Listen to the podcast here:
What You Need To Know About Land Patents: Ron Gibson Part VI
Proof The Courts Are Stacked Against We The People
Before we get in with our guest, Ron Gibson, I’d like to play something for you from my friend, Eddie Craig. Eddie is with Rule of Law Radio out of Austin, Texas. Eddie has some amazing teachings that you should pay attention to. I want to play a segment for those people out there that are under the false belief that you could get a fair shake in a court when, in fact, it is very difficult to get a fair shake. As a matter of fact, a court is where truth goes to die. If you don’t have Rule of Law Radio on your iTunes, you should download it because Eddie Craig, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens have some wonderful information for you. They’ve been recording for about twelve years. When I need a break from all the lies and deceptions, I’ll go and listen to Rule of Law Radio. I believe they also have Logos Radio. I wanted to show this piece that shows the absolute truth that Eddie has discovered. With that, let’s bring in Eddie Craig.
Something I’ve been studying here while I’ve been working on the stuff that I’ve got to work on is called the Uniform Rules of Evidence Act. The reason I’ve been studying this is because of something that specifically appears in the Texas Rules of Evidence. First, I’m going to explain to you what the Uniform Rules of Evidence Act is and when and how and who brought it into being. I’m going to go into what the Texas Rules of Evidence show us. You’re not going to like it. I know I don’t. We’ll let you decide how you feel about it when I’m done reading it to you.
The Uniform Rules of Evidence was originally promulgated in 1974 by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Law. Remember, these people are not elected individuals. These people are not appointed individuals. This group was a group of private attorneys acting in concert to formulate this co-op that they have and to create this act. There were extensive amendments in 1986 and a minor amendment in 1988. New amendments have been added in 1999 and 2005. The Uniform Rules of Evidence attempts to achieve uniformity of the law of evidence between all states. It also provides large-scale unity between State Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Evidence. Remember, it says unity not matching requirements. In fact, the Federal Rules of Evidence are spoken of strictly as being similar to the Uniform Rules of Evidence.
When you break it down, you’ll find out that every state is only similar. None of them match up and none of them have a real applicable code of evidence that can be used across the board by everyone. The Uniform Rules of Evidence attempts to achieve uniformity of the Law of Evidence between all states. It also provides large scale unity between State Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The primary object of the act is to simplify and codify the rules pertaining to what may be introduced in evidence in any civil or criminal trial in a court of law. It closely reflects the Federal Rules of Evidence. It says that many states in the US have adopted the Uniform Rules of Evidence, though it doesn’t tell us what specific states have done so.
Let’s look at how Texas implements this. When you go to the Texas Rules of Evidence, you will find the very first rule which is Rule 101 Title, Scope and Applicability of the Rules and Definitions. When you read these, it says A. The Title, these rules may be cited as the Texas Rules of Evidence. B. Scope, these rules apply to proceedings in Texas courts except as otherwise provided in Subdivisions D through F. Subsection C Rules on Privilege. The rules on privilege apply to all stages of a case or proceeding. Here are our exceptions. Subsection D of Rule 101, exception for constitutional or statutory provisions or other rules. Despite these rules, a court must admit or exclude evidence if required to do so by the United States or Texas Constitution, a federal or Texas statute or a rule prescribed by the United States or Texas Supreme Court or the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
If possible, a court should resolve by reasonable construction any inconsistency between these rules and applicable, constitutional or statutory provisions or other rules. E. Exceptions, these rules except for those on privilege do not apply to one, the court’s determination under Rule 104-A on a preliminary question of fact governing admissibility. Two, grand jury proceedings and three, the following miscellaneous proceedings. A. An application for habeas corpus and extradition rendition or interstate detainer proceedings. B. An inquiry by the court under the Code of Criminal Procedure Article 46B.004 to determine whether evidence exists that would support a finding that the thing that may be incompetent to stand trial.
