Hour 1 guest Karen Renick from www.VoteRescue.org.
Related Posts
03-08-10 Rule Of Law
ROL_2010-03-08_128k.mp3 ROL_2010-03-08_16k.mp311-19-10 Rule of Law
First 90 minutes: Special guest Sibel Edmonds discusses the current situation regarding TSA and othe...
ROL welcomes [at 0hr05m] Karen Renick of http://www.VoteRescue.org. Returning to a topic originating on the ROL show dated 20100802, Deborah asks Karen whether it makes any sense to double-check the vote totals after electronic voting has occurred. Karen says that VoteRescue opposes such checks as a red herring. She explains how some places, such as Austin, use electronic voting machines that furnish a printout of how someone voted. However, the printout is hard to decipher, is on thermal paper (which deteriorates rapidly), and remains with the electronic voting machine! (In other words, it is completely worthless.) Karen claims that if voters could take home a copy of their ballot after they voted they could sell their votes, thereby engaging in an illegal activity. Karen also questions the logic a recount (by government officials) of paper receipts of a paper ballot in a contested election and emphasizes the wisdom of a publicly viewed chain of custody, in its entirety, of the ballots. She notes something largely unreported in America: last year’s decision by Germany’s highest court outlawing electronic voting.
Rob (CT) [at 0hr34m20s] works with http://www.ctelectionaudit.org and says that 10% of the votes are recounted during a recount in Connecticut and the problems with that system. Karen notes that in some parts of New Hampshire they still hand-count the ballots. She STRONGLY advocates for this approach. She also gives a thumbs down to early voting because (logically enough) of the loss of sight of the chain of custody.
[NOTE: Although only a half-hour long, this is a great interview. I find Karen’s and Deborah’s logic unassailable that the chain of custody of the original ballots and their counting must have rigid oversight. On the nitpicky side of things, I am a little confused by a couple of Karen’s statements. For instance, she mentions that there are laws making vote-selling illegal. Chicago politicians are renowned for encouraging the electorate to “Vote early, vote often”, but in most parts of America I believe it would be considerably more difficult to change one’s vote after the fact. To whom the typical voter would sell his/her vote is open to debate, particularly if doing so is a crime. I also believe that the logic of outlawing vote selling is open to debate in a free market culture. What is not open to debate is the unabashed hypocrisy of legislators: vote selling is exceedingly commonplace in their workplace (i.e., the 51 capitols). Another matter that I have long had my doubts about is secret ballots. This concept, almost idolized today, was once held in disdain. In earlier days Americans electors were unashamed to communicate how they voted, and why, to their neighbors. This sharing of information led to a highly informed and honorable electorate. (Of course, they did not have millions of foreigners secretly voting.) The vast majority of today’s voters invest great emotion but little thought into the issues they vote on. I believe they feel powerless about a system that affects their lives. Everyone wants to feel in control, but often without the hard work required to attain it. Voting serves this purpose. One can do nothing more than cast a ballot into an ocean of ballots and pretend one is a blessing to one’s countrymen, all the while leaving Big Brother firmly entrenched. Perhaps there is a better alternative. I prefer the nullification concepts of Jefferson, Madison, and Thomas Woods. (See the 20100723 ROL show.) As a personal aside, I still find my idea (see comments of the 20100802 ROL show) worth contemplation: anti-election fraud websites run by private citizens. But the chain of custody for ballots and ballot counting, as Karen and Deborah state, reigns paramount.]
Randy tells us [0hr46m30s] about Saturday’s RemediesInRealEstate (RIRE) seminar at the Windham in Austin and that a mortgage holder would have to be in a coma to not be angry at his/her lender. The fraud is far more extensive than we can imagine. Twelve RIRE clients have gotten no answers to their complaints against their lenders. Randy explains why no answer defaults are so rare: they are a raw deal for the defendant.
Continuing, Randy tells [at 1hr04m] how a half million dollar mortgage can engender a $14,000,000 lawsuit. Some damages must be awarded as stipulated by law and some (e.g., triple the amount of the damages because of fraud) invoke the judgment of the court. Chiefly, it’s the delay that RIRE is hoping for. That keeps the homeowner in the house without making any further mortgage.
Greg [at 1hr21m] wants to be a ROL call screener. He also was given a ticket for playing guitar in public for tips. Eddie notes that city ordinances do not apply to Greg. City ordinances are not a law and are therefore illegal per the Texas Constitution, Article 3, section 29 and Article 1, section 29.
Gary (Austin) [at 1hr28m] will be at Randy’s seminar and says that real estate forensic appraisers will be there.
