we're at with that, and that's what I've been looking for up to this point.
[20:42.000 --> 20:46.000]  I don't want to go into federal court with something that's pretty flimsy.
[20:46.000 --> 20:56.000]  That doesn't mean they won't rule against us, but I wanted something that was technically very solid before we take that action.
[20:56.000 --> 21:05.000]  Okay, this is a gun range, but it doesn't necessarily go to the right to bear arms.
[21:05.000 --> 21:15.000]  Well, if they were barring all gun ranges from operating in the county, I would claim that it does come to Second Amendment.
[21:15.000 --> 21:22.000]  It would be, to use an analogy, it would be like the county claiming, well, yes, you have a right to free speech,
[21:22.000 --> 21:27.000]  but you don't have a right to practice before you give your free speech.
[21:27.000 --> 21:32.000]  And our position would be, no, no, you've got to have a right to practice to exercise the right properly.
[21:32.000 --> 21:40.000]  So if they had completely barred discharge of firearms, you know, except for police or something like that in the entire county,
[21:40.000 --> 21:46.000]  then I think we could certainly take up a Second Amendment position and have some good grounds for it.
[21:46.000 --> 21:52.000]  But in Kitsap 1, it's bowling down to sound nuisance.
[21:52.000 --> 21:57.000]  And this really goes to personal property rights.
[21:57.000 --> 22:00.000]  Yes.
[22:00.000 --> 22:11.000]  And have you looked at being able to get to them based on they're essentially trying to exercise them in a domain?
[22:11.000 --> 22:18.000]  Well, my position up to this point has been, if they, if once a final injunction that,
[22:18.000 --> 22:21.000]  you know, once we're through the appeals court and whatnot,
[22:21.000 --> 22:30.000]  if a final injunction is in place that substantially limits us from doing the kind of activities we did before,
[22:30.000 --> 22:38.000]  then that would be a taking, whether it was an actual nuisance or not.
[22:38.000 --> 22:46.000]  But because those final injunctions are not in place yet, I think that that sort of action is premature.
[22:46.000 --> 22:53.000]  It seems like they would be unable to claim a nuisance.
[22:53.000 --> 23:03.000]  If I move, if I buy a piece of property next to a strip mining operation
[23:03.000 --> 23:11.000]  and they use explosives and the dishes on my counter rattle when they use explosives,
[23:11.000 --> 23:20.000]  I don't have any standing to raise a complaint because the conditions existed when I purchased.
[23:20.000 --> 23:29.000]  I can't come back later and say, I want you to change what you're doing because I don't like it.
[23:29.000 --> 23:33.000]  But even though it was already going on when I moved here,
[23:33.000 --> 23:41.000]  did the use of your gun range substantially change at any time during this period?
[23:41.000 --> 23:44.000]  Well, of course, our position is no, it has not.
[23:44.000 --> 23:48.000]  And the position of the county is yes, it has.
[23:48.000 --> 24:00.000]  Their position is that we're firing more rounds at inconvenient times over the weekends, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
[24:00.000 --> 24:06.000]  Was this going on? Were you firing during the weekend?
[24:06.000 --> 24:15.000]  Well, generally the range is historically, if you go all the way back to the beginning, it was a 24-hour range.
[24:15.000 --> 24:21.000]  The club abandoned that quite a number of years ago, even before the court cases.
[24:21.000 --> 24:26.000]  And we limited discharge of firearms. You could do archery or something.
[24:26.000 --> 24:32.000]  But discharge of firearms, I think we stopped it at 10 o'clock at night.
[24:32.000 --> 24:40.000]  And then we got into these lawsuits and the appellate court limited us to 8 o'clock
[24:40.000 --> 24:44.000]  ahead of some other stipulations while we were in the middle of the case.
[24:44.000 --> 24:53.000]  So in general, we have shot all the types of guns we shoot today, we have shot in the past.
[24:53.000 --> 25:02.000]  You could make the argument that on the weekends primarily during, let's say, from 10 to 2 in the afternoon,
[25:02.000 --> 25:10.000]  some of the action shooting sports are more popular today than they were, let's say, 10 years ago.
[25:10.000 --> 25:16.000]  So I would say the number of people shooting are larger during those events.
[25:16.000 --> 25:28.000]  But except for that exception, our rifle line is busy during daylight hours on the weekends and have been for decades.
[25:28.000 --> 25:36.000]  Our facility is much smaller than it needs to be for the amount of people we're serving.
[25:36.000 --> 25:44.000]  And in fact, the rifle line has quite often a waiting line for people to get the next available slot.
[25:44.000 --> 25:48.000]  And now you're shut down altogether.
[25:48.000 --> 25:50.000]  And now we're shut down together.
[25:50.000 --> 25:59.000]  And this is, as I probably mentioned before, this is certainly the most active shooting range west of Puget Sound.
[25:59.000 --> 26:07.000]  And I would argue it was the most active shooting range in the greater Seattle area.
[26:07.000 --> 26:12.000]  So have you calculated how much this is costing?
[26:12.000 --> 26:16.000]  Well, we can generate that very easily.
[26:16.000 --> 26:22.000]  And in our countersuit, we did outline the parameters of our monetary losses,
[26:22.000 --> 26:29.000]  both from, you know, because we have people who are non-members make donations as they come and shoot.
[26:29.000 --> 26:34.000]  And the members, the membership has been unable to use their range during the shutdown.
[26:34.000 --> 26:43.000]  And the way the lawyers put it was the exact value of which shall be determined during trial, something like that.
[26:43.000 --> 26:48.000]  Yeah. But you could get enough to make your claim.
[26:48.000 --> 26:58.000]  Do you have any verifiable improprieties on part of any of the actors on the other side?
[26:58.000 --> 27:03.000]  Any actors? Well, yes, actually, actually, we do.
[27:03.000 --> 27:13.000]  Several people. In Kitsap 1, the biggest problem we see from a direct impropriety standpoint is the judge
[27:13.000 --> 27:19.000]  had a rather close relationship with the attorney for the other side.
[27:19.000 --> 27:27.000]  And it's pretty common in our area for the judge at the beginning of a case to disclose, you know,
[27:27.000 --> 27:36.000]  very, very distant relationships and third cousins. And I once met this guy in a restaurant 30 years ago.
[27:36.000 --> 27:44.000]  I mean, the judge is basically at the beginning of cases out here, confessed to any knowledge of any relationship to,
[27:44.000 --> 27:48.000]  no matter how slight, to all the parties and witnesses in the case.
[27:48.000 --> 27:52.000]  And that is very, very standard in our area.
[27:52.000 --> 28:04.000]  That's a requirement in the American Bar Association standards and the standard canons for judicial ethics.
[28:04.000 --> 28:08.000]  That's a pretty well established requirement.
[28:08.000 --> 28:16.000]  Sure. So the judge in Kitsap 1, we later discovered after the initial case was over,
[28:16.000 --> 28:24.000]  discovered that the judge's, the judge's wife was on a committee with the lawyer for the other side.
[28:24.000 --> 28:32.000]  And the judge was seen partying with the lawyer from the other side during the case.
[28:32.000 --> 28:36.000]  And he never disclosed any of that.
[28:36.000 --> 28:40.000]  What action did you take based on that?
[28:40.000 --> 28:51.000]  Part of our appeals, the appeal, the emergency appeal, the interlocutory appeal we did included information about that.
[28:51.000 --> 29:02.000]  And the judges in this state, interlocutory appeals are discretionary and they basically declined to decide any of our issues.
[29:02.000 --> 29:09.000]  They said, well, we choose not to make any decisions on any of these issues until a final decision by the trial court.
[29:09.000 --> 29:14.000]  And then you can address them at that time.
[29:14.000 --> 29:17.000]  And if it was me, I'd sue that other lawyer.
[29:17.000 --> 29:20.000]  You can't sue the judge, but you can certainly sue the lawyer.
[29:20.000 --> 29:26.000]  It is my style. If you're going to come into court with me, you're going to cheat.
[29:26.000 --> 29:30.000]  I'm going to go straight for your throat.
[29:30.000 --> 29:35.000]  You want to try to make it hot on me, I'm going to make it hot on you.
[29:35.000 --> 29:43.000]  Hang on, about to go to break. Randy Kelton, Debra Stevens, and Rudel Ball Radio are calling number 512-646-1984.
[29:43.000 --> 29:45.000]  We have the phones off for the moment.
[29:45.000 --> 29:49.000]  There will probably be a couple more segments before we turn them on.
[29:49.000 --> 29:52.000]  But after that, we'll have them on all night.
[29:52.000 --> 29:55.000]  I'll call that number 512-646-1984.
[29:55.000 --> 30:02.000]  We'll be right back.
[30:02.000 --> 30:09.000]  YouTube is making users post their actual names, claiming the transparency leads to better online behavior.
[30:09.000 --> 30:10.000]  But does it?
[30:10.000 --> 30:16.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll tell you about the push to end anonymity on the Internet in a moment.
[30:16.000 --> 30:18.000]  Privacy is under attack.
[30:18.000 --> 30:22.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[30:22.000 --> 30:27.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish, too.
[30:27.000 --> 30:32.000]  Protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[30:32.000 --> 30:34.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging onto.
[30:34.000 --> 30:41.000]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[30:41.000 --> 30:45.000]  Start over with StartPage.
[30:45.000 --> 30:50.000]  YouTube has joined Facebook and Google in forcing people to use their real names.
[30:50.000 --> 30:53.000]  They claim this will make people nicer online.
[30:53.000 --> 30:58.000]  In fact, there's hard evidence that real name policies don't improve online behavior.
[30:58.000 --> 31:05.000]  In 2007, South Korea mandated a real name web policy, then ditched it four years later.
[31:05.000 --> 31:13.000]  Malicious comments decreased by less than 1%, but hackers had a field day scooping up valuable real name data.
[31:13.000 --> 31:17.000]  All this talk about civility is just an excuse to kill anonymity on the web.
[31:17.000 --> 31:24.000]  That's because the big boys want real names to sell to real advertisers, and eventually to keep the rest of us in line.
[31:24.000 --> 31:31.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[31:31.000 --> 31:37.000]  Did you know there are 3 million edible food plants on earth, and none have the nutritional value of the hemp plant?
[31:37.000 --> 31:40.000]  HempUSA.org offers you hemp protein powder.
[31:40.000 --> 31:46.000]  It does not contain chemicals or THC, is non-GMO, and is 100% gluten free.
[31:46.000 --> 31:52.000]  Protein powder burns fat, builds muscle, contains 53% protein, and feeds the body the nutrients it needs.
[31:52.000 --> 32:01.000]  Call 888-910-4367 and see what our powder, seeds, and oil can do for you, only at hempUSA.org.
[32:01.000 --> 32:06.000]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law traffic seminar.
[32:06.000 --> 32:08.000]  In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society.
[32:08.000 --> 32:13.000]  And if we, the people, are ever going to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[32:13.000 --> 32:18.000]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity,
[32:18.000 --> 32:20.000]  and most importantly, the right to due process of law.
[32:20.000 --> 32:26.000]  Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process.
[32:26.000 --> 32:29.000]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio,
[32:29.000 --> 32:34.000]  has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is
[32:34.000 --> 32:36.000]  and how to hold courts to the rule of law.
[32:36.000 --> 32:41.000]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today.
[32:41.000 --> 32:46.000]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie,
[32:46.000 --> 32:51.000]  video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents, and other useful resource material.
[32:51.000 --> 32:55.000]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com.
[32:55.000 --> 33:00.000]  Order your copy today, and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[33:00.000 --> 33:10.000]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com.
[33:10.000 --> 33:31.000]  Yeah, I got a warrant, and I'm gonna solve them, to the head of government them, prosecute them. Okay.
[33:31.000 --> 33:52.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Deputy Stevens, Rule of Law Radio, here with Marshall Denny,
[33:52.000 --> 33:56.000]  talking about his Washington State gun range.
[33:56.000 --> 34:01.000]  And we've generally been talking about what was going on,
[34:01.000 --> 34:05.000]  but Marshall, I think you had something specific you wanted to address today.
[34:05.000 --> 34:10.000]  Sure. So let's move forward to that. So anyhow, we've been talking about the first case,
[34:10.000 --> 34:14.000]  and the real activity is in the second case.
[34:14.000 --> 34:18.000]  The second case is really much simpler.