C. Bail proceedings other than hearings to deny, revoke or increase bail. D. Hearings on the justification for pretrial detention, not involving bail. E. Proceedings to issue a search or arrest warrant. F. Direct contempt determination proceedings. We get into my biggest issue with this, Subsection F. Remember, the exceptions to this are D through F. I read you D. Here’s F, exception for justice court cases. These rules do not apply to justice court cases except as authorized by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 500.3. What this is telling us is that not a single thing in the Texas Rules of Evidence apply to any of the cases that can be heard in a justice court. Not a single rule of evidence can be used except as shown under Rule 500.3 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Let me read you at least the titles of each of the subsections of Rule 500.3 under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. A. Small claims case is a lawsuit brought for the recovery of money damages, civil penalties, personal property or other relief allowed by law.
The claim can be no more than $10,000 excluding statutory interest in court costs but including attorney’s fees if any. Small claims cases are governed by Rules 500 through 507 of Part 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. B. Debt claim case. C. Repair and remedy case. D. Eviction case. E. Application of other rules. The other Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Evidence do not apply except, one, when the judge hearing the case determines that a particular rule must be followed to ensure that the proceedings are fair to all parties or two, when otherwise specifically provided by law or these rules. We know very well that the judges in these courts take full advantage of what they think is fair and what is not fair to the accused in their court. It’s never to the accused individual’s advantage, especially when the state is the one doing the accusing.
Subsection F, examination of rules. The court must make the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Evidence available for examination either in paper form or electronically during the court’s business hours. That is the limit of the application of the Rules of Civil Procedure in justice court under the Rules of Evidence. In the criminal proceedings held in the justice courts, there is absolutely no way for you to compel the court to review your evidence. There is no way to compel the court to allow you to introduce your evidence or to refute the evidence of the state. There is no standard other than that the judge and the prosecutor agreed to use to beat you regardless of the facts and the law.
This is why you cannot bring the statute into evidence, even though the Rules of Evidence specifically say that a statute is allowed to be brought in by the court yet in these courts, they don’t have to follow those rules. When you say, “I have the statute right here,” the judge can go, “I don’t care. You’re not going to be able to admit it.” Folks, if you wanted to understand that it’s a rigged game, here is one of the biggest pointing fingers that you have. Notice that this does not say anything about this exception applying in municipal courts. Even though when it comes to criminal cases, the municipal court and the justice court have the same jurisdiction. Rule 204 says, “Judicial notice of Texas municipal and county ordinances, Texas register contents and published agency policies.” Again, the courts are required to take notice of those except in a justice court. They’re not required to take notice of anything if they don’t want to.
There is only one mention of municipal in the entire Rules of Evidence. Rule 204, Subsection D of 204. That’s it. Rule 204 is the only place that any mention of municipal exists. What that’s telling us is that there is an inconsistency and a hole in the law that we don’t know whether or not the Rules of Evidence can be used in a municipal court at all. There’s nothing here saying that they can’t be or that they shouldn’t be or that they’re accepted from yet the municipal courts do exactly the same thing the justice courts do when it comes to the admission of statutes and state law and the Texas Constitution as items of evidence. They refuse to allow them to be presented on what legal authority? Even more to the point, how do these rules establish a law that is binding upon anyone in relation to how they must act because the Rules of Evidence and the Rules of Procedure aren’t law? They’re not created by legislatures. They are created by a private organization of attorneys, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Law. They’re BAR members.
That was Eddie Craig. Eddie, thank you so much for allowing me to share that with our readers. I wanted to encourage our readers to go over to RuleOfLawRadio.com and you could find out information about their show. Eddie also has a book that deals with transportation. I believe the book is $250 a download. That book, Eddie should sell for ten times that much. That is the Bible of transportation. Once you learn that and research that book, it will begin to unfold to you what the criminal administration has set up and that they’ve placed you in by your ignorance. It’s important to stop being ignorant. Get Eddie’s book and you’ll be glad that you did. With that, let’s bring in Ron Gibson for part six of what you need to know about land patents.
Let me jump in here on a question. Let’s say that you’ve been going through foreclosure for six months or a year or whatever it’s been. They’re getting ready to take the house. Can you file that quiet title at the last moment?
