April 2, 2026 • 30 mins
Leland Conway is in for Lou and talks about President Trump's speech to the country last night and Pam Bondi is out.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Hey, it's a lou Pinroe show, Leland Conway hanging out
with you Pinrose on vacation.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
How do you like that?
Speaker 1 (00:09):
We changed the lineup, We got a whole new set
of schedule, and then he goes on like spring break
or some nonsense like that. So anyway, you're stuck with me,
Leland Conway.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Lou will be.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
Back after his vacation next week on Friday, I think
is when he comes back, so hopefully some really cool play.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Sipping my ties.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
Lots to get to today. Of course, the President gave
an address to the nation yesterday. So the President gave
an address to the nation last night. It was late,
not late at night, it was late to do it.
I really felt like he should have done this early
on and from the get go, but he had three
very important messages to three different groups of people, and
I'll kind of walk you through all of that. Also
(00:51):
the artemist thing, Boy, am I into that Artemis two,
the Mission around the Moon, pretty phenomenal stuff, And we'll
get into this later on.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Today.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
You're stuck with me for four hours, so I'm gonna
be through. It's Louke Penrose from three to five. I'm
with you there. Five to seven is my normal slot
now with the new lineup, and then Mark Larson from
seven to eight. And I'm going to get into this
Artemis story because it's fascinating to me. And one of
the most fascinating things to come out of that is
that the progressives the liberals have decided they don't like it,
(01:21):
because apparently the thing you do now is anything that
America is successful at, you have to hate it. If
you're on the left. It's wild. I don't even understand it.
But this thing with Iran is kind of one of
the things we have seen such an amazing display of
American military might and power. And however you feel about
the war, however you feel about the action, it's been
(01:44):
an amazing success to watch our military and action. And
of course the left hates it. But the funny thing
about this is they they have been along. There's very
few things we all agree on. One of them is
daylight savings. Time needs to go, like we just need
to like have one time all year long. And it
(02:05):
doesn't matter whether you're left or you're right or you're
middle of the road. Everybody agrees with this. Everybody agrees
with voter id doesn't matter if you're left or you're
right or you're middle of the road. Everybody agrees with this,
and everybody has in the past agreed that Iran shouldn't
get a nuclear weapon. That's always just been the thing,
(02:26):
Like we've known they should. They've we've known they've been
working on it, and every Democrat administration has tried to
stop it.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
They just haven't tried to stop it with force.
Speaker 1 (02:34):
They've tried to stop it with stupid stuff, but they've
tried to stop it.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
I mean, at least in principle.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
We may not agree on the on the on the
on the on the on the specific policies, but in
principle it's always been agreement.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
But now, no, no, no, no.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
This is unconstitutional and we should have to we should
impeach President Trump and so on and so forth. It's nonsense.
So anyway, here's my take last night. If you heard
it here on Kogo, you can listen to the podcast.
We carried the address in its entirety, and we don't
edit it like the scene we'll do and some of
the other major networks. We just give you the stuff
and then we comment on this stuff, and we have
opinions on this stuff. Let me start by telling you
(03:08):
the reason why I think he should have done this
a long time ago, and I support the action. I
support what President Trump is doing here. I know the
larger significance of the strategy that's at play. This is
all about keeping Iran from getting a nuclear threat, but
it's also about some major major chessboard strategy here with
regards to Russia and China and what Trump has done
(03:31):
with if you combine what's going on went on in
Venezuela with Maduro, he has systematically shown you, as might shown,
both of those militaries that they can't stack up to us.
And at the same time, he has removed key figures
that have been propping up China's both economic and military growth,
(03:52):
and the same for Russia as far as keeping Russia
in the war with Ukraine, and that is the commerce
around the world, around the oil issue, as well as
a drone technology that Iran was really good at, as
well as pathways to support terrorism that undermines American national security.
So all of these things are going on, and President
Trump has basically done a couple of things here. Number one,
(04:13):
he has stopped Iran from being a nuclear threat that's huge.
And he has also and this is my opinion, but
I firmly believe this. He has also delayed, at the
very least possibly stopped forever China's designs on Taiwan, because
right now China has seen what we can do and they're.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
Like, wait, we're not ready yet.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
And I am confident that had Kamala Harris been elected president,
that we would already have been dealing with the Taiwan
situation and we wouldn't have done anything to stop it,
but they would have taken over Taiwan, and that would
have been a very bad strategic blunder. So that's not
going to happen right now, not in the near future,
because of President Trump. Now that is all being said,
(04:53):
here's why I felt like he was late in giving
this a dress last night. Obviously, where we're much farther
progressed in the military action, a lot of objectives have.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
Been achieved, there's still more to be achieved.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
So it's not like he could necessarily give the exact
same address three weeks ago. But President Trump has and
this is something that I see as kind of a
fault in his administration. He tends to he tells his
side of the story, but he doesn't tell it often enough.
And maybe, look, look, he's busy being a president of
the United States. I get it, but he has the
bully pulpit and they have to cover him when he
(05:29):
speaks to the nation. And I feel like he should
have been giving addresses to the nation every week that
this has been going on, because the American people need
to be reminded why we're doing this. And that's what
he did last night, and that was the first constituency
that he talked to. He was reminding the American people
why we were doing what we were doing. We can't
allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. And he reminded
(05:51):
the American people that Obama thought this too, and supposedly
Joe Biden thought this too, and Bush thought this too,
and Clinton thought this too. Like something we all agreed on.
He's reminding the people that this was a threat. They
were right at the cusp of it. We had to
stop them. And in the same breath, he reminded them
(06:14):
of all the people that are Americans that have been
killed by the Iranians. He reminded them that they've been
supporting terrorist attacks, especially October seventh, on Israel.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
He reminded them of all of these things.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
He should have been doing this from the get go,
because the media has been allowed to misconstrue, promote misinformation,
in some cases, promote fake AI videos, to try to
create this idea that we are stuck in a quagmire,
that this is another forever war, that the president doesn't
have the authority to do this, and that we're losing,
(06:47):
which is not the case. And so President Trump should
be reminding people of this every week. But hey, better
late than ever. So that's constituency number one. The second
group that he was giving a message to was our
pansy allies in NATO that are trying not to help
(07:10):
with any of this, and they're just they're acting like pansies.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
That's what they're doing. They're acting like pansies.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
And he basically said, hey, okay, a lot of you
get your oil through the straight of horn moves.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
We don't.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
So here, you guys, come and take care of it
because we've done all the heavy lifting.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
Right. That was the second constituency.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
The third constituency was iron themselves, and in typical President
Trump fashioned, he threw a little olive branch out there.
But also laid down the law. He basically said, hey,
look all the all the old regime, they're all dead.
We kill them all, and we can kill the new
ones anytime we want. But hey, these guys are a
little more reasonable than the last group of guys.