[34:18.000 --> 34:23.000]  After all this happened and the appeals court told them that they couldn't close the gun range,
[34:23.000 --> 34:29.000]  they passed an ordinance basically so the county could control all the gun ranges
[34:29.000 --> 34:34.000]  in the unincorporated parts of the county.
[34:34.000 --> 34:37.000]  And because of the nature of what they included in that ordinance,
[34:37.000 --> 34:42.000]  and they were giving control of the ranges, direct oversight,
[34:42.000 --> 34:49.000]  to the Department of Community Development, rather than pass specific safety laws or something,
[34:49.000 --> 34:54.000]  they basically wanted to put us under the purview of the Department of Community Development,
[34:54.000 --> 34:59.000]  and we said, oh no, we can't get a permit for that. We're not going to be subject to those people.
[34:59.000 --> 35:04.000]  And so our position was, okay, instead of operating generally,
[35:04.000 --> 35:08.000]  we want to operate under our grandfathered rights as the appeals court found,
[35:08.000 --> 35:12.000]  and we can have a discussion about what those limitations are,
[35:12.000 --> 35:17.000]  but we're going to operate within our grandfathered rights as defined by the appeals court.
[35:17.000 --> 35:23.000]  And the county's argument was, well, yes, you have grandfathered rights,
[35:23.000 --> 35:27.000]  but this is a new safety or safety-related ordinance,
[35:27.000 --> 35:30.000]  and that supersedes your grandfathered rights.
[35:30.000 --> 35:37.000]  And so you either come under our control and ask for a permit, or we shut you down permanently.
[35:37.000 --> 35:43.000]  So that's the court case that has us currently shut down under a preliminary injunction.
[35:43.000 --> 35:47.000]  And so those are the issues I wanted to talk about with you today.
[35:47.000 --> 35:54.000]  What is the nature of the safety issue that they're claiming?
[35:54.000 --> 36:03.000]  Their safety issue they're claiming is they deem that there's safety issues with gun raiders in the county.
[36:03.000 --> 36:10.000]  They wish to take direct regulatory power over all gun ranges,
[36:10.000 --> 36:16.000]  and the exact specifications, what we can do, when we can do it, what times we can do it,
[36:16.000 --> 36:23.000]  need to be under direct county control, and they're doing that through a permit.
[36:23.000 --> 36:29.000]  And our position is, no, we do not wish to operate under your permit.
[36:29.000 --> 36:36.000]  That waives rights and puts us under some administrative law that we will not become subject to.
[36:36.000 --> 36:42.000]  So their position is it's a safety hazard that we're not under their control.
[36:42.000 --> 36:46.000]  Have they defined the nature of the safety hazard,
[36:46.000 --> 36:52.000]  or has they just waived a wand and claimed a hazard that hasn't been stipulated?
[36:52.000 --> 36:55.000]  They're just waiving the wand.
[36:55.000 --> 37:03.000]  Have you petitioned them for specific evidence as to the particular nature of the safety hazard
[37:03.000 --> 37:12.000]  and how that nature has changed that would prevent these ordinances from being an expo facto law?
[37:12.000 --> 37:17.000]  Well, that comes up to what some recent actions in court recently.
[37:17.000 --> 37:24.000]  We were in court just Monday expecting the judge to give them a summary judgment against us,
[37:24.000 --> 37:30.000]  and we had asked to push for some discovery in the second case.
[37:30.000 --> 37:39.000]  And the judge's extension, a continuance, to cause that discovery to take place before his ruling.
[37:39.000 --> 37:42.000]  And of course, we said, well, why haven't we done it up to this point?
[37:42.000 --> 37:46.000]  And we were in negotiations at one point with the county,
[37:46.000 --> 37:51.000]  and some issues relative to that, administrative issues came up relative to that.
[37:51.000 --> 37:59.000]  And this judge in the second case, which has ruled against us, I think, as you put it, at every turn, out of hand,
[37:59.000 --> 38:07.000]  the county got to one point and he said, oh, no, I will not rule if you haven't given these people the proper discovery.
[38:07.000 --> 38:12.000]  And of course, the county's position was, well, it's not possible for them to get any relevant discovery.
[38:12.000 --> 38:15.000]  It couldn't possibly be germane to this case.
[38:15.000 --> 38:22.000]  And finally, the judge ran into an issue that was too much for him, and he said, oh, no,
[38:22.000 --> 38:25.000]  you will give these people their proper discovery.
[38:25.000 --> 38:28.000]  He did give us our 90-day continuance.
[38:28.000 --> 38:35.000]  He did give us wide-open discovery, and he made it clear to the lawyer for the county
[38:35.000 --> 38:42.000]  that he would not abide any unnecessary delays or any inappropriate tactics.
[38:42.000 --> 38:48.000]  He said the discovery issue in his court is one that will not be violated,
[38:48.000 --> 38:55.000]  and he made it very clear they had better be very responsive to any of our requests for discovery.
[38:55.000 --> 38:57.000]  Interesting.
[38:57.000 --> 39:04.000]  So while this judge is certainly anti-gun, you know, one way I like to put it,
[39:04.000 --> 39:08.000]  you have to work as if you assume they're going to rule against you.
[39:08.000 --> 39:15.000]  But the one thing people should remember, even if you have a corrupt judge, even if you have a judge that's biased,
[39:15.000 --> 39:23.000]  they do have some pet issues, some pet rights that they will protect in certain instances.
[39:23.000 --> 39:28.000]  And, well, is this the same judge that's had one of his decisions remanded already?
[39:28.000 --> 39:31.000]  No, that's the first case.
[39:31.000 --> 39:33.000]  Is it the same judge?
[39:33.000 --> 39:35.000]  It's a different judge in a different county.
[39:35.000 --> 39:36.000]  A different judge, okay.
[39:36.000 --> 39:44.000]  Well, it still may be that he's aware that in another case, they ruled against you and got the case remanded.
[39:44.000 --> 39:52.000]  And this guy's not going to, you know, it's a good chance he don't want one of his decisions kicked back to him by the Court of Appeals.
[39:52.000 --> 39:53.000]  Sure.
[39:53.000 --> 40:01.000]  In fact, a quote from the Kitsap, from the first case, the judge said in open court that he would, it was a her,
[40:01.000 --> 40:08.000]  but she said that she wanted to make sure that there weren't any appealable issues,
[40:08.000 --> 40:13.000]  she said this in open court, any appealable issues that will get her overturned again.
[40:13.000 --> 40:15.000]  And, of course, we didn't say anything.
[40:15.000 --> 40:22.000]  We kept her mouth shut, but under, in our minds were saying, well, if you just rule according to law, you wouldn't have appealable issues.
[40:22.000 --> 40:28.000]  But any, I was very shocked that she said that in open court.
[40:28.000 --> 40:32.000]  Judges don't like to be overturned.
[40:32.000 --> 40:35.000]  We're getting that idea, yes.
[40:35.000 --> 40:39.000]  In the end, it's all about the politics.
[40:39.000 --> 40:44.000]  And how did you get to another county?
[40:44.000 --> 40:53.000]  Well, it turns out there's a funny rule in Washington state that says basically the venue for these sorts of civil cases applies to,
[40:53.000 --> 41:01.000]  of course, the county in which the organizations are or the nearest adjacent county.
[41:01.000 --> 41:09.000]  And what they did was they went judge shopping in the first case and found the most anti-gun judge they could find.
[41:09.000 --> 41:19.000]  And so that's where our case got into Pierce County, even though the range and the government entity that we're fighting with are both Kitsap County.
[41:19.000 --> 41:33.000]  Is the foreign county an absolute option or must there be a reason to take a venue outside the county?
[41:33.000 --> 41:34.000]  Sure.
[41:34.000 --> 41:41.000]  Well, the way the way the statute set up is for convenience or if the courts are overloaded or something like that,
[41:41.000 --> 41:44.000]  it's discretionary as far as the court's concerned.
[41:44.000 --> 41:46.000]  The court could say no if they wanted to.
[41:46.000 --> 41:51.000]  And we did object to that venue in our documents.
[41:51.000 --> 41:59.000]  But they pooh-poohed that, said, oh, no, no, we'll hold it right here in adjacent county.
[41:59.000 --> 42:17.000]  And that's an appealable issue. And both the second case is is the restriction on you from opening the gun range applied in this second case.
[42:17.000 --> 42:19.000]  That's correct.
[42:19.000 --> 42:27.000]  And that's where you should have a nice sized countersuit that increases every day.
[42:27.000 --> 42:34.000]  And we found we found a rather useful issue in the ordinance.
[42:34.000 --> 42:37.000]  In fact, somebody in the club found it. The lawyers didn't find it.
[42:37.000 --> 42:40.000]  I didn't find it. None of the legal committee found it.
[42:40.000 --> 42:46.000]  One of the other club members brought up an issue at the club meeting that none of us had thought about.
[42:46.000 --> 42:52.000]  And it just follows. It turns out that while we're primarily a pistol and a rifle club,
[42:52.000 --> 43:01.000]  there's an exception in the ordinance that if you're a shotgun range that shoots traps, ski, five stands, sporting plays,
[43:01.000 --> 43:10.000]  and you shoot shot no larger than number seven and a half bird shot, you don't even have to apply for a permit.
[43:10.000 --> 43:14.000]  You don't require a permit. No regulations in place.
[43:14.000 --> 43:21.000]  I kind of see it as a divide and conquer because there's a number of high profile shotgun ranges.
[43:21.000 --> 43:23.000]  Well, here's the issue.
[43:23.000 --> 43:33.000]  When they did the preliminary injunction as and the permanent injunction as it's currently proposed does not exclude the shotgun functions.
[43:33.000 --> 43:36.000]  They simply close this down completely.
[43:36.000 --> 43:42.000]  So our position is and what I'm currently briefing up is a challenge.
[43:42.000 --> 43:49.000]  I would call it a partial challenge to subject matter jurisdiction that the current preliminary injunction
[43:49.000 --> 43:59.000]  and the permanent injunction as currently drafted outside the scope of subject matter jurisdiction.
[43:59.000 --> 44:06.000]  Hello, my name is Stuart Smith from NaturesPureOrganics.com.
[44:06.000 --> 44:12.000]  And I would like to invite you to come by our store at 1904 Guadalupe Street Sweet D here in Austin, Texas.
[44:12.000 --> 44:18.000]  I'm Brave New Books and Jay Payne to see all our fantastic health and wellness products with your very own eyes.
[44:18.000 --> 44:22.000]  Have a look at our Miracle Healing Clay that started our adventure in alternative medicine.
[44:22.000 --> 44:30.000]  Take a peek at some of our other wonderful products, including our Australian Eme oil, lotion candles, olive oil soaps and colloidal silver and gold.
[44:30.000 --> 44:37.000]  Call 512-264-4043 or find us online at NaturesPureOrganics.com.
[44:37.000 --> 44:43.000]  That's 512-264-4043, NaturesPureOrganics.com.
[44:43.000 --> 44:47.000]  Don't forget to like us on Facebook for information on events and our products.
[44:47.000 --> 45:01.000]  NaturesPureOrganics.com.
[45:01.000 --> 45:04.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[45:04.000 --> 45:15.000]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step.
[45:15.000 --> 45:19.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[45:19.000 --> 45:23.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[45:23.000 --> 45:28.000]  Thousands have won with our step by step course and now you can too.
[45:28.000 --> 45:34.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience.
[45:34.000 --> 45:43.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[45:43.000 --> 45:52.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics and much more.
[45:52.000 --> 46:15.000]  Please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ.
[46:15.000 --> 46:42.000]  Okay.
[46:42.000 --> 46:43.000]  We are back.
[46:43.000 --> 46:48.000]  Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio here with Marshall Denney.
[46:48.000 --> 46:53.000]  And we're kind of talking about this on the break.
[46:53.000 --> 47:13.000]  If there isn't a specific exclusion for shotgun range, that would seem to put the shotgun portion of the range outside the scope of any of the legislation.
[47:13.000 --> 47:14.000]  Exactly.
[47:14.000 --> 47:26.000]  So because there's a statutory exception, then my position would be that the judge cannot possess subject matter jurisdiction over those issues.
[47:26.000 --> 47:42.000]  So you might consider calculating the amount of income the range has been losing because of this improper exclusion and sue the judge.
[47:42.000 --> 47:45.000]  That would get rid of that judge.
[47:45.000 --> 47:46.000]  Sure.
[47:46.000 --> 47:50.000]  Well, it turns out that we have the equipment.
[47:50.000 --> 47:54.000]  It's not permanently installed, but we have equipment to shoot trap.