You run into a time restraint, but that puts a stay on any further proceedings of the foreclosure. Here’s the other thing about it and people will hear what I say but they don’t hear a thing I say. You cannot foreclose on a property, number one, without being the owner. Number two, you cannot foreclose on a property unless you have the title. The only title that’s out there that any and all land is not a warranty deed is a land patent. In the section in my book called The Memorandum of Law, I address the issue of foreclosure. You may owe money from a bank if the loan is for real and they’re not. Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that it is, you may be obligated to pay that money back but the bank cannot come and touch your property for a number of reasons.
It violates the intent of Congress. It violates the treaty that protects that property. It violates the Constitutional Provision of Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 that they cannot impair the obligation of a contract. When that patent is issued by the United States government, it creates several precious things. Number one, it creates a perpetual and forever contract. The second thing that it does is it creates a vested right. In other words, a vested right is to protect the covenants that are in law. Whatever comes out of the Constitution is in law. The title is in law, in Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2. You may still legitimately owe money if it’s a lawful loan and they’re not. If they are, they cannot touch the property. I addressed that in The Memorandum of Law in my book.
Getting back to the Motion for Quiet Title, you want to get that file as soon as possible because a Motion for Quiet Title puts the monkey back on the bank to prove that they have privity. Privity is a Latin term meaning lawful standing or proper standing to come at you and try to foreclose on that property. I want to give you a court case here that typifies the point although it was not a foreclosure per se. It was an attempt to take it or what’s called a compensatory taking. It’s listed in my book called Summa Corporation versus State of California Coastal Commission. It’s a 1984 case. In there, the state wanted to come and take by eminent domain, property belonging to Summa Corporation. They went to the local court. The court ruled against them. They went to the Appellate Court in the state, they ruled against them. They went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court blustered the State of California and stated that if they were not in privity of which to be named on the original patent, they cannot come back at a later date and claim any of that property. That’s the same principle that I’m sharing with you here about a foreclosure.
If the bank doesn’t have the patent and they can’t because they’re a corporation, I don’t have the patent but I’m in possession of the property, I win because I’m in possession.
Not necessarily. Let’s back up a bit, your land has a patent. It has the underlying patent from the first grantee.
That would be the State of Texas. If nobody has filed to take it from the state of Texas, the state of Texas still has that, I assume.
There’s a custodian of the record. The patent is yours because you are an assignee in that law where you bought the property.
Let me ask it this way. The State of Texas is the trustee. Let’s put them to the side of the equation for a moment.
No, but they’re not a trustee. Why are you calling them trustee?
They’re the custodian.
That’s correct.Check options and consult experts to know more about your land before considering foreclosure of your property. Click To Tweet
When the bank comes to file the foreclosure, the bank will go ahead and do that. The state knows that they’re the custodians of that property until somebody claims it with a land patent. Is that right?
They are the custodians of the land title records because remember, the state of Texas never ceded their land back to the United States when they became a state. They held on to that. That’s why they called as you well know better than I, they’re the Lone Star state. Once Texas issued that, they had the same fiduciary duty to protect that patent as the United States does in all of the other states. Because on every patent that says to the undersigned, to their heirs and assigns forever. In other words, they duplicated exactly the same premise and the jurisdiction that the United States General Land Office did. Therefore, they have to protect that.
Justin and I were talking about a case. I believe it was the Twill case.
It’s the Twill case, yes. I’m familiar with it.
When the state has an obligation and they remained silent or when they have a duty to speak and they remained silent, and when I referred to the state, I’m talking about that judge, that judge that’s sitting there, he has a duty to speak. He’s going to remain silent knowing that the State of Texas is the custodian of the patent. He says nothing because it’s all a money game that’s going on behind the scenes. The banks had paid him off is what the real issue is.
You have to know what you’re talking about and that’s why people need to learn and go to these land patents seminars that I do and get my book and read whatever because everything I teach is in that book. The point being, there’s no provision for that judge to breach his fiduciary duty and what he’s obligated to protect that patent because the patent is issued by the state. The judge has that authority or claims to have it, I want to see it. I want to see it in writing where he thinks he has authority to breach that which he has been entrusted to do and his constitutional oath that he gave to protect rights in the property.
He has a duty to speak is my point with the case and he doesn’t. He remained silent and allows the bank’s attorney to run over the people that are ignorant about what’s going on in the background.