Speaker 2 (07:54):
So we're willing to talk to them.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
But if they don't come to the table and do
a deal with us, and we're going to blow him
in smithereens and send them back to the Stone Age.
I mean, that's exactly what he said. We're gonna send
you back to the Stone Age. He just said, we
might strike your generators and take your entire power grid offline,
and we might strike your oyal infrastructure, so you have
no economy going forward. It's your choice. So those three constituencies.
Powerful address by the President last night. Fascinating stuff. So anyway,
(08:21):
we'll dig into this, and i'd love to get your
thoughts on it. Hit me up on the talkback, go
to the live feed for Cogo on the iHeart radio app,
click that red microphone one eight hundred six hundred Cogo
one eight hundred six hundred and five six four six,
and I would love to hear from you again live
on that phone. Number, or go to the live feed
for Cogo on the iHeart radio app. Click that red
microphone when we continue. Was anybody in those three constituencies listening?
Speaker 2 (08:46):
Also?
Speaker 1 (08:47):
Later today, county supervisors want free child healthcare or excuse me,
free childcare babysitters for everyone. I still want to know
what the limits are to these people's wild eyed free stuff.
But we'll dig into that as well. Leland Conway in
for Loop Penrose. Yeah, it's totally human. That's why I
(09:08):
take a vacation, because you know, humans, we got to
take vacation sometimes. Leland Conway's sitting in for Loop Penrose
News Radio six hundred cogo live on the iet radio app.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
That's the news today in Washington.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
As a while, obviously, the President last night addressing the country,
was anybody listening the three constituencies he was talking to you?
Speaker 2 (09:24):
He was talking to.
Speaker 1 (09:26):
France, Spain, Germany who are being Pansies about the Iran action,
and he was also talking to Iran themselves. I don't
think that the Panzies were listening. I don't think they care.
I thought I saw that France today after not letting
us use their airspace to send supplies to our troops
(09:47):
and Israel's troops. They then whined and complained that Trump
was weakening the NATO alliance. Is pretty wild. So I
don't think they're gonna listen. I think Iran probably heard
loud and clear. Whether they will listen or not, that's
another question, because they're freaking crazy.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
And then if there, of course, there's the American people.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
They will listen as long as the media allows them to,
which is not very long. So the president needs to
keep laying out the same message he did last night
over and over and over and over again, because that's
the only way to get the message to their intended recipients.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
So there's that.
Speaker 1 (10:20):
Also today, Pam Bondy fired as Attorney General. This was
another thing that was a long time coming, to be
honest with you, now, the President didn't give any specific reason,
but it was funny what his statement was. He wrote
on truth Social that Bondi would be quote, transitioning to
a much needed and important new job in the private sector.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
Would you like rise with that? I mean, I don't know,
it's just that's so Trump. That is so Trump.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
Now, he did praise her for her work in his
administration and offered no specific reason for why she would
be leaving. Quote, he said, a Pam Bondi is a
great American patriot and a loyal friend who faithfully served
as my attorney general.
Speaker 2 (11:04):
Over the past year.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
Pam did a tremendous job overseeing a massive crackdown in
crime across our country, with murders plummeting to their lowest
levels since nineteen hundred. However, CNN reported that Trump has
been frustrated with Bondie on multiple front, sources say, including
her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files, and that she
had not investigated or prosecuted enough of his political opponents.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
That's what CNN says.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
I don't think that's Here's the thing, boy, am I
going to open a can of worms here?
Speaker 2 (11:33):
All right? Get ready?
Speaker 1 (11:35):
There are a lot of Trump's political opponents that need
to be investigated. Now, I want to clarify, I am
not saying that we should go after Trump's political opponents
because the trip they're political opponents. What I am saying
is a lot of his opponents happen to be crooks
who need to be investigated. Like that's real, Like a
(11:56):
lot of them are corrupt. As the day and the
day is long. I mean, seriously, what they're the Trump
administration is looking at California right now. They're looking at
Gavin Newsom real hard, and they're looking at fraud, and
they're looking at the nexus between Gavin Newsom and the
fraud and where the money's going in the state that
just keeps disappearing. I mean, there's no state better than
(12:18):
California at dumping billions down the rat hole, and there's
nobody better at overseeing dumping billions down the rat hole
so that we never see it again and have no
idea where it went than Gavin Newsom. And Trump's eye
of Sarron is on that like flies on poop right now.
And I'm not saying he's a criminal. I'm just simply
(12:40):
saying there's a lot of investigations that need to happen,
and yes, we need to have a very independent justice
arm of the government. It needs to not be at
the behest of politicians. But I'm not trying to get
into what aboutism here. But we just spent four years
(13:00):
watching the FBI go after the political opponents of Joe Biden.
We just spent four years watching President Potato send his
his Department of Justice after Catholic churches in plant spies
in Catholic churches. We spent four years watching President Potato
in his Department of Justice send that weasel, that creepy
(13:22):
demon weasel, what was his name, Merrick Garland, creepy, He's
a creepy demon weasel, and sending that creepy demon weasel
after parents who were daring to speak out at school
board meetings about the school secretly transitioning their kids to
another gender, or about their kids getting raped at school
(13:44):
because there's no discipline, or about the nonsense dei crap
that's been fed into the kid's minds.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
Right. We watched the creepy demon weasels.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
And the Biden Trumpet or the Biden the Justice Department
go after thosequote unquote political opponents or people they.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
Just didn't like.
Speaker 1 (14:03):
We watched all of that happen, and we watched the
Biden DOJ raid President Trump's house, go through Milania's underwear drawer.
We watched them arrest a seventy year old man who
was a Trump supporter by raiding his house at six
o'clock in the morning.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
Nothing ever came of that.
Speaker 1 (14:22):
There was there was such clear We watched the deep
State cover up Joe Biden's sons laptop which their stuff
in there. Like look, just saying you pull that lid back,
there's going to be a mess. We watched that for
four years, and I'm not saying it should be tit
for tat, but I am saying that the people that
(14:42):
engaged in illegally spying on President Trump and his supporters,
the people that engaged on abusing the justice system to
go after Trump supporters, the people that engaged in that
nonsense of raiding churches or putting spies in churches and
going after parents that were dainting up for their kids,
the people that were involved in that, that is those people.
(15:10):
There were crimes committed in that situation, like legit crimes
committed in that situation. So I mean this, this is
all nonsense watching this. So anyway, Look, I don't want
to get into, like I don't want us getting into
this world where we're chasing our political opponents in the
justice system. But Pam BONDI did not go after some
(15:33):
of those people that clearly needed to have accountability that
into the Epstein files. I don't understand that. Remember, at
the very beginning of the Trump administration, because a lot
of the Republicans campaigned on we're going to release the
Epstein files. And then Pam like calls in all these
conservative influencers and she does this weird headfake where she
gives them all a binder that's supposed to have all
(15:55):
this evidence, which had nothing, and then they did their
their photo op and the next.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
Thing, you know, there's nothing in it.