[47:54.000 --> 47:58.000]  In fact, I have helped people shoot trap at the range as a range officer.
[47:58.000 --> 48:05.000]  But it turns out that that is an exceedingly minor part of what we do at our ranges.
[48:05.000 --> 48:11.000]  It would be less than 1% of our operation would be shotgun related.
[48:11.000 --> 48:16.000]  That's enough to sue the judge.
[48:16.000 --> 48:21.000]  You sue the judge for exceeding his jurisdiction.
[48:21.000 --> 48:24.000]  He is off the case.
[48:24.000 --> 48:29.000]  Now he has an interest to get rid of that judge.
[48:29.000 --> 48:49.000]  Well, the other issue is we strongly suspect the county will fight us on this because of us finding out some things behind the scenes about development in the area and the relationship between one of the commissioners and the developer that's been buying up a bunch of land around the shooting range.
[48:49.000 --> 49:06.000]  We suspect that they will fight us getting an amendment to the injunction that allows us to shoot shotgun, basically to use the exception, both under the preliminary injunction and under the permanent injunction.
[49:06.000 --> 49:09.000]  We're expecting them to fight us on that.
[49:09.000 --> 49:21.000]  If they do that, if they ignore this rather simple issue of subject matter jurisdiction, they set us up both for a rather strong appeal, number one.
[49:21.000 --> 49:31.000]  And as you just pointed out, they open themselves up to lawsuit because all immunity goes away when you violate subject matter jurisdiction.
[49:31.000 --> 49:40.000]  And you have these people with vested interests using county money to serve their interests.
[49:40.000 --> 49:56.000]  In the first case, we did a public disclosure request and the amount of money spent on the first case alone exceeded one half a million dollars.
[49:56.000 --> 50:03.000]  So, they're using up tax money to serve their own interest.
[50:03.000 --> 50:07.000]  I suggest you go for them personally.
[50:07.000 --> 50:16.000]  All the county commissioners sue them all. It's unlikely that all of the county commissioners are on board with this.
[50:16.000 --> 50:32.000]  And if I was a county commissioner and these guys are doing something that I either don't care about or I'm not particularly keen on, and then I get sued, I'm going to be a really unhappy camper.
[50:32.000 --> 50:47.000]  And if you sue them personally, what they will do is get the county attorney to write their answer. Then you sue the county attorney for misappropriation of public funds.
[50:47.000 --> 50:53.000]  We did exactly that in a credit card case in Travis County.
[50:53.000 --> 51:02.000]  I don't think Herb Evans, the JP, has gotten over that yet. He came into court.
[51:02.000 --> 51:06.000]  The client said, Your Honor, you can't be here. We've sued you.
[51:06.000 --> 51:09.000]  What? What? He got the record and looked at it.
[51:09.000 --> 51:21.000]  What we claimed was is that when the suit was filed, there was required to be a verified affidavit filed with it and there was no affidavit.
[51:21.000 --> 51:31.000]  Because there was no affidavit, they did not meet the statutory filing requirements and thereby could not invoke substantive jurisdiction to the court.
[51:31.000 --> 51:38.000]  And the judge said, well, Mr. Evelyn, it's not my place to determine jurisdiction. You have to do that.
[51:38.000 --> 51:44.000]  And he took direction well, with all due respect, Your Honor.
[51:44.000 --> 51:58.000]  When you send me that subpoena, ordering me to come to your court and telling me all those bad things you're going to do to me if I don't, you make sure you have the authority to do that.
[51:58.000 --> 52:04.000]  The judge just said, oh my, oh my, we're going to have to have a continuance.
[52:04.000 --> 52:24.000]  Well, here's a related question for you. Does the club as an entity have to sue or can individual members of the club who have been disallowed their use of their shooting range sue independently?
[52:24.000 --> 52:37.000]  Any individual member can sue based, so long as he can show harm and denying access to a right is harm.
[52:37.000 --> 52:38.000]  Okay.
[52:38.000 --> 52:43.000]  And it's important that your members understand rights.
[52:43.000 --> 52:46.000]  Your rights are not defined.
[52:46.000 --> 52:50.000]  They're only restricted.
[52:50.000 --> 53:01.000]  So anything you are not specifically forbidden to do, you may do as opposed to public officials.
[53:01.000 --> 53:05.000]  They may only do what they are specifically authorized to do.
[53:05.000 --> 53:12.000]  So when a public official talks about his rights, he's speaking about something totally different than yours.
[53:12.000 --> 53:27.000]  So in order for them to claim a denial of the right, the right is anything in the world they want to do that law does not specifically forbid them to do.
[53:27.000 --> 53:50.000]  But yes, anyone could claim harm, but depending on the nature of the claim they make, they have to be careful because if they make a general claim, then the other side is going to come back and move to dismiss for failure to include all necessary parties.
[53:50.000 --> 54:01.000]  And that raises the issue. I forget what they call it, but can't you sue for yourself and all others similarly situated?
[54:01.000 --> 54:06.000]  Yes, that's in a private attorney general suit.
[54:06.000 --> 54:25.000]  So in that case, yes, he could. One member could sue for the benefit of all the others. Generally where the claim for one member is not so great as to make it profitable to sue just for his harm.
[54:25.000 --> 54:44.000]  That should be a great way to do it because you have a third party coming in suing the judge and the county commissioners for their actions in this case and that would still disqualify the judge.
[54:44.000 --> 55:03.000]  Would it be inappropriate for me to sue the judge for the time period that I've been unable to shoot shotgun because of the shotgun exception at the range I belong to because he violated the limits of his subject matter jurisdiction?
[55:03.000 --> 55:08.000]  Exactly. That's your personal rights he's interfering with.
[55:08.000 --> 55:19.000]  And the fact that you remember the gun ranges is not necessarily relevant unless it's a condition of shooting at the range.
[55:19.000 --> 55:31.000]  But even then, your rights, you still have your right to shoot at the range and they've interfered with your personal rights.
[55:31.000 --> 55:41.000]  So yeah, you could sue the judge for actions he took in this case. That's going to disqualify him from the case.
[55:41.000 --> 55:43.000]  Interesting.
[55:43.000 --> 55:47.000]  Now he's got an interest.
[55:47.000 --> 55:51.000]  It doesn't matter how small the interest is.
[55:51.000 --> 56:04.000]  It wouldn't be worth a whole lot of money in just a single instance, but of course the memberships do cost a good bit and my little piece of it for this number of months is worth a certain piece of money.
[56:04.000 --> 56:11.000]  I don't know how many members we have right this moment, but we have had in the past over 1,500 members.
[56:11.000 --> 56:16.000]  So whatever monetary damages the court decides upon.
[56:16.000 --> 56:26.000]  No, no, no, no. Hold on, hold on. Your damage is not the fee it costs to use the gun range.
[56:26.000 --> 56:38.000]  How much does a shotgun cost? How much time do you have in this? How valuable is this time to you?
[56:38.000 --> 56:42.000]  What do you pay the gun range is not the factor here.
[56:42.000 --> 56:50.000]  So the fact that I've got to now, now I've got to drive an hour and a half to get to an equivalent gun range.
[56:50.000 --> 56:55.000]  The inconvenience of that compared to using my preferred gun range could be an issue.
[56:55.000 --> 57:02.000]  Exactly. All of those extra costs, loss of time.
[57:02.000 --> 57:07.000]  You calculate all that in. When you go into court, you go in with a number.
[57:07.000 --> 57:14.000]  And we don't matter what the number is, as long as you can state how you got that number.
[57:14.000 --> 57:22.000]  And the other side, they're going to hop up and down and wave their arms and rail in my indignation and try to whittle down that number.
[57:22.000 --> 57:29.000]  But at the end of the day, the jury is only going to remember one number.
[57:29.000 --> 57:34.000]  That's the one you walked in the door with. So you want that one to be as high as you can get it.
[57:34.000 --> 57:43.000]  And if you make a reasonable calculation of your own added cost in order to exercise this right,
[57:43.000 --> 57:54.000]  and then multiply that times fifteen hundred and then multiply that times three for punitive because they acted with mens reis.
[57:54.000 --> 57:57.000]  Now you've got a number you can validate.
[57:57.000 --> 58:04.000]  The amount of this dance probably cost you about two hundred bucks to file.
[58:04.000 --> 58:10.000]  Now is just the judge responsible for his lack of subject matter jurisdiction?
[58:10.000 --> 58:18.000]  Or is the county also responsible because what they asked the court to do was outside of jurisdiction?
[58:18.000 --> 58:23.000]  Yes, everybody's responsible. Hang on. Back to go to break.
[58:23.000 --> 58:29.000]  We've probably got one more segment. Then we'll turn the phones on. Randy Kelton, Debra Stevens, Root of Our Radio.
[58:29.000 --> 58:37.000]  I call it number 512-646-1984. When we come back, I'll turn the phones on and we can start taking calls on the board.
[58:37.000 --> 58:43.000]  If you have any questions on this topic, let us know and we'll take you up while Marshall's still here.
[58:43.000 --> 58:50.000]  We'll be right back.
[58:50.000 --> 58:54.000]  Would you like to make more definite progress in your walk with God?
[58:54.000 --> 59:01.000]  Bibles for America is offering a free study Bible and a set of free Christian books that can really help.
[59:01.000 --> 59:06.000]  The New Testament Recovery Version is one of the most comprehensive study Bibles available today.
[59:06.000 --> 59:13.000]  It's an accurate translation and it contains thousands of footnotes that will help you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[59:13.000 --> 59:18.000]  The free books are a three-volume set called Basic Elements of the Christian Life.
[59:18.000 --> 59:24.000]  Chapter by chapter, Basic Elements of the Christian Life clearly presents God's plan of salvation,
[59:24.000 --> 59:28.000]  growing in Christ and how to build up the church.
[59:28.000 --> 59:34.000]  To order your free New Testament Recovery Version and Basic Elements of the Christian Life,
[59:34.000 --> 59:45.000]  call Bibles for America toll free at 888-551-0102. That's 888-551-0102.
[59:45.000 --> 59:50.000]  Or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:00:15.000 --> 01:00:23.000]  Scoop into the tides of the alternative.
[01:00:23.000 --> 01:00:32.000]  Markets for the 11th of November, 2015 opened up with gold at $1,084.79 an ounce, silver $14.30 an ounce,
[01:00:32.000 --> 01:00:45.000]  taxes crude $44.21 a barrel, and Bitcoin is currently sitting at about $310 U.S. currency.
[01:00:45.000 --> 01:00:49.000]  Today in history, Friday, November 11th, Memorial Day 1921,
[01:00:49.000 --> 01:00:55.000]  President Warren G. Harding officiated at the internment ceremonies at the Memorial Amphitheater at Arlington National Cemetery
[01:00:55.000 --> 01:00:59.000]  of one of the four caskets exhumed from American cemeteries in France.
[01:00:59.000 --> 01:01:07.000]  This was the commemoration of the unknown soldier of World War I.
[01:01:07.000 --> 01:01:16.000]  In recent use, the Chinese e-commerce company Alibaba broke records with $14.3 billion in sales on Singles Day, November 11th.
[01:01:16.000 --> 01:01:22.000]  11-11 is Singles Day in China because 11-11 looked like bare branches, a term used for bachelors in Chinese.
[01:01:22.000 --> 01:01:27.000]  The Alibaba Group holding limited said mobile sales alone made up about 70% of it,
[01:01:27.000 --> 01:01:32.000]  while Alibaba Jack Ma has said that he'd like to export Singles Day to the United States.
[01:01:32.000 --> 01:01:38.000]  It's not likely, say experts, since it would turn a solemn day of remembrance into a day of frivolous spending.
[01:01:38.000 --> 01:01:44.000]  You know, like Thanksgiving and Christmas, Alibaba was able to make $14-plus billion in sales in a single day
[01:01:44.000 --> 01:01:53.000]  in a country that spends a third of what we do on military armament.
[01:01:53.000 --> 01:01:58.000]  The world's most popular social media site, Facebook, will now be charged 250,000 euros a day
[01:01:58.000 --> 01:02:05.000]  if it doesn't change the way it uses tracking cookies after a lawsuit was raised in one by a Belgian privacy watchdog group.
[01:02:05.000 --> 01:02:10.000]  Frederic de Bouchière, the lawyer behind the case, has stated that he is anticipating other cases to follow.
[01:02:10.000 --> 01:02:16.000]  The Belgian privacy watchdog successfully argued that Facebook was infringing on the privacy rights of the country's citizens
[01:02:16.000 --> 01:02:20.000]  by tracking them around the Internet, even if they hadn't signed up to the site.