Denise (OR) [at 1hr32m50s] wants Randy to look at her mortgage/foreclosure situation. There is time for the qualified written request. Denise should sue immediately. Randy gives the definition of the word of art “qualified written request” as a letter to the lender claiming that there is an accounting error and demanding that the lender correct the error. Randy describes how RIRE is an evolutionary process: each response to a lawsuit suggests an area for RIRE to cover in the next lawsuit, beating the defendant to the punch. Denise knows someone who was foreclosed upon before she had heard about it.
Eddie discusses [at 1hr48m] a client who was told by the traffic judge that the court was going to use the ticket as the complaint and the legal problems surrounding that matter. Eddie suggests the client file a criminal complaint against the judge.
Robert [at 1hr56m30s] asks about his chapter 13 bankruptcy situation.
HOUR 1 & 2
Deborah interviews Karen Renick of Vote Rescue. Deborah thinks paper trail audit of electronic voting is a fraud. The counting is still done electronically. Are verification systems useful and necessary?
Karen says verification of electronic voting is a red herring. Printers on electronic machines are an after-thought of those systems. Paper trails are difficult to audit, and don’t even print 10%-20% of the time.
Electronic vote system vendors have poor track record of secure systems.
A paper printout is not a receipt. Receipts will never be allowed because it proves how you voted and would contribute to buying votes. Buying votes would apply to any way to look up a person’s vote (online).
There is no reason to believe the printout has the same votes as what is recorded electronically.
On electronic machines, there is a test mode that counts differently than in the real mode.
Everything in voting should be verifiable and publicly accountable. Electronics are not visible to the public.
Voting systems should make it difficult to cheat, not make it easy to cheat.
Deborah wants paper voting with public oversight. Put internet video stream over box where paper ballots are placed. Put internet video of the vote recording process.
Germany ruled electronic voting will not be allowed.
33:30
Rob in Connecticut.
Member of CT Election Audit.
By state law, 10% of ballots must be recounted. Describes story of vote inaccuracy with bubble paper scans.
Rob asks if a prototype system that Deborah describes has been built.
Karen says 1/3 of New Hampshire polling places to paper ballots and hand counts. Says around 10 counties do hand count.
Karen says the priority of accurate voting has been distorted into convenience and getting home earlier in the evening.
Texas law allows counting all day long. Karen has some concerns with counting in private during the day. Wants no early voting (because it is hidden) and holiday on voting day.
46:00
Randy will present mortgage fraud seminar on Saturday. 1PM – 9PM. No charge. Will show why lender creates loan documents that are intended to default (they make more money).
In the late 1990s there banking changes that guaranteed the problems. Expect 1/2 of all mortgages to default in next decade.
Lender doesn’t care about taking house and selling it, as they make more money in other ways.
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act defines how to rescind the note and get everything refunded. This is not the goal because you have to return the property. The goal is to keep the property and make the note and everyone collecting to go away.
Randy now has twelve no-answer defaults. These seldom happen. 75% are later overturned because defendant was not properly served.
In Colorado, an unrelated party over 18 years of age can serve. Instead hire a professional process server.
Lender must respond within 21 days, and they typically can’t do all of the work. General denials are OK, but then file motion to dismiss for being unresponsive and then motion for summary judgment.
63:50
After no-answer default is signed, the property is free and clear. Collecting the fees and penalties from the bank is another matter. The judge’s ruling can be appealed for improper service or mistake or accident.
“Prove up” hearing is when court makes determination of amount. You get the amounts that are fixed for the penalties by statute (Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act). After the hearing, get a judgment against lender. After judgment, move for execution and have Sheriff remove furniture from their offices.
81:00
Greg from Austin.
Ticketed for sitting while playing guitar.
Eddie says if charged under city ordinance (does not have enacting clause), it would only apply to city employees and contractors. City ordinances are rules for city employees. Texas Constitution, Article 3, Section 29.
87:47
Gary in Austin.
Will bring some forensic appraisers to Randy’s seminar.
92:37
Denise from Oregon.
Wants guidance on how to proceed with foreclosure that is in process. Sue the lender and send qualified written request (60 day reply). QWR is a notice to lender notifying them of accounting error and demanding it be corrected. Claim accounting error of 4x-5x amount of original principal. Also demand proof that all fees were necessary and reasonable and no markup was taken.
Origination fee is restricted to 1% of original principal. “Yield spread premium” is synonym for “origination fee”.
Randy describes process of prosecuting judge, DA, district judge, … for outlawry and official oppression.
Randy says anyone who has or had a mortgage note can get remedy.
108:00
Eddie describes traffic case in which judge denied motions and used ticket as the initial complaint. Court trying to say it is using Texas vehicle code 27.14D. Valid complaints must be signed by office under oath. The court is violating due process.
Defendant should file criminal charges against judge.
Lower courts are rigged to generate revenue, not justice.
114:00
Randy says to sue the mortgage lender. Get example suits by asking clerk at the court house.
116:17
Robert.
Chapter 13. Disputing validity of lender.
If stay is already in place in bankruptcy, use that stay.