Speaker 1 (16:04):
And then all those influencers got mad because they're like, hey,
you duped, doesn't you use this? And then then and
they're like, oh, well, we can't release this. And then
when they were forced to release it, and Trump's part
of this, he got mad at Congressman Thomas Massey and
and there's a bunch of stuff blacked out, and it's
like we all know there's a there there on the
Epstein files, Like we all know that there's a there there,
(16:28):
So she didn't chase that. So I don't know what
part of how she handled the Epstein files Trump is
upset about, but he's upset about it, and so she
is out, and her replacement, at least for the time being,
will be Todd blanche the Deputy Attorney General. So lots
of crazy stuff going on in washing. All right, when
we continue, have you seen this story? A squatro in
Chula Vista took over a home for ten months because
(16:55):
apparently squatters have more rights than property owners in the
state of California and in San Diego County.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
This is a wild story.
Speaker 1 (17:03):
God forbid it ever happened to you on Leland Conway
and for Loup Penrose when story's wild.
Speaker 2 (17:08):
So imagine you own a house.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
Maybe maybe you bought it as an investment, or maybe
you just went away on vacation or whatever. Right like,
however that that plays out, and you own this property.
This is yours. It belongs to you. It's not anybody else's.
It's yours.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
You're paying the taxes on it, you paid for it.
It's yours.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
And imagine some squad or some homeless dude decides to
just move in and then you can't get them out.
This is exactly what happened in Chula Vista. There was
a viral video that was posted that showed the mess
that a squatter left behind. The video, posted by the
property owner and a real estate broker, Erma Mendez, has
(17:52):
been seen millions of times, showing piles of trash ripped
up carpet, racial slurs written on the wall. Mendez has
shared some of her ten month long process of getting
the squatter out of the boarded up property, which she
purchased the head of a forecloser situation sight unseen. Yeah, Okay, look,
(18:13):
there's gonna be some people that are gonna be like, well,
you bought a house sight unseen. It doesn't matter. It
doesn't matter to me. This ties to the bigger issue
we have in our community with homelessness and the fact
that we keep ringing our hands about this issue and
we're like, well, we don't know where to put them. Yeah,
put them out of the city. That's where you put them,
one way or another. I'll get to that in a minute,
(18:34):
but let's go back to this. So you imagine you
have this property and you go in and you're like, okay,
well there's somebody in there that's not supposed to be
in there. It's their property. Let's get them out. You
should theoretically be able to call the police. They would
come take them out, and there you go. Problem solve.
It's that simple. It's not that hard, or is it.
Check out what this dude did. So this dude is
(18:57):
in the house, okay, And he goes and put his
uh put SDG and E under his name, and the
water is paid for by the AHOA.
Speaker 2 (19:09):
So he basically, according to Mendez, had free housing. So
he's got the house, he's got the water on.
Speaker 1 (19:14):
You can take a shower, he can, uh, he can,
he can do his ablutions in the bathroom right, brush
his teeth, theoretically, cook some stuff right. And the HOA
is is footing this because that's one of the feasts
which Mendez I assume was paying because she owned the house.
So while she was not surprised the squatter was there.
(19:35):
The amount of time this is from CBS or Fox five, sorry,
Fox five, The amount of time the process took was
more than she thought it would be. Really, how long
should it take? Like, like for real, Like how long
should it take?
Speaker 2 (19:48):
I think it should take five minutes? Is it? Am
I weird?
Speaker 1 (19:52):
Is there is there somebody who can tell me why
I'd be wrong about this? Like you should be able
if you have a if you own a piece of
property and there's somebody in there that's not supposed to
be in there, that's trespassing, you should be able to
remove them and you should be able to have the
police come and remove them, and that should.
Speaker 2 (20:09):
Be a quick call.
Speaker 1 (20:10):
Hey, guys, as soon as you get a minute, Like,
I know you're really early busy, but as soon as
you get a minute, can you come get this guy
out of my house? And if you can just show
the paperwork that you own it and that the guy's
not renting from you, then you should be done. It
should be a five minute call, according to Fox five.
Eventually he did go out. He did show up at court,
(20:32):
but he demanded to stay longer. So the cojones on
this guy. She recorded as Sarah's deputies went inside the condo,
the squader had left, but not before leaving behind a message.
Mindez film filmed as she saw the inside of the
property for the first time. He was in there, basically
destroying the place, she said, writing on the walls, writing profanity,
throwing mice on the wall.
Speaker 2 (20:53):
Like that's not very nice to the mice.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
What did the mice do to you? Why do you
got to throw them against the wall? Attorney said Baron,
who founded Landlord Solutions San Diego, which specializes in cases
like this, said eviction cases are on the rise in
San Diego as court processes are taking longer than it
used to. Here's my question, Okay, educate me. Go to
(21:16):
the live feed for Coco on the iHeart radio app,
click the red microphone.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
Educate me.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
It's not hard to prove that that person has no
right to be in there. This is not an eviction, Okay,
an eviction. I don't even know why this has to
go to this court. So apparently this goes to let
me back up, let me give you the details. So
this goes to a court that has one judge that
oversees all of the eviction hearings in the entire county.
(21:42):
That judge, one judge has to handle nine thousand cases
per year, seven to eight hundred cases per month.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
How is that humanly possible?
Speaker 1 (21:57):
I mean, quick math on that, and that's like more,
that's almost thirty cases a day. That's like between twenty
and thirty cases a day. So here's my question. This
is the thing that I would ask, why does this
type of case, this squatter case? Okay, I understand evictions, Okay,
(22:19):
not that I think it should be easier for people
to evict people that are not paying their dues or whatever,
not paying but this is not This is not an
eviction case. An eviction case is somebody comes in, they
sign a lease, they agree to pay, they got x
amount of time, and now you got to go fight
with them because they're not paying the rent. But that's
a different setting. That's a different situation. There's there's an
(22:42):
agreement there, there's a discussion, we can maybe negotiate where
we could be like, okay, listen, man, just just pay half,
like pay rent and a half for three months and
we get caught all caught up right?
Speaker 2 (22:54):
Cool? Right?
Speaker 1 (22:54):
Moderate that Not that I'm saying I'm for that, because
I don't think it should be as hard to evict
people to agree to pay. You should pay, like I'm
personal responsibility all the way. But in this case, this
is not an eviction. Why does this have to go
before that judge? Why does he even have to go
before a judge other than to charge this dude with
trespassing because it's not hard to prove that he's not
supposed to be in there. So once you've proven that,
(23:16):
you go to the police. Get this guy out. He's
a squatter, He's not a renter. He is a squatter.
