Hour 1: Discussion on the Federal Tort Claims Act and searches involving traffic stops. The Terry ruling and subsequent related cases are discussed, as well as cases addressing the issue of behavioral indications by dogs being used for prima fascie showings of probable cause for searches.
Hours 2-4: Hosts take calls on various topics.
[DEBORAH: I don’t know how to spell the court case of “Kabalish”.]
Hours 1 and 2:
Deborah decides to forego this year’s Rainbow Family gathering so that she can research her potential court case concerning events of several years ago when she, husband Jerry, and a friend, attended that year’s Rainbow gathering. Deborah, equipped with a brand-new satellite cell phone, was able to report live back to Randy in the studio about the U.S. Forest Service law enforcement’s planned attack, which included pepper spray) on the entirely peaceful attendees. Days before, however, in transit to the event, Deb, husband Jerry, and a friend were stopped by federal officers on a dirt road (for failure to use a turn signal!) and subjected to a 30-40 minute detention/arrest. Subsequently, as an after-thought, they were subjected to an illegal drug-sniffing-dog search of their vehicle’s exterior. Deborah saw the officer signal the dog to alert by hand motion. Jerry and friend had their persons searched. A ransacking of their vehicle occurred. Nothing illegal was found (giving credence to her belief that the dog was alerted by hand signal).
Deborah is preparing a tort letter under the Federal Tort Claims Act on the grounds that a claim shall be deemed to have been presented when an agency receives from a claimant written notification of an incident accompanied by a claim of money damages for loss of property or personal injury.
Deborah received a form to complete regarding her alleged charge of negligence (which she did not claim); Deb suspects the USDA of attempted entrapment for filing a false claim. She describes her regulatory and statutory research (e.g., 28 CFR 14.2(a); 28 USC sections 2401(b), 2672, 2675, and 268(h)) and of U.S. Supreme Court cases concerning traffic stop searches, including Terry v Ohio (392 US 1, 1968) and Kabalish (2005).
Deb, Eddie, and Randy raise questions about what constitutes a properly certified police dog, how easily they can be trained to do anything, how dogs would be able to provide “evidence” and “testimony” on the witness stand, the possibility of a private attorney general lawsuit for all others similarly situated, and the biblical hierarchy of God, Men, and Animals.
Hours 3 and 4:
Carlos (CA), Eddie, and Randy discuss a mortgage lender’s standing in a court foreclosure proceeding when the California Constitution prohibits the operation of banks, lending institutions, etc. within the State. Randy discusses a federal court ruling that a mortgage lender in Utah, who had failed to register with the State to engage in business practices, nonetheless had standing as a party. Carlos brings up issues surrounding the effect of bankruptcy on foreclosure proceedings.
Mike (CT) revisits [see ROL20100524 show] his wife’s abduction by police at a traffic stop and subsequent transfer to a State mental hospital. Mike reveals that the case file contains no arrest warrant and a very incomplete information. Dan (CT) calls in at the end of the show and supplies further data about the case, including the fact that Mike’s wife has undergone numerous psychological evaluations at the hospital, with more being threatened.
Christian (LaPorte) describes a court proceeding in which the judge overruled his numerous objections, dismissed the jury at the end of the trial and submitted his own (guilty) verdict, and accused Christian’s friend/witness of “practicing law without a license”. The judge admitted that his associates followed Christian and his friend and eavedropping on their conversations. It is finally agreed that Christian needs to become more knowledgeable about law and court proceedings to fight this case properly.
HOUR 1 & 2
Deborah goes after USDA forestry service about June 30, 2009 Rainbow Gathering. Traffic stops and drug searches. Will sue using federal tort claims act (allows two years to sue, they have six months to respond to allegation). USDA requests she fills out SF-95 form (accident claim form). Can sue Feds if the person is a law enforcement officer.
Deborah used case law quotes in the text of her response.
There was a drug dog search. Dogs signal drugs wrongly 38% of the time.
Forest Service roads traffic rules.