That judge can be sued under that scenario that you’re describing.
He violated rights and that is one of the areas that takes jurisdiction away from it.
He breached his fiduciary duty and he warred against the Constitution. Those are an open door for torts cases or damage.
Let’s move on your items here. This was a real shocker that I didn’t know about. The FCC, CIA, FBI, NASA and all other alphabet gangs were never part of the US government even though the US government held stock in the agencies. I’ve never heard that. That’s awesome. Explain that one.
These are all separate corporations for profit. They’re independent corporations.
They are tax exempt for-profit organizations.
They’re stealing you and I’s money and funding these. What obligation do we have to fund the FCC or the CIA or the FBI or NASA or any other alphabet entity? We’re not a party to that corporation. Do you receive an annual dividend from any of these corporations?
I’ve missed my check over the past 50 years or so.
That’s my point. Unless you’re a party to that corporation, you have no obligation.
Wouldn’t you say that these different acronyms are foreign agents to the organic State of Texas or the other states?
They’re foreign entities that you and I have any liability of which to be bound by any obligation to.
Whenever you see the FBI come in and they tell the sheriff, “We’re going to take over. You step aside.” When that sheriff does that, he’s in violation of his fiduciary duty. It happens all the time.
The reason why it happens is that we, for the most part, are ignorant. We don’t stand up and go down to that sheriff’s office and we’re going to bounce you like a rubber ball. You better take it. Are you familiar with the Hage case in Nevada? Wayne Hage?
No, I’m not.
He’s called the Sagebrush Rebellion. The US Forest Service decided that they wanted to confiscate the pine tree ranch that was owned by the Hage family. There were some 70,000 acres or whatever as a part of that ranch and the range rights gets after Tetra. It got a beautiful home on it. They decided they’d come in there. They started claiming the Hage’s cattle beyond their range right boundary. They virtually tried to run them out of business and tried to put them in prison like they did the Bundys. Wayne Hage’s wife, Jean, was a state senator I believe. He has a book out called Storm Over Rangelands. The federal agents, the FBI, and the federal marshals were sent by the US Forest Service to go and impound all of Wayne Hage’s cattle.
The same thing that they tried to do with the Bundy’s. That sheriff said, “No.” They threatened the sheriff. The sheriff said, “No, you’re not taking a single animal off of this property until the court gives their decision.” They got a little pushy, and he and his officers stood right there. He told that federal marshal, “If you set one-foot pass that gate, I’m going to call my SWAT team and have you arrested for trespassing and breach of fiduciary duty.” They stood there and eyeballed each other and kick rocks and finally the federal agents left.
The point being that sheriff did his job because that sheriff knew what his right was. That he’s the chief law enforcement officer of any county. That’s a tragedy in the LaVoy Finicum murder here in Oregon two years ago. That Grant Sheriff should have stepped in there and told the federal agents, “Get your ass out of here.” Instead they’ve murdered an innocent man for nothing. The point that I’m making in all of this error is we need to be careful who we elect for sheriffs. We need to be careful who we elect for county commissioners, state representatives, governors and on and on it goes.Social security is not insurance or contract. Click To Tweet
It gets back to the American people not knowing what their rights are. Therefore, they don’t have any. The administration certainly knows that.
You bet they do. They even teach classes on this.
Tell us about your seminars and your availability as far as going into different states and teaching these. If we put together a seminar in Texas, do you know if you’d be available to come in and teach?
I would make myself available. I have a passion for this stuff. If I want to be honest about it, it’s a mission to you. I love doing these land patents seminar where I can get eyeball to eyeball with people because I read body language pretty well. When you have people that are trying to learn, I thoroughly enjoy it. I do well in front of a crowd of people. I enjoy doing that. To answer your question, I’d love to come to Texas and do a land patent seminar. I need a minimum of about 30 to 40 people. I need the sponsor of that. Let’s say you were to sponsor me to come and a place where we can hold that event. It’s a one-day event. It’s an eight-hour class. We need to figure out something for the people to have for lunch. We’re not strung out all over town trying to get a bunch of people fed.