He is not a renter who is refusing to pay
his bill, he is a squatter, he should go. So
that should be a five minute deal. You go in,
you take him out, you get him out, and then
whatever he wants to do from that point on, he
wants to go to court, blah blah blah blah, he can,
(23:37):
but it's on him because you you can prove, you
should be able to prove relatively quickly and easily if
you're the property owner that this is not this person
doesn't belong in there, and they have come in, they've
put the water in there, Like, how does that even happen?
How does that even happen? How does the water department
let somebody come in without proving they have a lease?
Last time, So when we got our when we bought
lest when we bought our last house, we had to go.
(24:01):
When we went to go get.
Speaker 2 (24:02):
The the.
Speaker 1 (24:04):
Utilities transferred into our name from the builder because it
was a new build, we had to go and prove
we had to show the contract for sale and all
that kind of stuff, and it had to be within
I think it was like it couldn't be any earlier
than two days, so that there was a verification process
that we actually were the buyers of that house and
that the buy was actually going to go through before
(24:26):
we could put the water in our name.
Speaker 2 (24:28):
Why is this different? That doesn't make any sense to me.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
I love this last part of the story, though from
Fox five the process didn't scare mend as a way. However,
in fact, she already purchased another property in the same situation.
Speaker 2 (24:42):
What what.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
She has also since remodeled the property that had the
squatter and it has a new tenant.
Speaker 2 (24:49):
Well good.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
The attorney said the cases typically take between three and
six months once the court process begins. He rebec this
is crazy. This is the last line. This is the
part I think it's fascinating. He recommends always starting the
legal process right away, because so basically, if you have
an abandoned if you have a property that has nobody
in it, the squatters can just go in and if
you buy that, prepare to take five to six to
(25:12):
seven months to Does that make any sense to anybody
on any level? Lots of talkbacks on this, We'll get
to those when we continue the.
Speaker 3 (25:21):
Story about a squatter. I think there are facts missing,
one of which is there was not an attorney involved.
I don't believe. And this real estate investor was probably
trying to do it all on her own, and amazingly enough,
she all of a sudden has a new tenant, which
(25:42):
makes me wonder what facts are missing?
Speaker 1 (25:45):
Okay, yeah, interesting c Leland Conway and for lou Penrose,
and I guess my question on that would be, does
that make it right that somebody was squatting in the
house regardless whether she had an attorney or not. We'll
get to just second North Park, by the way, as
one of the most unique communities in our county. I
love what's going on in San Diego's Morning news right now.
(26:06):
They're doing a deep dive into the people, the places,
the history that make it so unique. I was listening
the other morning and they were they were telling a
story of an artist there, and I was just like, wow,
this is so cool.
Speaker 2 (26:16):
It a cool community.
Speaker 1 (26:18):
You can hear that here Cogo in the community all
week during San Diego's Morning News. It's presented by Simper Home,
So make sure you check it out. All right, So
back to this point, Yeah, it may there may be
some facts missing. I mean it's there's there's always facts
missing to some of these stories, Like there's there's stuff,
But what makes this right? What makes if we know that,
if the facts we know are that this guy was
(26:39):
not renting from her, he did not have a rental agreement,
that he was able to get the water SDG and
E under his name or excuse me, the power under
his name and the water is paid for by the HOA.
And then he was tearing up the house inside and
was not paying any rent to the owner of the
of the proper What would be missing that would change
(27:04):
your opinion? Or do you have the opinion that that
somehow this is right. I mean, maybe she didn't have
an attorney, Maybe she tried to do it for by herself.
There are attorneys out there can help it. But the
point that I'm making, like the broader point that I'm making,
is why would it take an attorney to deal with this?
It's all I mean, Look, I know we need attorneys
in business, but I mean, it should not get to
the point where we have to pay attorneys a bunch
(27:27):
of money in order to get something that's so obviously
wrong dealt with. I see the attorney coming in. If
you have somebody that agrees to rent for a year,
falls on hard times, gets behind on their rent, but
they're trying to pay and we're like, okay, we're gonna
vict you.
Speaker 2 (27:44):
All right, Well, this is an attorney. Come in. Attorney
deals with the negotiations, all that kind of stuff. I
get that.
Speaker 1 (27:49):
You just have a guy in there is apparently writing
racist slogans on the wall, tearing up the carpet, tearing
up the walls, has put illegally, in my opinion, put
SDG and E in his name and a property that
doesn't belong to him. I mean, is name the other
kind of property where you could do this nonsense? Okay,
(28:09):
loaded question right in California up until Prop thirty six
and even now then some because they're not really enforcing it.
But you could just you could steal nine hundred dollars
worth of stuff. So I guess that's a whoop's wrong.
Analogy bad analogy there, Conway, my bad. Apparently you can
do that with a lot of things. But isn't that
the problem. Isn't that the trend in the state, like,
we have to stop this because that is what leads
(28:32):
one of the things. There's many things, but this is
one of the things that leads to higher prices. Because okay,
let's back it up. So you have this homeowner, whether
they have an attorney or not. They're trying to get
a squatter out of this piece of property. Now they
have a tenant, Great, they've remodeled it.
Speaker 2 (28:47):
Great. That means they had some investment money.
Speaker 1 (28:48):
Great, okay, but they still had to spend a bunch
of money dealing with the court system. They has had
to sit on this property for a bunch of time,
which digs into the money that they're going to get
on their investment, which to what raised rents. They have
to get their money out. That's the whole point of
buying buying an investment property. And leftists are always looking
(29:09):
at this like somehow or another, everybody that owns property
is a bad person because they're making a profit off
of it. No, that's the reason they invest in it.
This is what commerce does. I have a thing that
you need. I need money, So I sell you or
rent you the thing that you need at a fair
and amicable price that we both agree to pay. That
(29:30):
allows me to make a profit and you to get
the solution to the need.
Speaker 2 (29:34):
That's what capitalism is.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
And then we have these Nanni Stater do gooders leftists
that come around and they're like, well you just make
too much money.
Speaker 2 (29:45):
Well what does that even mean? Like, what does that mean?
What is a fair profit on a piece of property?
Speaker 1 (29:50):
Like if I rent you a property that I'm paying
a mortgage on, what percentage is a fair profit? You
might say, well, you shouldn't be able to make more
than ten percent? Okay, Well what about the fact that
if there's repairs, I have to pay for them no
matter what they are. If there's a foundation issue that
could be tens of thousands of dollars, If there's a
water leak of pipes leaking that could be thousands of dollars.
(30:13):
There could be repairs that are thousands of dollars. Like
what protects me? Why can't you say that I should
only be allowed to make ten percent? How do you
know what makes ten percent? Because if I charge you
ten percent for six months and nothing happens, but then
in the seventh month, I have a ten thousand dollars
repair bill, all the money that I supposedly made is gone.
And I don't have a choice in that because I'm
the property owner and I'm responsible for it if it happens.
(30:35):
You're just the tenant renting. So who are these people
that get to decide all this stuff. It's nonsense, utter nonsense.