64:09
Dogs can be trained to act however the officer desires, so dog could learn to do the “correct” response of indicating drug smells. The human handler would always influence the dog.
Deborah says if they offer to settle for money, she will only agree to non-disclosure of the settlement amount only and not other details.
Deborah also wants to file criminal charges against law enforcement officers.
78:40
Deborah says she was assault verbally while the law enforcement was armed. Simple assault with a deadly weapon is aggravated assault. If someone speaks to you in a way that an ordinary and prudent person would find offensive is simple assault. Bodily harm is battery.
82:50
Steven from Montana.
Writ of Prohibition in DUI case was denied because other remedies were not first sought. Jurisdictional challenge was denied. Prosecutor called him a “paper terrorist” in written pleadings, so he will file in small claims court maybe for defamation.
How to sue public defender on breach of contract for not fully representing defendant. 3rd party beneficiary to contract has right to adjudicate contract.
1:07:30
Guy.
Someone won a case (no reference to supposed case) and then appealed that case so a higher court would see the case in hope of higher court setting precedent. Hosts acted how person who appealed had standing to appeal.
HOUR 3 & 4
3:40
Deborah with additional discussion of Rainbow Gathering traffic stop.
9:10
Carlos in California.
Foreclosure question about bank that wrote mortgage not being registered to do business in the case. The bank will have the case moved to federal court. Feds will claim to authorize banks to operate in the states. But Feds can’t give banks standing in state courts.
Look at Utah case.
California constitution specifically forbids creation of financial banks (credit cards, lending, etc.) in the state. Therefore bank has no standing in the state as a plaintiff to initiate a foreclosure. Defendant should move to have case dismissed and go after plaintiff for costs incurred in the defense.
When trustee does assignment, this should be recorded with local government. Who is trustee and who do they work for and does that company hold the note and authority? Make trustee produce original note.
Colorado courts have held that copy of note can give lender standing to go to court. UCC 3-5-01 says copy of note is insufficient to collect on note as original is needed.
Discussion of California constitution being repealed.
Charlie’s credit card debt in California was dismissed based on information about California constitution prohibition on lending and credit.
Bankruptcy discussion about making secured creditors prove their standing.
33:
Mike in Connecticut.
Statute of limitations on arrest. Once a prosecution starts, the statute of limitations clock stops and speedy trial clock starts.
Law enforcement arresting someone without a warrant is kidnapping and when armed is aggravated assault. Look for false arrest or false imprisonment.
Habeas corpus.
Get certified copy of your file from clerk & recorder. Ask all magistrates if they have a case with your name that contains the warrant.
54:21
Christian from LaPorte.
Foreclosure.
Civil court jury trial.
Tampering with a witness.
Directed verdict.
“I notice the court of my intent to appeal.” This can trigger a surety bond.
You need to establish foundation to bring an item into a court case.
78:40
Write a complete and detailed narrative of the case to help get your thoughts in order. Write it as soon as possible after the event.
Read rules of civil procedure and rules of evidence.
80:57
Ken in Texas.
Traffic ticket. Municipalities can offer a deal through the mail.
84:00
Micro-broadcaster Department of Justice threatening to file lawsuit to collect debt. Countersue for frivilous lawsuit.
Title 47. Debt is valid if found in civil court via Trial De Novo or if person volutarily begins making payments.
Research legal definition of “debt” in statutues.
91:36
Keith in Texas.
Mike Miras says Fair Debt Collection Practices Act can not be used against governments unless there are exemptions (like they are in your credit report).
Sovereign civil immunity.
Keith’s arrest.
He has sent tort letters and open information requests. Sued in district court and has not received response.
Filing malpractice against prior attorney.
Expecting to receive default judgment in his favor.
Educate yourself. Fear results from ignorance. Most law is on the side of the people.
1:05:50
Dan from Connecticut.
Competency evaluation.
In federal court, file criminal complaint.
File for discovery of data underlying psychological evaluations.