[01:02:20.000 --> 01:02:26.000]  Apparently, Facebook had been enabling cookies which would load onto a user's browser if they went onto a Facebook page,
[01:02:26.000 --> 01:02:31.000]  even if they weren't logged in, and then used them to track them when they came back to the site.
[01:02:31.000 --> 01:02:37.000]  Facebook's defense is that it was only collecting computers' IP addresses and other unique identifiers via these cookies.
[01:02:37.000 --> 01:02:42.000]  However, the court ruled that that information was personal data and should not be tracked.
[01:02:42.000 --> 01:02:54.000]  Facebook does plan to appeal the case, stating that only EU courts and not Belgian courts have the authority to make such rulings.
[01:02:54.000 --> 01:03:19.000]  This is your Lowdown for November 11, 2013.
[01:03:24.000 --> 01:03:31.000]  I won't pay for the war with my body.
[01:03:31.000 --> 01:03:35.000]  Ain't gonna pay for the car with my money.
[01:03:35.000 --> 01:03:38.000]  I won't pay for the fun with my body.
[01:03:38.000 --> 01:03:41.000]  Their plans wicked and their logic shoddy.
[01:03:41.000 --> 01:03:45.000]  Ain't gonna pay for the oil with my body.
[01:03:45.000 --> 01:03:48.000]  I won't pay for the boys with my money.
[01:03:48.000 --> 01:03:52.000]  Ain't gonna pay for the kids with my body.
[01:03:52.000 --> 01:03:56.000]  The whole agenda sounds funny.
[01:03:56.000 --> 01:04:02.000]  I wanna fight in a war of my own.
[01:04:02.000 --> 01:04:09.000]  That one would be less accident-free.
[01:04:09.000 --> 01:04:16.000]  I wanna pay for a war of my own.
[01:04:16.000 --> 01:04:23.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, we were already here, and we're here with Marshall Denny.
[01:04:23.000 --> 01:04:28.000]  I just turned the phones on, so if you have a question or comment, give us a call.
[01:04:28.000 --> 01:04:34.000]  We should finish this up in the next segment, or maybe we don't. We went after it a little bit.
[01:04:34.000 --> 01:04:43.000]  But I really like this idea of Marshall suing the judge and the county.
[01:04:43.000 --> 01:04:51.000]  We were talking about this on the break. It appears that the county chose a separate county to file suit in
[01:04:51.000 --> 01:04:58.000]  because they found a judge that was unfriendly to the gun laws.
[01:04:58.000 --> 01:05:04.000]  But Marshall, tell us about the other county that's a little bit more friendly.
[01:05:04.000 --> 01:05:12.000]  Well, Jefferson County, which is to the north, is known for being exceptionally gun-friendly.
[01:05:12.000 --> 01:05:17.000]  I don't know that the judges are up there, but certainly the people are.
[01:05:17.000 --> 01:05:25.000]  They have a very high density of gun ranges per square mile, shall we say, and some fairly big ones up there.
[01:05:25.000 --> 01:05:34.000]  There's one facility that is an Olympic training ground for shotgun sports, for example.
[01:05:34.000 --> 01:05:45.000]  It would be kind of sauce for the goose, so to speak, if I filed this lawsuit in a different county.
[01:05:45.000 --> 01:05:54.000]  And it's not like they can say, oh, you can't file in a different county because they filed in a different county.
[01:05:54.000 --> 01:06:02.000]  This could be so much fun and create a level of politics that you don't expect.
[01:06:02.000 --> 01:06:07.000]  And pro-says can do this where lawyers can't.
[01:06:07.000 --> 01:06:13.000]  And I would suggest that if you do this, you can bring a lawyer in later.
[01:06:13.000 --> 01:06:20.000]  But initially, you go in pro-say. Now, as a pro-say, I can do stupid stuff.
[01:06:20.000 --> 01:06:25.000]  I can file crappy pleadings. I can make improper arguments.
[01:06:25.000 --> 01:06:29.000]  And the judge will get annoyed at me, but there's not much he can do other than rule against me,
[01:06:29.000 --> 01:06:33.000]  which I expect him to do anyway.
[01:06:33.000 --> 01:06:39.000]  I can stick my boot right up that judge's professional behind.
[01:06:39.000 --> 01:06:44.000]  I really don't care if he likes me or not, if he's happy with me or not.
[01:06:44.000 --> 01:06:48.000]  It's only better if he doesn't.
[01:06:48.000 --> 01:06:58.000]  Because what I want to do is create a condition to where they want me to get a lawyer.
[01:06:58.000 --> 01:07:03.000]  They're begging me to get a lawyer so that when you bring in a lawyer,
[01:07:03.000 --> 01:07:07.000]  the lawyer comes in with plausible deniability.
[01:07:07.000 --> 01:07:14.000]  Your Honor, I didn't file all of these issues, but I inherited them when I got the case.
[01:07:14.000 --> 01:07:19.000]  And I've got this really unruly client. Your Honor, you've got to help me out here.
[01:07:19.000 --> 01:07:24.000]  We take their good old boy system and turn it back on them.
[01:07:24.000 --> 01:07:28.000]  And we've had this work more than one time. I had it work very well.
[01:07:28.000 --> 01:07:39.000]  In my own case, when they prosecuted me for a Class A misdemeanor, accused me of resisting arrest.
[01:07:39.000 --> 01:07:48.000]  I resisted arrest by smashing my face into a stone wall and knocking one of my teeth out.
[01:07:48.000 --> 01:07:54.000]  Or just broke one. The officer who did it accused me of resisting arrest
[01:07:54.000 --> 01:08:03.000]  because I was waiting for 911 Austin police to come to take my complaint against these guys.
[01:08:03.000 --> 01:08:14.000]  We get in court and my lawyer was terrified. He told me 20 times if he told me once,
[01:08:14.000 --> 01:08:19.000]  you're going to get me disbarred. And then I pulled a shenanigan in front of the judge
[01:08:19.000 --> 01:08:21.000]  where I stepped right in the middle of my lawyer.
[01:08:21.000 --> 01:08:27.000]  We went out to lunch and they dismissed the case while we were out to lunch.
[01:08:27.000 --> 01:08:32.000]  They dismissed the case to protect my lawyer from me.
[01:08:32.000 --> 01:08:37.000]  When you go into court, it's like a four-sided chessboard.
[01:08:37.000 --> 01:08:43.000]  You sit in here, your lawyer is to your right, opposing counsel is to your left,
[01:08:43.000 --> 01:08:48.000]  judges across from you. You have a relationship with your lawyer.
[01:08:48.000 --> 01:08:53.000]  Your lawyer has a relationship with the opposing counsel and the judge.
[01:08:53.000 --> 01:08:59.000]  You are the odd one out. This is all about relationships.
[01:08:59.000 --> 01:09:06.000]  You want to be able to take your position and use it to manipulate their relationships
[01:09:06.000 --> 01:09:11.000]  and put the judge and the other lawyer in a position to protect this lawyer from you.
[01:09:11.000 --> 01:09:16.000]  That's the way you're going to win this.
[01:09:16.000 --> 01:09:21.000]  I've talked to a number of lawyers and they like this idea.
[01:09:21.000 --> 01:09:25.000]  Now they can go in and actively adjudicate these issues and not have to be worried
[01:09:25.000 --> 01:09:29.000]  about the judge getting upset at them.
[01:09:29.000 --> 01:09:34.000]  But you go in first and whatever you do, don't be nice.
[01:09:34.000 --> 01:09:37.000]  Now, one additional question on that point.
[01:09:37.000 --> 01:09:41.000]  We've talked about suing the judge, suing the commissioners.
[01:09:41.000 --> 01:09:49.000]  In this state, the elected prosecuting attorney is acting as the county's attorney.
[01:09:49.000 --> 01:09:52.000]  That's normal in most counties.
[01:09:52.000 --> 01:10:00.000]  Can I sue the prosecuting attorney's office as well for making a request of the court
[01:10:00.000 --> 01:10:03.000]  that was outside of subject matter jurisdiction?
[01:10:03.000 --> 01:10:08.000]  Wait a minute, wait a minute. This is good you like this.
[01:10:08.000 --> 01:10:17.000]  When a prosecuting attorney is representing the county, he's not a prosecutor.
[01:10:17.000 --> 01:10:25.000]  He's just another lawyer. He don't have any immunity. Zero.
[01:10:25.000 --> 01:10:33.000]  They hate having to do that part, especially when they get somebody who comes in savvy.
[01:10:33.000 --> 01:10:36.000]  They have no immunity at all.
[01:10:36.000 --> 01:10:41.000]  Have I heard you talk about a case where some lawyers were held accountable for some
[01:10:41.000 --> 01:10:46.000]  inappropriate conduct and the court found that they could be sued civilly?
[01:10:46.000 --> 01:10:50.000]  Oh yeah, Santiago V. Mackey.
[01:10:50.000 --> 01:10:54.000]  Santiago V. Mackey.
[01:10:54.000 --> 01:10:57.000]  Send me an email, I'll send you the case.
[01:10:57.000 --> 01:11:02.000]  This one's a Texas case, but you could probably bounce off of Santiago V. Mackey
[01:11:02.000 --> 01:11:04.000]  and find a similar Washington case.
[01:11:04.000 --> 01:11:10.000]  This is such a basic premise that it will stand everywhere.
[01:11:10.000 --> 01:11:18.000]  Santiago V. Mackey Wolf was his second biggest foreclosure mill in Texas.
[01:11:18.000 --> 01:11:25.000]  The guy contacts him, he's in a foreclosure situation and wants to see the
[01:11:25.000 --> 01:11:28.000]  original wedding signature note.
[01:11:28.000 --> 01:11:31.000]  Mackey says, come on down, got to hear my office, I'll show it to you.
[01:11:31.000 --> 01:11:35.000]  They go down there and he shows her a copy. He sues it.
[01:11:35.000 --> 01:11:40.000]  Mackey argues that he is a lawyer representing a client and he has immunity.
[01:11:40.000 --> 01:11:48.000]  And the court said, presenting fraudulent documents to the court is not the duty
[01:11:48.000 --> 01:11:50.000]  of a lawyer to a client.
[01:11:50.000 --> 01:11:53.000]  You have no immunity.
[01:11:53.000 --> 01:12:02.000]  So anything that the lawyer has done that violates law, due process, or rights
[01:12:02.000 --> 01:12:10.000]  can't do judicial ethics essentially, bar association standards.
[01:12:10.000 --> 01:12:15.000]  I use the model standards because all of the states except three adopted the
[01:12:15.000 --> 01:12:19.000]  model standards, but the three that didn't have standards that looked just
[01:12:19.000 --> 01:12:23.000]  like the model standards anyway, what's wrong for a lawyer in one state is
[01:12:23.000 --> 01:12:31.000]  wrong in every state, so it's pretty straightforward.
[01:12:31.000 --> 01:12:38.000]  When the lawyer acts outside the rules of the game, he's vulnerable.
[01:12:38.000 --> 01:12:42.000]  And when you've got a prosecutor who's representing the county in a civil
[01:12:42.000 --> 01:12:46.000]  action, he is not a prosecutor.
[01:12:46.000 --> 01:12:55.000]  Now, would I sue the prosecutor's office or would I sue the head prosecutor
[01:12:55.000 --> 01:12:58.000]  that's supervising the other lawyers personally?
[01:12:58.000 --> 01:13:03.000]  You sue the lawyer that puts his name on the document.
[01:13:03.000 --> 01:13:04.000]  Okay.
[01:13:04.000 --> 01:13:06.000]  We've had several of those.
[01:13:06.000 --> 01:13:07.000]  Good.
[01:13:07.000 --> 01:13:09.000]  Sue them all.
[01:13:09.000 --> 01:13:12.000]  They all have to answer.
[01:13:12.000 --> 01:13:22.000]  And it's best to sue the guy who did what his boss told him to do.
[01:13:22.000 --> 01:13:29.000]  Man, I just did what I was supposed to, so how's he going to cover his behind?
[01:13:29.000 --> 01:13:32.000]  He's going to have to throw his boss under the bus.
[01:13:32.000 --> 01:13:35.000]  Well, actually, the one that's currently in court with us is a fresh out of
[01:13:35.000 --> 01:13:37.000]  college.
[01:13:37.000 --> 01:13:39.000]  Oh, perfect.
[01:13:39.000 --> 01:13:43.000]  You sue him, they're going to want to protect him.