Hey, it's a lou Pinroe show, Leland Conway hanging out
with you Pinrose on vacation.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
How do you like that?
Speaker 1 (00:09):
We changed the lineup, We got a whole new set
of schedule, and then he goes on like spring break
or some nonsense like that. So anyway, you're stuck with me,
Leland Conway.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Lou will be.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
Back after his vacation next week on Friday, I think
is when he comes back, so hopefully some really cool play.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Sipping my ties.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
Lots to get to today. Of course, the President gave
an address to the nation yesterday. So the President gave
an address to the nation last night. It was late,
not late at night, it was late to do it.
I really felt like he should have done this early
on and from the get go, but he had three
very important messages to three different groups of people, and
I'll kind of walk you through all of that. Also
(00:51):
the artemist thing, Boy, am I into that Artemis two,
the Mission around the Moon, pretty phenomenal stuff, And we'll
get into this later on.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Today.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
You're stuck with me for four hours, so I'm gonna
be through. It's Louke Penrose from three to five. I'm
with you there. Five to seven is my normal slot
now with the new lineup, and then Mark Larson from
seven to eight. And I'm going to get into this
Artemis story because it's fascinating to me. And one of
the most fascinating things to come out of that is
that the progressives the liberals have decided they don't like it,
(01:21):
because apparently the thing you do now is anything that
America is successful at, you have to hate it. If
you're on the left. It's wild. I don't even understand it.
But this thing with Iran is kind of one of
the things we have seen such an amazing display of
American military might and power. And however you feel about
the war, however you feel about the action, it's been
(01:44):
an amazing success to watch our military and action. And
of course the left hates it. But the funny thing
about this is they they have been along. There's very
few things we all agree on. One of them is
daylight savings. Time needs to go, like we just need
to like have one time all year long. And it
(02:05):
doesn't matter whether you're left or you're right or you're
middle of the road. Everybody agrees with this. Everybody agrees
with voter id doesn't matter if you're left or you're
right or you're middle of the road. Everybody agrees with this,
and everybody has in the past agreed that Iran shouldn't
get a nuclear weapon. That's always just been the thing,
(02:26):
Like we've known they should. They've we've known they've been
working on it, and every Democrat administration has tried to
stop it.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
They just haven't tried to stop it with force.
Speaker 1 (02:34):
They've tried to stop it with stupid stuff, but they've
tried to stop it.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
I mean, at least in principle.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
We may not agree on the on the on the
on the on the on the specific policies, but in
principle it's always been agreement.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
But now, no, no, no, no.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
This is unconstitutional and we should have to we should
impeach President Trump and so on and so forth. It's nonsense.
So anyway, here's my take last night. If you heard
it here on Kogo, you can listen to the podcast.
We carried the address in its entirety, and we don't
edit it like the scene we'll do and some of
the other major networks. We just give you the stuff
and then we comment on this stuff, and we have
opinions on this stuff. Let me start by telling you
(03:08):
the reason why I think he should have done this
a long time ago, and I support the action. I
support what President Trump is doing here. I know the
larger significance of the strategy that's at play. This is
all about keeping Iran from getting a nuclear threat, but
it's also about some major major chessboard strategy here with
regards to Russia and China and what Trump has done
(03:31):
with if you combine what's going on went on in
Venezuela with Maduro, he has systematically shown you, as might shown,
both of those militaries that they can't stack up to us.
And at the same time, he has removed key figures
that have been propping up China's both economic and military growth,
(03:52):
and the same for Russia as far as keeping Russia
in the war with Ukraine, and that is the commerce
around the world, around the oil issue, as well as
a drone technology that Iran was really good at, as
well as pathways to support terrorism that undermines American national security.
So all of these things are going on, and President
Trump has basically done a couple of things here. Number one,
(04:13):
he has stopped Iran from being a nuclear threat that's huge.
And he has also and this is my opinion, but
I firmly believe this. He has also delayed, at the
very least possibly stopped forever China's designs on Taiwan, because
right now China has seen what we can do and they're.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
Like, wait, we're not ready yet.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
And I am confident that had Kamala Harris been elected president,
that we would already have been dealing with the Taiwan
situation and we wouldn't have done anything to stop it,
but they would have taken over Taiwan, and that would
have been a very bad strategic blunder. So that's not
going to happen right now, not in the near future,
because of President Trump. Now that is all being said,
(04:53):
here's why I felt like he was late in giving
this a dress last night. Obviously, where we're much farther
progressed in the military action, a lot of objectives have.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
Been achieved, there's still more to be achieved.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
So it's not like he could necessarily give the exact
same address three weeks ago. But President Trump has and
this is something that I see as kind of a
fault in his administration. He tends to he tells his
side of the story, but he doesn't tell it often enough.
And maybe, look, look, he's busy being a president of
the United States. I get it, but he has the
bully pulpit and they have to cover him when he
(05:29):
speaks to the nation. And I feel like he should
have been giving addresses to the nation every week that
this has been going on, because the American people need
to be reminded why we're doing this. And that's what
he did last night, and that was the first constituency
that he talked to. He was reminding the American people
why we were doing what we were doing. We can't
allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. And he reminded
(05:51):
the American people that Obama thought this too, and supposedly
Joe Biden thought this too, and Bush thought this too,
and Clinton thought this too. Like something we all agreed on.
He's reminding the people that this was a threat. They
were right at the cusp of it. We had to
stop them. And in the same breath, he reminded them
(06:14):
of all the people that are Americans that have been
killed by the Iranians. He reminded them that they've been
supporting terrorist attacks, especially October seventh, on Israel.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
He reminded them of all of these things.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
He should have been doing this from the get go,
because the media has been allowed to misconstrue, promote misinformation,
in some cases, promote fake AI videos, to try to
create this idea that we are stuck in a quagmire,
that this is another forever war, that the president doesn't
have the authority to do this, and that we're losing,
(06:47):
which is not the case. And so President Trump should
be reminding people of this every week. But hey, better
late than ever. So that's constituency number one. The second
group that he was giving a message to was our
pansy allies in NATO that are trying not to help
(07:10):
with any of this, and they're just they're acting like pansies.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
That's what they're doing. They're acting like pansies.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
And he basically said, hey, okay, a lot of you
get your oil through the straight of horn moves.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
We don't.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
So here, you guys, come and take care of it
because we've done all the heavy lifting.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
Right. That was the second constituency.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
The third constituency was iron themselves, and in typical President
Trump fashioned, he threw a little olive branch out there.
But also laid down the law. He basically said, hey,
look all the all the old regime, they're all dead.
We kill them all, and we can kill the new
ones anytime we want. But hey, these guys are a
little more reasonable than the last group of guys.
Speaker 2 (07:54):
So we're willing to talk to them.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
But if they don't come to the table and do
a deal with us, and we're going to blow him
in smithereens and send them back to the Stone Age.