Let us work on that and see if we can rally the troops and see who’s interested in that. You can contact us at the Joseph Farley Show and let us know if you’d be interested in coming to a seminar. We’d probably hold it here in the Dallas area and try to do something. Social Security number is a big deal. Social Security numbers are issued by the UN through the IMF, International Monetary Fund. The application for a Social Security number is an SS-5 form. The Department of Treasury, IMF, issues, the SS-5 form and not the Social Security Administration. The new SS-5 form does not state who publishes them while the old forms states they are the Department of the Treasury. You can find that in 20 CFR, Council on Foreign Relations, Chapter 111 Subpart B 422.103B. That is pretty amazing.
You and I are not even supposed to have a Social Security number. I do long classes on this. By having a Social Security number, it shows that you’re an agent on a special mission for the Social Security and the IMF, the International Monetary Fund and all of the other departments which can be withdrawn at any time. The Social Security card also shows that you are a government agent.
We don’t get any type of benefit for that.
No, we don’t get any benefit, do we? We don’t get paid for doing it. We don’t get a discount on anything. All we get to do is to have our money taken from us by somebody who claims they are our employer.
I was joking around with Justin last year about writing a letter to the Social Security Administration and saying, “I would like to sell my Social Security number and I’d like to offer you the first right. If you don’t bid on it, I’m going to sell it to somebody,” just to be able to get the letter back from them stating that, “You don’t own that. We own it.” A lot of people will tell you under oath that they have a Social Security number. That’s their Social Security number. They own the Social Security number when, in fact, that’s not true.
If you want to get out of the Social Security system, you have to send a letter of revocation to the Social Security Administration department and to the US Treasury. Try to send them both a notification of it. Also in addition to that, once that’s received by certified mail return receipt, then you can file an action in the federal court of which to reclaim all the money that’s left in that to be paid to you.
Let’s back that up because a lot of people are going to be interested in that. What you’re saying is that you could get out of the system and get all the money that you’ve paid in it back?
That is correct. You get that. The court action has to be filed in the Federal Court of Claims. That’s where the monetary disbursement of any claim against the government is done back to the individual. That’s either in a tort claim or just a relinquishment of trust monies that’s been held by the US government or an agent thereof. You file it under the Federal Court of Claims.
A lot of the Christians are waiting for the mark of the beast and the number. We’re already there. That day is not coming. That day is here.
They’ve been so blinded they don’t see it.
The next one is there are no judicial courts in America and have not been since 1789. Judges do not enforce statutes and codes. Executive administrators enforced statutes and codes. That is referred to or what you have here is FRC versus GE 281 US 464 and Keller versus PE 261 US 428 1 stat 138 through 178. Can you talk a little bit about that one?
First of all, let’s go back to what you quoted on FRC versus GE. You have the number, the capital US on that after the 281. Look at Keller versus PE, it’s 261 and there are other US capital letters there. That means that those are both United States Supreme Court cases that have never been overturned. They stand as read. The reason that there are no judicial courts is that in the United States, as with every state in the union, you have two Constitutions. We have the organic or 1777 and then the 1789.
This taking over of America has happened several centuries ago.
There were those that had allegiance to Britain and to the Crown and those who wanted to be free and in certain instances they got outvoted.
That brings us into this next issue is that there had been no judges in America since 1789. There had been administrators and that you also referenced the same case.
Because there is no law that the judges are dealing with. They’re dealing with statutes and codes. Statutes and codes are not law. They never were intended to be law. A judge cannot deal in statutes and codes nor can an administrator deal in law. We don’t have any law per se that’s been under statutes and codes. There are only administrators to enforce the statutes and codes, and that only applies to corporate entities and people who are under contract to the government or the government entities.
If you’re not an employee of the government, the kangaroo courts don’t involve you or shouldn’t involve you.
That’s why I tell people whenever they get a summons to court, you want to write across it diagonally in red ink, “I do not consent to these proceedings and I do not consent to enter in a contract.” Underneath that, sign your name. The summons is an invitation to a private court. You’re not obligated to go to that if you’re not a party to it. If you are a corporate entity, then you’re obligated to go.
If you have a corporation that you’ve incorporated in the state, then you would be obligated to go. As a human, you’re not obligated to go.