[01:13:43.000 --> 01:13:46.000]  They owe it to him to protect him.
[01:13:46.000 --> 01:13:51.000]  They can't let him get straight out of college, throw him in a den of wolves
[01:13:51.000 --> 01:13:53.000]  and let him get swallowed.
[01:13:53.000 --> 01:13:56.000]  They won't get anybody else to go to work for him.
[01:13:56.000 --> 01:13:59.000]  So he's got to cover for it.
[01:13:59.000 --> 01:14:04.000]  And when you go for him, his defense is good faith allowance and competent
[01:14:04.000 --> 01:14:05.000]  authority.
[01:14:05.000 --> 01:14:07.000]  I was following orders.
[01:14:07.000 --> 01:14:11.000]  Yeah, so were the guys in Auschwitz, so what?
[01:14:11.000 --> 01:14:16.000]  And you take the guy that did what he was told to do, now he gets in trouble
[01:14:16.000 --> 01:14:19.000]  for it.
[01:14:19.000 --> 01:14:23.000]  That's going to generate some serious righteous indignation.
[01:14:23.000 --> 01:14:24.000]  Politics.
[01:14:24.000 --> 01:14:26.000]  Politics is what we want.
[01:14:26.000 --> 01:14:32.000]  We want those county commissioners and the judge going to these guys saying,
[01:14:32.000 --> 01:14:35.000]  you make this go away.
[01:14:35.000 --> 01:14:38.000]  This better not ruin my career.
[01:14:38.000 --> 01:14:41.000]  How's he going to look for these county commissioners when they run for office
[01:14:41.000 --> 01:14:43.000]  again?
[01:14:43.000 --> 01:14:49.000]  And Mr. Commissioner, just what was that some citizen sued you for?
[01:14:49.000 --> 01:14:52.000]  You want to explain that?
[01:14:52.000 --> 01:14:53.000]  Everything's political.
[01:14:53.000 --> 01:14:58.000]  Well, and I see this as kind of unfair for the prosecutor's office in a sense
[01:14:58.000 --> 01:15:03.000]  because they don't really have a, have a, the head prosecutor is elected,
[01:15:03.000 --> 01:15:07.000]  but they have to do the bidding of the county commissioners.
[01:15:07.000 --> 01:15:09.000]  Yeah, it is unfair.
[01:15:09.000 --> 01:15:12.000]  And that's what makes it even more politically powerful.
[01:15:12.000 --> 01:15:13.000]  I see.
[01:15:13.000 --> 01:15:18.000]  Life is tough, Bubba.
[01:15:18.000 --> 01:15:19.000]  Very good.
[01:15:19.000 --> 01:15:21.000]  And that's what I found.
[01:15:21.000 --> 01:15:25.000]  Go after the one, you know, I like to go after the one that's right at the
[01:15:25.000 --> 01:15:26.000]  bottom.
[01:15:26.000 --> 01:15:30.000]  Everybody wants to go after the head guy, not me.
[01:15:30.000 --> 01:15:34.000]  I want the guy at the bottom going after the head guy.
[01:15:34.000 --> 01:15:36.000]  Look what you got me into.
[01:15:36.000 --> 01:15:42.000]  We were just last week, we were talking about a case where a woman ran for city
[01:15:42.000 --> 01:15:46.000]  council and they screwed around with the electoral process and she filed suit
[01:15:46.000 --> 01:15:49.000]  and to get back at her, they filed for sanctions and they're in a sanction
[01:15:49.000 --> 01:15:50.000]  hearing.
[01:15:50.000 --> 01:15:55.000]  And she fired her first lawyer for, she was totally incompetent.
[01:15:55.000 --> 01:16:00.000]  And the other side lawyer is trying to convince the court she has enough money
[01:16:00.000 --> 01:16:02.000]  and says, well, your honor, she has plenty of money.
[01:16:02.000 --> 01:16:05.000]  She paid this lawyer $70,000.
[01:16:05.000 --> 01:16:09.000]  And her new lawyer wasn't a chump and he jumped up, whoa, hold on here.
[01:16:09.000 --> 01:16:15.000]  How do you know how much she paid her attorney and her ex attorney sitting in
[01:16:15.000 --> 01:16:16.000]  the courtroom?
[01:16:16.000 --> 01:16:19.000]  The lawyer points right at him.
[01:16:19.000 --> 01:16:20.000]  He told me.
[01:16:20.000 --> 01:16:22.000]  Oh, geez.
[01:16:22.000 --> 01:16:26.000]  Man, that's the kind of stuff that'll get you disbarred.
[01:16:26.000 --> 01:16:30.000]  You threw him right under the bus.
[01:16:30.000 --> 01:16:35.000]  So they're not very good at it when the tables are turned on.
[01:16:35.000 --> 01:16:40.000]  And this is probably the most powerful thing you can do to win the other case.
[01:16:40.000 --> 01:16:45.000]  You sue them separately with a private attorney general suit.
[01:16:45.000 --> 01:16:49.000]  Then it becomes personal.
[01:16:49.000 --> 01:16:53.000]  When we come back, I do want to talk a little bit about something you can do to
[01:16:53.000 --> 01:16:56.000]  get the property out of their reach.
[01:16:56.000 --> 01:17:01.000]  Before we go on, we'll be right back.
[01:17:01.000 --> 01:17:04.000]  Chances are you've heard of My Magic Mud, but have you used it?
[01:17:04.000 --> 01:17:07.000]  Thousands of people are blown away by the clean and healthy feeling they
[01:17:07.000 --> 01:17:09.000]  experience after just one use.
[01:17:09.000 --> 01:17:12.000]  Here's what Harlan Dietrich, owner of Brave New Books, has to say about the
[01:17:12.000 --> 01:17:13.000]  product.
[01:17:13.000 --> 01:17:14.000]  Hey, everybody.
[01:17:14.000 --> 01:17:16.000]  This is Harlan Dietrich, owner of Brave New Books.
[01:17:16.000 --> 01:17:18.000]  Just want to tell everybody about My Magic Mud.
[01:17:18.000 --> 01:17:21.000]  I use the product and it makes my teeth feel clean and healthy.
[01:17:21.000 --> 01:17:23.000]  I think it makes them stronger.
[01:17:23.000 --> 01:17:25.000]  I've got lots of customers that come in and say the same thing.
[01:17:25.000 --> 01:17:27.000]  You can pick yours up at Brave New Books.
[01:17:27.000 --> 01:17:30.000]  If that wasn't enough, Dr. Griffin Cole, DDS, who's been featured on the
[01:17:30.000 --> 01:17:33.000]  Alex Jones Show, loves it too.
[01:17:33.000 --> 01:17:36.000]  Hi, I'm Dr. Griffin Cole, and I've got to tell you, I really love this Magic Mud
[01:17:36.000 --> 01:17:37.000]  product.
[01:17:37.000 --> 01:17:40.000]  Because charcoal is so absorbent, it's very effective at taking off all the
[01:17:40.000 --> 01:17:43.000]  sticky plaque and debris that gets stuck on our teeth every day.
[01:17:43.000 --> 01:17:45.000]  I highly recommend My Magic Mud.
[01:17:45.000 --> 01:17:48.000]  If you haven't yet experienced My Magic Mud, it's never too late to brighten
[01:17:48.000 --> 01:17:51.000]  your smile and strengthen your teeth.
[01:17:51.000 --> 01:17:55.000]  Get your jar of My Magic Mud today at Brave New Books, located at 1904
[01:17:55.000 --> 01:18:00.000]  Guadalupe Street, or order online today at MyMagicMud.com.
[01:18:00.000 --> 01:18:04.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or
[01:18:04.000 --> 01:18:05.000]  even lawsuits?
[01:18:05.000 --> 01:18:09.000]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears Proven Method.
[01:18:09.000 --> 01:18:13.000]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors,
[01:18:13.000 --> 01:18:15.000]  and now you can win too.
[01:18:15.000 --> 01:18:19.000]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court
[01:18:19.000 --> 01:18:23.000]  using federal civil rights statutes, what to do when contacted by phone, mail,
[01:18:23.000 --> 01:18:27.000]  or court summons, how to answer letters and phone calls, how to get debt
[01:18:27.000 --> 01:18:31.000]  collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the financial tables on them
[01:18:31.000 --> 01:18:34.000]  and make them pay you to go away.
[01:18:34.000 --> 01:18:39.000]  The Michael Mears Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[01:18:39.000 --> 01:18:41.000]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[01:18:41.000 --> 01:18:45.000]  For more information, please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com and click on the blue
[01:18:45.000 --> 01:18:49.000]  Michael Mears banner, or email MichaelMears at yahoo.com.
[01:18:49.000 --> 01:18:57.000]  That's RuleOfLawRadio.com, or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com
[01:18:57.000 --> 01:19:00.000]  to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[01:19:00.000 --> 01:19:15.000]  This is the Logos Logos Radio Net.
[01:19:15.000 --> 01:19:43.000]  Okay, we are back.
[01:19:43.000 --> 01:19:47.000]  Brandon Kelton, Rule of Law Radio, here with Marshall Denny.
[01:19:47.000 --> 01:19:54.000]  And I like the idea of a lawsuit because any and everything is political.
[01:19:54.000 --> 01:20:01.000]  And win, lose, or draw, if you file your own suit against them.
[01:20:01.000 --> 01:20:07.000]  And as a pro se, that's going to make them nuts.
[01:20:07.000 --> 01:20:14.000]  Because lawyers tend to only argue issues they're used to arguing.
[01:20:14.000 --> 01:20:22.000]  And if you file as a pro se, you can file issues in use case law they're not familiar with.
[01:20:22.000 --> 01:20:27.000]  Lawyers are terrified about misarguing an issue.
[01:20:27.000 --> 01:20:31.000]  Because that's the kind of thing that will get them sanctions quickly.
[01:20:31.000 --> 01:20:35.000]  You commit this arguing issue just because you're a dumb pro se.
[01:20:35.000 --> 01:20:38.000]  You're not learning counsel.
[01:20:38.000 --> 01:20:41.000]  I was just talking to somebody today about the imposter syndrome.
[01:20:41.000 --> 01:20:45.000]  A friend of mine, Kidd Magnuson, has a book written by a psychiatrist
[01:20:45.000 --> 01:20:48.000]  who started out as a lawyer and got his psychiatry degree.
[01:20:48.000 --> 01:20:54.000]  He only treats lawyers and he treats them for this imposter syndrome.
[01:20:54.000 --> 01:21:00.000]  So the lawyer gets out of law school and he learned a lot about how to argue legal points,
[01:21:00.000 --> 01:21:03.000]  but he don't know anything about practice of law.
[01:21:03.000 --> 01:21:08.000]  His problem, he is hired as learning counsel.
[01:21:08.000 --> 01:21:11.000]  He cannot not know.
[01:21:11.000 --> 01:21:19.000]  So all the lawyers are putting on this show of knowing what they're talking about and none of them do.
[01:21:19.000 --> 01:21:24.000]  He said he really likes treating lawyers for this imposter syndrome for two reasons.
[01:21:24.000 --> 01:21:27.000]  One, lawyers tend to have a lot of money.
[01:21:27.000 --> 01:21:30.000]  And two, they never get better.
[01:21:30.000 --> 01:21:33.000]  So it's great business.
[01:21:33.000 --> 01:21:35.000]  But this is true about lawyers.
[01:21:35.000 --> 01:21:38.000]  Lawyers are terrified.
[01:21:38.000 --> 01:21:42.000]  They're afraid of, they're terrified of judges, they're terrified of clients.
[01:21:42.000 --> 01:21:46.000]  Just about anybody can screw up their career.
[01:21:46.000 --> 01:21:54.000]  And when they get a pro se in there that knows precisely how to screw up their career,
[01:21:54.000 --> 01:21:59.000]  they want to find another place to be when we help people with foreclosure issues.
[01:21:59.000 --> 01:22:06.000]  And the lawyer files a stupid pleading or he fails to include an affidavit.
[01:22:06.000 --> 01:22:07.000]  He does something wrong.
[01:22:07.000 --> 01:22:11.000]  First thing we do is bar grievance.
[01:22:11.000 --> 01:22:18.000]  About the second bar grievance, all of a sudden we've got a different law firm.
[01:22:18.000 --> 01:22:21.000]  That tells you that it's working.
[01:22:21.000 --> 01:22:26.000]  This first law firm says, man, he has double my malpractice insurance.