I mean, that's exactly what he said. We're gonna send
you back to the Stone Age. He just said, we
might strike your generators and take your entire power grid offline,
and we might strike your oyal infrastructure, so you have
no economy going forward. It's your choice. So those three constituencies.
Powerful address by the President last night. Fascinating stuff. So anyway,
(08:21):
we'll dig into this, and i'd love to get your
thoughts on it. Hit me up on the talkback, go
to the live feed for Cogo on the iHeart radio app,
click that red microphone one eight hundred six hundred Cogo
one eight hundred six hundred and five six four six,
and I would love to hear from you again live
on that phone. Number, or go to the live feed
for Cogo on the iHeart radio app. Click that red
microphone when we continue. Was anybody in those three constituencies listening?
Speaker 2 (08:46):
Also?
Speaker 1 (08:47):
Later today, county supervisors want free child healthcare or excuse me,
free childcare babysitters for everyone. I still want to know
what the limits are to these people's wild eyed free stuff.
But we'll dig into that as well. Leland Conway in
for Loop Penrose. Yeah, it's totally human. That's why I
(09:08):
take a vacation, because you know, humans, we got to
take vacation sometimes. Leland Conway's sitting in for Loop Penrose
News Radio six hundred cogo live on the iet radio app.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
That's the news today in Washington.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
As a while, obviously, the President last night addressing the country,
was anybody listening the three constituencies he was talking to you?
Speaker 2 (09:24):
He was talking to.
Speaker 1 (09:26):
France, Spain, Germany who are being Pansies about the Iran action,
and he was also talking to Iran themselves. I don't
think that the Panzies were listening. I don't think they care.
I thought I saw that France today after not letting
us use their airspace to send supplies to our troops
(09:47):
and Israel's troops. They then whined and complained that Trump
was weakening the NATO alliance. Is pretty wild. So I
don't think they're gonna listen. I think Iran probably heard
loud and clear. Whether they will listen or not, that's
another question, because they're freaking crazy.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
And then if there, of course, there's the American people.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
They will listen as long as the media allows them to,
which is not very long. So the president needs to
keep laying out the same message he did last night
over and over and over and over again, because that's
the only way to get the message to their intended recipients.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
So there's that.
Speaker 1 (10:20):
Also today, Pam Bondy fired as Attorney General. This was
another thing that was a long time coming, to be
honest with you, now, the President didn't give any specific reason,
but it was funny what his statement was. He wrote
on truth Social that Bondi would be quote, transitioning to
a much needed and important new job in the private sector.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
Would you like rise with that? I mean, I don't know,
it's just that's so Trump. That is so Trump.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
Now, he did praise her for her work in his
administration and offered no specific reason for why she would
be leaving. Quote, he said, a Pam Bondi is a
great American patriot and a loyal friend who faithfully served
as my attorney general.
Speaker 2 (11:04):
Over the past year.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
Pam did a tremendous job overseeing a massive crackdown in
crime across our country, with murders plummeting to their lowest
levels since nineteen hundred. However, CNN reported that Trump has
been frustrated with Bondie on multiple front, sources say, including
her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files, and that she
had not investigated or prosecuted enough of his political opponents.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
That's what CNN says.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
I don't think that's Here's the thing, boy, am I
going to open a can of worms here?
Speaker 2 (11:33):
All right? Get ready?
Speaker 1 (11:35):
There are a lot of Trump's political opponents that need
to be investigated. Now, I want to clarify, I am
not saying that we should go after Trump's political opponents
because the trip they're political opponents. What I am saying
is a lot of his opponents happen to be crooks
who need to be investigated. Like that's real, Like a
(11:56):
lot of them are corrupt. As the day and the
day is long. I mean, seriously, what they're the Trump
administration is looking at California right now. They're looking at
Gavin Newsom real hard, and they're looking at fraud, and
they're looking at the nexus between Gavin Newsom and the
fraud and where the money's going in the state that
just keeps disappearing. I mean, there's no state better than
(12:18):
California at dumping billions down the rat hole, and there's
nobody better at overseeing dumping billions down the rat hole
so that we never see it again and have no
idea where it went than Gavin Newsom. And Trump's eye
of Sarron is on that like flies on poop right now.
And I'm not saying he's a criminal. I'm just simply
(12:40):
saying there's a lot of investigations that need to happen,
and yes, we need to have a very independent justice
arm of the government. It needs to not be at
the behest of politicians. But I'm not trying to get
into what aboutism here. But we just spent four years
(13:00):
watching the FBI go after the political opponents of Joe Biden.
We just spent four years watching President Potato send his
his Department of Justice after Catholic churches in plant spies
in Catholic churches. We spent four years watching President Potato
in his Department of Justice send that weasel, that creepy
(13:22):
demon weasel, what was his name, Merrick Garland, creepy, He's
a creepy demon weasel, and sending that creepy demon weasel
after parents who were daring to speak out at school
board meetings about the school secretly transitioning their kids to
another gender, or about their kids getting raped at school
(13:44):
because there's no discipline, or about the nonsense dei crap
that's been fed into the kid's minds.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
Right. We watched the creepy demon weasels.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
And the Biden Trumpet or the Biden the Justice Department
go after thosequote unquote political opponents or people they.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
Just didn't like.
Speaker 1 (14:03):
We watched all of that happen, and we watched the
Biden DOJ raid President Trump's house, go through Milania's underwear drawer.
We watched them arrest a seventy year old man who
was a Trump supporter by raiding his house at six
o'clock in the morning.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
Nothing ever came of that.
Speaker 1 (14:22):
There was there was such clear We watched the deep
State cover up Joe Biden's sons laptop which their stuff
in there. Like look, just saying you pull that lid back,
there's going to be a mess. We watched that for
four years, and I'm not saying it should be tit
for tat, but I am saying that the people that
(14:42):
engaged in illegally spying on President Trump and his supporters,
the people that engaged on abusing the justice system to
go after Trump supporters, the people that engaged in that
nonsense of raiding churches or putting spies in churches and
going after parents that were dainting up for their kids,
the people that were involved in that, that is those people.
(15:10):
There were crimes committed in that situation, like legit crimes
committed in that situation. So I mean this, this is
all nonsense watching this. So anyway, Look, I don't want
to get into, like I don't want us getting into
this world where we're chasing our political opponents in the
justice system. But Pam BONDI did not go after some
(15:33):
of those people that clearly needed to have accountability that
into the Epstein files. I don't understand that. Remember, at
the very beginning of the Trump administration, because a lot
of the Republicans campaigned on we're going to release the
Epstein files. And then Pam like calls in all these
conservative influencers and she does this weird headfake where she
gives them all a binder that's supposed to have all
(15:55):
this evidence, which had nothing, and then they did their
their photo op and the next.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
Thing, you know, there's nothing in it.