You got to write on that thing within 72 hours, “I do not consent.” A court has to have the consent of all parties to conduct an action. Without the concern of both parties then they have no subject matter jurisdiction, nor do they have personal jurisdiction. The court must have both.Mortgage is a pledge of death. Click To Tweet
Number ten according to the GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, you must have a Social Security number.
The GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is what it stands for. You must have a Social Security number because only government parties can be involved directly involved in international trade. Therefore, you’re on a special assignment. You need to have a Social Security number because you’re representing the government.
That birth certificate and Social Security number is a demonic instrument that the people don’t understand or have a clue. This is a very interesting one. Number eleven, New York City is defined in federal regulations as the United Nations. Giuliani stated on C-SPAN that New York City is the capital of the world, for once he told the truth. You can find that in 20 CFR, Council on Foreign Relations, Chapter 11 Subpart B44.103B2 and 2.
The CFR stands for Code of Federal Regulations. That’s why the United Nations is located in New York City. That’s why it’s the capital of the world.
We need to throw the UN out of America.
That’s your big amen to that.
Social Security is not insurance or contract, nor is there a trust fund that a lot of people think that there is a trust fund?
It’s the same thing with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation that’s supposed to ensure your money and your checking account up to $250,000. There isn’t one red penny in that.
It’s a big facade like all the other schemes and scams that they’ve perpetrated on the American public.
All the banks do is whichever level of the bank they borrowed the money to pay off when there’s a disaster having to do with your money and they go about their regular business. There is no insurance fund there. They say there is, but there is not. It has no substance to it.
In statement thirteen here, the people that receive their Social Security checks, I would assume almost everybody within the past decade has been getting direct deposits.
Most of them, yes. If you haven’t, they’ll want you to get a direct deposit.
They will force you to get a direct deposit. If you don’t have a bank account and you don’t open the bank account, so that you will get a direct deposit, they’ll open a bank account for you. If you don’t want to go get it, that’s up to you.
What a wonderful country we live in then.
We had a little boy at the hospital and I was up on what they were doing. Justin had triggered this when they said, “No, they’ll open one for you.” With the birth certificate, they constantly hounded me for a name, “What are you going to name your little boy? What are you going to name him?” I probably had that question from everybody that walked in the room. They wanted a name. I would never give them a name. We were released. I use that word released because it did feel like a prisoner type of a scenario. We’re discharged from the hospital. We needed to travel outside the United States. I thought, “Now I’ve got to deal with this passport issue. I’m going to have to deal with this birth certificate issue.” Long story short, when I went through the administration of this, they had issued a birth certificate. They will do this. They will issue the birth certificate in the mom’s last name and call the baby Baby Boy mom’s last name or Baby Girl mom’s last name. They are going to issue that birth certificate whether you want them to or not.
I’m suspecting they had been on us for both of our boys to get Social Security numbers. As I’ve told all of them, “You’re making the assumption that he’s going to pay a tax when he grows up and he’s not going to pay a tax, so no Social Security number.” I guarantee you they already have one issued in the background. People feel that we live in a free country. Your Social Security check comes directly from the IMF, the International Monetary Fund agency of the United Nation. It says the US Department of Treasury at the top left corner, which is part of the UN as pointed out above. In fourteen, you own no property. The whole point of this episode is to show and demonstrate to the people that this mortgage that you get or the debt pledge, the translation from Latin is for a mortgage is a pledge of debt. This thing that you’ve gotten, you think that you’re the owner when in fact you’re only a tenant. You’re not the owner of your property.
The only exception to this that you own no property. When you bring that land patent forward that nullifies the warranty deed. That repositions you back into the true owner of your property. That’s why they can’t come and take it.
In effect, if you wanted to, you can go through all types of qualifications. You can get your mortgage, buy your big house, put your down payment, and get your land patent. Some people would say, “That’s unethical.” Let’s stop there for a moment because I had the same thought and stop and think about this. They haven’t loaned you any money.
That is correct. Therefore, there’s no liability.