[01:22:26.000 --> 01:22:28.000]  He's going to get it cut off altogether.
[01:22:28.000 --> 01:22:30.000]  I'm out of here.
[01:22:30.000 --> 01:22:34.000]  They have to hire another lawyer and what's that lawyer going to say?
[01:22:34.000 --> 01:22:36.000]  Why don't you lose the first one?
[01:22:36.000 --> 01:22:38.000]  He's going to want a lot more money.
[01:22:38.000 --> 01:22:42.000]  And it's all in the end about the button.
[01:22:42.000 --> 01:22:53.000]  So being a pro se, you can do these things that a lawyer can't do and create a lot of politics.
[01:22:53.000 --> 01:23:00.000]  If you start bar grieving the lawyers on the other side every time they file a pleading you don't like,
[01:23:00.000 --> 01:23:02.000]  you just bar grieving.
[01:23:02.000 --> 01:23:07.000]  Well, it doesn't matter what you file in a bar grievance.
[01:23:07.000 --> 01:23:11.000]  State bar is going to get it and they're going to throw it in the trash to go send you this letter
[01:23:11.000 --> 01:23:15.000]  saying be examined in your accusation by the does not rise to the level of misconduct.
[01:23:15.000 --> 01:23:20.000]  So it doesn't matter what you file with those to their insurance company.
[01:23:20.000 --> 01:23:29.000]  Though you can create a lot of politics and suing a judge, dad really gets them upset.
[01:23:29.000 --> 01:23:35.000]  Judges really, really hate to be sued, especially when you're coming after them personally.
[01:23:35.000 --> 01:23:42.000]  If it looks like you've set them up, they're going to recognize.
[01:23:42.000 --> 01:23:50.000]  Like in this in the case with this credit card issue where we sued the judge based on a problem
[01:23:50.000 --> 01:23:53.000]  with the initial filing by the lawyer.
[01:23:53.000 --> 01:23:59.000]  And when the judge got the county attorney to write his answer, we sued the county attorney.
[01:23:59.000 --> 01:24:03.000]  They all looked at each other and said, these guys set us up for that.
[01:24:03.000 --> 01:24:14.000]  And he has. Matter of fact, we did. If if the judge, when you sue him,
[01:24:14.000 --> 01:24:18.000]  it has the impression that you set him up.
[01:24:18.000 --> 01:24:21.000]  It's going to create a lot of politics.
[01:24:21.000 --> 01:24:30.000]  Most of what I do when I go after these officials is I want them to think that everything I'm doing is a setup.
[01:24:30.000 --> 01:24:36.000]  And that's why I've got these rules. Never ask a public official to do anything you actually want him to do.
[01:24:36.000 --> 01:24:41.000]  Because you never ask him to do anything the law doesn't require him to do.
[01:24:41.000 --> 01:24:46.000]  I file motions for the other side so that when they respond to them,
[01:24:46.000 --> 01:24:51.000]  I can plobber them for responding the way they do, because I already know how they're going to respond.
[01:24:51.000 --> 01:24:56.000]  For the most part, I set up my motions to get them to.
[01:24:56.000 --> 01:25:01.000]  And when they realize you're setting them up, that creates a lot of politics.
[01:25:01.000 --> 01:25:06.000]  And in your case, you want to create politics.
[01:25:06.000 --> 01:25:14.000]  You know, they're going to know almost for certain that you don't care about this case.
[01:25:14.000 --> 01:25:18.000]  That you file this case so you can beat them up.
[01:25:18.000 --> 01:25:24.000]  And the only way to get rid of you is get rid of the other case.
[01:25:24.000 --> 01:25:27.000]  Well, that's a story. I'm sticking to it. What do you think?
[01:25:27.000 --> 01:25:32.000]  Do I just sue for money or do I also sue for injunctive relief?
[01:25:32.000 --> 01:25:35.000]  Absolutely injunctive relief.
[01:25:35.000 --> 01:25:42.000]  Forced him to partially reopen the gun range.
[01:25:42.000 --> 01:25:44.000]  That's correct.
[01:25:44.000 --> 01:25:45.000]  But here's the problem.
[01:25:45.000 --> 01:25:51.000]  Don't I have to sue in a court higher than the court that put the injunction in place
[01:25:51.000 --> 01:25:58.000]  for them to have the authority to give me that injunctive relief?
[01:25:58.000 --> 01:26:08.000]  Once the judge has been sued, then you should move to have him removed from the first case
[01:26:08.000 --> 01:26:12.000]  and have his order voided.
[01:26:12.000 --> 01:26:19.000]  And then they have to bring in another judge to reissue the order without the injunction.
[01:26:19.000 --> 01:26:24.000]  Sure. But my question is, the important part of my question is,
[01:26:24.000 --> 01:26:30.000]  another judge at the same level of court can't overrule the other judge.
[01:26:30.000 --> 01:26:34.000]  Don't you have to have a judge in a higher court do that?
[01:26:34.000 --> 01:26:41.000]  That you could petition the Court of Appeals for a mandamus.
[01:26:41.000 --> 01:26:49.000]  So I file in an equal level court and also file a mandamus for the appeals court
[01:26:49.000 --> 01:26:54.000]  to give me just that piece of the injunctive relief that overrules the other judge.
[01:26:54.000 --> 01:27:06.000]  Yes. You can ask for the lift of stay on the shotgun portion of the range.
[01:27:06.000 --> 01:27:14.000]  Okay. And what the appeals court can do is order this judge to rewrite the order.
[01:27:14.000 --> 01:27:22.000]  Won't that really piss off the lawyers in the other case that have me modify an injunction in their case?
[01:27:22.000 --> 01:27:27.000]  This may be what the case will hinge on.
[01:27:27.000 --> 01:27:33.000]  Their whole case is hinging on them being able to shut down this range.
[01:27:33.000 --> 01:27:37.000]  And all of a sudden it gets opened back up.
[01:27:37.000 --> 01:27:41.000]  You might want to get a lot of guys out there with shotguns.
[01:27:41.000 --> 01:27:49.000]  Yeah. Well, our guess is from a political standpoint, if we turn into a major shotgun range,
[01:27:49.000 --> 01:27:53.000]  so we don't get to shoot pistols or rifles anymore, we shoot nothing but shotgun.
[01:27:53.000 --> 01:28:01.000]  But if we are very, very active, our guess is from their perspective, it's a complete loss.
[01:28:01.000 --> 01:28:06.000]  They can't win. Yeah. For them, it's over.
[01:28:06.000 --> 01:28:12.000]  So you may well get them to drop the whole case because they can't.
[01:28:12.000 --> 01:28:16.000]  The whole point is to shut the entire range down and they can't get it done.
[01:28:16.000 --> 01:28:22.000]  Shotguns about as loud as anything else, if not louder.
[01:28:22.000 --> 01:28:28.000]  So that might clear the whole deal.
[01:28:28.000 --> 01:28:32.000]  Okay. Well, I appreciate all that help.
[01:28:32.000 --> 01:28:38.000]  You want to give that guy that found that provision a real big time attaboy.
[01:28:38.000 --> 01:28:40.000]  Well, actually, it was just one of the guys that said,
[01:28:40.000 --> 01:28:47.000]  hey, I want to shoot shotgun and there's a shotgun exception, can't we use it?
[01:28:47.000 --> 01:28:55.000]  That's great. That might, that would render the whole purpose of the suit as moot.
[01:28:55.000 --> 01:29:03.000]  So they might be more apt to negotiate if the, from their perspective, they can't win.
[01:29:03.000 --> 01:29:08.000]  Yes. And I'm going to suggest that you get a countersuit filed in the other side,
[01:29:08.000 --> 01:29:14.000]  in the second suit, so that you have some leverage.
[01:29:14.000 --> 01:29:20.000]  You negotiate back to where you want to start with and some money to pay you
[01:29:20.000 --> 01:29:25.000]  for all the time you've been shut down.
[01:29:25.000 --> 01:29:30.000]  Okay. Well, thank you very much. Let's see if there's any questions.
[01:29:30.000 --> 01:29:38.000]  Okay. Hang on. It's good to have you back. I'd like to have really intelligent discussions.
[01:29:38.000 --> 01:29:42.000]  And we're about to go to break. When we come back from break, we're going to start taking calls.
[01:29:42.000 --> 01:29:47.000]  I've got Chris from Pennsylvania. He always brings us good stuff.
[01:29:47.000 --> 01:30:02.000]  Randy Kelton with our radio. I call it number 512-646-1984. We'll be right back.
[01:30:02.000 --> 01:30:04.000]  What's the French word for biometrics?
[01:30:04.000 --> 01:30:09.000]  You better learn it quick because a French company now controls all of the biometric data
[01:30:09.000 --> 01:30:11.000]  our government has collected on us.
[01:30:11.000 --> 01:30:15.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be back with the creepy details.
[01:30:15.000 --> 01:30:21.000]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:30:21.000 --> 01:30:26.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:30:26.000 --> 01:30:31.000]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:30:31.000 --> 01:30:37.000]  Privacy. It's worth hanging on to. This message is brought to you by StartPage.com,
[01:30:37.000 --> 01:30:41.000]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[01:30:41.000 --> 01:30:44.000]  Start over with StartPage.
[01:30:44.000 --> 01:30:47.000]  Your facial map, fingerprints, and DNA.
[01:30:47.000 --> 01:30:53.000]  They're all unique identifiers collected by a U.S. megacorporation called L1.
[01:30:53.000 --> 01:30:58.000]  Started by former heads of U.S. security agencies, including the CIA and FBI,
[01:30:58.000 --> 01:31:04.000]  L1 makes nearly all of our driver's licenses and produces the microchips in our passports.
[01:31:04.000 --> 01:31:08.000]  It holds biometric data on tens of millions of Americans.
[01:31:08.000 --> 01:31:13.000]  And now it's been taken over by French defense contractor Saffron.
[01:31:13.000 --> 01:31:16.000]  France is an ally, but it's still a foreign government.
[01:31:16.000 --> 01:31:22.000]  And I, for one, am very uncomfortable about Saffron controlling the biometric data of me and my family.
[01:31:22.000 --> 01:31:31.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:31:31.000 --> 01:31:37.000]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[01:31:37.000 --> 01:31:39.000]  The government says that fire brought it down.
[01:31:39.000 --> 01:31:44.000]  However, 1,500 architects and engineers have concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[01:31:44.000 --> 01:31:47.000]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives.
[01:31:47.000 --> 01:31:50.000]  And thousands of my fellow first responders are dying.
[01:31:50.000 --> 01:31:51.000]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[01:31:51.000 --> 01:31:52.000]  I'm a structural engineer.
[01:31:52.000 --> 01:31:53.000]  I'm a New York City correction officer.
[01:31:53.000 --> 01:31:54.000]  I'm an Air Force pilot.
[01:31:54.000 --> 01:31:56.000]  I'm a father who lost his son.
[01:31:56.000 --> 01:31:59.000]  We're Americans, and we deserve the truth.
[01:31:59.000 --> 01:32:02.000]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[01:32:02.000 --> 01:32:04.000]  Hey, it's Danny here for Hill Country Home Improvements.
[01:32:04.000 --> 01:32:07.000]  Did your home receive hail or wind damage from the recent storms?
[01:32:07.000 --> 01:32:10.000]  Come on, we all know the government caused it with their chemtrails.
[01:32:10.000 --> 01:32:12.000]  But good luck getting them to pay for it.
[01:32:12.000 --> 01:32:14.000]  Okay, I might be kidding about the chemtrails.
[01:32:14.000 --> 01:32:15.000]  But I'm serious about your roof.
[01:32:15.000 --> 01:32:17.000]  That's why you have insurance.
[01:32:17.000 --> 01:32:22.000]  And Hill Country Home Improvements can handle the claim for you with little to no out-of-pocket expense.
[01:32:22.000 --> 01:32:28.000]  And we accept Bitcoin as a multiyear A-plus member of the Better Business Bureau with zero complaints.
[01:32:28.000 --> 01:32:33.000]  You can trust Hill Country Home Improvements to handle your claim and your roof right the first time.
[01:32:33.000 --> 01:32:39.000]  Just call 512-992-8745 or go to hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[01:32:39.000 --> 01:32:42.000]  Mention the crypto show and get $100 off.
[01:32:42.000 --> 01:32:46.000]  And we'll donate another $100 to the Logos Radio Network to help continue this programming.
[01:32:46.000 --> 01:32:51.000]  So if those out-of-town roofers come knocking, your door should be locking.