Speaker 1 (16:04):
And then all those influencers got mad because they're like, hey,
you duped, doesn't you use this? And then then and
they're like, oh, well, we can't release this. And then
when they were forced to release it, and Trump's part
of this, he got mad at Congressman Thomas Massey and
and there's a bunch of stuff blacked out, and it's
like we all know there's a there there on the
Epstein files, Like we all know that there's a there there,
(16:28):
So she didn't chase that. So I don't know what
part of how she handled the Epstein files Trump is
upset about, but he's upset about it, and so she
is out, and her replacement, at least for the time being,
will be Todd blanche the Deputy Attorney General. So lots
of crazy stuff going on in washing. All right, when
we continue, have you seen this story? A squatro in
Chula Vista took over a home for ten months because
(16:55):
apparently squatters have more rights than property owners in the
state of California and in San Diego County.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
This is a wild story.
Speaker 1 (17:03):
God forbid it ever happened to you on Leland Conway
and for Loup Penrose when story's wild.
Speaker 2 (17:08):
So imagine you own a house.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
Maybe maybe you bought it as an investment, or maybe
you just went away on vacation or whatever. Right like,
however that that plays out, and you own this property.
This is yours. It belongs to you. It's not anybody else's.
It's yours.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
You're paying the taxes on it, you paid for it.
It's yours.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
And imagine some squad or some homeless dude decides to
just move in and then you can't get them out.
This is exactly what happened in Chula Vista. There was
a viral video that was posted that showed the mess
that a squatter left behind. The video, posted by the
property owner and a real estate broker, Erma Mendez, has
(17:52):
been seen millions of times, showing piles of trash ripped
up carpet, racial slurs written on the wall. Mendez has
shared some of her ten month long process of getting
the squatter out of the boarded up property, which she
purchased the head of a forecloser situation sight unseen. Yeah, Okay, look,
(18:13):
there's gonna be some people that are gonna be like, well,
you bought a house sight unseen. It doesn't matter. It
doesn't matter to me. This ties to the bigger issue
we have in our community with homelessness and the fact
that we keep ringing our hands about this issue and
we're like, well, we don't know where to put them. Yeah,
put them out of the city. That's where you put them,
one way or another. I'll get to that in a minute,
(18:34):
but let's go back to this. So you imagine you
have this property and you go in and you're like, okay,
well there's somebody in there that's not supposed to be
in there. It's their property. Let's get them out. You
should theoretically be able to call the police. They would
come take them out, and there you go. Problem solve.
It's that simple. It's not that hard, or is it.
Check out what this dude did. So this dude is
(18:57):
in the house, okay, And he goes and put his
uh put SDG and E under his name, and the
water is paid for by the AHOA.
Speaker 2 (19:09):
So he basically, according to Mendez, had free housing. So
he's got the house, he's got the water on.
Speaker 1 (19:14):
You can take a shower, he can, uh, he can,
he can do his ablutions in the bathroom right, brush
his teeth, theoretically, cook some stuff right. And the HOA
is is footing this because that's one of the feasts
which Mendez I assume was paying because she owned the house.
So while she was not surprised the squatter was there.
(19:35):
The amount of time this is from CBS or Fox five, sorry,
Fox five, The amount of time the process took was
more than she thought it would be. Really, how long
should it take? Like, like for real, Like how long
should it take?
Speaker 2 (19:48):
I think it should take five minutes? Is it? Am
I weird?
Speaker 1 (19:52):
Is there is there somebody who can tell me why
I'd be wrong about this? Like you should be able
if you have a if you own a piece of
property and there's somebody in there that's not supposed to
be in there, that's trespassing, you should be able to
remove them and you should be able to have the
police come and remove them, and that should.
Speaker 2 (20:09):
Be a quick call.
Speaker 1 (20:10):
Hey, guys, as soon as you get a minute, Like,
I know you're really early busy, but as soon as
you get a minute, can you come get this guy
out of my house? And if you can just show
the paperwork that you own it and that the guy's
not renting from you, then you should be done. It
should be a five minute call, according to Fox five.
Eventually he did go out. He did show up at court,
(20:32):
but he demanded to stay longer. So the cojones on
this guy. She recorded as Sarah's deputies went inside the condo,
the squader had left, but not before leaving behind a message.
Mindez film filmed as she saw the inside of the
property for the first time. He was in there, basically
destroying the place, she said, writing on the walls, writing profanity,
throwing mice on the wall.
Speaker 2 (20:53):
Like that's not very nice to the mice.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
What did the mice do to you? Why do you
got to throw them against the wall? Attorney said Baron,
who founded Landlord Solutions San Diego, which specializes in cases
like this, said eviction cases are on the rise in
San Diego as court processes are taking longer than it
used to. Here's my question, Okay, educate me. Go to
(21:16):
the live feed for Coco on the iHeart radio app,
click the red microphone.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
Educate me.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
It's not hard to prove that that person has no
right to be in there. This is not an eviction, Okay,
an eviction. I don't even know why this has to
go to this court. So apparently this goes to let
me back up, let me give you the details. So
this goes to a court that has one judge that
oversees all of the eviction hearings in the entire county.
(21:42):
That judge, one judge has to handle nine thousand cases
per year, seven to eight hundred cases per month.
Speaker 2 (21:54):
How is that humanly possible?
Speaker 1 (21:57):
I mean, quick math on that, and that's like more,
that's almost thirty cases a day. That's like between twenty
and thirty cases a day. So here's my question. This
is the thing that I would ask, why does this
type of case, this squatter case? Okay, I understand evictions, Okay,
(22:19):
not that I think it should be easier for people
to evict people that are not paying their dues or whatever,
not paying but this is not This is not an
eviction case. An eviction case is somebody comes in, they
sign a lease, they agree to pay, they got x
amount of time, and now you got to go fight
with them because they're not paying the rent. But that's
a different setting. That's a different situation. There's there's an
(22:42):
agreement there, there's a discussion, we can maybe negotiate where
we could be like, okay, listen, man, just just pay half,
like pay rent and a half for three months and
we get caught all caught up right?
Speaker 2 (22:54):
Cool? Right?
Speaker 1 (22:54):
Moderate that Not that I'm saying I'm for that, because
I don't think it should be as hard to evict
people to agree to pay. You should pay, like I'm
personal responsibility all the way. But in this case, this
is not an eviction. Why does this have to go
before that judge? Why does he even have to go
before a judge other than to charge this dude with
trespassing because it's not hard to prove that he's not
supposed to be in there. So once you've proven that,
(23:16):
you go to the police. Get this guy out. He's
a squatter, He's not a renter. He is a squatter.