They haven’t given you a dime. The next thought is, “How did the seller get paid off?” The seller got paid off through a roundabout way from your birth certificate account because they put money in that account. You are the beneficial owner, but they’re the trustee. You can’t get into that account. There were some guys out of San Antonio that figured out how to get into the account. She worked for the Federal Reserve at one point in time. She was pretty sharp. She knew the backend story of this thing and knew that there was money in that account. They figured out how to get the money out of the account. The guy is doing five years and she’s doing seven or it could be the reverse. That account is real. The bank has not loaned you anything, not one red cent.
That’s why they have no stand to foreclose.
Your land patent, on a 30-year mortgage, you will pay three times for the price of that home. Your taxes, if they don’t go up at all, which is not going to happen, they’re going to go up. Your tax rate in Texas is 2.8% so let’s call it close to 3%. In 30 years, that’s going to accumulate to another 90% or so. Assuming taxes don’t go up in 30 years, which they’re going to go up. You’ve paid four times plus for the value of that house. That’s why it’s so important for you to get your land patent. When this economic disturbance comes in, if it does, then you’re protected. If it never comes in, you’re still protected. If you will get the book and follow the steps in the book, you’ll be able to get off the tax rolls. That is super critical.
- Rule of Law Radio
- Eddie Craig
- Randy Kelton
- Storm Over Rangelands
About Ron Gibson
Ron Gibson, for the past 45 years, has been in the construction and mining business. Ron is an engineer by training and secondary studies include constitutional law. Ron has worked for 19 years in mining and general consulting. He is also a mineral producer by profession. Ron has been involved in both precious metals in Industrial Minerals development in all phases. Ron’s background also includes project evaluation, feasibility study, geology, drilling and testing, sampling, plant layout, and design Ron has run the day-to-day operation including marketing, environmental studies, estimating and many other phases of mining operations.
As a managing consultant for large investment groups, Ron learned very early on the five “P” Principle: Proper, Planning, Prevents Poor, Performance.
Ron’s background in law includes a counselor at Law and he is in the process of obtaining his Private Attorney General authority from the Senate Judiciary.
About Eddie Craig
Eddie is an Air Force veteran that began realizing that the government was lying to the people at virtually every turn. He earnestly begins his research into government rules and statutes in the mid-’90s after he witnessed his mother breakdown into tears of hopeless frustration over a property tax bill that threatened to take away her property and home.
Angry at the malicious and callous demeanor of those that supposedly worked for the greater good of the People Eddie began to carefully research and document the relationships between the various statutes and the legislative enactments that created them, especially the “ad valorem” property tax, and eventually the federal income tax. He has since spent the past eleven years researching the various Texas Codes such as the Transportation Code. Much to the dismay of many municipalities, police officers, and prosecutors he has thrown a very large monkey wrench into the gears of their money machine, using their own laws! With Randy Kelton’s passed down knowledge about due process and criminal actions, Eddie’s research has become even more dangerous to them.
Vigorous study and research revealed the truth, most government employees know even less about the language and application of the law than the general public! Angered by the cavalier attitudes of public servants acting as if their ignorance was of no consequence, Eddie sought out other like-minded people to exchange ideas and find a remedy, which led him to Rule of Law Radio.
Eddie has now dedicated himself to “fighting the good fight” against the total willful ignorance that consumes our public servants at every level of government, an ignorance in which too many people share by way of an apathetic attitude about our rights and liberties. The biggest problem with being apathetic is that it is a word comprised mostly of the word “pathetic”.
This country was formed by great men, true Patriots who literally risked everything. With wisdom learned from their forefather’s mistakes as well as their own they formed a plan whereby those of us that came after would never have to take the same risk as long as we remained vigilant. They used that knowledge and wisdom to formulate the “Grand Experiment” that is America. Patriots should not be ridiculed for railing against the government, for that is how America came to be a nation. A Patriot does not fight with government simply because he or she does not agree with the government but do so because a Patriot sees the long-range harm and danger in “letting things ride” that are created outside of government authority. A Patriot is someone who takes a stand even when those around them are still being tossed by the tide. A Patriot has the courage and conviction to say “No” for the benefit of the greater good of the People and not for their own selfish desires, much like Christians should. We should all pray and work to be known as true Christian Patriots. (email@example.com)