[01:32:51.000 --> 01:32:57.000]  That's 512-992-8745 or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[01:32:57.000 --> 01:33:00.000]  Discounts are based on full roof replacement.
[01:33:00.000 --> 01:33:04.000]  I mean, I'd actually be kidding about chemtrails.
[01:33:04.000 --> 01:33:06.000]  Looking for some truth?
[01:33:06.000 --> 01:33:07.000]  You found it.
[01:33:07.000 --> 01:33:31.000]  Logosradionetwork.com.
[01:33:38.000 --> 01:33:40.000]  Okay.
[01:33:40.000 --> 01:33:41.000]  We are back.
[01:33:41.000 --> 01:33:45.000]  Randy Kelton, Rue of La Radio, here with us today.
[01:33:45.000 --> 01:33:47.000]  And we're going to go to Chris in Pennsylvania.
[01:33:47.000 --> 01:33:52.000]  Chris, do you have any comments on the topic?
[01:33:52.000 --> 01:33:59.000]  I was pretty impressed with his statement there.
[01:33:59.000 --> 01:34:03.000]  Marshall's always a good guest.
[01:34:03.000 --> 01:34:08.000]  Okay.
[01:34:08.000 --> 01:34:11.000]  Where are you at on your issue?
[01:34:11.000 --> 01:34:17.000]  You got the note discharged in bankruptcy.
[01:34:17.000 --> 01:34:23.000]  Are they still trying to press a foreclosure with no note?
[01:34:23.000 --> 01:34:24.000]  Yes.
[01:34:24.000 --> 01:34:32.000]  Yesterday we were supposed to have a judgment by the judge on our attempt to counter
[01:34:32.000 --> 01:34:40.000]  the plaintiff's charge that there is no argument here.
[01:34:40.000 --> 01:34:46.000]  And we provided him evidence as to the title problems
[01:34:46.000 --> 01:34:50.000]  with the other banks taking on the mortgage without assignment.
[01:34:50.000 --> 01:34:57.000]  And we were looking at, I don't know if you've spoken about this on recent shows
[01:34:57.000 --> 01:35:00.000]  about Nancy Becker's decision.
[01:35:00.000 --> 01:35:01.000]  Yes.
[01:35:01.000 --> 01:35:02.000]  Okay.
[01:35:02.000 --> 01:35:04.000]  Let me back up just a second.
[01:35:04.000 --> 01:35:10.000]  Chris filed a bankruptcy and claimed the property is unsecured.
[01:35:10.000 --> 01:35:18.000]  The lender was unable to prove standing to make a claim against the property
[01:35:18.000 --> 01:35:23.000]  and the court discharged the debt.
[01:35:23.000 --> 01:35:26.000]  So the note was gone.
[01:35:26.000 --> 01:35:31.000]  But the lender came back and continued to try to foreclose based on the security instrument.
[01:35:31.000 --> 01:35:36.000]  And this is kind of where we're at right now addressing this issue.
[01:35:36.000 --> 01:35:37.000]  Okay.
[01:35:37.000 --> 01:35:44.000]  Did you bring up the issues under 11 USC under the bankruptcy code
[01:35:44.000 --> 01:35:51.000]  that forbid them to enforce a security insurance after discharge of the primary debt?
[01:35:51.000 --> 01:35:53.000]  Yes.
[01:35:53.000 --> 01:35:56.000]  What did the court do?
[01:35:56.000 --> 01:35:58.000]  Well, he didn't rule.
[01:35:58.000 --> 01:36:05.000]  He gave us a, postponed the judgment.
[01:36:05.000 --> 01:36:10.000]  And my attorney called us yesterday and said that we were going to have a meeting with DERR
[01:36:10.000 --> 01:36:14.000]  about why he postponed us.
[01:36:14.000 --> 01:36:21.000]  We're not aware of anything yet, but we were looking at trying to use the outcome
[01:36:21.000 --> 01:36:30.000]  of Nancy Becker's case, which promoted that the assignments unrecorded carried no interest
[01:36:30.000 --> 01:36:33.000]  with Title 18 and 351.
[01:36:33.000 --> 01:36:34.000]  Okay.
[01:36:34.000 --> 01:36:35.000]  Hold on.
[01:36:35.000 --> 01:36:40.000]  Let me explain how Pennsylvania is different than every other state that I've looked at.
[01:36:40.000 --> 01:36:45.000]  There may be another state like this, but I haven't seen one.
[01:36:45.000 --> 01:36:52.000]  In most every state in order to perfect the claim against real property,
[01:36:52.000 --> 01:36:55.000]  you must file it in the public record.
[01:36:55.000 --> 01:37:02.000]  Texas law, Texas property code 13.001 says any claim against real property,
[01:37:02.000 --> 01:37:10.000]  not properly acknowledged or proven and filed in the public record is void as to the holder.
[01:37:10.000 --> 01:37:15.000]  So no matter what kind of claim you got, if you don't file it in the record,
[01:37:15.000 --> 01:37:17.000]  you don't have that claim.
[01:37:17.000 --> 01:37:20.000]  Now you're not required to file it in the record.
[01:37:20.000 --> 01:37:23.000]  But if you don't, you don't have the claim.
[01:37:23.000 --> 01:37:25.000]  Pennsylvania is different.
[01:37:25.000 --> 01:37:32.000]  Pennsylvania, it's a crime not to file it in the record.
[01:37:32.000 --> 01:37:38.000]  And Nancy Becker sued based on this issue and won a decision that essentially said
[01:37:38.000 --> 01:37:45.000]  that every one of these filings by MERS was fraudulent and a crime.
[01:37:45.000 --> 01:37:46.000]  Okay.
[01:37:46.000 --> 01:37:53.000]  Basically, it's a little more to the Becker case than that, but that's basically it.
[01:37:53.000 --> 01:37:54.000]  Right.
[01:37:54.000 --> 01:38:01.000]  And she got the judgment against her based on the fact that it's not a crime not to record your mortgage.
[01:38:01.000 --> 01:38:04.000]  It just doesn't carry any interest.
[01:38:04.000 --> 01:38:11.000]  So for the bank, for her to make her judgment or to seek a judgment based on the fact
[01:38:11.000 --> 01:38:17.000]  that she should receive reciprocities for the fact that they never recorded these,
[01:38:17.000 --> 01:38:23.000]  it's not against the law not to record, but it doesn't carry any interest.
[01:38:23.000 --> 01:38:25.000]  So in her case, she's...
[01:38:25.000 --> 01:38:27.000]  No, wait a minute.
[01:38:27.000 --> 01:38:35.000]  She had Leslie on and Leslie read us the code that says it is a crime not to record.
[01:38:35.000 --> 01:38:39.000]  It is, but they didn't use that in her court case.
[01:38:39.000 --> 01:38:40.000]  Oh, okay.
[01:38:40.000 --> 01:38:41.000]  And that's the problem.
[01:38:41.000 --> 01:38:45.000]  I spoke with Leslie earlier this afternoon, and we were discussing that.
[01:38:45.000 --> 01:38:51.000]  And they did not add Title 18, which shows how it's...
[01:38:51.000 --> 01:38:58.000]  It's not Title 18. I forget the statute you said, but it was against the tax holders to withhold that money,
[01:38:58.000 --> 01:39:02.000]  which makes it a crime, which they did not use in her case.
[01:39:02.000 --> 01:39:07.000]  And the case also said that there was no time limit to recording a statute,
[01:39:07.000 --> 01:39:22.000]  which in Title 18, it specifically gives 120 days until the recording carries no interest forever.
[01:39:22.000 --> 01:39:26.000]  Okay, that is standing law.
[01:39:26.000 --> 01:39:36.000]  And okay, back in the Becker case, what was the nature of the claim and the nature of the order?
[01:39:36.000 --> 01:39:42.000]  The reason I'm asking it this way is standing law is standing law.
[01:39:42.000 --> 01:39:47.000]  And it does not become law just because it's not cited in the court.
[01:39:47.000 --> 01:39:56.000]  Right. Well, they disputed the language as the word shall be recorded and may be recorded.
[01:39:56.000 --> 01:40:04.000]  And with the language being noted in several other laws saying it may be recorded,
[01:40:04.000 --> 01:40:09.000]  it made it not a necessity to actually record.
[01:40:09.000 --> 01:40:19.000]  But if you don't record, you're shooting yourself in the foot because you don't have interest in the mortgage.
[01:40:19.000 --> 01:40:27.000]  Okay, this sounds like we have Pennsylvania back to the way every other state is.
[01:40:27.000 --> 01:40:32.000]  I guess in the end, it's not that much of a big deal.
[01:40:32.000 --> 01:40:39.000]  From your side, you don't really care if the other side is prosecuted for crimes or not.
[01:40:39.000 --> 01:40:43.000]  You care about whether or not they can take your property.
[01:40:43.000 --> 01:40:52.000]  I care whether or not the recording of the instrument carries the interest for them to be able to foreclose on my property.
[01:40:52.000 --> 01:40:53.000]  Exactly.
[01:40:53.000 --> 01:40:59.000]  Not whether or not it's legal or not to have to record it.
[01:40:59.000 --> 01:41:06.000]  Okay, so is that essentially the issue that's before the court right now?
[01:41:06.000 --> 01:41:18.000]  Yes, and that's what we're looking at to make the point to the judge is that we have through the insurance claims,
[01:41:18.000 --> 01:41:25.000]  we have these other parties who had claimed an interest in this but were unrecorded.
[01:41:25.000 --> 01:41:31.000]  So for the bank who made the assignment who was no longer active could never have made the assignment
[01:41:31.000 --> 01:41:36.000]  because the interest never carried from the previous assignment.
[01:41:36.000 --> 01:41:38.000]  Okay, let me explain this.
[01:41:38.000 --> 01:41:46.000]  This is something Chris brought to us that we hadn't seen before is he went to the insurance carrier.
[01:41:46.000 --> 01:41:52.000]  Now, was this the private mortgage insurance or hazard insurance?
[01:41:52.000 --> 01:41:54.000]  The private mortgage insurance.
[01:41:54.000 --> 01:41:58.000]  Okay, he went to the insurance.
[01:41:58.000 --> 01:42:06.000]  Anybody who holds the beneficial interest is going to want to be the beneficiary on the insurance policy.
[01:42:06.000 --> 01:42:12.000]  So he went to the insurance company to get a list of beneficiaries on the policy and he found names
[01:42:12.000 --> 01:42:19.000]  as beneficiaries on the insurance policy that weren't reflected in the public record.
[01:42:19.000 --> 01:42:27.000]  So that gave him reasonable probable cause to believe that there had been changes in beneficial interest
[01:42:27.000 --> 01:42:30.000]  that was not properly recorded in the public record.
[01:42:30.000 --> 01:42:33.000]  Am I correct in that, Chris?
[01:42:33.000 --> 01:42:36.000]  That's correct, yes.
[01:42:36.000 --> 01:42:44.000]  Okay, so this is how he got probable cause to believe this and now you're claiming that if there has been,
[01:42:44.000 --> 01:42:54.000]  say there's been five beneficiaries in the record of the insurance company,
[01:42:54.000 --> 01:43:06.000]  the first one would be the original lender and then there's an assignment by the third one to the fourth one.
[01:43:06.000 --> 01:43:17.000]  So the implication is how did the third one get it when the first one assigned it to the second one
[01:43:17.000 --> 01:43:23.000]  or sold it to the second one but never assigned it, never recorded it?
[01:43:23.000 --> 01:43:30.000]  And then the second one apparently gave it to the third one and then the third one assigned it.
[01:43:30.000 --> 01:43:34.000]  There's a gap in the chain title there.
[01:43:34.000 --> 01:43:44.000]  And with that gap it goes to, we have a code 51901 that I'll explain when we come back on the other side
[01:43:44.000 --> 01:43:50.000]  that goes to filing documents when you have no apparent authority by the record to file it.
[01:43:50.000 --> 01:43:55.000]  Randy Kelton, Wheel of Law Radio, call it number 513-646-1984.
[01:43:55.000 --> 01:44:00.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:44:00.000 --> 01:44:04.000]  You feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics?
[01:44:04.000 --> 01:44:05.000]  Boring!
[01:44:05.000 --> 01:44:08.000]  Are you confused by words like the Constitution or the Federal Reserve?
[01:44:08.000 --> 01:44:09.000]  What?
[01:44:09.000 --> 01:44:13.000]  If so, you may be diagnosed with the deadliest disease known today, stupidity.