He is not a renter who is refusing to pay
his bill, he is a squatter, he should go. So
that should be a five minute deal. You go in,
you take him out, you get him out, and then
whatever he wants to do from that point on, he
wants to go to court, blah blah blah blah, he can,
(23:37):
but it's on him because you you can prove, you
should be able to prove relatively quickly and easily if
you're the property owner that this is not this person
doesn't belong in there, and they have come in, they've
put the water in there, Like, how does that even happen?
How does that even happen? How does the water department
let somebody come in without proving they have a lease?
Last time, So when we got our when we bought
lest when we bought our last house, we had to go.
(24:01):
When we went to go get.
Speaker 2 (24:02):
The the.
Speaker 1 (24:04):
Utilities transferred into our name from the builder because it
was a new build, we had to go and prove
we had to show the contract for sale and all
that kind of stuff, and it had to be within
I think it was like it couldn't be any earlier
than two days, so that there was a verification process
that we actually were the buyers of that house and
that the buy was actually going to go through before
(24:26):
we could put the water in our name.
Speaker 2 (24:28):
Why is this different? That doesn't make any sense to me.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
I love this last part of the story, though from
Fox five the process didn't scare mend as a way. However,
in fact, she already purchased another property in the same situation.
Speaker 2 (24:42):
What what.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
She has also since remodeled the property that had the
squatter and it has a new tenant.
Speaker 2 (24:49):
Well good.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
The attorney said the cases typically take between three and
six months once the court process begins. He rebec this
is crazy. This is the last line. This is the
part I think it's fascinating. He recommends always starting the
legal process right away, because so basically, if you have
an abandoned if you have a property that has nobody
in it, the squatters can just go in and if
you buy that, prepare to take five to six to
(25:12):
seven months to Does that make any sense to anybody
on any level? Lots of talkbacks on this, We'll get
to those when we continue the.
Speaker 3 (25:21):
Story about a squatter. I think there are facts missing,
one of which is there was not an attorney involved.
I don't believe. And this real estate investor was probably
trying to do it all on her own, and amazingly enough,
she all of a sudden has a new tenant, which
(25:42):
makes me wonder what facts are missing?
Speaker 1 (25:45):
Okay, yeah, interesting c Leland Conway and for lou Penrose,
and I guess my question on that would be, does
that make it right that somebody was squatting in the
house regardless whether she had an attorney or not. We'll
get to just second North Park, by the way, as
one of the most unique communities in our county. I
love what's going on in San Diego's Morning news right now.
(26:06):
They're doing a deep dive into the people, the places,
the history that make it so unique. I was listening
the other morning and they were they were telling a
story of an artist there, and I was just like, wow,
this is so cool.
Speaker 2 (26:16):
It a cool community.
Speaker 1 (26:18):
You can hear that here Cogo in the community all
week during San Diego's Morning News. It's presented by Simper Home,
So make sure you check it out. All right, So
back to this point, Yeah, it may there may be
some facts missing. I mean it's there's there's always facts
missing to some of these stories, Like there's there's stuff,
But what makes this right? What makes if we know that,
if the facts we know are that this guy was
(26:39):
not renting from her, he did not have a rental agreement,
that he was able to get the water SDG and
E under his name or excuse me, the power under
his name and the water is paid for by the HOA.
And then he was tearing up the house inside and
was not paying any rent to the owner of the
of the proper What would be missing that would change
(27:04):
your opinion? Or do you have the opinion that that
somehow this is right. I mean, maybe she didn't have
an attorney, Maybe she tried to do it for by herself.
There are attorneys out there can help it. But the
point that I'm making, like the broader point that I'm making,
is why would it take an attorney to deal with this?
It's all I mean, Look, I know we need attorneys
in business, but I mean, it should not get to
the point where we have to pay attorneys a bunch
(27:27):
of money in order to get something that's so obviously
wrong dealt with. I see the attorney coming in. If
you have somebody that agrees to rent for a year,
falls on hard times, gets behind on their rent, but
they're trying to pay and we're like, okay, we're gonna
vict you.
Speaker 2 (27:44):
All right, Well, this is an attorney. Come in. Attorney
deals with the negotiations, all that kind of stuff. I
get that.
Speaker 1 (27:49):
You just have a guy in there is apparently writing
racist slogans on the wall, tearing up the carpet, tearing
up the walls, has put illegally, in my opinion, put
SDG and E in his name and a property that
doesn't belong to him. I mean, is name the other
kind of property where you could do this nonsense? Okay,
(28:09):
loaded question right in California up until Prop thirty six
and even now then some because they're not really enforcing it.
But you could just you could steal nine hundred dollars
worth of stuff. So I guess that's a whoop's wrong.
Analogy bad analogy there, Conway, my bad. Apparently you can
do that with a lot of things. But isn't that
the problem. Isn't that the trend in the state, like,
we have to stop this because that is what leads
(28:32):
one of the things. There's many things, but this is
one of the things that leads to higher prices. Because okay,
let's back it up. So you have this homeowner, whether
they have an attorney or not. They're trying to get
a squatter out of this piece of property. Now they
have a tenant, Great, they've remodeled it.
Speaker 2 (28:47):
Great. That means they had some investment money.
Speaker 1 (28:48):
Great, okay, but they still had to spend a bunch
of money dealing with the court system. They has had
to sit on this property for a bunch of time,
which digs into the money that they're going to get
on their investment, which to what raised rents. They have
to get their money out. That's the whole point of
buying buying an investment property. And leftists are always looking
(29:09):
at this like somehow or another, everybody that owns property
is a bad person because they're making a profit off
of it. No, that's the reason they invest in it.
This is what commerce does. I have a thing that
you need. I need money, So I sell you or
rent you the thing that you need at a fair
and amicable price that we both agree to pay. That
(29:30):
allows me to make a profit and you to get
the solution to the need.
Speaker 2 (29:34):
That's what capitalism is.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
And then we have these Nanni Stater do gooders leftists
that come around and they're like, well you just make
too much money.
Speaker 2 (29:45):
Well what does that even mean? Like, what does that mean?
What is a fair profit on a piece of property?
Speaker 1 (29:50):
Like if I rent you a property that I'm paying
a mortgage on, what percentage is a fair profit? You
might say, well, you shouldn't be able to make more
than ten percent? Okay, Well what about the fact that
if there's repairs, I have to pay for them no
matter what they are. If there's a foundation issue that
could be tens of thousands of dollars, If there's a
water leak of pipes leaking that could be thousands of dollars.
(30:13):
There could be repairs that are thousands of dollars. Like
what protects me? Why can't you say that I should
only be allowed to make ten percent? How do you
know what makes ten percent? Because if I charge you
ten percent for six months and nothing happens, but then
in the seventh month, I have a ten thousand dollars
repair bill, all the money that I supposedly made is gone.
And I don't have a choice in that because I'm
the property owner and I'm responsible for it if it happens.
(30:35):
You're just the tenant renting. So who are these people
that get to decide all this stuff. It's nonsense, utter nonsense.
Popular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!