[01:44:13.000 --> 01:44:19.000]  Hi, my name is Steve Holt and like millions of other Americans, I was diagnosed with stupidity at an early age.
[01:44:19.000 --> 01:44:25.000]  I had no idea that the number one cause of the disease is found in almost every home in America, the television.
[01:44:25.000 --> 01:44:30.000]  Unfortunately, that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity, but there is hope.
[01:44:30.000 --> 01:44:36.000]  The staff at Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other foxaholics suffering from sports zombieism recover.
[01:44:36.000 --> 01:44:43.000]  And because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading and watching educational documentaries without feeling tired or uninterested.
[01:44:43.000 --> 01:44:50.000]  So if you or anybody you know suffers from stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503
[01:44:50.000 --> 01:44:54.000]  or visit them in 1904 Guadalupe or bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:44:54.000 --> 01:45:00.000]  Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include discernment and enlarged vocabulary and an overall increase in mental functioning.
[01:45:00.000 --> 01:45:04.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:04.000 --> 01:45:15.000]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[01:45:15.000 --> 01:45:19.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:45:19.000 --> 01:45:23.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:23.000 --> 01:45:28.000]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:45:28.000 --> 01:45:34.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:45:34.000 --> 01:45:43.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:43.000 --> 01:45:52.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:45:52.000 --> 01:46:01.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:22.000 --> 01:46:24.000]  Thank you very much.
[01:46:52.000 --> 01:47:09.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio, here with Marshall Denny, and we're talking to Chris in Pennsylvania.
[01:47:09.000 --> 01:47:19.000]  Okay, Chris, this is kind of up to where you're at. Now, what is the particular issue you're bringing right now?
[01:47:19.000 --> 01:47:26.000]  We're trying to bring this issue in front of the judge to make the decision that there is a reason to continue the case,
[01:47:26.000 --> 01:47:37.000]  because we're showing that there is such a lapse in the chain of title, and we were looking to try to see if we could quiet title in that issue,
[01:47:37.000 --> 01:47:46.000]  which is a point that was brought out in Nancy Becker's case, because since she was not an owner of any of the mortgages she was making these claims to,
[01:47:46.000 --> 01:48:01.000]  it was difficult for her to actually obtain a quiet title, which would have given her proof that these titles were not recorded, even though they were assigned.
[01:48:01.000 --> 01:48:13.000]  And my whole point at where I'm at right now is I'm wondering if you would have an idea as to why the judge would postpone this case
[01:48:13.000 --> 01:48:17.000]  and with the information that...
[01:48:17.000 --> 01:48:31.000]  Okay, hold on. What is the ruling? Is there a summary judgment or something before the court now? What did he postpone the ruling on?
[01:48:31.000 --> 01:48:41.000]  The ruling was on the bank's summary judgment. They asked for a summary judgment saying there is no material fact in this case that they don't own the property.
[01:48:41.000 --> 01:48:52.000]  Okay. Wait a minute. Hold on. That's a negative. They're saying you didn't prove a negative.
[01:48:52.000 --> 01:48:58.000]  Are there material facts that show that they do own the property?
[01:48:58.000 --> 01:49:05.000]  Well, they have a mortgage recorded in a recorder of deeds office from the bank that was closed,
[01:49:05.000 --> 01:49:11.000]  and the bank tells us that they're not the lender, that Fannie Mae is the lender.
[01:49:11.000 --> 01:49:22.000]  And both Fannie Mae and the bank have made reports on a credit report stating that the account is closed and no debt is owed.
[01:49:22.000 --> 01:49:32.000]  So we're not sure how Fannie Mae comes into the picture because there's never been an assignment or acknowledgement on the note that Fannie Mae is involved,
[01:49:32.000 --> 01:49:40.000]  even though the bank sends us letters practically every month telling us they're the servicer for Fannie Mae.
[01:49:40.000 --> 01:49:45.000]  Okay. Have you sued the bank?
[01:49:45.000 --> 01:49:46.000]  No.
[01:49:46.000 --> 01:49:50.000]  As a debt collector?
[01:49:50.000 --> 01:49:53.000]  No, we have not.
[01:49:53.000 --> 01:50:00.000]  You might look at suing the bank as a debt collector under FDCPA.
[01:50:00.000 --> 01:50:08.000]  Right. That's what we were hoping the judge would be able to make a decision about when he looked at the fact that it's almost as though it's a race to the Cata thing
[01:50:08.000 --> 01:50:18.000]  where the bankruptcy court has already decided this mortgage has been unsecured and therefore was dischargeable under Chapter 7, which means it carries no lien.
[01:50:18.000 --> 01:50:29.000]  So we were hoping he'd look at that and see that there was nothing any one of these parties could bring against us to put in order to foreclose because they carry no lien on the property.
[01:50:29.000 --> 01:50:35.000]  This is it sounds like you have the judge on the dime.
[01:50:35.000 --> 01:50:39.000]  The judge has been bought and paid for.
[01:50:39.000 --> 01:50:54.000]  But now you've got him in a position to where he's being asked to render a ruling by the banks that would nullify existing law.
[01:50:54.000 --> 01:51:00.000]  Sounds like he doesn't want to do that. He's trying to find a way to rule for the guys that pay him off.
[01:51:00.000 --> 01:51:05.000]  But it kind of sounds like you've got him backed in a corner.
[01:51:05.000 --> 01:51:09.000]  Well, that's what I was hoping Nancy Becker's case would do for us.
[01:51:09.000 --> 01:51:24.000]  And I think that's what it's done because it makes a current precedent to the fact that Pennsylvania law does rule that if no assignment is made, there is no interest carried.
[01:51:24.000 --> 01:51:30.000]  Even though you don't have to report it, you can't be held lawfully responsible for that.
[01:51:30.000 --> 01:51:35.000]  You just have a mortgage now that is a worthless piece of paper because it carries no interest.
[01:51:35.000 --> 01:51:42.000]  It doesn't matter if the mortgage is not properly filed in the record, then it doesn't matter what you have.
[01:51:42.000 --> 01:51:44.000]  You can't enforce it.
[01:51:44.000 --> 01:52:00.000]  However, in this case, there is no debt that you have someone sending you a demand for payment when there is no debt.
[01:52:00.000 --> 01:52:07.000]  That should get a separate suit against whoever is making the demand.
[01:52:07.000 --> 01:52:08.000]  Right.
[01:52:08.000 --> 01:52:16.000]  Let them prove up in a federal court how they can demand that you pay them money that's not owed.
[01:52:16.000 --> 01:52:19.000]  Right.
[01:52:19.000 --> 01:52:28.000]  I can't help but look back at my mortgage agreements or contract, however you'd like to look at it.
[01:52:28.000 --> 01:52:35.000]  It states clearly that only the lender may foreclose and only the lender may sell this, and none of that has happened.
[01:52:35.000 --> 01:52:45.000]  And it's as obvious as looking at Fannie Mae being involved and this bank being involved with another bank who was closed at the time the assignment was done.
[01:52:45.000 --> 01:52:53.000]  So none of these people were actually the lender in any of these cases.
[01:52:53.000 --> 01:52:57.000]  Sounds like you have the judge on the spot.
[01:52:57.000 --> 01:53:03.000]  It sucks that we have to consider that the judge is doing everything he can to rule for the other side.
[01:53:03.000 --> 01:53:08.000]  But in the real world, that's kind of how it works.
[01:53:08.000 --> 01:53:09.000]  Right.
[01:53:09.000 --> 01:53:14.000]  But it sounds like you may have him on the spot where you have no option.
[01:53:14.000 --> 01:53:30.000]  I'm hoping that when we look at what we've presented to him in the response to the summary judgment, that was our effort to get in front of him with the evidence that we do have because we haven't been able to do that up until now.
[01:53:30.000 --> 01:53:50.000]  So hopefully, looking at that, looking at how fraudulent on its face the mortgage assignment is, I'm hoping that's an apparent issue that he won't have a tough time making a decision about.
[01:53:50.000 --> 01:53:56.000]  Well, it sounds like you may be in a good position to get your ruling.
[01:53:56.000 --> 01:54:01.000]  If it was easy for the judge, he'd have just granted summary judgment. That's what they normally do.
[01:54:01.000 --> 01:54:13.000]  Right. And that was my point with asking you, have you ever heard of the judge postponing this judgment based on, I mean, what would that be based on?
[01:54:13.000 --> 01:54:14.000]  Yeah.
[01:54:14.000 --> 01:54:35.000]  We just had one postponed in a bankruptcy court, a hearing to dismiss the bankruptcy. And we had a ruling against the person where they lifted the stay on the property.
[01:54:35.000 --> 01:54:51.000]  And we filed a motion for reconsideration and made allegations of criminal activity on part of the judge, trustee, opposing counsel, and even her own counsel accused him of conspiring to deny her due process.
[01:54:51.000 --> 01:55:13.000]  Well, that judge wasn't in today. And I suspect this motion was the reason because they wanted to buy time. We filed it late and another judge was in, but he would, he read it and he said he read the motion for reconsideration and he was not going to rule on it.
[01:55:13.000 --> 01:55:22.000]  He put it off for 30 days. He read that and he said, this is bad news and I don't want to go there.
[01:55:22.000 --> 01:55:51.000]  So they bought time to figure out what to do. That means they took it serious. So I'm taking it that this judge is not wanting to just rule against you capriciously and arbitrarily because he feels like he's being put in a position to where he's being asked to make a decision that can never get past the court of appeals.
[01:55:51.000 --> 01:56:00.000]  Because it'll essentially open the door for ungodly fraud.
[01:56:00.000 --> 01:56:04.000]  I think you're in a good spot.
[01:56:04.000 --> 01:56:31.000]  I was really, I just had a thought here just completed. The whole case that Nancy Becker brought to fruition here, you know, just with as recent as that is and the ruling the court made on that, we were hoping that would just open up the judge's eyes to the fact that the rulings using
[01:56:31.000 --> 01:56:51.000]  351 as Pennsylvania law would override most of it with the quiet title thing was something we were looking at as well too in order to put the bank on notice.
[01:56:51.000 --> 01:57:02.000]  Kind of going back and forth with that because we're looking at is this ruling going to be made enough or do we really have to focus on a quiet title?
[01:57:02.000 --> 01:57:30.000]  I would have went for a quiet title already. The quiet title is relatively simple. If you could get a quiet title ruling on this, that would act as collateral estoppel from the lender moving ahead because quiet title on the deed of trust, now they don't have a deed of trust either.
[01:57:30.000 --> 01:57:39.000]  And the last thing I want to do is give the other guys a heads up. Bushwhack is a lot better.
[01:57:39.000 --> 01:57:42.000]  This is civil.
[01:57:42.000 --> 01:57:47.000]  No fair warning.
[01:57:47.000 --> 01:57:51.000]  Bushwhack is the name of the game.
[01:57:51.000 --> 01:57:56.000]  They're not named on the deed of trust.
[01:57:56.000 --> 01:58:09.000]  And there's no direct link from the deed of trust holder to the person who claims to have standing so the only one you notice is the one on the deed of trust.
[01:58:09.000 --> 01:58:13.000]  Go to court, try to get your quiet title there.
[01:58:13.000 --> 01:58:19.000]  And if the other side tries to come in, then you claim they have no standing.
[01:58:19.000 --> 01:58:26.000]  If they wanted to make a claim, they had to file it in the record. It's not there. They have no standing in the court. Hang on.
[01:58:26.000 --> 01:58:32.000]  Randy Kelton, Radio. I'll call it number 512-646-1984.
[01:58:32.000 --> 01:58:35.000]  We're going to the top of the hour break. This will be our three minute break.
[01:58:35.000 --> 01:58:50.000]  So it's a good time to go talk to or go to Logos Radio Network and look at our logosradionetwork.com and check over our sponsors and help support Randy's beer.
[01:58:50.000 --> 01:58:58.000]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it.
[01:58:58.000 --> 01:59:06.000]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the scripture.
[01:59:06.000 --> 01:59:09.000]  Enter the recovery version.
[01:59:09.000 --> 01:59:18.000]  First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more than 9000 explanatory footnotes.
[01:59:18.000 --> 01:59:27.000]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance into the riches of the Word beyond which you've ever experienced before.
[01:59:27.000 --> 01:59:33.000]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking.
[01:59:33.000 --> 01:59:47.000]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102 or by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[01:59:47.000 --> 01:59:50.000]  That's freestudybible.com.
[01:59:50.000 --> 02:00:00.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com.